Talk:Ali Sethi

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation[edit]

Discography needs to be brushed up. Not all listed are covers. Stephenfryfan (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Cleaned it up and moved all of the non-covers out of the discography section. Also got rid of all the youtube links in the discog.RoomWitAMoose (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it confirmed that Sethi is dating Salman Toor?[edit]

UnpetitproleX (talk) seems to think so, and towards this end, has referred to an article by The New Yorker that says “Kalyan, Sethi, Aijazuddin, and Toor were all dating, but they weren’t dating one another. This changed six years ago, when Sethi and Toor realized that they belonged together ... they live in different ... apartments, the bond between them is very deep”.

Apart from the above vague statement in the said article, no other source has expressly confirmed this. I think the unclear and cloudy words used in this article, and no other source confirming this rumor makes it doubtful that they both are dating, and thus, this information unless confirmed should be removed per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:VERIFY. Until the needful is done, I think the said information shouldn't stay on the article. Hence, I am removing the same and inviting UnpetitproleX (talk) over here to engage in a constructive discussion as to why this purportedly unconfirmed info should stay on the article.

Secondly, another source "SDLGBTN" used by UnpetitproleX (talk) seems to be a questionable source per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've initiated this constructive discussion in order to reach a consensus with him before things escalate between us. Till then, his edits are being reverted.

Bilal 213 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilal 213: Thanks for beginning this discussion, ideally you should’ve begun this when you were reverted the first time. WP:BRD doesn’t mean that you begin the discussion and then go back to reverting the edits. And I would also request you to not refer to me with gendered pronouns, please use gender neutral pronouns (they/them). I’ll respond to the concerns regarding source below. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UnpetitproleX, Ideally, the person who as per WP:BRD - which even otherwise is not a rule per se - should've initiated this discussion should've been you when I reverted your edits not once but twice with my explanations. Also, since the questionable edits are being insisted by you not me, hence until our discussion reaches a consensus, they should stay out of the article as per the norms. However, I'd rather we not confront each other in pointless arguments and it is this reason that I've taken the high road and haven't yet removed the questionable edits. I'm also responding to your explanations below. Bilal 213 (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with Bilal 213 on this, on both issues. First, there has been no direct confirmation from either individual regarding the relationship, and a passing mention in The New Yorker from last year does not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, in my opinion as someone who's been editing Wikipedia for 17 years. The New Yorker is obv. a reputable source but I don't think this vague statement passes muster. I agree that this information should stay off a BLP article (which must be "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" - per WP:BLP) until there is more reliable reporting and/or a confirmation from either individual in question. Second, the other source, "SDLGBTN" cannot be described as a high-quality, reliable source either. User:UnpetitproleX please chime in so we can reach a consensus over here instead of engaging edit-warring. Thank you Priyanka2330 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The The New Yorker is not vague in stating that Sethi and Toor are dating. The article says, "Kalyan, Sethi, Aijazuddin, and Toor were all dating, but they weren’t dating one another. This changed six years ago, when Sethi and Toor realized that they belonged together. Just because the writer doesn't bluntly say "they're dating" doesn't mean that this is supposed to mean something else. The four friends were all dating different people, and this changed in 2016, when Sethi and Toor began dating each other. That would be a crude re-writing of the sentence from New Yorker. The writer interviewed both Toor and Sethi for the article, them dating each other is not an "unconfirmed" rumour he is claiming, it's a statement he's making after interviewing the both of them. The statement is immediately followed by “I knew I had found the person I wanted to be with for good,” Toor told me. The article is from August 2022. Surely, if it was untrue, then they would've denied it by now and sued the New Yorker for making false claims. New Yorker is amongst the best of sources that is available out there.
  • As for SDGLN, it is cited for two things: one that Ali Sethi is one of the few openly queer artists from Pakistan and two for a statement that Sethi is quoted in it saying. It's not being used for exceptional claims. Sethi's queerness is well-attested in a wide variety of sources, as @Priyanka2330: must already be aware. Even in the New Yorker article, it says, Ali Sethi relates this impulse to the problems of queer identity. “People like us don’t really belong anywhere,” he said to me. “You create your own safe space, and you need the relief of comedy.”

—UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there’s another way you would phrase what the New Yorker says, do share. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for enlightening us with your opinion @Priyanka2330
@UnpetitproleX You see my concern is with the fact that no other source confirms this. I'd advise you take some time to look for another source of the same time period which seconds your claim that they're dating. And yes, it is exactly because the writer in the The New Yorker doesn't bluntly say that "they're dating", the said article doesn't expressly confirm the said rumor.
Denial or acceptance of a rumor usually comes when it floods the internet as in the recent rumors of Sethi and Toor marrying each other which Sethi denied. This hasn't happened in this case where no other media outlet, publication, etc. has seconded what The New Yorker said. Moreover, suing a single publication making vague claims and bearing expensive litigation fees is also not everyone's cup of tea.
As for SDLGBN, with all due respect, for not being a well known source, it must not be cited even for the two things you just mentioned. Also, apart from The Washington Post declaring Sethi as queer, this too is not well-attested in any source, apart from obviously the lesser known SDLGBN. Sethi has given countless interviews, he could confirm any of these two rumors but he never did. Hence, being as conservative as we can be out of respect for his privacy, SDLGBN shouldn't be cited, and Sethi should be cited as "reportedly queer" on the article. Thank you.
Bilal 213 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry but wikipedia is bound only by what reliable sources say. It is not for us to speculate why this may be or that may be, we only write what the sources have said.
Apart from The Washington Post, and the above cited The New Yorker article—where Sethi himself talks about his experiences as a queer person—even Priyanka Mattoo’s article attests Sethi’s queer identity:

Traditional music felt like a safe place to express himself and to explore the dawning awareness of his own queerness. … And how did they[Qawwals] so elegantly address the yearning for an elusive or unreachable beloved—a theme that spoke to him[Sethi] powerfully as a queer person and also as a South Asian migrant in America?

UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker is neither a tabloid nor a gossip magazine. It is as reliable a source as it gets on wikipedia. The article in question (and I must ask you at this point if you’ve actually read it) is one that was written after interviews with both Sethi and Toor (and their friends).
The reliability and relevance of the article is absolutely outstanding—it is out of question to strike it down on either of those grounds. If the issue is that no other sources have yet reported or confirmed what the New Yorker has said after interviewing Sethi and Toor, then we can simply add "according to a 2022 article in The New Yorker" either at the end of the first sentence or as a footnote. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UnpetitproleX I am sorry but the only person speculating what this may be or that may be is you, in that, you're stretching the meaning of certain vague words used in The New Yorker article to claim that Sethi is dating Toor, which is a huge claim. This unless confirmed by a reliable source cannot stay on Sethi's page per Wikipedia's policy guidelines, inter alia: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Refer to how WP:BLP works for a better understanding.
Sethi's sexual orientation is a different issue. That too isn't well documented though apart from The Washington Post calling him a queer person. Mattoo's article too is her opinion published by The New Yorker without any evidence of her having carried out any interview or investigation to make such a claim. Still, having been reported as queer by the Washington Post, this as per Wikipedia's policy can stay on Sethi's page that he is "reportedly queer" and nothing more.
Lastly, my friend, please stop patronizing me. I've read the The New Yorker article in question, the ambiguous words of which you're stretching to claim that Sethi is dating Toor. Please note that I am more than happy to continue this constructive discussion with you. Until then, as advised by Wikipedia's policy, "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (see WP:Verifiability, I am removing the contentious material from the article.
Bilal 213 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker is not a poor source. If you still believe it is, then take it to WP:RSN. I’m not stretching the meaning of "Kalyan, Sethi, Aijazuddin, and Toor were all dating, but they weren’t dating one another. This changed six years ago, when Sethi and Toor realized that they belonged together." If you believe this can meaning anything else, do let us know what exactly you think that something else is. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:Onus and WP:Burden, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", as you've been advised by not just by me but @Priyanka2330 as well. Till then, for this discussion to continue, the questionable material should stay out of the page which you're not willing to understand, and as a result whereof, you're edit warring.
Hence, I cant help but lodge a formal complaint against you for your continued disruption and adding the said questionable material to Sethi's page, as well as, for your edit warring upon being reverted as per WP:Verifiability policy. Bilal 213 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven’t replied. What possible other meaning are you ascribing to what The New Yorker article says? How exactly is it vague? “X and Y were dating other people, which changed in year N when X and Y realised they belong with each other” doesn’t really have a myriad of interpretations. To me, it is clear as day. If it is vague, surely you can explain to us how so. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VERIFY states "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences." The New Yorker is widely considered a reliable source on wikipedia. On WP:RSPSS it states that "there is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process." UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now you’ve also removed the sentence about the influence Sethi’s queerness has had on his music, cited to Priyanka Mattoo’s The New Yorker article, added here by Priyanka2330, which you claim is "misleading." We cannot purposely ignore or hush up information about the artist that has been published in The Washington Post and The New Yorker, especially because the artist himself has never disputed any of that information (and has actually affirmed his queerness), just because you believe these sources are unreliable (they are not). UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ali_Sethi&oldid=1223437458"