Talk:Omar Amanat

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

vandalism ceased[edit]

thanks to the intervention of senior administrators, the vandalism and slander has finally ceased. barkleyparamus should get the point and not make wikipedia a soapbox.

Rumination 21:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My so called vandalism and slander. Truth is not slander[edit]

There are two sides to every story, and most certainly two sides to this man. Please don't call this slander, b/c it's truth. Again, I can prove it with documentation. If you let me post it to the site, I will. You may call this my soap box for complaints or whatever, but that's because in 4 years the legal system has not come to a conclusion. This is my only other alternative to broadcast truths about this individual. I ask that you do not take it away from me. I will post the supporting promissory note to this site, and then will you allow it to stay up here?

The case number is 04-12078 in New York. Anyone who wants to can look it up. This is real, and this is truth. you may say I'm whining and crying on this site, but if you performed work for months and did not get paid a large percentage of what was owed, you would be very upset as well. It would be inhuman not to be.

Think of all the people I may be able to help, by posting this information. Anyone who may conduct business with Omar in the future should know about his past that I had direct experience with.

For any questions, I can be reached at barkleyparamus@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.191.246.3 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 September 2006.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research or the airing of personal grievances. We should only include information in Wikipedia articles which can be accurately sourced to reliable, credible sources. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 21:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nauseating Quote[edit]

This is from Omar's wiki page..."Mr. Amanat was also recently the Founder, CEO and majority shareholder of Tradescape Corp, a financial technology firm that processed over 10% of NASDAQ's daily trading volume and was the largest electronic brokerage firm (by trading volume) in the United States when he sold it to E*Trade Financial in 2002 for consideration worth $280 million."

It makes me sick to know I was one of the traders generating all this volume and revenue, and that 4 years later I am still holding an unpaid promissory note for just under $26,000.

barkleyparamus@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.191.246.3 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 September 2006.

While you may well be sick, your promissory note nevertheless has no place in our article. This is an encyclopaedia, not a repository for trivia and accusations. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Barkleyparamus's allegations notwithstanding, this article is pretty poor in terms of its citing of sources. It makes some very specific unsourced claims ('named one of Wall Street's "Top Ten Most Influential Technologists"' -- when? who by?) and contains some biographical and business information that we would do well to source properly. Can anyone help with providing references? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion of article[edit]

This article has been tagged for some time by editors and administrators who have noted the utter lack of reliable sources for the data presented. Per Wikipedia's verifiability standards, it is incumbent upon the writers of articles to cite reliable, published sources for the data presented; not upon the readers to go find that data. Since the article currently asserts its subject's notability based on data that cannot be verified within the article itself, it may be recommended for deletion at any time. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit[edit]

The last attempt was much better; this time, sources were included. The problem (and why it was deleted wholesale the moment I saw it) was it copied from those sources verbatim, in violation of Wiki copyright policy and, at least as importantly, US copyright law. The entry must be in the editors' own words; it must include phrases such as "accused of" (or it suggests a conviction where none exists, in violation of libel laws); and, it must include any equally reliably sourced rebuttal. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If I personally had a lawsuit against Omar Amanat for breach of contract in 1999 that I won can I make reference to it on the biography? Locke and Keyes (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, you would be strongly advised to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before editing the article. This is standard advice, and following the guideline is in the best interests of editors, even if they don't see why it is there (editing within the guideline avoids problems that may not be understood by those new to Wikipedia). Secondly, any mention of a legal case must be backed up by reliable, independently published sources. Thirdly, whatever facts are added to the article, the treatment must be neutral, and the policy on biographies of living people must be followed closely. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my postings...hiding the truth[edit]

Please stop removing my f...ing postings. They are cited facts. his article has nothing cited and bears no truths. If you leave his postings and my postings, then it doesn't violate your stupid NPOV policy..b/c it is fair and balanced. Is wikipedia on his payroll???? If so, watch out, he won't actually pay you?

