Jump to content

Talk:Fareed Zakaria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV

  • "The unapologetic elitism he advocates for might stem from his well-to-do background."
^^^Does that line from the article sound blatantly biased to anyone else, or is it just me? --67.213.105.252 00:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about Al-Jazeera's Yamin Zakaria? Folajimi(talk)
What subject, what are you talking about?Travb 09:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The word 'subject' refers, in this case, to the person (Fareed Zakaria) on whom the article reports. -Grammaticus Repairo 19:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

controversy

Anybody feel like citing http://salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/09/26/newsweek/index.html and Zakaria's sexism? --moof 10:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

While rather rude and certainly inappropriate for a professional journalist, my take on the information presented in the article is that his apparent disdainful and dismissive attitude was not directed at her because she of her gender, but because of the particular publication she represents. I would imagine that an inquiry by a male journalist from Playboy might have achieved somewhat similar results. I suspect that there are many mainstream 'news' journalists that, though I doubt they would admit to doing so, look down on writers from publications they consider 'less than serious'. Still, just because he thinks it doesn't mean he needs to express it verbally. Just my thoughts. -Grammaticus Repairo 19:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Salon isn't a solely reliable news source, got to have more.--Exander 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt it. I'm not familiar with 'salon.com'. Does it have any kind of reputation (aside from just being 'liberal')? Perhaps it is on a journalistic level similiar to that of 'Glamour'?  ;) -Grammaticus Repairo 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Views" section

The views section of this article is entirely unencyclopedic. Pat Buchannan is a critic of George W. Bush, but does this mean he has moved to the "left"? It is entirely POV. I thought of deleting it entirely, but thought better of it for now. If it doesn't change from an opinion about Zakaria's views to something more verifiable, then it will get deleted soon.--Thomas.macmillan 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the Views section "entirely unencyclopedic"? The first and last paragraphs certainly need some work, but the five paragraphs in the middle are farily well-written. Aside from needing to have more sources listed, I can't really see anything wrong with the majority of this section. I would agree, however, that the two sentences in the first paragraph ("He was a conservative during the 1980s but has moved left since. His columns have been mostly critical of George W. Bush and his administration.)) are certainly POV, and appear intended to cast Zakaria in as liberal a light as possible. I would agree that they should be removed if a reliable source cannot be cited to confirm that this is the majority view of the history of his politics. Even then, it could certainly stand to be reworded. -Grammaticus Repairo 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wolfowitz Meeting

While I don't see any problems with the current article content regarding the criticism of Zakaria concerning his participation in the Wolfowitz meeting, I do wonder if the information presented in the article "The Iraq Gamble" is actually reliable? After having read both the wiki entry for "Radar (magazine)" and the "Iraq Gamble" article itself, I find myself thinking that radaronline.com might be somewhat questionable source. The article itself is clearly biased and seems to be rife with unsubstantiated (or at least unsourced) assertions. And the article's source publication appears to be a frequently relaunched magazine focusing primarily on entertainment. Does anyone have a different take on radaronline.com (or the "Iraq Gamble" article)? -Grammaticus Repairo 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC) The Times ' clarification makes me wonder why this episode is even mentioned on this page. It's clear that the Woodward book is somewhat wrong on the event and Zakaria's involvement was peripheral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.126.253 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

I've included India in his citizenship as naturally he is an Indian by birth under Indian laws unless he has indeed renounced this. Someone reverted it back saying citizenship only applies to current citizenship which is correct so again unless there is proof somewhere that he has done so then he must be considered a dual citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.75.78 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of India does not allow dual citizenhip, so he has to be one or the other. This link [1] seems to imply that he has US permanent residence but not citizenship. So I guess his nationality is just Indian. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It does say in the second paragraph that he had one. So I think we could assume he holds US citizenship now. Also it does indeed look like since we can assume he has acquired US citizenship he has automatically lost his Indian one.
Fixed with reference. Cheers. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Great job with the link! That clears up the whole citizenship issue :) Payam81 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Views section

Is it just me, or does the description of his views on international relations seem very inconsistent? He is described as a realist, someone who believes US policy should be guided by its national interest. Yet later it says that he is a multilateralist who believes the US has a role to play in ending various humanitarian issues and promoting democracy, especially by means of economic development through foreign aid and free trade (instead of pushing for elections). That sounds more like a neoliberal foreign policy, not a realist one. Some clarity, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.209.144 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Candidate for Secretary of State

There has been recent talk that Fareed Zakaria could be selected as Secretary of State by President-elect Barack Obama

The Times of India has reported on 7 Nov 2008 that a website called Draft Fareed has appeared with the self-proclaimed intent of "Helping Fareed Zakaria become the next Secretary of State."[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmehrabi (talk • contribs) 09:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but I think that if we're going to add that to the article, we should say that he is a possible canidate, but Barack Obama hasn't said anything about it. As I haven't seen anywhere of Barack Obama saying that Fareed was a possible choice for secretary of state. Deavenger (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Well I think "possible" is just that. Its not saying he is a "candidate for secretary of state" but rather a "possible" one, and thus a dark horse candidate - since there is buzz outside of the campaign itself.

I found a Busines Week article suggesting Fareed Zakaria as secretary of state as well. http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2008/10/barack_obamas_c.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmehrabi (talk • contribs) 10:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is way too much weight being given to this. At most, one or two sentences are needed for this subject for the time being. AniMate 10:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
i think thats enough for the time being, no more no less
Have pruned the verbiage to one encyclopedic sentence and moved it to the career section. Any more space to this topic will be a serious conflict of interest for Wikipedia, which can't be seen as influencing public decision-making, by providing, for example, website information etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Criticisms" section

While I welcome the creation of a 'criticisms' section, the initial content added by the section's creator is not written appropriately for Wikipedia. The first sentence is clearly biassed against Mr. Zakaria. His "writings" do not "find their way in[to] popular U.S. magazines such as Newsweek". He's a columnist/contributing editor of Newsweek and writes a weekly column for the magazine, which is sometimes reprinted in the Washington Post.

