Talk:Eenasul Fateh/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Oxford Student

There was a claim made here a few days ago that Tamara Cohen's article in Oxford Student of 19th February 2004 was a forgery. It is entitled 'Opening an aladin's cave. Tamara Cohen is charmed by aladin: merchant banker, gangland mentor and acclaimed magician'. This claim is FALSE as Oxford Student did indeed publish a 1,000 word feature on this London politician which in addition was available online for some months; moreover, the writer checked her facts and has an unblemished record at the paper. Please email the Oxford Student office for confirmation. Thank you. Aboutoxfordstudent 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Of course it is, Mr. Sockpuppet. Peter S. 23:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, please you email Tamara Cohen and ask her how she (or he) "checked the facts", since you are the interested side. Wikipedia is not, like, someone's personal property to care. Everybody contributes. So please contribute, according the rules and don't waste your precious time. BTW for those who are interested, the supposed article text (and other praises of aladin) is online at his brag page and it contains a phrase that says it all: " You probably haven't heard of aladin." Allah akbar. Mukadderat 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you Mukadderat, for demasking Aladin's latest puppeteering attempt. Peter S. 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, somebody appearing out of nowhere to make claims about a student newspaper and research and such does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. It's very likely that itf the paper did print anything it just got the info direct from the Aladin press releases anyway, so it's not like the paper article proves anything.

    And I would agree that this is probably a sockpuppet anyway. DreamGuy 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

    • For what it's worth, I checked the on-line archives for The Oxford Student and gave a link to the relevant archive, where it can be seen that there's no such article, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin. Uncle G 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

user:Peter S

Having seen the below I am a little clearer about your motivation. Aboutoxfordstudent 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The journalism at Oxford Student is not motivated by sycophancy or rancour as seems to be the case occasionally at Wikipedia.Aboutoxfordstudent 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The matter you quote has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and for someone who appeared out of nowhere you sure know your way around... I smell sock. DreamGuy 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ox (or do you prefer the title "Aladin's Sockpuppet"?), the Aladin page was replaced with Aladdin (about the story), so I created a new one. I was trying to be fair, by actually recreating that article. You seem to have a talent of turning facts upside down to make people look bad. Now that the original page is back, it's obvious that that new page of mine was a duplicate and had to go. Peter S. 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did my degree at Oxford. My friends edit or used to edit The Oxford Student. I have made edits elsewhere on Wikipedia on less contentious subjects. I do not intend to be stalked by Wikipedia users. I only came across the aladin page 2 days ago. I have no view on whether the page should exist. Aboutoxfordstudent 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ox, you're a sockpuppet for Aladin, it's so transparent to everyone here it's ridiculous you're hiding behind the next facade. Give up, you've already tainted your image enough. Peter S. 12:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, ox: attacking me in the back when I enquire about a sockpuppet check will not help your cause [1]. But I can understand you're being angry, cause we're cornering you here. Peter S. 12:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I find it amusing how you're turning it on him when you have no real justification for writing an attack page as per quoted in the deletion of that article. Are you attempting to divert attention with the "sock puppet" comments because that just sounds like suspicious behaviour to me... --RBlowes 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
RBlowes, in the mean time, Ox has been oficially marked a sockpuppet, so I was right: [2]. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying you were right to create an attack page and violate WP:Point and WP:Civil? Cheers! -- JJay 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, the page had more or less the same content that is on the article now ("contradictory quotations", "impossible claims" etc.). "Attack page" is certainly a too strong word. But look at that deleted page yourself and make up your own opinion (if you have the authorisation to see deleted pages, that is). Cheerios, Peter S. 15:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


As much as I dislike this sort of quasi-vanity article, if there really was a substantial article on him in the Times, then he meets the notability guidelines for individuals. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"If" was a good word indeed, and you used it correctly. I've just fixed yet another "smoke and mirrors" in the article: it is not The Times, it is The Saturday Times Magazine, a magazine of marginal notability itself, which has just a little more visibility of aladin himself: google gives scant 319 unique google hits for "saturday times magazine"; the name taking an advantage of its similarity with "The Sunday Times". Mukadderat 17:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Responding to the RfC -- Upon reviewing the discussion, the issue seems to hinge not on the appropriateness for the redirect, but simply whether or not "aladin" the magician is notable enough to have his own page. Based on the information at , there would seem to be sufficient press to warrant notability, especially since he is now mentioned on National Geographic[3]. Elonka 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is the same aladin. the information contradicts to other online sources. You cannot write a wikipedia article by collecting buts and pieces of unverifiable iformation from all over the 'net. It is called original research. Mukadderat 06:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Mukadderat, I am in complete agreement with you that much of the information around the internet is unreliable. However, certain sources are definitely trustworthy, and National Geographic meets that standard. I also agree that just because a webpage lists quotes from certain newspapers, does not necessarily mean that those quotes are valid, or that the newspapers are trusted sources. But between the Times article and the National Geographic coverage, it seems provable that there definitely is a London magician named "Aladin" who is notable, and deserving of a wikipedia article. He was also referenced in his father's wikipedia article Abul Fateh, though I see that you removed that information. Can you please supply a source for why you doubt that Abul Fateh had a son by the name of "Aladin"? No matter what though, I recommend that the article be re-created, with only that information which is from trusted sources, and then other information can be added as it is verified. Elonka 08:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, I'm yet to see ANY reference showing that Aladin, the "magician", (i.e. Eenasul Fateh) is related to Abul Fateh (I might be missing something, so showing the reference will be great). Second, the National Georgraphic coverage is not really related to his being a magician, let alone a noted one (the coverage was on refugees). No one is undermining Nat. Geographic, rather the consensus is that the subject of this article is not notable as a magician ... his being mentioned in Nat. Geographic has nothing to do with his magician credentials. Thanks. --Ragib 08:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The National Geographic blurb confirms his notability: Aladin is a London-based magician of international acclaim, who was brought to that city as a child. Taking his wife and children, Aladin's father, a Bengali ambassador, fled from a diplomatic posting with the Pakistani embassy in Iraq. Aladin now sees himself as a Londoner. In addition to working as a magician, he works as a global management strategist.. All of those facts agree with the other information found, such as a press release with his name at[4], as well as a mention in a PDF by London City University[5], under "Arts and Policy Management". Those all seem to be legitimate references. Elonka 09:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The Nat.Geographic quote shows that the journalist does not know what he is speaking about: (1) "international acclaim" of virtually no trace but aladin's own words (2) "bengali ambassador" is plain illiterate (3) "global management strategist" so pompous that leaves me rolling on the floor laughing. (4) no hints on references; looks like a hearsay and cannot be solid reference. 16:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Improper redirection

I am not vouching for this guy's notability, but unless the article is properly afd'd, blanking it and redirecting it (as DreamGuy (talk · contribs) did) is not a proper thing to do. The article has been stripped of the vanity text, and if the remaining stuff lacks verifiability, let it be properly dealt, possibly with an RfC or a new AfD. --20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Afds do not prevent normal editing of the article after the fact. A redirect is considered a "normal edit", whereas deletion is a special function. That may seem strange, but it's a distinction born out of how the MediaWiki software happens to work. If people disagree that redirecting is the right thing to do, it's definitely reasonable to discuss it on the talk page. But to me, a content-related reason for opposing the redirect is going to be far more compelling than a reason based on a past Afd. Friday (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
My point was, the redirect made the current article blank. If the current article is to be deleted, it should be done via an afd. The blanking+redirect made the same effect as a deletion. If the article needs to be deleted (which I think should be done), it should go via a new AfD. Thanks. --Ragib 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually, no, it doesn't need to be deleted at all. "Aladin" is an obvious misspelling for the more well known "Aladdin" of which there is more than one. Deleting gets rid of the page completely, including the talk page and history, and leaves nothing there when someone types that word in. A redirect preserves all that. You don't need to have a vote for a redirect. DreamGuy 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Then what about the content of *this* article? Disambig notices are used for what you just mentioned. The blanking+redirection removed the contents of this article, which should be done after an afd, not someone's personal whim. There is no problem in re-listing the article for an AfD. Thanks. --Ragib 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
An advantage of not deleting it is that the history is still available. If the time comes where this guy definitely warrants an article, some of the old content may be useful. So I think preserving the history is preferable to deleting it. I personally think Afd is less conducive to civilized, productive discussion than the talk page is. If people are opposed to the redirect, they can say so right here. Friday (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have renominated the article for AfD. Not that AfD can achieve the blanking/redirect you are asking for. Lets use the proper way to purge vanity. Vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin (2nd nomination). Thanks. --Ragib 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see that this way is more "proper", it's just more difficult. How is deletion more beneficial to the encyclopedia than just taking care of it right now? Friday (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It's more about asking for a consensus before going ahead and delete+redirect, I guess. Peter S. 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I already had a straw poll consensus, as I knew you'd support it, and someone else on my talk page earlier said they'd support it. But you don;t need to put every little thing up for a formal vote, especially when that vote is like use a steamroller to crack open a nut. Deleting thepage completely gets rid of all this discussion here, so nobody in the future would know it was discussed. A redirect doesn't do that. DreamGuy 06:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Blanking an article should be a decision reached via consensus, using proper procedure, and should not depend on the personal whim of individual editors. --Ragib 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is great. We were already looking for it. There's discussion about the redirect right here on the talk page. Anyone is free to express disagreement. If there's consensus, we'll redirect. How is Afd a better "procedure" for a redirect than using the talk page? Friday (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ragib, Wikipedia is all about the whim or individual editors, and then a discussion follows if people object. But then you don't object to the redirect, so I don;t know why on earth you think it should be up for a vote when the vote is a Article for Deletion vote and not an Article for Redirection vote. It doesn't seem like you understand how the process here works at all, and, worse than that, you seem like you don't want to learn how the process works. You keep talking about "using proper procedure" but you didn;t use proper procedure when you put it up for a vote. Proper procedure for a redirect is to just redirect it. I'm sorry you refuse to pay attention to that fact. DreamGuy 06:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Times article

