Talk:Farah Damji/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

This article has been rewritten and properly sourced. Please make sure that you introduce changes only if you can reference them to sources. --Mbimmler 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

References?

Since this article deals with fairly sensitive matters, I think that all the claims should be very carefully sourced. In particular, the bit about her gaining attention by revealing the details of "affairs" with some prominent persons is not something that I could verify upon at least a cursory web search and so should be sourced clearly if to be included here.--Jimbo Wales 12:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Since her release from prison in February 2007, Farah Damji has kept a low media profile, refusing to give interviews or to write articles for publication. However she maintains a blog, which is fairly often updated on her recent work at

www.myspace.com/farah.damji

She is an active member of the Kabbalah Centre in London and works with their Prison Project, which corresponds with inmates and sends out free books on Kabbalah.

Her fashion company employs current inmates throughout the prison estate in eh UK, through a charity for prisoners called Fine Cellwork. The designs are all bespoke, made to order and recent commissions include a dragon jacket, for Madonna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.164.24 (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

http://www.moksa.co.uk/ is apparently an official site. If anyone else feels that it meets WP:EL please add it. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Same with http://www.try-me-the-book.com/. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Negative

This is rather negative; I'm not convinced it passes WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree I have cleaned it up. Be carefiul there are one or two "editors" out there who seem to have a bit of an obsession with her.

I think an AfD could be attempted. She does not really rise to the level of a WP:Notable person but probably some people will defend her having an article on the basis of news coverage of her problems with the law. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

More recent criminal convictions

Yesterday's Evening Standard references the fact that Damji appeared at Blackfriars Crown Court in London yesterday, to be sentenced for new fraud charges. A telephone call to Blackfriars Crown Court's Listings Manager confirmed this to be true. I think we should update her page to provide a more balanced and current view.

http://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/current/black_T090715.01.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingbantams (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23719750-details/Confessions+of+London%27s+most+dangerous+woman/article.do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingbantams (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the Press Gazette she got convicted again very recently for £17k worth of fraud. Please amend article

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44039&c=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingbantams (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In the mid-1990s, Damji made a name for herself first as a Manhattan art dealer and then as a Rikers Island inmate, accused of a convoluted cavalcade of crimes.

Please update this entry to reflect reality

Recent news stories confirm that Damji has more recent criminal convictions. In not mentioning these, the article reads like a vanity piece. Damji is famous for her criminal conduct, beyond that, she is not notable.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=44039

http://squaremilenews.blogspot.com/2009/07/self-promoting-socialites-17000.html

Flyingbantams (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Damji is back in prison-- this article must be updated and made to reflect her criminality.

Damji was re-arrested in Norwich on the 3rd of August, and is now facing a whole new slew of charges against her. The article on her was clearly self-written and must be corrected immediately-- or else deleted.

Here is Damji's own account of her latest arrest. Like her book, it seems to be largely a work of fiction, but does at least confirm that she is again, thankfully behind bars: http://moksalondon.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Cairncross (talk • contribs) 13:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}}

Not done: Welcome. The {{editsemiprotected}} template is used to allow non-autoconfirmed editors to insert changes into articles which are semi-protected, so it requires a 'please change X to Y' level of detail. If you don't want to provide that level of detail, you are welcome to leave general comments like this, as long as the comments don't violate our policy about biographical articles. If you choose to request something specific about the more recent arrest, you should find another source. (A blog, even one claiming to be run by the subject, is not a reliable source.) Based on your talk page contributions, you may want to consider whether you should be contributing to this article at all. Please read the policies on conflict of interest and neutral point of view. The goal is to create the best article possible, not to praise or condemn the subject. If you feel too strongly about the subject to edit impartially, I'd recommend you move on to some other subject or some other venue. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source to confirm what Peter Cairncross is claiming. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=44039 Flyingbantams (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That source adds nothing on the 3rd August claim.Martinlc (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please update the article

{{editsemiprotected}} Ms Damji was jailed today for 15 months on new fraud charges, as reported in today's Telegraph and Daily Mail. Please update the article to reflect this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7102283/Socialite-jailed-for-housing-fraud-dripping-with-dishonesty.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247032/Socialite-dubbed-Londons-dangerous-woman-jailed-17-500-housing-benefit-fraud.html#ixzz0e0lZmGhy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolafreddy (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. The {{editsemiprotected}} template allows a non-autoconfirmed editor to request specific changes while a page is semiprotected. More general suggestions like yours are also welcome. When an interested editor sees a suggestion like this, they may choose to do the work of deciding if, how and where in the article the information from the sources belongs. I looked a few days ago and chose not to based on the sensational nature of the titles, but other editors will have different opinions. Regards, Celestra (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Update the article to reflect information in the public domain

{{editsemiprotected}}

Pls add the following line to the article: "Damji was jailed for fifteen months, for fraud, at Blackfriars Crown Court on 29 January 2010."

http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/fulham-and-hammersmith-news/local-fulham-and-hammersmith-news/2010/02/04/serial-fraudster-sent-back-to-jail-82029-25764356/

Lolafreddy (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Already done Thanks for being more specific. It still lacks location, but I had planned to add it to the end of the paragraph about her recent convictions. Someone added a variation of that text to the article a few hours ago, though, placing it at the end of the article in a more chronological organization. Celestra (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not actually in jail

ROB A WOLFE (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Subject of article may have been sentenced but is not in fact in jail. Article makes it appear as if she is. I do not have details but article is incorrect as written.