Second, apart from the introductory 'paragraph', which consists of one sentence and is written in an unencyclopedic manner, the entire entry is a quote taken directly from an article by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh. If the information contained in such a lengthy quote is relevant for inclusion in the article, the information should be summarized and the author of the quote should be referenced. The quote should not reprinted in its entirety.

Finally we come to the 'meat' of the entry, which is relevancy. In my opinion, an expert such as Mr. Zakaria ought to (and probably does) know that ethnic Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, and, as a journalist, should not, either implicitly or explicitly, lead readers to believe otherwise. However, given that Mr. Zakaria is a journalist who primarily writes what are essentially 'op-ed' articles, and is not (and, as far as I know, does not claim to be) an expert in Persian culture like Dr. Farrokh, it is difficult to accept this criticism as being truly relevant to the subjects on which Mr. Zakaria routinely espouses his viewpoint. The reference to the inventors of algebra is particularly irrelevant. The criticisms presented are certainly not enough, in and of themselves, to characterize Zakaria's articles as "inaccurate" or "misleading".

I feel that all of the 'criticism' presented in this section (which, in my opinion, remains of dubious value) should be either summarized with 1-2 sentences and a link to Dr. Farrokh's article or removed completely. What does everyone else think? -Grammaticus Repairo 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It might not be relevant to a reader of Anglo Saxon origin who might not see a big difference between ethnic Persians and Arabs. However, to readers who have a worldly view and do not stereotype and naively group people into one ethnic group simply because of geographic proximity, it makes a huge difference and is considered to be a clear example of academic mediocrity. For the Reader of Anglo Saxon origin, I wonder if it would be relevant to you if say a Newsweek article written by a so called "expert" referred to the United States as a Spanish nation, even though the U.S. proportionately has many more Spanish speakers and ethnic Latin Americans than Iran has Arabic Speaker and ethnic Arabs. If this so called expert knew that Iran is not an Arab nation just like the United States is not a Spanish nation, he then should not be receiving awards for his misinforming writings. Also I like to point out that you are committing a fallacy by saying Iranians are Persians. That would be analogous to saying, Americans are European or of British Heritage. It is true that the Majority of Iranians are of Persian stock, but there are many different ethnicities that make up the total Iranian population.

I'm afraid I must take issue with your assertion that I "stereotype and naively group people into one ethnic group simply because of geographic proximity" just because I don't dismiss Fareed Zakaria's articles as "inaccurate" or "misleading", as well as your assumption that I am a "Reader of Anglo Saxon origin". But that is neither here nor there. I reviewed Zakaria's "Why They Hate Us" and "How To Save The Arab World" articles and discovered that nowhere in their texts is Iran described as "Arab". Iran is discussed both articles, of course, as it would hardly be appropriate to write an article concerning the influence of radical Islam that excludes states that are relevant to the discussion. Such states include many which are not considered part of the "Arab World", like Israel, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. In fact, in a particular paragraph in "Why They Hate Us", Zakaria makes mention of "Arab regimes", yet when writing about the last Shah of Iran a few sentences later, Zakaria specifically describes him as a "Middle Eastern ruler".

After re-reading the quotation you referenced from Dr. Farrokh's article, it would appear that the argument supporting Zakaria's supposed "inaccurate" or "deliberate" portrayal of Iranians as "Arabs" is based on a map of the "Arab World" printed in Newsweek along with his "Why They Hate Us" article. I could not find an online reprinting of the entire article as it appeared in the print magazine (that is, one that included pictures and illustrations), so I will have to assume that there was a map of the Middle East with the "Arab World" states highlighted (probably similar to wikipedia's [3]), which included an erroneously highlighted Iran. Though he surely wrote the text of the article, I doubt very much that Zakaria himself created (or even chose for inclusion) this map of the region. It was likely added (along, I'm sure, with numerous photos that were neither taken nor captioned by Zakaria) for illustrative purposes when the final layout was assembled, which was almost certainly not done by Zakaria. In fact, the only the text of the articles appears as pages on Zakaria's website. No maps, photos or other illustrations are displayed, save for the Newsweek logo and the cover of the magazine in which one of the articles appeared. Given this, it is hardly reasonable to take Zakaria to task for not including a demographic summary of Middle Eastern nations in his article.

What this boils down to is that I think the "Criticism" paragraphs you added to the article, even if summarized and brought more in line with Wikipedia's standards on encyclopedic content, represent neither valid nor significant criticisms of Zakaria's articles/views, and, as such, are not worth including in the wiki article. -Grammaticus Repairo 18:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking issue with the last sentence of Criticism: "He terms Zakaria and his associates as Scholars of the ivory towers of DC, NY, LA, PA or TX." What is he "terms Zakaria" why is Scholars capitalized, and why are these states abbreviated? Further, what are these ivory towers? What political thought Ivory towers exist in Texas and Los Angeles, or is that Louisiana in keeping with the state abbreviation? What are you trying to say?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.151.173 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The guy who added it made several grammer errors. I corrected several, but I guess I missed a couple. As for the Ivory Towers, no idea what he's talking about. Deavenger (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the comments from Eric Tyson, the "noted financial author", really appropriate and noteworthy? The way it's worded gives the criticism more weight than I believe it should get. I know Mr. Tyson is the editor of "Finance for Dummies", but there are a lot of claims that really aren't justified by just citing a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.254.77 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

stated flatly that the surge "succeeded"

No, he didn’t state it "flatly". He stated it incidentally. He noted it as background context to his contention that John McCain would have lost the election, whether the Surge had succeeded or not. In that sentence in the Washington Post, it is obvious that Zakaria's point is not about the success (or failure) of the Surge, but McCain's election outcome from it. So the adverb "flatly" is incorrect and inappropriate here. I would use the adverb "incidentally".