I'm not sure I understand what all the confusion is about concerning the 1998 Times magazine article. The article is three pages long with 1,717 words and 21 paragraphs. It is perfectly verifiable by searching the Times archives. I do not know how Times journalism rates. I do not know how Lisa Brinkworth wrote the story. Here is a short excerpt:

Aladin isn't aiming to be a high-profile entertainer. Despite being named International Magician of the Year in London in 1991 and winner of the 1997 Golden Turban Award from the Magic Academy of Bangalore, in India, he is happiest discreetly entertaining the homeless at midnight or performing for squatters at unglamorous music events...
Last year he did stage a show, but it was a week-long magic event he produced and compered in Bangalore, in which 800 international magicians took part. It was broadcast to more than a billion viewers and billed as "the biggest event in the history of magic". True to form, he included a one-legged magician from Calcutta and an illiterate peasant farmer with a makeshift bag of tricks. Both won awards and Aladin is bringing them to London to perform at the ICA next September, where he is curating a millennial event called 21st Century Entertainment.

-- JJay 08:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect, again

I can't believe we're discussing this yet again, but: The Afd is over. Afds are not intended to prevent normal editing of the article after the fact. Content questions, including merges or redirects, are discussed on the talk page. I personally think a reasonable case has been made. Anyone is free to disagree, but can we make the discussion be about the content now instead of making it about the Afd? Friday (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be expanded. -- JJay 15:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Article needs expanding but has improved greatly from the hyped up original version. The content is the article is factual and is backed up by referances. Englishrose 18:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quick recount for everybody

From the official vote:

  • Keep: David, Riday, Englishrose, JJay - 4 votes
  • Delete or Redirect: Ragib, Ezeu, Mukadderat, SockpuppetSamuelson (strange name but user looks legit to me), Krash, Stifle, Peter S., DreamGuy, KillerChihuahua - 9 votes

Englishrose and JJay, I think you should admit your defeat and we should move on. Peter S. 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a competition, although for you it most certainly is because the article now contains factual information and your obsessed with getting it deleted. However, for me personally...I couldn't give two shits about Aladin but I do care about not letting people get rid of a legit article. Aladin is legit, JJay has uncovered evidence, I've even found my own evidance that he is legit and I'm 100% sure if you were bothered you'd find evidence. For me it's about doing the right thing. Deleting this article via the backdoor would be wrong, just like trying to intimidate people and trying to influence how people vote by accussing everybody who votes keep of being a sockpuppet is wrong...especially considering at the moment there's no evidence. I also believe that those accusations influenced the vote. JJay made a quote what sums this up , "The people who vote often look for any reason to vote delete. I think they must enjoy destroying other people's work, which is one of the reasons I waste a lot of my time fighting to keep articles.. Englishrose 23:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You yourself screwed the vote with this redirect option. This is votes for deletion and nothing else. Please read the policy carefully. Everything what is not deletion means "keep", and this rever war is just it: revert war. You should have voted delete, because you are suggesting a redirect to a totaly different topic, meaning that the previous topic must be deleted. So cool off, wait for a week or so, start a new vote and think what you are doing. Mukadderat 22:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I actually voted "delete or redirect", so I thougth I covered all my bases there. In my experience, Vote-Admins actually read the whole thing and do an informed decision. Could you show me the link to the official policy "anything but delete is keep" - I've never heard of that. Peter S. 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I've actually found a few points that support my theory and that the vote was closed incorrectly: [Redirect is a permitted vote], [Rough Consensus - vote closer is no robot, he should try to find a fair judgement]. So I think you're wrong, Mukadderat (which I'm sorry since we both voted the same thing). I'm reverting it back to redirect - okay? Peter S. 22:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The deletion process is ridiculously described in half a dozen articles: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion_process, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion review, or maybe more I don't know about. So you better hire yorself a lawyer :-).

The actual step-by step rules are in "Wikipedia:Deletion_process" And it says: "If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as REDIRECT or MERGE),...".

By the way, IMO the contradiction here is general enough to be covered by policy; and I initiated Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. Mukadderat 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, Peter, of the above 6 pages I listed, Wikipedia:Deletion review is probably what you need now, if you don't want to wait a week for one more AfD iteration. Mukadderat 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mukadderat. I have all the time in the world, so I'll probably wait a week. Cheers! :-) Peter S. 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is being redirected, as decided by vote. Period. Full stop.

Most of the people voting to keeop were doing so ONLY to redirect it and not erase the history. Trying to use those keep votes as a justification for not redirecting is absolutely nonsense and a direct attempt to ignore what was decided. It's Wikilawyering at its worse to sit there and lie (yes, lie, you are outright lying) to claim that the vote ONLY covers deleting and pretend that the keeps were to keep the article AS IS when most people wnated it redirected. At this point if we have people continuing to deny the clear consensus that was determined here and undoing the revert I will ask to have the article locked. A minor group of disaffecting people cannot simply ignore the overwhelming vote. DreamGuy 02:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

DreamGuy, are you having hashish dreams? Your uncivilized attack is unwarranted. I happened to point to a proper place where the deletion votes can be discussed, see above, Wikipedia:Deletion review, where you may question the decision of the administrator. You may shout as much as you want, this will not give you an upper hand, and all you will get is a couple of more enemies. Is this your goal in wikipedia? Mukadderat 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your personal attacks are unwarranted, and your bizarre attempt to change what the admin said (besides, admins have no more power than any other editors, so if an admin showed up and declared KEEP against the consensus we'd ignore him also) does not change the facts here. Consensus was to redirect, so we do. DreamGuy 09:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
OK we exchanged a couple of attacks. Let's talk normally. Please show me exactly the place where I changed what admin said. If admin closed against consensus, you don't need a rebellion against "admin cabal"; just go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Since you chose to ignore the normal/formal way, I posted there myself, but from my point of view. Care to join there? Mukadderat 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As for accusations in "lies" I quoted the exact line from rules: " "If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as REDIRECT or MERGE),..." " Please provide your counter-quote. So now, with your mindless mixing of votes we have a content dispute. Instead of shouting, please join the policy improvement proposal Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option, that will prevent such silly situation on the future. Oh, by the way, once more, I voted delete. Mukadderat 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