IP blocked one month[edit]

The chief IP used by this user has been blocked for one month for violating US copyright law and non-negotiable Wikipedia policy by repeatedly inserting source material verbatim into a Wikipedia article. This is not about "truth", Mr. Paramus, this is about breaking the law. Further attempts to insert copyrighted material will result in blocks of any/all users involved and will be referred to the Wikimedia Foundation for potential action. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason that very real, and very truthful lawsuits cannot be mentioned here? This man is the subject of many lawsuits, why can this not be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.252.44 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. The suit can be mentioned only if these policies and guidelines can be followed; previous attempts to add this information have been anything but neutral, and often did not attempt to cite a reliable source. Simply adding the link is not sufficient; the context—written as required by WP:BLP—is necessary. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


omartruth[edit]

Vandal "omartruth" is attempting to make wikipedia a soapbox for personal vendetta using innaccurate data. Potentially libelous information. J araneo (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)J Araneo[reply]

"Omartruth" is posting information in violation of NPOV such as "revenue targets were not met for the $180mln contingent consideration" when this has been the subject of previous discussions long settled by admins RadioKirk and Nick Boalch (currently on admin leave) Specifically there was a $1.5 Billion lawsuit filed by Mr Amanat where one side says the targets were met and the other not. Wikipedia is not the place to settle such controversies and is in violation of NPOV in any instance. He is engaged in an edit war in violation of the three edit rule. J araneo (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)J araneo[reply]

Vandal "Omartruth" is continuing to engage in edit wars despite being warned by admin. Need intervention and his IP should be blocked from further editsJ araneo (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC) J araneo[reply]

Bridges TV and E*Trade[edit]

Omar Amanat was never "the primary investor in Bridges TV." As a public lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court makes clear he pulled out in 2003 and never invested any money. In any event the edit was inconsistent with NPOV and is potentially libelous given the recent headline news regarding the murders at Bridges. Also the mention of the Etrade litigation is poorly sourced and inconsistent with NPOV and the subject of previous discussions long settled by admins RadioKirk and Nick Boalch (currently on admin leave) Specifically there was a $1.5 Billion lawsuit filed by Mr Amanat where one side says the targets were met and the other not. Wikipedia is not the place to settle such controversies and is in violation of NPOV in any instance. J araneo (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have two sources that say he is a primary investor in Bridges TV. You have reliable sources that say this is misinformation? Let's please see them. If this was good information to include before Muzzammil Hassan was arrested, its good information to include now. Your statement to that mentioning his involvement with Bridges TV is "potentially libelous given the recent headline news" is absurd and indicates you don't understand what libel is. While User:Omartruth did introduce edits that I would deem vandalism, that is no reason to misuse WP:POV guidelines. Lawsuits can be mentioned in NPOV ways, and they should be. BTW, Wikipedia is not censored. --Boston (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair points. However, the lawsuits Mr Amanat filed against Bridges TV and the countersuit they filed against him should also be mentioned by that logic. New York State Supreme Court Case #ALG: 10017: Omar Amanat vs Bridges TV both sides state plainly that he never became an investor. Even Bridges TV makes this allegation when they counterclaimed that he never invested in the company. I would ask for a temporary reprieve on the back and forth until I can post a link to the lawsuits and a newspaper article about the dispute at which time it will be self-evident that this information about Mr Amanat being the primary investor in Bridges TV is innaccurate. In the meantime one suggestion would be to leave it in but state the lawsuit's existence or leave it out until we verify everything. Your thoughts?
  • As for the $1.5 billion lawsuit to state that one side was suing the other for "missed payments" while the other was suing for "fraud" is inconsistent with NPOV since both parties sued the other for "fraud" among countless other counts. To inaccurately state that only one side was suing the other for "fraud" may be worthy of the Rocky Mountain News but not Wikipedia. I request a similar short reprieve regarding this point as well until I can post a link. In the interim I suggest mentioning the lawsuits existence but stating both sides have sued each other for "breach of contract, among other claims" theme which is a catch all phrase for legal disputes. J araneo (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that sides have sued each other for "breach of contract, among other claims" would be ideal wording if the sources back that up. About Bridges TV, I'm concerned that we have replaced cited facts with non-cited ones. Per your request for reprieve, I'm going to change the words to the effect that he was involved with Bridges TV early on, but I will leave out the fact that he was the major investor per your statement that sources can be found that contradict this. Please add those sources to the article as soon as possible as this article must be getting increased hits right now and should be as fit as we can make it. It is appropriate to characterize Bridges TV as "the Muslin television network headed by Muzzammil S. Hassan". This isn't libel, it's pretty standard encyclopedic verbiage to mention peoples' connection to other well-known people whose names a reader might recognize. The text you introduced saying "Darfur Now featuring George Clooney" is an example of the same thing. Whether people referred to in this way are illustrious or notorious is irrelevant as long as the verbiage does not insinuate guilt by association. We would not, for example, say that "Amanat partnered with alleged murderer Muzzammil S. Hassan." Thanks for your help in making improvements. Boston (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Family Life[edit]