--Atikokan (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On the 15 March GPS show [4], he refers to the surge as "successful". --Fernando (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have bias documentation?

It would seem most of his writing centers on the downfall of the United States of America, and he's welcome to his opinion, but his writing is slanted to the point that he appears pre-disposed to disliking America, much the same way Japanese and German folk are. Does anyone have documentation on his upbringing that could be hyperlinked to? Generally, most people who have an aversion to Americans receive the instruction from within the family, can't be helped, as it is passed on much like racism is in American families. I'm pretty good at research if someone can give me some clues. BenJournalism102 (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying he's bias because of his upbringing is OR and SYN. He wrote in his new book The Post American World that it's not that America is falling, it's that other countries are rising while America is staying the same. He's even written how America is always like a dream to him, and how America always fascinated him, also in his books the Post American World and The Future of Freedom. So, are you saying that since he's Indian, therefore he must hate America, and all Indian families teach their children to hate America? That's a pretty racist comment there, and assuming that Japanese and German folk are thought to hate America. What is this, WWII? Every single Japanese and German folk I have met are very Pro-American. And I'm from Wisconsin, one of the places with large amounts of Germans and their descendants, and they all love America. Deavenger (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not possible, but if you reside outside of the United States for any period of time, it opens your eyes to the fact that many world citizens for various reasons are pre-disposed to disliking America, and are unable to help their actions (they don’t realize they are exhibiting observable behavior); the concept of the American dream/fascination is consistently posited by the exact same people. The real problem with Mr. Zakaria’s hopeful-thinking bias is that the countries he would like to see take over the world have inherent dysfunctions that would disallow it, were it ever to happen: India has a true caste system that precludes certain races from attaining anything; both India and China are still and always will be Third World Countries, as exhibited by the number of people killed during natural disasters; there are still living Germans who factually are aware that the world would rue the day if Russia were to conquer the globe, peacefully or otherwise (and Germans are still sociopaths); Europe as a whole will never agree on anything. And, yes, Japan and Germany are still fighting World War II by way of low intensity conflict, but you have to open a field manual and draw charts to make the comparisons.Journalism102 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, many dislike America; you have to live abroad to understand it. However, Fareed ardently admires America, and he states clearly that his book is not about the decline of America. Reading The Post-American World will dissipate any doubt and give you an idea of his fascination with the American people and system. --Fernando (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have an open mind. I'll read some more of his work; however, thus far, reading between the lines, he proposes wishful thinking on the downfall of America. Of course anything is possible, including the realistic possibility of the downfall of America, but the real problem, as observed by people not included in the groups he writes for (he writes for people like himself who appear to be pre-disposed to disliking America/Americans, as well as for Americans who do not realize how much we are despised by people who are clueless)—is that he is fanning nonexistent flames when he could be doing something better with his intellect and his time. Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalism102 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Journalism102 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and fact-checking needed.

During an interview today with Google's CEO, Fareed stated on his TV show that the Wikipedia article about him has numerous errors. He specifically said, "I can tell you, my Wikipedia entry has many mistakes in it." Unfortunately he didn't elaborate. I'd like to encourage knowledgeable editors to fact-check this article. --JHP (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

More cleanup

Various editors, known and unknown, have been adding material that does not meet the standards of WP:RS. An author website is not a reliable source. I have reverted most of the edits. I would like to suggest that adding unsourced material or unencyclopedic material ultimately works to the disadvantage of whatever the original goal or motivation an editor has. For, it brings out people, such as I, with no previous knowledge of Mr. Zakaria, that accidentally stumble upon the page, that notice the unsourced and unencyclopedic text, that end up putting the page on their watchlist, and that check in every now and then.

In the "Personal" section, I have added "ambiguously" before Mr. Zakaria's words, since the words themselves are ambiguous, whether they were intended to be so or not; a reader needs to be aware that the author has not been incorrectly quoted. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I've cleaned it up now during whatever snatches of time I could find. Please pay attention to reliable sources in your future edits. You don't need to add all the details of Mr. Zakaria's life, only the big ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Although the above comment is old, I'd like to point out that User:Fowler&fowler was in the wrong. Wikipedia does accept self-published sources if the topic is themselves. That is, Fareed Zakaria is an expert on Fareed Zakaria. See WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." --JHP (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fareed drinks Alcohol - why does this fact keep getting deleted?

Proof: Slate says here: "Fareed Zakaria is Slate's wine columnist." at the bottom of the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a part that keeps getting deleted from this article:

Although many westerners describe Fareed as a "Harvard Educated conservative Muslim" [5], as Slate Magazine's wine columnist [6], Fareed openly ignored Islam's prohibition on drinking alcohol [7]. Fareed has weighed in on his Muslim identity several times, most recently telling the Village Voice, "I'm not a religious guy[8]."