From your edit summary: "with all respect to the hot-tempered person who voted in the same way as me, I also respect the admin, who decided to *keeep*; please use talk page". I did not decide to keep. I called it a no consensus, defaulting to keep because a substantial number of people wanted to keep. AfD cannot and should not be used as a reason to support or oppose a redirect, because AfD only decides whether to delete or keep an article. All decisions it makes, except deletion, are non-binding. Just because an article was, say, merged and redirected due to consensus doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever. If its topic becomes notable, it can become an article again. And vice-versa. Johnleemk | Talk 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
EXACTLY. And the "keep" votes overwhelmingly were to keep as a redirect, which is what we are doing. A couple of people who want to try to preserve the hoax/spam article against consensus or think that some admin simply closing AfD means it can't be edited like normal following normal consensus procedures doesn;t change facts: The facts being that there is clear consent from a 2/3 or more of the people discussing the issue who want this article either deleted or redirected and not preserved as a separate article.
3 votes to keep the article against four or five to redirect isn't an overwhelming majority in favour of either side. Also, I would like to advise everyone stop edit warring, or else the article may be protected. I also take umbrage at this edit summary - "with all due respect, the vote was for deletion only, comments though clearly far & away supported redirect over keeping as is, so that's what we do. If you don't like it, tough, it's consensus". If people are reverting, by definition, there is no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 10:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The article cannot be converted into a redirect to a totally different topic, without merging the content somewhere. This effectively means delete, which was not how the voting was closed. Mukadderat 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is pathetic, wikipedia is an open to all, not a site where a bunch of people who can't admit defeat constantly throw a spanner in every topic they couldn't get rid of. The results were keep, both times, NOT RE-DIRECT regardless but feel free to gang-bang this topic and many others, I'm sure eventually people will recognise what the "achievements" of this little group of "best mate-sock-puppeters". --RBlowes 17:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, your summary of events is pathetic. The vote wsa solely keep or delete, but the comments SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED KEEP VOTES *ONLY* IF THE PAGE WOULD BE REDIRECTED. If redirect was not an option, THE PAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED. Trying to portray KEEP BUT REDIRECT VOTES as KEEP AS IS is HIGHLY DECEPTIVE. Furthermore, it's laughable that someone trying to defend the article can complain about sockpuppets when it's clear that the page was created by spamming socks who also added similary vanity and spam to other articles.DreamGuy 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • For once you actually spoke some truth, the vote WAS SOLELY KEEP OR DELETE. However there as I said in another topic about this, the keep votes far outnumbered the re-direct votes, and yes while I have noticed that there was sock-puppeting in the first vote there was to my knowledge only two such voting meaning the first vote was still a 11-3 keep vote which brings into question the second nomination per se anyway. Further, should I point out that as of yesterday you're the only one partipicating in re-directing the page constantly whereas everyone else was re-verting it back to normal, I could understand if say, the majority opinion was re-direct and the minority were reverting the page but that's not the case which makes me question your motives even more. Either way, maybe you should relax a little and actually let things be for once? You might see things in different light rather than the "my way or the highway" attitude I've seen so far. *shrug* --RBlowes 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Page moved according to the suggestion in Wikipedia:Deletion review. It is good to know places where wise people talk. Now you may start AfD of this page without this confusing #redirect option. Allahu akbar. Mukadderat 21:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And by "wise" you apparently mean "people who ignorantly took your biased description of what was going on at face value" DreamGuy 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Page move reinsted as per discussion at WP:DRV. DES (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, a couple of editors there taking Mukadderat's highly deceptive summary of events as gospel and then not even bothering to read the talk page or the votes and trying to overrule clear consensus. DreamGuy 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I for one had read the talk page and the previous AfD. I may be mistaken about it, but i resent the above comments. DES (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, you may certainly resent them, but that doesn;t change the fact that you choose to overrule the clear and supermajority vote to get rid of the article. The only dispute was whether to delete it completely including the history and talk page and redirect it and preserve those... By keeping the article around as is you are undeniably overruling the clear decisions made by the editors here. I decided to assume good faith and conclude that you simply were ignorant of the discussion. Now that you claim to have read it, your actions appear to be bad faith attempt to do whatever you want regardless of what everyone else wants. Of course I'm sure you'll resent that as well. You are letting wikilawyering sockpuppets and spammers keep up a vanity promotion article to a magician of no verifiable notability. With people like you on the case we might as well just let the spammers take over and not even try to reign them in. DreamGuy 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously i do not think that is a fair description. Perhaps this article should go. I don't read the AfD as you seem to, but I may be mis-reading it, or it might be better for it to go in any case. i am willing to discuss the matter. I will not engage in a revert war. DES (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
As a third party to the debate here, I have to admit some confusion. It seems clear that there are verifiable references that this individual is notable and deserving of a page, and that there was never consensus to delete the article. I have reviewed the debate at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#aladin, and the review confirms that the article was not supposed to be deleted. Am I missing a poll somewhere? Elonka 04:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Elonka, sockpuppetry regarding the article and its deletion vote has been detected based on IP-Evidence by Jayjg: [6]. So when looking at sources, you should be pretty careful, as anybody that says vehemently "I have seen a good article about Aladin" might just be another sockpuppet of Aladin himself. As happened above, when "Aboutoxfordstudent" claimed such a thing and was promptly demasked as being just another sockpuppet. So the only thing that you can count on is hard facts, like a website by a renowned source. I know, we should normally assume good faith here, but in this case, where somebody has already proven that he will plainly invent facts to stay on the wikipedia, the social contract of good faith has already been broken by Aladin. Anyway, just use caution, and thanks for helping out here. Cheers! Peter S. 06:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's references

Don't worry, I'm not taking anybody's word for anything.  :) But I spent some time digging through Google, and still found several references which looked legitimate to me:

Then of course there are the personal websites, which I agree should be taken with a grain of salt:

I couldn't find any verification for "International Magician of the Year", but neither could I find proof that he *didn't* win it.[7] There's no authoritative list that I could find, and the award has been around for a long time. My guess is that it's a sub-category of annual awards at the Magic Castle, and "International Magician" is the same as saying, "Best foreign film". But that's just a guess. It may also mean that he made up the title of "International Magician of the Year", as something given by the Magic Academy of Bangalore.

Neither could I find a reference about "Gold Turban Member of the Magic Academy of Bangalore, India", let alone "fabled" Magic Academy of Bangalore, so I'd agree that that claim also remain suspect until a further reference can be found, especially because of the associated claim of him being "one of only two recipients of the golden turban". For all I could see via Google, "Magic Academy of Bangalore" may only be two guys on a motorcycle.

As for the rest though, even with suspicions about some of the claims, and the likelihood of some questionable self-promotion, I strongly believe that the magician-known-as-Aladin is notable, is known internationally (meaning more than one country), and is deserving of a wikipedia article, either as Aladin (magician) or simply Eenasul Fateh, as long as it is carefully referenced. Elonka 08:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nice summary. My understanding is that the Magic Academy is in Kerala [8]. I don't know anything about their awards. -- JJay 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If Aladin is claiming that a billion people watched the Magic Academy of Bangalore awards, but no one here DID watch it and the Academy doesn't exist, then it's quite probably that he saw some mention of the Academy in Kerala and used that to spin a fantasy. He seems to be very good at getting people to believe his fantasies. He got the National Geographic, the Sunday Times Magazine, and the Mayor's Office to believe. Heck, he got ME to believe in his sockpuppet Autumnleaf. She was a damn good editor, too. He's smart, if twisted. This is a great magazine article right HERE. Zora 11:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What your forgetting is that the National Geographic and the Sunday Times Magazine have strict guidelines on what is written or broadcast, even stricter than wikipedia. The information especially with the National Geographic channel would have been checked and verified by them. As for the Mayor's Office they are even more vigorous with it being such am important job. They have access to more material than we do; they have access to databases containing all sorts of information such as previous jobs, whether he's a sex offender etc etc. aladin would have also have provided details of previous work, which would have been vigorously checked out. The mayor's office cannot take any risks as if they do it would become heavily publicised and could destroy their reputation.

I find it hard to believe that all 3 of those would have failed to do these checks, especially the Mayor's Office. Englishrose 13:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, particularly the heading "verifiability, not truth". -- JJay 11:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this be ok for the article considering it is backed up by citations:

In 2005, aladin has gained some media publicity and has given a radio interview for the Family Tech Show, a Canadian radio show. In this show interview he talked about the “Book of Cool”, a book where he demonstrates how to perform card tricks. [9]. Aladin’s daughter Roxanna has also been the subject of a documentary on the National Geographic Channel, which sets out to explore the lives of refugees and tells the story of how her family came to London in fear of their lives [10].

You have more experience than me so I'd thought I'd check. Englishrose 13:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the NG documentary was about aladin and his girlfriend Roxanne. -- JJay 13:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Roxy is supposedly his daughter, and NG was about her fate as descendant of emigrants, not about him. So NG is not proof of his notability. Mukadderat 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's simple

"No consensus" = "do nothing". So, it should be kept. It doesn't get any simpler than that. "No consensus" does not equal "consensus for doing X" or "consensus for doing Y". It means "do nothing". — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-20 13:14

As a way of starting fresh, I have gone ahead and added information and references to a page at Eenasul Fateh. Do we have consensus that at least the minimal information there is verifiable? Elonka 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, wikipedia does no allow two articles about exactly the same topic, so I turned your new article into a redirect here. Second, the problems with aladin is notability. There were tens of thousands of people who were clerks or volunteers in city councils over the world and there are millions of people who can do card tricks. This does not mean they must have an article here. So far aladin (and his friends/sockpuppets) have demonstrated a good deal of treachery in writing this article (i.e., proven to be liars). A wikipedia policy is that you cannot believe whar person writes about himself in his website or says in an interview. Independent verification is required.
The very fact that someone has to dig hard to find some tiny bits of information about him means that he has no place in wikipedia. He is not a 9th centry Raja who conquered baluchistan, but whe know his deeds only from two tomb inscriptions. Today news spread quickly. If he aladin were famous, we would have known about him from hundreds of places. Mukadderat 16:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
See comment above. We heard your arguments in the failed afd.-- JJay 17:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Admin: since the real issue is not "article content", but the very existence of the topic, please put this notice into the article. (In case of doubt, deletion policy does not forbid deletion of protected pages and admins may edit protected pages for various technical purpises, not related to changing actual article content) Mukadderat 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you to vote now clearly: "keep"/"delete"/"merge and redirect"/"delete and redirect", unless you want more fun. Mukadderat 19:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the sockpuppets were ready this time and they have come back in force, led by Englishrose placing more likely hoaxed info to try to support the article, when she wsa the one who brought up the original hoaxed info in the first version of the article. The games spammers play. DreamGuy 03:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hay I think I'd watch those comments. In a court of law you'd be sued. Actually, The Times might sue you if they heard your accusations about calling their article a hoax, as might the National Geographic Channel. Oh yes, they're all hoaxes...a paper bag also doesn't exsist...ok then. Englishrose 07:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

South Asia

This article fails WP:V, likley NOR. I know this, because I have verified aladin's birthplace, and it is NOT south asia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I couldn't find a solid reference on birth location, so did not include birthplace in the most recent version of the article, which can be seen here. I would have placed the rewrite at Aladin (magician) but the page was protected. Can you please state what birthplace you did verify though, and how? Simply saying that you "verified it and know what it's not" is a bit vague. Thanks. Elonka 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect request

A further link with additional press sources and quotes should be added to the "External Links" section:
* (Unverified) List of press sources and quotes Elonka 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Link to add to the "References" section:
  • The Book of Cool, 2005, DVD. Trailer has a brief video clip of Aladin performing. (click on the picture of the cards to start the clip)
- Elonka 06:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous category

Please remove from Category:Magicians. -- Krash 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is sufficient to have it in Category:British magicians. Elonka 05:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Can anyone verify the existance of this firm? The times article talks about "billion dollar deals." Deals of that size have publicity outside of a puff vanity single-sourced piece. I see no reason to believe the firm in question exists. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unknown as a magician

I've done some research...