I do have to wonder if Ms Damji is actually famous enough to justify this entry at all but that is a matter for another talk

Is this the same person?

"Farah Dan, also known as Farah Damji, 49, of Pimlico". Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinlc (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please remove semi-protected

This page has includes with full of negative content which doesn't seems information about the person. Also, the page information is very outdated as i did some research online and there's lot of updated content available. Some sources - She running some social campaigns https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-the-caridade-family-from-homelessness#/ campaigns for equality and women’s rights http://www.russellwebster.com/the-price-of-women-in-prison-a-race-to-the-bottom/ other updates, open letter to https://www.property118.com/open-letter-to-grant-shapps-from-farah-damji/ to Grant Shapps. These info needs to updated on the Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juppalsingh (talk • contribs) 22:44, December 12, 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't see any user on the page history who has protected this page, not sure what's going on. Please reconsider the request. Thanks! Juppalsingh (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)juppalsingh

Follow the instructions given above. Praxidicae (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected admin didn't responded. juppalsingh 2409:4055:707:3FB7:84D0:F4D0:A6BA:22A9 (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the protecting admin (User:JzG) was contacted. I do however recommend that you start by suggesting edits here on this talk page, none of the sources you cite can be used as they are user generated or self-published sources about a living person. We need reliable independant sources such as newspapers. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced contents

@Sam-2727: Any contents that are well sourced must be discussed and removed according to the consensus. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

GSS, I will try to list some areas here later on. Even for a convicted criminal, the article focuses way too much on the criminal record. Moreover, the article has very few pagewatchers and editors so it will be hard to generate commentary on anything. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm planning on doing a cleanup of the article. I won't remove any sourced content, but I'm going to try to reword/organize some of the information to be written in a neutral manner. Also to address the problems of "undue weight" currently in the article, I'm going to try to add a bit of information about information not related to her charges (for instance the blog covered in [1]). Pinging GSS (as they seem to be monitoring the article closely) for their thoughts. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Rewritten version

To anybody that watches this article, I've created a new version at User:Sam-2727/Farah Damji to address the neutrality/undue weight issues. Let me know what you think. Pinging GSS as they've recently been involved with this page. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: You've removed a lot of sourced information so, I disagree with your version. I'll make some changes directly to the article later and comment here accordingly. GSS ^💬 02:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I shifted some contents from the lead to the "personal life" section without removing anything (everything is well sourced). I notice you removed the entire "In the U.S. and South Africa" section and most of the information from the "In the U.K.: financial crimes" section so, can you please explain the reason for removing sourced contents? GSS ^💬 04:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

GSS, I combined the "U.S." and "U.K." into one financial crimes section. While yes, everything is reliably sourced, the problem isn't reliable sourcing, it's undue weight. Going into minute detail on the trial doesn't really constitute giving fair weight to anything. Even in nationally known trials don't include quotes from the judge (unless these quotes are notable). Also, the quotes are misleading: the full quote paints a less negative picture. I removed "London's most dangerous woman" from the lead, because this seems to be lending to the "undue weight." Finally, I removed references to some sources I would consider unreliable. For example, [2] is a freedom of information act "decision notice" so not really a secondary source. Also, the source "gangland" I have removed reference to because this source as it seemed odd (although I don't have the book myself) that Damji would be mentioned so prolifically in the book, and if she is, the book likely exaggerates details. This is just based off of various information on the book I've found online. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I need to add the financial crimes from Africa. I forgot to add this. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

GSS, I'm just trying to address the "undue weight" issue currently in the article. Many sourced material contains inaccurate quotes (as referenced above). The article parrots the sensational language of the sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, you were advised not to remove sourced contents and what you are doing is literally whitewashing. If there is "undue weight" it can be toned down instead of removing well-sourced information. I guess Praxidicae‎ and SamHolt6 might be interested to look at this page. GSS ^💬 17:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this name is familiar but a quick look at the "rewritten" version just looks like a massive NPOV violation and a ploy to elicit sympathy for the subject with statements like According to Damji, she was sexually abused starting at the age of nine, which was the underlying motivation for her later crimes. This proposed version is definitely not anywhere near encyclopedic imo and only serves to whitewash the article. It's not undue weight to have content about crime for someone who is notable only for being a criminal...Praxidicae (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is there an undue weight template to begin with? Ww2censor as you placed it, can you please highlight what specific statements are given undue weight? Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, it's a fair point that my draft is an extreme. My main worries were the primary sources in the paragraph that begins "In September 2017, while imprisoned" and the source "Gang lands" (the book) because it doesn't seem to be very accurate, although this is based off of my personal assessment and nothing concrete (as well as the title: "most dangerous gangs"?). I'm trying to find a copy of the book now. I'd be more or less fine with the rest of the article if the above is addressed. There are some slight wording issues, but these are secondary to my main concerns. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

More news

For those with an interest in this article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8571969/Socialite-stalker-53-run-Ireland-judge-issues-European-Arrest-Warrant.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.170.6 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Parentheses around full sentences

@Gryllida: You've added parentheses around

Damji had been previously accused of stalking the writer William Dalrymple, in 2004. Dalrymple notified the British police, but no formal charges could be made, because the alleged stalking occurred when Damji followed Dalrymple to India, and so was outside of British jurisdiction. During the late 1990s, when Damji lived in the U.S., she allegedly "terrorized several ex-lovers with a Fatal Attraction-like intensity".

in this edit. Not sure if you intended to do that? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)