Talk:Tariq Ali

Ali a Do-Gooder
Ali criticized Salmon Rushdie and Susan Sontag for their support of NATO's bombing of Kosovo which killed hundreds of innocent children. He called these 'warrior writers', the Belligerati. I learned this from Michael Mandel's book, How America Gets Away With Murder. Teetotaler


 * Rushdie supported the NATO bombing of what was then Yugoslavia (or basically just Serbia proper) to get the Yugoslav army to end its attempt to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of ethnic Albanians. He was supporting the bombing because he wanted to end the genocide. Ahassan05 18:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ahassan05

Except that there was no genocide as such, but hey, why let facts get in the way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Everything
The following text was found on the main page inserted by the user 129.15.93.82

I would have to point out that both terms --"Anti-Americanism" and "Anti-Israel"-- as used by the author above are terms of propaganda and not a terms of description. Tariq Ali's concerns are well expressed in his non-fiction: They are critical of American policies in the Middle East, this position is not synonymous with "Anti-American" or "Anti-Israel".

Moved to talk page by Chancemill 15:16, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI for everyone: neither of these terms are included in the current text. --(Mingus ah um 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Brown Sahib
"brown sahib" needs an explanation. Pjacobi 14:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The term has been linked. --(Mingus ah um 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Education
what did he study at uni? what degree/s does he have?


 * Now, that's a good question. Here's a start:


 * "Tariq was born in Lahore, now in Pakistan, then part of British-ruled India, in 1943. A Catholic school education did nothing to shake his life-long atheism, which he shared with his communist parents."
 * "Later, while studying at Government College, part of Punjab University, Tariq Ali was elected President of the Young Students' Union. He organised public demonstrations against Pakistan's military dictatorship and was banned from participating in student politics."

""From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/feature_tariqali.shtml --(Mingus ah um 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

POV
This article is definately POV. Could someone maybe edit it? I mean, keep the information, but it's wording is overtly point of view. Эйрон Кинни (t) 23:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can please point out, which POV shows where? --Pjacobi 23:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yeah or just be bold and do it yourself... Malangyar (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If no one points out the POV, I will remove the tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The current tag was added in April 2016 with the edit summary "v biased and partial pov -- seems like written by the subject himself or someone close to him". No explanation was left on the page. This article has clearly been written by a number of editors. There is no point on keeping the tag unless there are specific issues identified that can be addressed. I will remove the tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Historian
Do we have reliable sources who call him a historian (i.e. not his own publishers or website, but a mainstream literary journal, academic journal, or newspaper that has reviewed his work)? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing no response in 4 months, and based on his studies and the biography at http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth164#bibliography it looks to me like it is appropriate to remove that attribution of "historian". If someone wants to add it back as "self-claimed historian" or the like, that would make more sense. --NealMcB 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he's a historian. He studies, analyses and expands his views on history, that makes him a historian. No journal has to recognize him as such, for him to be one. That's like seeing someone play the piano often, but saying we need a newspaper quote to call him a musician, it's absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

British-Pakistani or Pakistani-British?
I am under the impression that it is customary for one's hyphenated nationality to place the native or originating land first and adopted land second. If this holds true, Tariq Ali is a Pakistani-British and the label should be changed to say this. —Blanchette (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found a discussion of this issue in a Wikipedia "Categories for deletion" log where the comments from British Wikipedians would indicate the reverse order in British usage, e.g. British Asian, British Pakistani, etc. The hyphen is apparently optional but increasingly dropped when used to create an adjective and obsolete when using the words to make a noun. See Hyphenated American for links to usage guides on this point. Also clinching the point is the article British Pakistanis. By contrast see Pakistani American. In sum: the word order is correct but the hyphen should probably be removed here and in other places on Wikipedia where the British-nationality n format is used. —Blanchette (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Name
Ali's name has just been added in Arabic, although he is of Pakistani origin. Would it not be much more appropriate to add his name in Punjabi or Urdu? --Mia-etol (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the same in Urdu, since Urdu uses the same script. I guess you can change the word Arabic to Urdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since he left Pakistan as a teenager, I don't see why it's there at all. I'm removing it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No more stub
Changed from stub class but don't know what it really rates, just that stub is misleading by now. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ali believes that the new Iraqi government will fail
This sentence surely needs to be removed (as Iraq has arguably had a number of governments since 2003, unless "government" here means the system that was devised post-invasion....which would be confusing). It needs a citation as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.153.151 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Tariq Ali's appearance in documentary: Scotland Yet
Perhaps someone with more wikipedia experience might be more able to explain why my contribution keeps getting deleted. I have tried - clearly against the wishes of a particular editor - to add to the last section of "career", a properly cited reference to Ali's participation in the documentary film Scotland Yet.

To my knowledge, this was the only feature film made about the Scottish independence referendum and was widely released in 2014, his participation seems notable to me. Jackf834 (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Scotland Yet appears to be sufficiently notable to justify the inclusion of an article on Wikipedia. The reference to Tariq Ali's participation is insufficiently notable because of the lack of reliable sources. Any publicity material would be inadmissible too because it not a third party source. Newsnet Scotland is a blog, and broadly similar sites like Liberal Conspiracy or Harry's Place have not been considered by editors generally to be admissible sources. Since you are keen to add this information to the George Galloway article among others, my comments apply there also. Philip Cross (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to Jackf834's edit summary for the Galloway article. A site needs a reputation for "fact checking" and "editorial oversight" to be cited on Wikipedia, as you will note from the IRS article.. I can find no evidence via Google for confirmation. Philip Cross (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I agree with Philip Cross here. --John (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

1980s
This article skips over anything Ali did between 1981 and 1990. He was still active in politics.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Brexit
There has been a recent edit war about the following claim:
 * Ali was one of the few figures on the left to support Britain leaving the European Union.

Campaigning in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 shows there were left groups supporting Brexit. John Pilger was also pro-Brexit This claim does seem misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to depend on your definition of "few" - the overwhelming majority of the British left opposed Brexit. AusLondonder (talk)
 * Depends on what you mean by 'few', depends on what you mean by 'left', depends on who qualifies as a 'figure'. The pro-Brexit left seems a significant group . In any case, our source doesn't support the claim, so maybe we should change to something less debatable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To which list I would add George Galloway.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Books
We mention some of his books in the lead, some of his books in the body, and list many of them under "Works (partial list)". It seems somewhat random. Is there a better way to handle this?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ali, still a Trotskyist?
Hi there. Although Ali still appreciates Trotsky he doesn't describe himself as a Trotskyist. That article is also featured on his website and his antipathy, in lack of better words, for modern Trotskyist movements is even mentioned on his article here on Wikipedia. So listing him in 'Category:British Trotskyists', other Trotsky-related Categories and the like is debatable. A removal from those pages might be a reasonable action. My main points regarding this are:


 * 1) Argument for removal: He says that he isn't a Trotskyist so you should probably take him at his words.
 * 2) Argument against: He approves of Trotsky as someone who's still relevant and serves as an inspiration to him.

I think the first point is the more relevant one. If there is newer information regarding this that contradicts my assumption I'm up for discussing it. Might even be additional points I haven't considered. Kxxvii (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, he was a Trotskyist.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Historian again
The lead calls him a historian, based on this: https://web.archive.org/web/20071114152714/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F10%2F10%2F1414233 Is that a good enough source for this term? There's nothing else in the article which seems to warrant it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)