  • English magic fan site - Nothing
  • International Magic - inofficial European championships (highly respected). Nothing.
  • "Gold Turban Award" - a search on Google: just 1 single person mention this unknown award, just 1 single person seem to have got it.
  • Inside Magic mention a fantastic press story in Oxford Student about someone they've never heard about.
  • Magic Week an english news site that takes pride in tracking all public magic appearances. 1 single mention - about a fantastic story in Oxford Student.
  • Magic Times which tracks magic events over the world, mentions only the same story. (and they would not miss an event with 800 magicians and a billion viewers).
  • Oxford Student - But there's nothing there, though other pieces from the same period is there. Removed?
  • - is claimed to have been running for 6-7 years, with big clients. Why on a free server with ads then?
  • event he produced and compered…in which 800 international magicians took part. It was broadcast to more than a billion viewers 800 international magicians? Billion viewers? Something like that would have made big waves in the magic community.. The forum at the international magazine Genii says - Nothing.
  • The biggest site for skilled amateur magicians Magic Cafe - Nothing
  • I called Lennart Green (I'm author and illustrator of one of Lennart's booklets) and he can't recall that anyone introduced him to Ricky Jay back in the 80's.
  • Viewed the clip where they sell the DVD "Book of Cool" - Nothing noteworthy: average skill, basic technique, David Blaine-persona.
  • Nothing of substance turn up, no matter which thread I follow. It's all circulary interlinked self-references.

So.. Not noteworthy as a magician: Unknown among other magicians and the public, both within and outside England. But in the terms of being a con-man, weaver of deception, mythomaniac..Definitely noteworthy. It would be a public service to keep the page and debunk the claims.--TStone 08:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research, thank you. My own thinking is that the individual himself is notable, but that emphasizing the "magician" title in the article title is probably improper. I would recommend moving the page to his real name, Eenasul Fateh, and describing him in a more complete way -- that he's the son of a man who was in the Bangladesh "government in exile", that he has some minor notability as the magician "Aladin", that he and his family were the subject of a National Geographic documentary, and that he is an advisor to the Mayor of London. That seems more appropriate than the Aladin (magician) article title. Elonka 17:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and furthermore I can't believe that this article is up for a third AfD in a month. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still think it should be removed outright (not notable), but if the current AfD results in a keep, I would absolutely back your suggestion (move to proper name), good idea. Peter S. 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to be certain about his heritage then? Wouldn't be the first time someone "adopt" someone useful as parents. If tracking the decendants of the politician, from that direction, would we find yet another Eenasul Fateh? There's nothing in the pattern of exaggerations that speaks against a such scenario. --TStone 19:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Based on what I read at Talk:Abul Fateh, multiple generations (Abul Fateh and his sons) were all represented in a National Geographic documentary. There also used to be a reference at the Abul Fateh page, placed by User:Aloodum, who claims to have seen the documentary, that Abul's "younger son" was Eenasul Fateh, though that reference was later deleted by Mukadderat (within about a week of the Mukadderat account being created, I might add). I've also found a reference that showed Aladin performing at a Bangladeshi charity [11]. He is listed there as "guest speaker Aladin, consultant and part-time magician", which sounds accurate. Anyway, those references tend to make me believe Eenasul's own claims -- they're all consistent. At least, I'm not aware of any reference anywhere that tries to cite him as a different nationality? I'm open to other evidence indicating otherwise. Elonka 19:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
According to a sockpuppet check, Aloodum (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet. Any reference added by him needs to be verified. I am yet to find any independent reference (rather than "I watched a documentary" claims) showing the relation between Abul Fateh and Aladin. Can anyone provide primary sources? Also, Mr. Abul Fateh was not a politician, rather a Foreign Department official (first foreign secretary of Bangladesh, to be exact). There is high chance that he is the father of Aladin, but I need to see a primary source showing that before mentioning it in the article. Also, that does NOT make aladin famous (being son of x,y,z). Thanks. --Ragib 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point about Aloodum. If he has been confirmed as a sockpuppet, then I agree, that puts his other edits into doubt. In that case, the only source that I'm aware of which confirms any kind of link, is the National Geographic webpage blurb[12], which says, Aladin's father, a Bengali ambassador, fled from a diplomatic posting with the Pakistani embassy in Iraq. Aladin now sees himself as a Londoner. That's enough for me to confirm Aladin's ethnicity. The other information does check out, too, about Abul Fateh being connected to Pakistan[13], but I agree it might be unwise to put the name of his father in the article, unless a further reliable source can be found that conclusively links "Abul Fateh, ambassador" and "Eenasul Fateh, part-time magician". Elonka 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your time, properly invested?

Uhm people, just a short reality check. Question: we have verified that 90% of what this article is based on is bogus, entered by sockpuppets, targetted to dupe casual visitors into believing that this individual is important. Based on this evidence, why do you continue to invest countless hours to find info about a bogus fraudster? Do you really think your time is well invested here? I really don't get it, by know, many of you must have invested more hours to debunk and enhance the article that original sockpuppeteer has invested himself. Do you really think that your time and work is worth it? Do you really think that working on such a small, unimportant article in the big picture is worth your time? I'm not flaming or cursing, I'm genuinely interested what inner fire you girls and guys still keep on going with this article. Don't you just have had - enough? Your time must be in the dozens of hours already - for those few lines? Is that worth it? Aren't there other article that deserve more attention? Like I said, I'm curious why you guys don't think your time can be invested into something else with more value? Do you really think that your work is invested well here? If you earn $20 an hour, you have maybe invested $100 into this article, maybe only $40, maybe even $200 - is it worth spending your time & money for a bogus/fraudster article? As I said, I am really interested in your answers, not flaming or anything. Peter S. 22:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If this guy is still out there actively deceiving people, then an article debunking his claims IS a good idea. I think we need a section of the article devoted to "claims made" and "claims substantiated". Also, we need to be free to reference the goings-on here, at WP, as proof of deceptive intent. I know we don't usually reference happenings within WP in WP articles, but this seems to be an unusual case. The fact that this guy edits with sockpuppets is worth noting. Zora 22:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It took less than five minutes of my time to determine that aladin is an impressive guy. Time very well spent. -- JJay 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since you asked, Peter S.  :) Speaking for myself, I have four main motivations: (1) I honestly believe he's notable; (2) I'm an inclusionist (though I'm not sure if I'm using the word correctly in Wikipedia context) -- in other words, I believe that there should be Wikipedia pages on everyone who is even minorly notable, both because public recognition is a great motivator for people, and also because Wikipedia gets such high placement in the search engines, that I think it's a useful effort to provide "collaboratively edited pages", to help other people surfing the internet to separate fact from fiction; (3) I love puzzles, and this is a juicy one, as we sort through a whole box of puzzle pieces and figure out which ones actually fit, and which ones are fake; and (4) I'm an online community junkie (and I'm a primary source for some of the books about them) -- the entire Wikipedia concept fascinates me, and I'm actually quite honored to be a part of it. Deletion discussions are a great crucible in which to see the Wikipedia consensus process at work, so it makes sense to roll up my sleeves and dive into a few of them, and get first-hand knowledge of seeing them through to the end. As long as Wikipedia stays fun for me, and I have the time to devote to it, I'm going to keep participating. :) Elonka 05:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You're setting up a false premise anyway, Peter S, by attacking people's volunteerism as a "waste of time". No one here is getting paid for their work on Wikipedia, and therefore they get to choose what articles they work on. We're not a sweatshop where "ve must vork on de artikles!"; we have free will. Personally I find your suggestion that people here are "wasting their time" to be insulting whatever disclaimers you place on it; do we come over and mock your edits on software articles? Ideally, ALL information on Wikipedia exists somewhere else first, so you could follow a slippery slope to say that the entire project is a "waste of time". But I don't think you want to go there, do you? -- nae'blis (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Nae'blis, how many wordings of "I mean no harm and I am just interested" do you need to get the point that I am just genuinely interested and mean no harm? You surely gotta be watching that hot temper of yours, buddy. Peter S. 02:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • shrug* When people start implying that other editors are wasting their time because they are editing an article that is disputed, I don't find any number of disclaimers helpful, sorry. I'm not up in temper, because I'm not even editing this page. I'm that so-called outside observer. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point, Nae'blis. Especially since this has been such a hotly-contested issue, Peter S.'s post could have been interpreted either way. Speaking for myself, though Peter S. and I were definitely at opposite ends of the spectrum on how to deal with the article, I still did my best to look at his question with the assumption of good faith, and answer it as a sincere question. I'd like to think that he was genuinely curious. In any case, I'm glad that the AfD is over, and we can move on. One of my favorite quotes is, "The thing that changes a bunch of people from a simple 'group' into a 'team', is conflict, and whether or not they can figure out ways to work through it." Humans being the opinionated and individualized people that we are, we disagree on things. A lot. ;) But humans who can figure out ways to disagree, and still manage to work through the conflict and come out the other side, make a stronger team than those who can't figure out how to get past it. Personally, I respect Peter S. We may disagree on things, but as long as we treat each other with good faith and civility, we can both bring our differing opinions to an article and end up making the article better than it would have been with just one person's opinion. As a result of how he handled himself during this conflict, I see both of us as equal co-members of the Wikipedia team, and I look forward to working with him in the future, even if we continue to disagree! Elonka 08:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, Elonka. That's something I agree with :-) Peter S. 01:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ask? 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Bengali ambassador"