The person who's deleting it, can you please care to expain why you're doing this? --Matt57 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not the one who keeps removing it, it does seems out of place here, both because of its position in the article and because of the brevity of the material. I don't think it would be inappropriate to include some mention of his religious views, but I think we need to include more information than this. If additional information is not available, and these few somewhat disjointed statements are the best we can come up with, then I think we could do without them. Just having these trivia-like tidbits tacked certainly does not make the article seem NPOV. -Grammaticus Repairo 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I finally got around to actually reading the source for the quote (from the "myhero.com" website) and discovered that the quote itself seems to have been edited so that its meaning is altered. The wiki article quote reads "Harvard Educated conservative Muslim", while the actual quote from the cited source is "Harvard-educated, politically conservative Muslim". Subtly different, but different nonetheless. This 'paragraph' needs to be rewritten or deleted. Personally, I don't think the information about his so-called 'Muslim identity' needs to be deleted, per se, but I feel some better sources really should be cited. This information could also stand to be better integrated into the rest of the article than it is currently. I do find myself wondering, though, what is the purpose of specifically discussing his consumption of alcohol with reference to Islam? What exactly are we trying to imply about him? There certainly seems to be some sort of bias at work here... -Grammaticus Repairo 09:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The village voice quote rather implies he's not a Muslim, and shouldn't be in the 'American Muslims' category... Hippo X 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that he should not be on such a list. I should note, though, that there are actually about half a dozen different wikipedia 'Muslim' lists on which he presently appears, and he probably ought to be removed from all of them (excepting perhaps the "List of Muslim reformers"). That is, unless someone can provide a link to a credible source that he is indeed a practicing Muslim (a request which I have made before, I might add). -Grammaticus Repairo 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm back here. It is not out of place. For Muslims, not drinking alcohol is a big deal. For a Muslim to be a wine taster, this is a big deal and so it should be mentioned in the article. Anything thats notable, belongs in this section. The fact that he drinks alcohol and the news source mentioned that, is notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

-- It should not be in here because it's an outrageous attempt at religious persecution of someone for being secular. He has never claimed to be an observing Muslim, or even a Muslim leader. His views are NEVER presented in the manner that suggests that he is to be believed because he's an observant Muslim. To put a religious test on him and publicize it is totally unfair and smacks of a the behavior of some kind of religious police. We're not in Saudi Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.126.253 (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the above anonymous user, I make no claims as to knowing the actual intentions of those who insist on keeping this information in the article. However, he/she does make a valid point about this information coming across as extremely POV. If the intent of this info is not, in fact, to imply that Zakaria is either "unreligious" or is a "hypocrite", then it is irrelevant and does not belong in the article. If we are interested in knowing more about his own personal faith, then we should find relevant statements he has made concerning this, rather than using anecdotal evidence to make shaky deductions. -Grammaticus Repairo 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Its not a "shaky" deduction. Its what it is. If a Muslim drinks alcohol, this is a notable fact since Islam prohibits alcohol. Its a relevant fact and its well sourced. And for the anon, no this is not "religious persecution". He drinks alcohol and we're reporting that. How is this persecution? And he's not being criticized. Its a simple report that he drinks alcohol. No one said what he's doing is good or bad. Also the fact that he was a Wine columnist for Slate, is very notable and mentioned everywhere. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Since masturbation is prohibited under christianity, could we note this relevant for all practicing and non-practicing christians (from Jenna Jameson to Obama) whether they have or have not admitted to masturbate? Perhaps a non-persecuting text like "XX YY is christian by birth but known to masturbate". Also, I'm adding to Sarah Silverman's page that she is of jewish descent who is known to regularly (or admit to) eat pork. If you could help out and adding this to all other people of jewish backgrounds, it will be superb - TIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.214.49.17 (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


First of all, I have yet to see any reference confirming your own assertion that Fareed is indeed a practicing Muslim. Until such (properly sourced) information is provided, Zakaria's own particular faith remains pure speculation. With regard to the fact that he drinks wine, nobody is denying that this is true. I completely concur that he consumes alcohol. The issue here is relevance. I seriously doubt that there are very many wikipedia articles about journalists in which the subject's alcohol consumption is even mentioned in passing, let alone going out of their way to do so.
You claim that his alleged 'Muslim identity' makes this relevant, yet you have provided no real confirmation that he is one. Additionally, I might add, I followed the google search link you provided, and the second result that came up was an article from Zakaria's own website. It mentioned, among many other things, that the country of Turkey is 99% Muslim yet has a yearly alcohol consumption rate of 1 liter per person. This does not particularly help your argument that his alcohol consumption is relevant to this article because of your apparent belief that 'all Muslims don't drink'. Somehow, while I certainly don't have any actual information about the per-capita alcohol consumption of Muslims living in the US, I would suspect that it is probably higher than that of a foreign nation that is inhabited almost exculsively by Muslims.
You claim that "he's not being criticized. Its a simple report that he drinks alcohol. No one said what he's doing is good or bad." Yet, considering that the only three statements in the 'Personal' section of the article mention his family, his violation of Islam's alcohol consumption rules, and his lack of religiosity (whatever his faith, if any, might actually be), I find it very difficult to believe that any reasonable wikipedian would believe this section to be NPOV. These statements simply come across as being blatantly disparaging. Keeping this information in its present form/position is, in my opinion, inappropriate. And I firmly believe that a majority of wikipedians would feel likewise. -Grammaticus Repairo 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you also saying that we should take out the fact that he was Slate's wine columnist at a point? What do you want to keep then in that section? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
we can state that he was Slate's wine columnist if it's reliably sourced, we don't need to mention that in doing so he "ignored Islam's prohibition on drinking alcohol.<ref>[http://islam.about.com/od/health/f/alcohol.htm]</ref>" - that's unduly disparaging. ITAQALLAH 11:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no objection to keeping the fact that he was Slate's wine columnist. In fact, considering that he is a journalist, it is entirely appropriate to mention any previous employment as a writer. I do not, however, feel like we need to go out of our way to allege that he is violating the tenets of his religion. -Grammaticus Repairo 15:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats ok with me. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? The man lives in the United States of America. Alcohol is legal here. If "Wine Columnist" is on his resume, then it absolutely belongs on this page. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International, NOT: He is the Editor-At-Large of Time (magazine),

as of 9/1/10:

fareedzakaria.com states that:

Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International, a Newsweek and Washington Post columnist, weekly host for CNN, and a New York Times bestselling author.

