Talk:Zara Kay

Edit Warring and the "Controversy" category

As this page has been subject to an edit war regarding allegations of Islamophobia (Kay's support of LGBTQ rights), I've created the Controversy section to handle such allegations. Let's keep arguments out of the header section and explain allegations (and Kay's responses, if any) in that section, rather than stating allegations as fact or deleting them altogether. This will help the page's objectivity and allow readers to form their own opinions on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.225.37.90 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I object to the creation and ghettoization of controversies. We should avoid using this section. Work the material into her biography where it fits. Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Current

Just for record. I had placed Template:Current and it seems some one removed it being to be strict as per some Wikipedia rules. Unfortunately we can not update information until official mainstream media reports unlike social media which can report immidiately and there can be a quite lag between information available on social media and mainstream media and then coming to Wikipedia.

There seems to be some issue of news of getting bail being reported 24 hours later or some thing and Wikipedia can not take note of such details until become available through mainstream media journals or books. So there is a need for availability of template current for longer duration or similar template for longer duration.

This is just for record.

Bookku (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, Zara Kay is not herself a current event, and her arrest is such a minor event that I don't see how {{current}} could actually apply. The template applies to big events, like 9/11 or mass shootings, where there is a fog of information and reports come in rapidly, changing the situation on the ground. Elizium23 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Now that particular event is sort of over. As you say the event may be not so important for global audience but status information on an arrest of an activist continues to be important to followers of that news.

In this particular case of Zara Kay there was a time lag between information becoming available on social media and available through authentic news sources. At one particular moment I had a sense that information are conflicting and it would take time for Wikipedia to update article for want of reliable source.

Though Wikipedia has all time disclaimer that it's sources and info can be inadequate at times, still in some situations IMHO it would be socially responsible and sincere to say that particular info as of now is inadequate explicitly through a hat note template.

Any way this particular event is over, but an editor like me would prefer to be transparent and clear as much as possible while providing any information as part of socially responsible behavior and Wikipedia need to have scope to do better.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

2 points

@Nederlandse Leeuw:, to keep the article updated, I followed some of news sources, my impression has been that,

1) Some vested interests seems to have attempted to exploit Kay's minor inadequacies to make her life difficult, and one serious part is, strong likely hood of multiple level doxing, and/or failure to maintain her privacy, has taken place. Up til now there is no sign of Wikipedia article being used for doxing but as far as possible Wikipedians need to remain vigilant in reverting any attempts of doxing in future too.

2) I came across this recent Tanzanian news ref. The statements of the Tanzanian immigration commissioner of passport and citizenship, Mr Gerald Kihinga, makes interesting reading, how they continued to keep her personal life difficult and see that as far as possible she would not return to Tanzania in future, by saying, they released her for not having proof same time they would continue to probe seemingly minor inconstancy of documentation on Kay's part. But I don't know in which way to cover the same in the article.

"...Our investigations in countries she frequently visited showed that there was no place the activist used Tanzanian travel document after becoming the Australian citizen,....Basing on the findings, the department found that there was no reason to continue keeping her here.

We have released her despite the fact that we will continue probing and once it is proved that she used the Tanzania travel document after acquiring the Australian citizenship, we will sue the activist,” ~ Mr Gerald Kihinga

In Wikipedia we can not easily ascribe motives to some one's quote on our own, but reading between the line of Kihinga's above statement does not seem to be without underlying motives either. Don't know, whether to cover and how to cover in the article.

Bookku (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Deletion Proposal

Dear Wikipedia,

This article has numerous issues that go against the Wikipedia guidelines and standards.

1. This article is obviously written by the person herself. The amount of detail, bias and self-promotion in this page is shameless, to say the least. Since when did Wikipedia allow autobiographies? There is a lot of unverifiable information in this page too. No legitimate independent references here either. All the references come from her friends or her close associates.

2. How did she get a Wikipedia page? She is barely recognizable or relevant in the public sphere, let alone entitled to a Wikipedia page of herself. I can’t think of any major or recognizable achievements either. So, why does she have a page? I thought you had to be big to have a chance at a Wikipedia page?

3. She has numerous criminal charges and activities. How can someone with a sketchy record be allowed a platform here? Why aren’t these things mentioned in this article for the sake of neutrality?

4. There have been many legitimate concerns brought up before about this article, yet nothing has been done. Why has nothing been done?

5. She is closely affiliated with known racists, religious bigots and far-right activists. Since when did Wikipedia give these people a platform to promote themselves? What happened to article neutrality?

That is all for now,

Captain Ahab