This phrasing is ignorant. When we say "German ambassador", this means "ambassador of Germany". Now, what would "Bengali ambassador" mean? The only guess is "and ambassador, bengali by nationality". But then the definition is meaningless again: ambassador of what? where? Mukadderat 12:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So who lives in the residence of the Dutch ambassador? [14]. Welcome to the English language-- JJay 12:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

While I think I am wrong, you missed my point: ethnicity and nationality do not necessarily coincide. My mistake was with my cursory reading: I somehow convinced myself that Abul Fateh, the most probable father, was Pakistani ambassador, when there was no such thing as Bangladesh. This was the time when he "flew for freedom" to London. I missed the part that he was made ambassador of Bangldesh while he was fled. (And also he was a thief, regardless his noble political motives)Mukadderat 17:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked it up, and "Bengali" is a commonly-used term to refer to "Bangladeshi". Sort of like "Bengal Tiger", I think. If it's not clear though, should we change it to "Bangladeshi", instead? Or do you have another suggestion, Mukadderat? Elonka 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It looke like I may be wrong here. Mukadderat 17:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking at that link, it seems to be talking about whilst Bangladesh was still East Pakistan, and he was at a Pakistani diplomatic mission. So, if we accept the claim, he certainly wasn't an Ambassador of Bangladesh. Morwen - Talk 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I explained simultaneously with you. But since we don't know when aladin was born, it is unclear whether he was son of Bengali or Pakistani ambassador. Mukadderat 17:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some explanations/clarifications: Bengali is a term generally applied to the Bengali language speaking people in both West Bengal, and East Bengal (which has been known as East Pakistan and Bangladesh at different times). Abul Fateh was an ambassador of Pakistan. He was a Bengali by ethnicity, a Pakistani by nationality, at the moment of his defection. However, he defected and became an emissary (I'm not sure of the official title) of the Govt. of Bangladesh in exile (The govt. was formed on April 17, 1971). So, it is not correct that he can't be the embassador of Bangladesh as well, he might be so (I don't have the documents to look it up). In any case, using the term "Ambassador of Bangladesh" is more correct than using "Bengali ambassador", because a Bengali is not necessarily a Bangladeshi, a Bengali can easily be an Indian from West Bengal. By the way, calling Abul Fateh a "thief" is not fair, that way, everyone fighting on the side of a n independence war would be called traitors.

Now that the Bengali/Bangladeshi thing is clear, I am curious on why it matters in *this* article. Being the son of Abul Fateh certainly does not make Eeanasul Fateh anything special. I don't see this fact worthy of mention in more than half of a sentence. Besides, where exactly is it written that aladin/Eeanasul Fateh/son of Abul Fateh are all the same person? Show me!! --Ragib 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That was a great explanation. Otherwise, you are right, the issue relates to the page on the father more than the son. -- JJay 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ragib, my own feeling is that it's proper to say that Eenasul is the son of an ambassador, because that's what it says on the National Geographic page. As for whether Eenasul is the son of Abul, I agree, that's not yet proven. There's sure plenty of circumstantial evidence implying it (ethnicity, refugee status, location), but I'd personally want to see another verifiable link before I'd signoff on it. I'd be willing to lay money that it's in the NGC documentary though, where they probably list everyone's names. I wish it was something that was showing in the US, so I could TiVo it! Elonka 03:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on the two points you make. Thanks. --Ragib 04:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move debate was move from aladin (magician) to Eenasul Fateh. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move proposal

I would like to formally suggest moving this page from Aladin (magician) to Eenasul Fateh, which would seem a more appropriate title. Opinions? Elonka 12:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe he is better known under his real name? I haven't seen any evidence of that. -- JJay 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. I'll change the proposal. How's that? Elonka 13:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion, although I would note that the press invariably refers to him just as aladin. Why is Eenasul Fateh more appropriate?

I'm in support of a change because it's apparent that 'magician' is not the role that he's MOST famous for; whether that actual role is (shyster) or (minor political functionary) or whatever remains to be seen. By moving to his real name (we HAVE established this is his real, real name, right?), we can avoid immediate suppositions about what his claim to fame may be, and concentrate on making the article more accurate. Since there's so much opposition to "aladin" (though I admit I don't understand it, exactly...we seem to manage to have Crystal and Krystal and Cristal without any problem), using a legal name and redirecting/disambiguating aladin may be better overall. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't care what the page is called, but being a magician is what aladin is known for, based on the sources we have. If you have other printed information please bring it to our attention, otherwise let's stop the name calling here ok? Shyster and functionary are completely out of line. Wikipedia is not yet a forum for slander and libel. -- JJay 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No.. he is (by now) known for claiming to be known as a magician, and also noteable for being the cause of a huge debate on an internet encyclopedia. But being known as a magician is simply untrue --TStone 06:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Look , for the last time, your opinion and my opinion do not matter. Aladin is known for how he is described in the press. He is described as a magician. The word "claim" has not entered into it nor, to date, has wikipedia. Until someone publishes an expose on aladin, or submits valid sources that provide an alternative view, we have no right to dispute the material we have available to build this entry. Furthermore, the continued speculation in that direction, and your comment above, contravene wikipedia policy. I suggest everyone here read wikipedia:verification and specifically the section entitled "verification, not truth". It provides a nice summary of what we do here. The personal attacks on this page, which have repeatedly crossed the line into the realm of libel and slander, must also cease. Wikipedia is not a forum to post attacks against people that one doesn't like. -- JJay 12:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And hopefully it never will be. However my point was not to actually advocate for those monikers, but to point out that some of the evidence is based around his political activities, and/or his possible operation of alkhemi (or however you spell that). We probably shouldn't need a disambiguator at all since his spelling is unique, but there's been some resistance to that. *shrug* I don't have a dog in this fight... sorry if I gave the impression of name calling. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, please accept my apologies as I misinterpreted what you meant. -- JJay 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Look JJay, there's no bad sentiment involved here. If anything, I feel pity on the guy. Mythomania is a medical disorder, and it's no more slanderous to point that out, than to point out any other disorder that is apparant in public, especially when it is a disorder that might hurt other people. And there's nothing bad in being unknown. --TStone 14:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree. Your disingenuous comment regarding "mythomania" and speculation regarding aladin's health is futher slander. If you have a source that discusses this "disorder" in reference to the subject of this article then point us to it so we can incorporate the info into the article. Otherwise, your "pity" is irrelevant and tiresome and your comment has no foundation beyond your POV. This is equally true for the personal opinions of everyone involved with this page. We are here to compile sources into an encyclopedia article. We are not here to "pity", speculate, pontificate or destroy character. -- JJay 14:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The phone number to Magic Academy Bangalore is found here, so it's not impossible to check with them. It might be the same business as mentioned here. Or not, as there are several Magic Academies in India. Perhaps a check with another award-winning magician might reveal if there exist a Gold Turban Award?
Come on JJay..He say he rub shoulders with the greats, but he does not. He claim to have introduced Lennart Green to Ricky Jay, but that's not true. Claims to be great with cards, but evidece says average. Magic Academy Bangladore turns out to be either a small magic club or a one-man business. Gold Turban Award is an unknown award that no one in the business has heard about, and is only known from his own pressrelease. 800 international magician at a convention he arranged? - if that was true I would know at least 50-60 of them, and would probably have been booked myself. Over a billion viewers - compare that with Copperfield's ratings world-wide. He is unknown among amateur magicians and magic-fans in England, unknown among professional magicians both within and outside england. He quotes his own pressrelease from a page where they mention that they've never heard about him before... If you want, I can check further with Chris Power, J.J. David Berglas, Stephen Tucker, David Britland... but how is that going to make things better? And isn't it kinder to refer to a compusive behaviour, when the alternatives are worse? Illness and slander is not equal. Check out DSM-IV for definition of the condition before putting moral value on it. Destruction of character has more to do with people insisting to drag him into the light, than to point out that the information is made-up. If I claim to be King of Arabia, and you tell me I'm not - would anyone consider you to be out of line? This is the identical thing. The quotes from his press kit are all there is, no independent verification of his noteability as a magician is to be found. --TStone 18:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