NOT that "He is the Editor-At-Large of Time (magazine)" as stated in the Wiki Article

Kankakee Kid (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In August, he moved to Time magazine, as you can see from this article:[9] Apparently his own website needs updating! First Light (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone

  • Could someone add some information about his beliefs, opinions, controversial positions, chief interests, etc.? Brutannica 05:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are wasting your time asking other people to write the article, as I have argued time and again, no one pays attention to the talk page in regards to adding information. I have rarely, if ever had one wikipedian add something or change something that another wikipedian asks on a talk board.Travb
Some people do; it just depends on the person and the topic. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_Education_%28Glee%29. An edit was made, added, through the talk page. I have constantly seen the remark: "Alright, I will change the page" in some variation or another in various talk pages. 67.247.212.52 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Muslim identity

Why is there a compelling need to constantly delete information related to Fareed's Muslim identity? Dothivalla

Because this "policing" of Muslims based on whether they drink alcohol, etc. is precisely the kind of Taliban-style attitude that is repugnant in a free society. Zakaria has never claimed to be an observant Muslim. It's irrelvent whether or not he srinks alcohol.

Did someone bring up something about him drinking alcohol? I must have missed that... -Grammaticus Repairo 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Many, if not most articles on living persons will at least mention their faith, regardless of how devout they are. Leaving out information about Zakara's faith because we fear someone one will twist it the wrong way is not enough of a reason to leave it out.169.252.4.21 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fareed Zakaria's own statements regarding his job being equivalent to Secretary of State

Fareed made a statement that has been widely-cited because it offers such an accurate and concise summary of Zakaria's worldview and career, thus I think this deserves to be included in his article: ‘My friends all say i’m going to be Secretary of State,” fareed Zakaria muses from a banquette in the Grill Room at The Four Seasons. “But I don’t see how that would be much different from the job I have now.” (see http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_8621/) This statement is the lead sentence of an article that appears in the top 10 results on Google when you search "Fareed Zakaria". If anyone thinks for any reason that this should not be included in this article, please tell me why.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael2127 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Because this is trivial musing (WP:UNDUE) by the subject while standing in front of a grill talking to a reporter. If there are multiple Reliable Sources showing that he is considered by notable others to be a realistic candidate for Secretary of State, then that might be notable. But not just random musings by one or two people standing around the grill, probably after having a few cups of wine. First Light (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look above you see a BusinessWeek article about him being named Secretary of State. However the reason for including the quote is more for the 2nd part, where he explains that's how he sees his current job. Most importantly, this quote is widely-cited, because it is a telling summary of Zakaria, and therefore is not WP:UNDUE. You appear to be carefully curating the way you want Zakaria's reputation to appear, and you do not have valid reasons for doing so, and you do not have anyone backing you up. Therefore I will re-insert the quote, but to address the concerns you've raised that are somewhat valid, I will remove the part from the reporter about where he said it. Michael2127 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael2127 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the statement, permanently, because the truth is that Zakaria never made that statement. The reporter did: "A writer for New York erroneously quoted Zakaria as saying his friends thought he was going to be secretary of state someday. (In fact, it was the writer saying that.)"[10][11] Biographies of Living People "must get it right" regarding any controversial statement. And please don't accuse me of bias again, without better evidence than your own bias. Now, there are others who think he is qualified to be Secretary of State. If there are enough notable sources, and notable people, who are saying that, then it could be neutrally included in the article. First Light (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement you made above and the article you cited are hearsay, there is no evidence to back up the claim that Fareed Zakaria did not make the statement. The evidence I cited is based on a first-hand account by a reporter, verified by an editor, and published in a well-reputed magazine. It has since been widely cited and appears on the 1st page of Google results when you google Zakaria. It is a well-known and important part of Zakaria's career and the statement came out of his own mouth. You may not like that but it clearly is notable, relevant, and should be included and left to the reader to decide. Thus, the quote will stay in his Wiki entry. Michael2127 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, First Light, your own citation (#11) proves my point. In his short career summary at TNR.com, they include the quote in question, proving my point that it is an integral part of his bio. Yes, they do note that he later denied saying it, but of course he would - that doesn't erase it from his record and that doesn't give you the right to erase it from his Wiki. Michael2127 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
The content you are adding is both contentious and poorly sourced, and should remain out of the article. The following sources state that the quote was never made by Zakaria:

"So why not be secretary of state? The subject came up four years ago when New York magazine profiled him in a piece entitled "Man of the World." A writer for New York erroneously quoted Zakaria as saying his friends thought he was going to be secretary of state someday. (In fact, it was the writer saying that.)"

"....Zakaria later denied making those remarks."

The fact that two sources, including Zakaria himself, dispute the statement, makes it not reliable enough to put in the article. Further, the alleged quote was from nine years ago, while milling around at a banquet in a hotel. Clearly, this is not notable enough, even if it were able to be concretely verified. Better than this quote would be to quote notable people, such as Les Gelb[12] who believe Zakaria would make a good Secretary of State. But then you would have to quote Zakaria as saying "Les is a good friend [but] he has certain ambitions for me which are not maybe exactly ones I have for myself." First Light (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
What would complicate this a bit is if the quote/misquoting then itself became newsworthy, and was covered in multiple RSs. That would warrant inclusion. But I'm not seeing that this issue has been heavily covered. Of course, if Zakaria ever did become Secretary of State, this would be interesting background. The Interior (Talk) 03:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The comment is not suitable for an encyclopedic article because musing about what one's friends say is trivia (and that's without considering the points made above that the comment is disputed and hence totally unsuitable—a disputed comment with a good source might be suitable if pertinent to a topic, but even if true, obviously unserious speculation about the future by friends is not encyclopedic content). Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The fact that the quote is so widely-cited (for example in First Light's own citation #11, it's part of his short bio at TNR) proves that this is an important part of his record that should be included. But you guys don't want to let the readers find out about this and consider it for themselves, you want to hew to some narrow interpretation of supposed rules. Again, it's not about what his friends say, it's not about him being Sec. of State, it's about the way he sees his job and position in the world. This short quote captures him perfectly, which nothing else in your article does. Congrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael2127 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 February 2012
For any change, it would be necessary to respond to the points raised above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo

This is one intense photo. It makes him look borderline insane. Isn't there a more appropriate photo out there that could be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auxilstitute (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I had a similar thought (not the crazy part, just not as easily recognizable as him) when someone replaced the long-standing photo with that one, without discussion. I've just put the long-standing photo back. If someone wants to look at the lesser quality one for comparison, they can look at the edit history. Let's keep this one for now, until there is consensus to change it. First Light (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The deal with the photo is that this is how the dude looks. Plus you can't get photos that aint in the public domain or whatever. When you "see" this dude on the teevee, or even a picture in some magazine, he is caked in makeup. that is inauthentic. This is the real him. I seen him in New York once trying to get a cab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.143.173 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Heritage?

Is the phrase 'of Muslim heritage' appropriate in referring to the religion of his parents or ancestors? One doesn't generally hear of those from Christian families being 'of Lutheran heritage' or 'of Catholic heritage'. Indeed, is he a practicing Muslim? Are his parents? His wife & children? -Grammaticus Repairo 19:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Do we mention the religion of every noted political commentator, or just the Muslims?

Given that he comments on the Muslim world a great deal I think it's an important piece of information. Most of the biogrpahies of Jewish Americans, for instance, include the fact that they were raised Jewish, even if they are not practicing the religion. It's a little less common for Christians, because in America and Europe it is a fair assumptoin that the person was raised Christian unless otherwise noted, but it is still not an unusual inclusion in biographies of promenant Americans like Tim Geithner.

Given that most people would assume that Indian = Hindu, having this clarification seems reasonable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

People who edit this article will be more successful if the edits look good superficially. And it looks bad to have external links in the body of the article. See WP:External links: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." It's best to have the external links in the footnotes (or in a separate section for external links). Wikilinks are fine in the body of an article, but not external links. If you want to link to a Wikipedia article, use a wikilink instead of an external link. Thanks for reading this fussy comment.108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism Section

Why is this its own section, exactly? Whenever we're covering someone involved in media/politics, it's not uncommon for controversies to appear and then evaporate almost as quickly. That's why we don't give such prominense to a particular "flare-up du jour" because it may or may not prove to be significant in the long-run.

In this case, Zakaria was quickly reinstated after internal reviews found that these were isolated cases of hurried laziness, nothing more. The general consensus among media analysts now is that he was subjected to an unfair rush to judgement before a proper investigation was done.

The story has all but disappeared rather quickly. Aside from a few extra days off and a little embarrassment, his career appears to be more or less unaffected by this blip. So then, why are we giving it its own section?!

The content is definitely relevant and should be in the article, but Wikipedia is neither the Drudge Report nor the National Enquirer. We're not here to sensationalize stories or promote them by giving them disproportionate prominence. I fear that the person responsible for those edits was more concerned with promoting the topic than with making the article better-organized. It looks as though other controversies were merely merged into the "political views" section so that he'd have an excuse to put this one all by itself.

In any case, given how the story has evolved, it is clearly inappropriate for us to continue promoting this controversy by dedicating an entire section of the article to it. As such, I am moving it back to the controversies section. Please discuss here before attempting to undo these changes. 67.76.148.169 (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Repercussions, Continuing Media Play

The article "America's Worst Historians" on Salon (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/19/americas_worst_historians/) is listed under a photo of Zakaria on the left side of the screen today. Zakaria shares the spotlight with another prominent historian/plagiarist (Doris Goodwin) in this rather thoughtful article. It would seem, perhaps circularly, that the significance of the (plagiarism) issue actually draws from the prominence of Zakaria, so justifying its prominent (and lasting) presentation in the article. I'm not making changes to the article, but at the very least, I'd like to register my opposition to extending the process to "burying" the incident entirely.98.64.143.4 (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem. An isolated instance like this is significant and will never be entirely removed but hardly defines the subject's career. He does characterize it as a "horrible mistake." User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wolfowitz meeting; plagiarism and other criticisms

Right now there are lots of disjointed sections in this article that should be consolidated. The section on the Wolfowitz meeting controversy, and the current plagiarism allegations, belong in one place. The entire article requires revision for NPOV, which I at least tried to do with this section (before, it was intermittently hagiographic and ad hominem). Not clear what user:bbb23's grounds for reverting my changes are. Bitton100 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The section on "plagiarism" has a subsection entitled "other criticisms" that simply reads like a grab bag of unrelated derogatory references to Zakaria. Why are Kirchick's article and the New Republic article listed in this section, instead of in the section on Zakaria's political views? Why is it not balanced with the many positive things that must have been written about Zakaria (if, after all, he's over rated, then someone must have rated him highly?). Finally, Goldberg's accusation that he stole quotes, and the Globe's accusation that he delivered the same speech twice, are not plagiarism. I propose putting all of this in a single section on controversies that is chronologically organized, beginning with his participation in the Wolfowitz meeting, through to the current controversy over lack of citation. Bitton100 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the plagerism should be separated from the other "contorversies", which maybe should be looked at more critically. Put the plagerism section should not be called "accusation". He has admitted and apologized "unreservedly" for it, so it's simply a fact that he plagerized and was caught at it. The repercussions have been significant.

