Talk:Rahim Jaffer

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Wikipeep 494 05:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

---

He’s fluently bilingual in English and what? French (the other main language of Canada)? Urdu (the main language of Pakistan)? Swahili (the main language of Uganda)? 195.170.118.11 13:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is precisely the question I came in here to ask, but I see it's already been asked. I also see that it's not been answered, so I'm going to go try to research and find out. Cfrydj 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay, it was pretty simple to figure out, just by reading his bio on his own website. He took his BA (Political Science) in French at the University of Ottawa, so he is bilingual in English and French. It's safe to assume that he only speaks the two languages, because his bio also refers to him as bilingual, not multilingual. I'll update the page to clarify this point.Cfrydj 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

People keep reverting to a version that indicates Jaffer was at "another political event" at the time of the infamous radio gaffe. He was actually opening his new coffee shop at the time - as reported in every newspaper the next day, and as seen by those of who know him and witnessed the gruesome events first-hand.

CJCurrie

version restored. No reason was given for deleting material previously restored by CJCurrie.

Mikereichold 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've decided to let the radio interview incident comment stand restored in order to avoid an edit war here, but the Latest Accomplishments section comment must stay removed - that was certainly libelous. NorthernFire 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I doubt it would be considered libelous, if the Hill Times actually printed it. It's probably not worthy of inclusion, though, so I won't object to your decision to remove it. CJCurrie 23:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no link to the story. Provide a valid link.

“Conscientious Objectors” to “Wars Not Sanctioned by United Nations”

Greetings user 142.68.224.209

You accompanied your speedy deletion of my edit with the word “vandalism.” In our coming discussion, you might find it helpful to first learn more about Wikipedia protocol at these two links:

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Wikipedia:Vandalism

Here is one quote from the above Wikipedia link:

“Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling a person making such edits a "vandal", discuss his or her specific edits with him or her.” Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've said in other cases where this very issue has come up, the problem with this is that it sets up a WP:NPOV-violating assertion that the Conservative MPs had a moral obligation to vote in favour of the legislation, and are thus being singled out for committing some sort of ethical or moral lapse in their duties as MPs. It's not being presented as what it is, which is a legitimate difference of opinion on a contentious issue, but as an unquestioned POV implication that their votes on the legislation are notable precisely because they somehow violated some sort of moral or ethical code by voting as they did. While I may personally agree that the legislation should have gone through, including it in the bios of each individual Conservative MP isn't a useful or neutral contribution — it's a statement of opinion masquerading as fact. Why do I feel like I'm going to have to turn this response into an automatic boilertext template that I can just subst every time this discussion comes up? Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Category: Pakistani Canadians

Surely this cannot be correct. Obviously as an Ismaili, Jaffer is ethnically Gujarati, and many Gujarati Muslim Muhajirs migrated to Pakistan in 1947 when India was partitioned. But he was born in Uganda and his family may or may not have migrated there from Gujarat, India, after the Partition. His connection with Pakistan must obviously be extremely remote: indeed, his ethnic antecedents lie over the Indian border in Gujarat, which of course went to India rather than Pakistan in 1947. This should clearly be amended to "South Asian Canadians." Masalai (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not all Ismailis are Gujarati, I just don't understand why it might be seen as obvious

• Pakistan is a country and Gujarat is a state of India
  • both are places
  • therefore you are referring to places of origin, not ethnicity

This article should be categorized as stated in sources, not by where people were born. If primary sources (autobiographies) or other sources closest to the origin state that he is labelled as a "South Asian Canadian", than it should be amended as such.

Thank you. Canadafreakazoid (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Arrest and conviction paragraph

Does this paragraph need to be there? Not sure it is relevant to the arrest and conviction of Jaffer. Should it be moved or removed? DSatYVR (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Rahim Jaffer's wife, Helena Guergis, was was criticized for her erratic behavior at the Charlottetown airport in which she referred to the town as a "Hell-hole". On April 9, 2010, she resigned from her position and Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked the RCMP to investigate allegations that as yet haven't been made public.

the Paragraph Seems a bit disorganized. maybe the Arrest & Conviction section should follow the chronology of the evening. Dinner at Harbour 60 Steak House with the Hookers and Hells Angel banker to drive up to highway 50 arrest location. Then on to subsequent trial and plea deal. I thought i read that the cocaine quantity was 750 grams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.142.47 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes several sources reported the quantity as 750 grams, why isn't that included? Apparently He only got out of it because it was in his jacket and couldn't be 100% tied to him beyond a reasonable doubt, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C5:8760:899E:FBC3:B3E2:9F1F (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Both external links broken

Even though they're broken, I've decided not to delete the external links for the time being because they may only be temporarily broken as Jaffer is embroiled in the current scandal. If someone else decides they should be removed due to being broken, that's fine by me. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Decision not to, I rewrote the first link to an archived version with the assistance of web.archive.org. Canadafreakazoid (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Muslim?