TStone, you are clearly still confused regarding what we do here. I have already pointed out that this page does not exist for you to make accusations. It is also not a debating society. I have never spoken to aladin and do not know what he claims. I do know what I read in published sources. That is the only thing that interests me. Not your speculation or that of your friends. Not your opinion on magic, bookings or anything else. Please link to some sources or stop wasting my time with your endless claims and opinions. -- JJay 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So what published source of independent information have you read? It is true, I'm getting confused, because I had the impression that the point was to have accurate and verifiable information here. What you are asking for is impossible, because you can't prove a negative in these cases. His claim to have introduced Lennart Green to Ricky Jay for example - no matter how hard you look, you will never find a published source that says "Mr. Green have never met aladin".. because why would anyone publish all the people he hasn't met? If I ask Lennart to come here and post that fact himself doesn't help, because that's "original research" - even Lennart would be stumped at that challenge; finding it in print that he has not met someone he doesn't know. Proving a negative is not how it is supposed to be. I can put out a webpage where I claim to be King of Arabia today. Get a few other places to comment on it, and use edited quotes from their comments. And no matter how hard you search, you will never find a printed source saying that I'm not King of Arabia... therefore you should print my claim as truth?
This doesn't differ at all - no matter how hard you look, you'll never find a reliable publication saying "he is unknown as a magician", because it is impossible to keep track on all the people who are unknown. Also, I fail to see what I might have said that is considered an accusation - you are seeing ill will where there is none. There is nothing inherently bad in in being unknown as a magician, so why the assumption of bad faith?--TStone 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Btw, you said that you were uninterested in "your speculation or that of your friends" which seems odd, since I have quite a lot of experience in recognizing and tracking information of historic relevance in this field. Discounting that, I thought it would be of interest to see if there's any documentation known to the editors of trade magazine Opus, arrangers of the Opus convention, a known card worker/inventor, a known historian (and noted card worker) and a president of The Magic Circle. But I see that an easily impressed young woman at Oxford Student have more "weight" in these matters --TStone 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've read the Times articles among others. Since you are confused about wikipedia policy, I'm going to paste in the whole section for your perusal:
Verifiability, not truth
Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet the physicist, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.
Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?
For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia, you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it would be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.
It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important.
If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source.
I hope this clears some things up for you. -- JJay 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm perfectly clear on the topic of verifiability, that's why I have not posted anything on the actual page, because there exists no verification. But, to use the example above - if a whole bunch of people here are having trouble finding verification on Theory X, and you yourself are a noted physisist who has never even heard the name of this "famous" physisist, and neither have your collegues around the world. Would it be unjust of you to post a hint about it on a talk page then - to ensure that people's efforts get a bigger chance to end up with something useful? You can't ask for verification of the fact that there is no verification - because that is an impossible task. It is impossible to prove a negative, see discussions related to Occhams razor. And just 1-2 clippings from local mainstream press doesn't support noteability, you need well over 20-30 unrelated clippings for that. Oh well, I might be way out of line compared to established format in this culture, so I will refrain from making it worse. I've posted to your talk page--TStone 12:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If I may... I think the distinction that TStone is trying to make, is that though Aladin may indeed be a magician who has been noted in the mainstream press, he does not seem to be a magician who has been noted by any other reputable professional magician press. There are multiple periodicals, associations, and websites which cater to the magic industry, which keep track of notable magicians. If there were a magician who were truly world-famous, the recipient of major legitimate awards, or the organizer of major industry-recognized conventions, his name would be mentioned in the industry press. But it is not. To use your example from the "Verifiability" policy, I see this as analogous to someone saying that they have made a major scientific discovery, which language is picked up in a local newspaper, but is repeatedly ignored by reputable scientific magazines. Unless someone can produce an industry source that confirms Aladin's notability, I just don't think that putting "(magician)" in the article title is accurate. A further point would be whether or not he's professional, in that his primary source of income is from his performances. Is he a full-time consultant who does magic part-time? A full-time magician who does part-time consulting? Or an independently wealthy young man who has a serious hobby? If he's a professional magician, where are his performances this month? Most nightclubs and theaters have websites that list upcoming performances. Or is he just standing on the street and performing for spare change? And if so, where? Which plaza or street corner? Elonka 20:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Was he making that distinction when he expressed his "pity", or discussed aladin's "disorder", or talked about his "friends" that he would call to verify aladin's stature? There are ways that conflicting viewpoints are handled here, both on talk pages and in the article space. Mr. TStone and some of the others seem to be more interested in name calling than developing an encyclopedia. -- JJay 20:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Jjay, I agree with you that I think that some of TStone's words were poorly chosen, though I hope we can still assume good faith, since English is not his primary language. I have verified references of TStone's notability, which can be seen at Tom Stone (magician), and I welcome TStone's contributions to this discussion, as an expert on the subject who can give us some valuable insight on industry perspective -- at least here on the discussion page, if not via original research in an actual article.
User TStone, could I make a request of you though, to reconsider the comment about a potential mental condition, and delete your comment, or "refactor" it by inserting some more appropriate term? I would ask you to consider how it might feel in your case, if Aladin posted on the discussion page at your own article, that he felt that you had a mental condition. Regardless of whether or not the accusation was accurate, it could be perceived as a very serious type of libel (a legal term which basically means printing malicious and false information about someone in a public medium). Wikipedia policies involve maintaining a tone of civility when possible, so it's best to be careful about using very negative terms. Thanks. Elonka 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if Tstone is the magician that has a page here and don't really care. This talk page is not meant to be an outlet for unemployed performers and other blowhards to sound off on whatever happens to be on their mind. Regardless of his credentials, and despite any potential impediment with the English language, this user has knowingly and repeatedly persisted in posting slanderous remarks concerning the perceived mental state of the subject of this article. That is completely out of order and would frankly be even more sad if Mr. TStone was actually a known entity, rather than someone airing a grudge. -- JJay 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to support this proposal, he seems to be most famous for the London Cultural Strategy Group thing, where he doesn't do magic tricks. Peter S. 01:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

2 Possible Sources?

I've just noticed these two pages: NKDale and Minority-Report. To be perfectly honest I have no idea how reliable these sources are and I don't think they give us anything new. But I thought I'd let you check them out first. Englishrose 15:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move - Consensus

I'm starting this again just to make sure it's clear (this page is getting sooooooooo long). We have consensus to move the page from Aladin (magician) to Eenasul Fateh, yes? This makes sense both because he's better known as his real name than Aladin, and also because he appears to interchangeably use both "Aladin" and "Danial" as stage names. The Eenasul Fateh name is available, and has no content at this point except for a redirect.

It looks like supporters of the move are: User:Elonka, User:Peter S., User:Nae'blis, User:TStone, user:mukadderat , User:Ragib

That's correct :-) Peter S. 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't care: User:JJay

Anyone else? Oppose/support a move to Eenasul Fateh? Elonka 15:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually at this point he seems non-notable enough to be gone entirely (though I believe we should keep this page at Talk:aladin or Talk:Eenasul_Fateh, or refactor them into one). He's not notable as a magician, civil servant, refugee, or even as an imposter (as the research done above shows). He's just some guy. I'm ordinarily a mergist, but there's nothing to merge to. Correct/update his reference in any articles dealing with the task force he was involved in, or his youth work, but delink them and delete. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that. The struggle to produce factual, verifiable information is a good indicator of a too-low level of significance and coverage. If we don't have enough info to produce a neutral, verifiable article on this guy, he should not have an article. Friday (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
And I'm still at "Strong Keep". We've already gone through three AfD debates on this article within the last month. The consensus is Keep, along with some comments like "Give the article time to breathe". In other words, information to go into the article is still being gathered, and it is premature to put the article up for another deletion discussion so soon. My recommendation is that we move the article to Eenasul Fateh for now, continue discussing it, and then in 30 days if there's still a strong feeling that the notability is in question, we can re-examine the question of whether or not it should be deleted. Does that sound fair? Elonka 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me, Elonka. Peter S. 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason for a move at this time, particularly given the confusion displayed on this page regarding aladin's real name. -- JJay 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've got the same concerns as JJay, here. Danial Fateh may be just as valid; really I'd prefer to see it at aladin, but the redirection effort may have made that impossible. If we do keep for a month, we need to trim it again to verifiable information (which may not even include his legal name at this point). Elonka what do you expect to happen in the next 30 days, realistically? -- nae'blis (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
He's listed as Eenasul Fateh in the London press releases, and when we check the "Whois" on the websites, if they resolve to a real name, it's usually to "Eenasul Fateh" as well. As for the next 30 days, Englishrose is trying to get in contact with him directly, we're still researching magician industry press, plus we can go to libraries and actually try to look for microfilm/hardcopy of some of the articles listed. Not all research has to be done via Google.  ;) Elonka 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moving a page while we are talking about the move is very bad form, Elonka. Please try to collaborate constructively. -- JJay 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We had consensus, JJay. Every person who had commented on it said they supported it. Even people who wanted the article deleted, were supporting the name change. Some people didn't say whether they supported or opposed a move, but there wasn't a single person who said "Don't move it", until you popped up and changed your vote. Elonka 17:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't "pop up" or "change my vote". I expressed an opinion. Your reaction, i.e. immediately moving the page in response, was wrong. You need to learn to work with others here. There was no urgency to move the page. -- JJay 17:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry JJay, I didn't "immediately move the page in response", they were more or less simultaneous. I moved the page, and then saw that you had posted an objection. I was going on what you'd said in the earlier discussion, where you said that you didn't care one way or the other. But I'm fine on re-discussing it to ensure that we have a valid consensus before moving it. Elonka 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, good luck. Me personally, I take a lack of reliable sources about a topic to be an indication that maybe it does not belong in an encyclopedia. This has been being worked on for a long time, and there's still confusion over his name? That is not a good sign. Also, keep in mind that getting information directly from the subject is original research and whatever information comes from that should not be used in article. Friday (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Friday, agreed. I wouldn't trust anything just because the subject said it. But, in writing biographies, I have learned that the subject may often be able to suggest other sources that we haven't thought of. Elonka 17:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That’s my main objective. To ask him questions about the validity of some of his claims and how to find the board that issued the “International Magician of the Year” to see if it exists etc.

I’m trusting that he’s read my e-mail due to his response of changing the site and domain names all of a sudden. Maybe that’s just coincidence but I find it hard to believe that after 4 years that he changed where it was pointing to. The Danial site was created 2 years after the aladin site. He also deleted a personal site that belongs to him on I should have figured it out sooner but it took me a while to recognise the picture of the carpet from his Danial site. A google cache is here. I don’t want to go into in too far depth because it’s all theory…but if you read the words of the cache and his other site] it seems he is trying to give the impression of an illusion or deception. E.g, he uses phrases such as “those flowers? they are not real either”. At one point I was wondering whether this is just a game or even his own illusion.