ZeroXero (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is now in a miserable state, a good part of which are the result of the last edits by Zero. You have sections with only one subsection (not a no-no but to be avoided as a structural matter). You have stray references on separate lines. You have blank lines. The last version by Britton is at least better to look at. I haven't figured out whether any material has been subtracted or added by all of these edits out of nowhere, but, obviously, content is paramount. Not that I was crazy about the structure before all of these edits. I didn't care for the section called Plagiarism followed by one subsection called Other criticisms, and it would be good to work all this out in a satisfactory way (Criticism and Controversies sections should be avoided at Wikipedia). All that said, I'm not going to touch the article for the moment. I may start a topic at WP:BLPN and see if someone there can take a look at the structure and the content. Finally, it would be best to work this out here on the Talk page instead of in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to rearrange a bit, without messing with the content, since I don't know much about the guy.108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I did a bit of rearranging. Restored the Criticism subsection, reworded the lede, etc. I removed nothing, except one word "conservative" which seemed inappropriate and POV pushing for no clear reason.Mhym (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you notice that all the material in that Criticism subsection is already in the second paragraph of the "Political views" section? I think it's better to have that stuff integrated into the article rather than in a separate section. In any event, it shouldn't be in the article twice, so I'll remove it. Also, regarding his duplicate speeches at Harvard and Duke, I don't see where the cited source discusses Twitter criticism, and in any case unattributed statements on Twitter don't seem notable. Since the first paragraph of the Ethics section is not really a controversy, it seems better to just simply title the section "Ethics". This section is very high up in the article so people will not miss it, and we need to be careful not to make this article into an attack article in reality or appearance.108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Criticism section - yes, I see. My bad. Ethics - still prefer "Ethics controversies", as the commencement really was one, if small. Re: Twitter - here is the Boston Globe quote "The addresses have set some at Harvard and Duke atwitter." I think this is a hip way of saying that Twitter exploded. Finally, Goldberg has exchanged blog posts with Zakaria on his own charge here. This may or may not be relevant. I would refrain from adding anything to the body of the article, but think it's worth adding this link as a ref maybe. Mhym (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The article looks better now. I like the fact that the plagiarism was finally integrated into the lead in a reasonable manneer (rather than some who wanted to say "Zakaria is a journalist and a plagiarist", which was ridiculous). I like the fact that we no longer have sections called criticism or controversies. There are a couple of things I'm not crazy about. As I said earlier, I'm not fond structurally of single subsections (Ethics and War), even though I know it's done in many articles. More important, I don't find the subsection names particularly descriptive. Both are very general. We use the word plagiarism in the lead. Why wouldn't we call the Ethics section Plagiarism? I know the first paragraph of the subsection isn't strictly about plagiarism, but the bulk of the subsection is, as is the thrust of it. Most of the War subsection is about the Iraqi invasion. Couldn't we change the subsection to Invasion of Iraq or Iraqi war or something along those lines? Thanks to everyone for their efforts.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should follow WP:BB and change what you don't like, rather than write it here. This is especially for editing section names. Just go ahead - if others disagree they can always reverse. Happy editing! Mhym (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've followed WW:BB and made three changes, both to establish WW:NPOV and to eliminate the single subsections that bothered Usser:Bbb23 First, I moved the news of his suspension to the section on career. The fact is that it doesn't belong in the lede, and the only reason we're keeping it there is to placate people who want to turn this into an attack article. Second, I shortened the discussion to only include the relevant charge of borrowing from the New Yorker-- unless we want to include a section on "controversies," there really is nowhere to stick the various blog posts and tweets that tsk tsk'ed Zakaria for giving the same commencement speech twice. And including one writer's negative reaction to Zakaria's apology seems to invite us to include others' positive reactions to his apology, which would just make the piece unwieldy. Third, I integrated the discussion of his stance on the Iraq war into the section on political views. The — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitton100 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove content referenced with WP:RS. It needs to be mentioned he has been suspended by CNN and Time and the plagiarism issue needs to covered .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Pharaoh. As I earlier stated, I particularly liked the integration of the plagiarism in the lead, which you (Bitton) removed. Putting aside the removal of the single subsection headers, you shouldn't be removing that much sourced material without a clear consensus for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Bitton shouldn't be removing that much sourced material without a clear consensus for doing so.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
My philosophy here is that this is an encyclopedia entry, not a news story. The lede should not be so time sensitive. The plagiarism and suspension was included in the relevant section, on his career. I did remove the item about his commencement speech, but only because there seemed to be nowhere to put it. User:Bbb23 eliminated my section on controversies, which covered all of these issues. I interpreted his changes to mean that the article should not just contain a grab bag of derogatory information. Bitton100 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Important to reiterate here that the material on plagiarism was NOT removed, just moved to the section on career.Bitton100 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Bitton100, a word to the wise. If you want to trim text, you will be much more likely to succeed if you retain most or all of the footnotes. Removing reliably sourced, relevant footnotes is a red flag at Wikipedia, so if you leave the footnotes but trim the text, you're apt to have a happier editing experience. See generally WP:Preserve. Leaving footnotes allows really interested readers to ultimately get the info (and allows future editors to easily get a fuller picture of the subject). Also, I don't see how you justify completely removing the Goldberg and Prestowitz information from the text.108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Will go back and restore that info now. I must have deleted it accidentally. But where should I stick the stuff on commencement speeches? It doesn't seem to belong anywhere, and there's lots of pro and anti Zakaria views on that issue. Bitton100 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I already put back the Prestowitz and Goldberg stuff. Regarding the commencement addresses, I'd put it immediately before the stuff about the plagiarism. One might quibble about whether commencement addresses are part of a "Career", but this material is an excellent segue into the plagiarism stuff, because he's quoted speechifying to Harvard and Duke about ethics.108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see it now. Thanks for that. Bitton100 (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See retraction of the WaPo http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/washington-post.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talk • contribs) 19:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted with sources from the Washington Post and The Guardian as to why he was suspended.This needs to be there in the lead particularly when the lead says he and his program were suspended.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me. As long as the lead says that both he and his show were suspended, readers will be on notice that they can get more info in the body of the article, but putting more in the lead seems okay too.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this is not clear factually. Neither Time nor CNN say they are suspending him for plagiarism. They say they are suspending him pending an investigation into plagiarism. Big difference. So far, none of the actors have admitted to the specific crime of plagiarism.Bitton100 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to say I disagree on that he did plagarise the Time article "The Case for Gun Control, from the the New Yorker .Fareed Zakaria accepted it and apologised for it and it has been widely reported in the International media and there are reliably source to state this The Guardianclearly states Fareed Zakaria suspended from Time and CNN for plagiarising content ,NDTV ,Washington Post but after a review it was found that it was an The Case for Gun Control was an isolated incident .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