Yes, Ismailis are Muslims. The main difference between the regular Muslim and Ismaili Muslim is that the regular muslims are guided by the teachings of prophet Mohammed where as Ismailis are guided by the Aga Khan. Almost all East Africans with Indian origin were brought from India at the end of 19th century as indentured labor force during the construction of the Uganda Railway.As a strict rule, Muslims are prohibitted from consuming alcohol and resorting to robbery. Thieves and prostitutes are still stoned to brutal injuries in modern Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.43.208 (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because Rahim Jaffer has a Muslim sounding name does not mean he is Muslim. There are many who believe he is an Ismaili. Need more verification of "Muslim" claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamad (talk • contribs) 00:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ismailis are Muslims. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They are as Muslim as Rastafarians. They are clearly not recognized as such by most Muslim communities.--Hamad (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to be a neutral source of reliably sourced information — that is, there's no place for your own personal opinion about whether they're Muslim enough for your taste or not. Our article on Ismailism begins with the sentence "Ismāʿīlism (Arabic: الإسماعيليون al-Ismāʿīliyyūn; Persian: اسماعیلیان Esmāʿiliyān; Urdu: إسماعیلی Ismāʿīlī) is a branch of Shia Islam", so this article isn't going to make alternative claims until such time as there's a consensus to change that one. If you don't like it, take it up at Talk:Ismailism; a biography of a single individual is not the place for a broad discussion of whether Ismailis are truly Muslim or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a factual edit about this -- to this sentence: "He was the first Muslim elected to the Canadian Parliament." ...I simply added: ", although Ismaili Muslims have very different beliefs than other Muslims (and are considered by many scholars to not actually even be Muslim )".

It's a fact that their beliefs are very different, and the "many scholars" wording was already on the Ismailism page.

I suppose the rest of my wording wasn't very "encyclopedic", but some mention of that is noteworthy... how about "although there is some debate about whether Ismailis are within the Islamic Ummah", with the above citation link?

Or maybe that sentence should simply be taken out, considering the debate about definition.

Because really, Bearcat, you talk about neutrality above (and I do see your point in general), but how is it neutral to *prominently* mention Jaffer as "the first Muslim elected to the Canadian Parliament.", considering that many don't consider Ismailis to be Muslim? (I understand someone else probably added it rather than you, but it should either be clarified or not mentioned at all)

Also, Jaffer's page doesn't include a single link to the WP page on Ismailism... so that doesn't seem very neutral either.

I noticed a vandal earlier changed Jaffer's profession from "Businessman" to "Muslim Terrorist". Considering his recent "legal troubles" and reputation, there is a certain agenda that's served in having Rahim Jaffer lumped-in with Muslims in general (and minimizing any mention of the Ismaili aspect, even though there's long been debate about whether Ismailis are Muslim). So a guy like that vandal is probably happy about the current nuance of the page... I guess that's what I'm trying to get at, because the page isn't neutral the way it currently is.

After my edit to Jaffer's page, Bearcat sent me the following message, and has locked the page to editting...

---

"Ismailism An article about Rahim Jaffer is not the place to get into a broad discussion about whether Ismailis are real Muslims or not. Feel free to raise your concern at Talk:Ismaili if you wish, but Jaffer's article is not the place for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)"

---

This is my response:

It wasn't a "broad discussion"... it was only an add-on to one single sentence, and linked straight to the Wikipedia page on Ismailism for more info.

This issue is very much worth noting on Rahim Jaffer's page, and frankly it's important, given the number of people who visit Wikipedia as a "go-to" source for information (and how WP info seems to get disseminated elsewhere).

There are a few problems with the current edit:

1) The page doesn't even link to the Wikipedia article on Ismailism (there's only a link to "Muslim"). It should at least link to "Ismaili" under "Religion" for his bio summary, not just to "Muslim" (then people can read about Ismailism directly - as you mention, that page does say they're Muslim, but it also describes the differences, background, and debate about inclusion).

2) The average person visiting this page probably doesn't know anything about Ismailism. The current page doesn't even link to the WP page on Ismailism, and even if someone visits that page, they probably won't even read to the bottom, regarding the debate on whether Ismailis are even Muslim. It's a very significant and notable debate, so it is worth noting (in less than a sentence) on Rahim Jaffer's page.

3) Rahim Jaffer's page currently says "He was the first Muslim elected to the Canadian Parliament." I didn't change that, but if that's going to be included, then one ought to include mention of the fact that there's some debate about whether Ismailis are Muslim. That's especially important given the activities Jaffer has reportedly engaged in (heavy drinking, cocaine, strip clubs, etc.). Ismailis have very different views than mainstream Muslims regarding alcohol and many other topics (thus, there's the debate about whether they're actually even Muslim... obviously, I'm not saying they're okay with cocaine & strip clubs, but they are generally much more "liberal" about many issues than mainstream Muslims). So mentioning this difference of views does help add clarity for the average visitor regarding Jaffer's background.

It's kind of like if a Mormon was notable for [some topic]... would it say "John Smith was the first Christian to be [some topic]"? I don't think it would... and if it did, it would mention that there's debate about whether Mormons are really considered Christian.

I think the Mormon-Christian debate is analogous to the Ismaili-Muslim debate.

In any case, Ismailis have very different views than other Muslims.

It's a disservice to visitors to not mention anything about that (and yet prominently call him the first Muslim MP), and to not even link to the WP page on Ismailism. I think adding a half-sentence about it (with a link to the Ismailism page for more info) doesn't create a "broad discussion" about the topic, it simply helps add clarity. Or the places where it currently links to "Muslim" should link to "Ismaili" and then people can read more details on their own.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.250.177 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that any POV debate about whether Ismailis are real Muslims or sectarian heretics is about Ismailism in general; it is not about Rahim Jaffer. I'm not saying discussion can't happen on this question — I did refer you to Talk:Ismailism, after all — but a biographical article about an individual Ismaili is not the place for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

References

update

DESPITE the warning message that appears on this page, nobody should update this wikipedia page until the Commons Committee has decided to go ahead with the proposed contempt charges or not. They're meeting again next week. In the meantime, any updates to this page (either positive or negative in nature) would be highly counter-productive and unhelpful. Mardiste (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)