Both his numbers go to an answer phone with the same Indian/American(ish) voice. None of them refer to him as aladin or Danial. One simply refers to him as “the magician”. It might prove difficult to get in touch with him.

As for his name, the majority of his sites are registered as “Eenasul Fateh”. Englishrose 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move part 2

After Elonka had moved the main page, belivign (or saying, in any case) that consensus for thsi move had been achieved, i did the soemwhat tricky work of archiving the talk page formerly at Talk:Eenasul_Fateh, and movign this talk page. It now seemss that I was too hasty, adn that there was not clear consensus for this move. i apologize.

Please discuss the move further here. i will galdly move it back to Aladin (magician), or over to aladin, or whatever the consesus is. I personally have no strong feeligns about which title is best. I strongly ask User:Elonka, not to move this again, and not to declare consensus when people are still discussing. Please either get me, or a previously uninvolved admin or experienced user to do any further move that may be agreed upon. There are two archived talk pages that should also be moved, and there may be redirects to clean up. If consensus is reavhed I promise to respect it, adn to do whatever move is agreed on (of any) adn all needed cleanup, unless people ask another editor to do it. DES (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I also ask peoplek NOT to move war, nor to move without discussion again. DES (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DES, I didn't realize Elonka had started the move process and you just finished it (due to the tricky multiple talk pages). Didn't mean to jump down your throat, just took me off guard when I got an edit conflict while discussing the move, saying the page was now a redirect. o_0 -- nae'blis (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. sorry DES, I honestly believed that we did have consensus. I counted the comments in the earlier discussion, posted a summary, and confirmed. I agree to not do any further page moves until everyone's had a chance to weigh in again. Elonka 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now moved the archived talk pages so that everything links from here, and there are no double redirects. From the timestamps, it appears that Elonka started the move just before User:JJay posted his objection, not after having seen it. However it really would have been better to wait a bit longer for responses confirming consensu given past controversy on thsi page. I also should have double checked beore moving the talk page. For that I apologize. I now ask everyone to discuss the merits of a move, if any, calmly and civily without personal attacks, and without assuming bad faith for the move and its reversion today. I also ask that when and if consensus for any move is achieved, that you request some relatively univolved editor (and i offer to be that editor, but feel free to pick soemone else) to do the move after confirming consensus to move. Taht will avoid accusations of bias in doing anfy move, and avoid move wars. I have no particualr feeling on where the page should be, so i feel uninvolved in the move issue. Note that there are at least 4 pages involved -- the article page, this talp page, and two archived talk pages, plus possible redirect pages. DES (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move - Straw Poll

Please post a clear vote on the question: Should Aladin (magician) be moved to Eenasul Fateh? Support or oppose? 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support - He uses multiple stage names (Aladin, Danial), and the London press releases refer to him as "Eenasul Fateh", so he's also notable as that name as well. It is also not clear whether or not he's genuinely notable as a magician, since there is a lack of references (or disparaging references, if anything) in the magician trade magazines. Because of that (no industry corroboration), I believe that having "(magician)" in the article title feels a bit too much like free promotion for him. Elonka 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd rather move it to /dev/null but I see that's already taken. Friday (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- Seems more appropriate than Aladin or Danial. Englishrose 18:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - rather than taking his word for his stage name(s), let's use his real name. --Ragib 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Indifferent as long as aladin remains a disambig. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Questions regarding aladin's name that have recently arisen and the continuing fight surrounding the removal of comments from the Eenasul Fateh talk page as demanded by Elonka make me extremely hesitant at this point to move this page. I also think the remark above regarding "free promotion" is absurd. If that's the objection, why not just remove magician from the name (because aladin is not a disambig, it's a redirect). At the very least, let's not rush into a change at this point (i.e. give at least a few days for people to comment). -- JJay 19:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    aladin is a redirect to a disambig, which is basically the same as being a disambig itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Not famous for performing magic, the London press release name and whois entries match for Eenasul Fateh. Peter S. 20:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • support. mikka (t) 00:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This poll has now been open for 4 days, and no one but JJay seems to object to the proposed move (although some don't like the article itself at all). I think we are approaching a consensus here. Does anyone else still object to this move? DES (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd say we go ahead and move the page, there seems to be a pretty good consensus. Peter S. 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a single message in the past 7 days, so I (or somebody else?) will go ahead and move the page tomorrow. Cheers, Peter S. 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Elonka 23:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
S'okay by me; I'll do it in a couple of hours once I get home, if no one objects. Whoever does it should remember to take the subpages/archives along for the ride. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, we're counting on you, Nae'blis! :-) Peter S. 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


We should probably get the Aladin pictures re-added in the article as soon as possible. I tracked one of them down, and saw that it had been flagged for deletion for lack of source, effective today. I changed the date to give a few more days of leeway, but the other images are probably similarly flagged. If we don't find and fix the others, they're probably going to disappear as well. Elonka 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt those pics are public domain. -- JJay 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
One thing with the pictures: as the aladin video in the links in for promotional purposes for the Book of Cool, we can take a screen-shot of it and it would qualify under fair use or so believe...Englishrose 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a screenshot for identification purposes, of a video or a webpage, is fair use. It doesn't put it into public domain, but it does make it usable. Elonka 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've posted the NGC pic, and found the b&w head shot, "Aladinweb.jpg". I'm not sure what source to put on it though. The "cards" pic was deleted, but I've grabbed a copy from cache and re-uploaded it: . Does anyone have suggestions on how to mark license? Elonka 04:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The following paragraph that was just added appears to be a "hatchet job" and raises a number of problems:

His notability is controversial, as he has been covered more in the mainstream press than in publications about respected magicians. There are multiple "official" Aladin websites with great claims about his accomplishments, though many of them do not stand up to scrutiny. For example, one website says that he is "only one of two recipients of the Golden Turban award" from the "fabled" Magic Academy of Bangalore, but no other respected industry periodicals ever refer to such an Academy, and the award itself is unknown. Another website claims the award of "International Magician of the Year", implying a prestigious award by a respected institution such as Magic Castle, but instead it turned out to be from a minor Alternative Arts festival in the UK, with no standing in the industry. An article at a Danish website claims that Aladin "has been crowned the world’s best illusionist several times", but considering the complete lack of references to him in other press, this claim too is doubtful.[3

1) The only place that's aladin's "notability" (whatever that means) is controversial is here. We can not claim that he is controversial if no one in the real world makes that claim. To date, there is no evidence that he is controversial, except at wikipedia. 2) claims on offical websites- if there are "official websites" they have to be identified. If they make claims, the most we can say is that the claims have not been verified. We can not claim that they "do not stand up to scrutiny" at this point. We also can not refer to unnamed websites, because the phrase is meaningless. 3) speculation about the industry standing of various awards or festivals is meaningless. That type of assertion must be sourced to a reference that makes the claim- we can not postulate on "respected industry publications". In short, the whole addition is vague and largely devoid of any sense. -- JJay 02:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is confirmation of the controversy in the article at the Magic Times: "Aladin is featured in an Oxford Student article where they describe several impossible sounding pieces"[15]. I'm open to rewriting the section, but please don't just wholesale remove it -- can you think of a way it should be rewritten? Elonka 04:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in this little blurb you linked to that implies anything resembling controversy. I don't see anything that relates to "notability" also (which is not a concept). Quotations from unnamed websites are not encyclopedic. The fact that you are trying to build an encyclopedia entry around anonymous claims, unknown websites and speculation is bizarre. -- JJay 05:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's the "inclusionist" in my nature. For example, I also agree that there should be Wikipedia articles on industry speculation about upcoming books and movies, though I know that many people disagree with that stand. In other words, I sometimes (not always) see Wikipedia as an appropriate place to collect "current thinking" or "central synthesis" information. Not quite as extreme as making Wikipedia an urban legend debunking site (which would require perhaps more in original research than would fit the scope of the project), but I see nothing wrong with the occasional reasonable inference, even if it hasn't specifically appeared in print.
I noticed you put a POV template on it... Which part of the language do you think is non-neutral, and how would you recommend changing it? Also, the Magic Times blurb of "several impossible sounding pieces"... If that does not sound like controversy to you, how are you interpreting the phrase? What do you think it means? Elonka 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
A blurb that refers to a source that we have not seen, is not a valid source. If I had to parse the one line that you seem to feel is meaningful, I would suggest that "impossible sounding" could be equated to difficult. Regarding the NPOV tag, I would have thought that my comment above adequately expressed my thinking. "Notability" is not a topic that is discussed in the article space. It is self referential since, by definition, all subjects addressed by the encyclopedia are notable. Furthermore, the construction and language of your paragraph are deceitful. The repeated emphasis on "respected sources" has no meaning. These sources are not named and I for one would be curious to know which sources are "respected" and which are "disreputable". I would also like to know when and with what tools a comprehensive search was performed on these "respected sources". Furthermore, the para mentions "multiple websites", "one website", "another website" and a "Danish website". While the mental contortions displayed in not naming the websites is highly impressive, I should think that the subject should at least have the right to face his accusers. I would also again point out that "websites" are mostly not considered to be valid sources for wikipedia. -- JJay 07:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point on the lack of references. However, I am still confused by what you mean about the language being "deceitful"? In any case, I have rewritten the paragraph, please take a look and tell if you still think that it violates POV? Elonka 12:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read Elonka's para and I like it! IMHO, it is restrained, NPOV, and totally unexceptionable. A great addition to the article. Zora 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Every single quote is distorted. Keep working on it maybe, but right now it is still a joke. -- JJay 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Lie exposed

I mentioned several times (in vain) that at his website he conventionally clipped out the name out of the "The Times" quotation, which at his webpage is quoted literally like this:

"Used to use his sleight of hand to broker billion-dollar deals... the mystical cardmeister..." .