On Dp76764 's suggestion, I checked out this talk page and understand why he/she removed my section on Controversies (about his gun control article and graduation speeches). I still cannot understand why no mention has been made of the graduation speech, anywhere in this article though, not even under neutral and non-disparaging headers such as "Careers." Personally, I dont see it as a super important issue. But popular culture does, and lots of people talked about it, and so why would Wikipedia not record it for that sake alone- it is information about Zakaria and caused some stirrings in his public life, so why is it not worth a note/ worth letting someone who knows nothing about Zakaria, know that this also happened? Mickey Su (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the use of coming to a consensus on the talk page if someone can come along and revert days of work? Controversies sections are frowned on at wikipedia. Reverting to the last good edit Bitton100 (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is his name in a bunch of different languages?

Why is his name printed in Urdu, hindi, and Arabianic? The guy is an American citizen. This is an English wiki. The non-English spellings are irrelevant. I assert that they should be DELETED! Save the Urdu for his entry in Wiki-Urduia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.143.173 (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He was born in Bombay, India and did not come to the USA until he was an adult. He is thought of as an Indian-American. Had he come to the USA as an infant and been raised in the USA it's likely we would not have the Urdu and Hindi versions of his name in this article.
There a case for deleting the Arabic version of his name. The only connection that I could see in the article is that Zakaria has frequently written about Arabic and Islamic issues. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
First, there are plenty of other Indian Americans on the wiki who don't have their names printed in non-English characters--most of whom are more notable than Farid. Note Aasif Mandvi or M. Night Shyamalan or even a dude like Sunil Gulati. ALl of those dudes don't have the anti-American spellings of they names.
Secondly, even if you do find some Indian Americans with the non-Americanisms there, I assert that that "why do you need it"? It is against the spirt of the wiki in that it be really confusing. Because the wiki has a bunch of sub-wixiz in a bunch of sub-languages, we don't need to have any crazy anti-Englandish spellings. when I see the hindu scribbles, it is jibberish to someone who is a learning the English like me. What does a non-American speaker get from seeing the scribbles from another language in your wiki? It is confusing to everyone. I be looking in my dictionary for some of this stuff and the arabian scribbles, etc. are not even present in my dictionary. I scrape my head at that! the point that is: if it is an ENglish american wiki, then ONLY have the american english stuff in their. not crap other stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.143.173 (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

I just wanted to remind everybody that blogs are strictly prohibited as sources in BLPs. See WP:BLPSPS. This is not subject to debate; the prohibition is clear. If there are any more attempts to use anonymous blogs to source plagiarism allegations against this person I will bring this to the attention of the administrator noticeboards and seek protection of this article at a minimum. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi - in order to make sure that the citations and language used on the plagiarism section matched previous wikipedia standards re: WP:BLPSPS, I went and checked the pages for Dan Rather and the Killian documents controversy to see what types of attribution would be acceptable. That case was a lot like this one - pseudonymous bloggers are bringing attention to journalistic misconduct that is later picked up my large wiki-acceptable media outlets - so I went with the style used for that earlier controversy. If there is a problem with how that edit is phrased, it should be noted here on the talk page so we can work through this constructively - But if it's really a problem, you should focus on correcting the language for Dan Rather and the Killian documents controversy first, since that'd constitute long-standing errors if any of this is incorrect. Happy to help bring these similar new media scandals into conformity. Emoprog (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, if any other experienced editors want to give input on how to incorporate the relevant material from this Politico article that focuses heavily on the anonymous bloggers who are in large part driving the continued discussion of the controversy, it would be appreciated: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/our-bad-media-not-done-yet-112866.html -Emoprog (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The only way of dealing with the blog allegations is to report whatever is picked up in reliable sources such as Politico. I haven't checked the Rather article but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fareed Zakaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fareed Zakaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fareed Zakaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fareed Zakaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fareed Zakaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section

Wikipedia style is to not have Controversy sections. Basically, we shouldn't have one place to say all the bad things about the person. This section should be folded into the main text. Ashmoo (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

POV

  • "The unapologetic elitism he advocates for might stem from his well-to-do background."
^^^Does that line from the article sound blatantly biased to anyone else, or is it just me? --67.213.105.252 00:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we address him as Dr. in the article? He has a PhD

just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.74.246 (talk • contribs)

We don't, per WP:SURNAME. Schazjmd (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Staff shortage

Listening to USA news, staff shortage is a primary source of concern and various reasons are given but COVID death toll never seems to be taken into account? This is certainly an issue everywhere in the world, don’t you think 🤔 142.167.253.130 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Fried Zucchini Disambiguation Page Needed?

I ended up on this page after hearing a sarcastic comment about CNN’s fried zucchini on a talk show. Now after coming here I realize that was sarcasm. However, should we have one of those redirect paragraphs at the top of his/her (sorry but I didn’t research their pronouns) page. Something like “this article is about the news personality. For the squash dish that some people think is delicious, see zucchini.”

Thanks 2603:3021:135E:8100:6583:9709:5F68:D16F (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fareed_Zakaria/Archive_1&oldid=1196135516"