Well, the actual Times text is thus:

"Alaudin Ahmed used to use his sleight of hand to broker million-dollar deals."

. Notice, not aladin, not Abrakadabra Fatex, but Alaudin Ahmed! Elonka, I am really sorry for your wasting your time on SHAMELESS LIAR!!! 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mukadderat (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

  • Two points here. 1) This is not your home or the schoolyard. Try to keep your discourse at an intelligent level. 2) Aren't you the guy who denied the Times ever printed a story? Who changed the reference, etc. -- JJay 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Three points back: (1) Did I offend anyone but this liar? I only expressed sorry for needlessly wasted time. (2) No, I am the guy tht claimed it was printed in The Saturday Times Magazine edition (see exact reference in the aladin's website), which is not the same as The Times. (3) If you are questioning my quotations, they are rock solid facts printed in electrons. Mukadderat 21:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I guess you are still confused then by the reference...also aladin's website truly doesn't interest me. Lastly, I have repeatedly asked that people stop making wild statements such as that above. You have seriously offended me. This is not a forum for you to vent. Your words (i.e. typing "shameless liar" in all caps) reflect extremely poorly on the intellectual integrity of this project. If you can not find another way to express your ideas, find another use for your time. -- JJay 22:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What exactly is confusing? That the person deliberately lied in his website? And you are not interested in this? And you are not interested who is "Alaudin Ahmed" described in the real newspaper? Yeah, "intellectual integrity" is the word. Mukadderat 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm interested in reducing the level of hysteria displayed on this page. The title you gave to this section, the use of all caps etc. does not contribute to that goal. -- JJay 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • It does contribute my goal to attract some attention to a specific and clear example of lie, previously dismissed and forgotten amid debates. I took pain to find the original article (no one bothered to read so far, I guess). Please read: "Emphasis". Mukadderat 22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I repeat- there is no need for hysteria. Try to understand that. Furthermore, the line you just added to the article makes no sense at all. -- JJay 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Which line? If you are speaking the one about "Alaudin Ahmed": don't you see the different name? Mukadderat 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, so, what point are you trying to make exactly? -- JJay 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          • In the article I am not maiking any points; it would be original research. I am simply mentioning fact that The Times writes about some "Alaudin Ahmed". You may interpret this fact however you want. For example you may start wondering who the heck this Ahmed is. For example, I don't know. Do you? Mukadderat 03:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't worry, the article already crossed the line into OR, once people started trying to disprove claims on websites. Besides that, you previously denied that the Times magazine did a feature on aladin. Now you say the Times did do a feature but not about the subject of this article. We've been down this road before and I'm tired of debating the point. The 1998 Times magazine feature was on aladin, the subject of this article. If you don't want to believe it that's your business. But everything in that feature corresponds to our description of aladin. -- JJay 04:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Dear sir, you have a short attention span. I denied that The Times had the feature. I was saying and said it today, and say it again: it was The Saturday Times Magazine. If you don't see the difference like between Acura and Honda, well, what can I do. And I don't have to believe in anything. And I don't want to do pattern recognition, feature matching and dactyloscopy. All what I am saying that right before your eyes is the name, "Alaudin Ahmed". You are claiming he is aladin. And aladin is Eenasul Fateh. And now they say he is someone else... Suit yourself. I am retiring from this silly subject and do something useful. Inshallah. Mukadderat 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi I've got some more shocking info on aladin which I am currently preparing, which will really catch you by suprise and I mean it is big, it is confusing and it is very odd. Regardless of my info and your info, the same still applies that aladin worked on the London mayoral thingy for Ken Livingstone, his family were on the National Geographic channel etc etc. Brace yourself...I'm in shock but I still think he's notable just for those reasons but there's something that will cause you to choke. I'm preparing it now. Englishrose 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • We are all suspense.... Come ON!!! Mukadderat 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't push me. Englishrose 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

New Info- Please Read. Important. Please Review ASAP

Right...I've tracked down Aladin's address. I don't know whether I should list it here. Who is Just type in Ok, now for the interesting stuff.

I searched for his address on google and found what could be Aladin's alter ego-"Danial" who is registered at the same address. In the Splut search engine, he is described as "Danial is a world class magician based in London. Perfect for special occasion entertainment, adaptable, personable and sophisticated" and also a London search engine [16]. I then tracked down his website: Danial Site. In the magic section the picture of the man dealing the cards comes from an aladin picture, which was on here (the one of this talk page). The site is also is also registered to “Eenasul Fateh”. [17]

I also found. another page about Aladin containing his address [18].

Whether this makes him notable or less notable is debatable. Basically, the previous info we've found on him still applies. He worked in the London mayoral election for Ken Livingstone, his family is on the National Geographic Channel documentary etc. However, I feel this shows him in a completely different light. My research is continuing and I am hoping to contact Aladin himself to find out some answers to what is going on. Englishrose 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Update. I've found the personal site of [ is also registered by Eenasul Fateh.[19]This probably proves nothing but you can look into it. It is significant for me because it offers new leads, which I'll look into. Not sure if it will bring out up though. The site that the domain points to is also registered by aladin. Just to clarify things. He's not pointing the domain to somebody elses site. Englishrose 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: Aladin's voicemail does not refer to him as Danial or aladin or Eenasul Fateh but as "the magician". I found that rather strange. I may sound irrelevant but if he has two alter egos then it proves that he doesn't want to give away a different name to the expected one, so he around it by refering himself as the magician. Englishrose 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One pic at danial website is a faceless clipping (hand with cards) of a photo from aladin website. Mukadderat 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing shocking in your findings. The person desperately tries to make money. The question is, though, should wikipedia help him become more famous? Mukadderat 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that what we have here is an imposter -- specifically, the kind that adopts several successive identities, and seems to get some sort of satisfaction out of successfully fooling people. We have claims to being a businessman, brokering multi-million dollar deals, being ANOTHER magician, and finally, establishing several identities on Wikipedia. I myself was fooled by the Autumnleaf identity. Autumnleaf claimed to be a publicist in New Delhi and edited several Bollywood-related articles (quite well, actually). This new identity was cultivated for several months before it was used to counter debunking claims against aladin.
How long before aladin claims that all of this was an exercise in performance art? Zora 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: At Wed, 1 Feb 2006 02:29:47 EST shortly after I'd sent aladin an e-mail asking him to confirm that he had two identies, the site was pointed to another location. Although the domain is still registered with Eenasul Fateh it now points to the whitehouse site instead of the site for his other identity. Englishrose 09:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Using my temporary internet files I've now managed to locate the site that the domain was originally pointing to, which can be found here. Englishrose 09:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Based on the fact that he changed where the domain pointed to 2 hours after I sent him an e-mail questioning him about it and deleted a site that I only just figured out belonged to him, I have a sneeky feeling that he doesn't want to be associated with the Denial name. Englishrose 10:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: This is getting crazy, Aladin has changed the url to point to a duplicate of the Danial site with Aladin's name replacing the Danial name throughout the site. This might sound irrelevant but to me it could reveal that Danial is his past alias, that he two aliases and doesn't want them to be linked. Englishrose 10:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, great job everybody (especially that Englishrose thought about mirroring that old site). To me, It looks like he's feeling the pressure (and that his name might not be as good as before) and he's desperately trying to get himself a new identity. Zora said " I'd suggest that what we have here is an imposter" - my point exactly. Peter S. 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Given the doubt regarding the accuracy of many of the things expressed in various sources, I have hedged every statement of fact in the article that is not expressed by a party, and attributed all statements of fact made by a party to that party. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Overall I think those are good changes. I did tweak the first paragraph a bit though. Let me know what you think? Elonka 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You got rid of all of the words that doubted the existance and accuracy of the information stated as fact, and got rid of the attribution of National Geographic's statements about his father. If you are certain that that information is true, go for it. If it's false, you're the one who ruined the article, not me. My statements were true REGARDLESS of the truth of aladins existance. Yours are not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. National Geographic is a reputable source. Elonka 23:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No, unfortunately it is not, for both cases. A Pizza Hut on my street is verifiable, but it is not for encyclopedia. Second, NG is popular science, which is a dubious source for encyclopedia. I enjoy it watching, but I've seen quite a few blunders, oversimplifications and outright bias. mikka (t) 00:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
True, no source is perfect. But I think there are many thousands[20] of Wikipedia articles which prove that, as sources go, National Geographic is pretty reliable. ;) Elonka 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

52 Ways to Magic America, James Flint

Apparatnly, aladin is mentioned in this book. [21]. You'd have to buy it or look in a library to check first of course. Could be a lead. Funnily enough, one of the reviewers also questions some of the magicians in this book. Englishrose 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice find. If you do go to a library, could you look for some of the British newspaper reviews? If you can scan them in, I'll volunteer to host them on my website so that people can take a look at them and help determine their credibility. Also, for what it's worth, I contacted the National Geographic research department to ask them what their sources were for the documentary. I'll keep everyone apprised of what I find out. Elonka 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)