it seems that anonymous user with IP address 83.145.225.26 is trying to slander subject with unsourced material and is engaged in an edit war in violation of the 3 edit rule. please help Rumination (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumination is attempting to destroy facts of a biographical nature that are available via publication and court records and have been validated by the parents of Omar Amanat.

Facts about marriages, where relevant, may have to be backed up by explicit references to reliable, published sources. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is no reliable, published source that states that he has two wives and this is slanderous if untrue. Even by the troll's own anonymous edits he has no source material other than a variety article, which only mentions one wife. Anonymous court records are purportedly available but not shown anywhere. Rumination (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that the Variety article is true in what it says. The existence of the piece in Variety explains why the edits are being made. We do have to look at this more deeply to understand what can appear in this article. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed once more. It is claimed that there is a published source (not perhaps reliable), and a reliable source in court records which are not apparently published. As that stands there is not enough to include the form of words being placed the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Court records are searchable on this matter on LexisNexis and Westlaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.36.54 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, the basic material for Wikipedia is secondary sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources." And we are looking for published material. Simply asserting that some facts are somewhere in accessible databases does not amount to the kind of sourcing we are looking for. If you have access to such records, no doubt you can supply some circumstantial details that will at least make plausible what you claim. I have to warn you, though, that continuing to post the same material with disregard for the discussion here is likely to have consequences for your editing status. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This anonymous user is now posting increasingly malevolent messages on Wikipedia. The harrassment started with unverified edits, which wikipedia admins have noted as violations of their policy, dissaproved of and deleted. But the postings are now escalating to giving highly personal details on other members of the subjects family, including names and locations of parents and siblings, and apparently unverified personal religious affiliations and visits to places of worship. Wikipedia admins continue disapprove and support the deletions, but the user continues to post these messages and there sems to be little wiki admins can do to prevent new postings. Rumination (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really correct. The policy on removal of unsourced material is being applied. What is important is to emphasise that it will be applied to this article, so that it is pointless to keep on adding material without proper references. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumination has validated above that the family life references are accurate even as he communicates his distaste for accurate biographical references being included in a biographical article. He should realize that Wikipedia is not designed to be an autobiographical soapbox for the solicitation of business thru deception.

I think you don't understand. It is not a question of the opinions of contributors to the article: biographical information must be independently verifiable from published sources. And that is not all. If there is no particular reason to include information about relatives, it should not appear in the article, even if there are adequate sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper column, and this site is not for posting gossip. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protection and referencing[edit]

I requested a week's semi-protection of the article. It is clear that there are still disagreements on the detailed content of the article. Changes ought to be made on the basis of documentation, using this week as an opportunity to ensure neutral and appropriate content of the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page semi-protected[edit]

Reluctantly, I've semi-protected the talk header as well. BLP violations anywhere on wikipedia are a serious matter and cannot be treated lightly. If you wish to make an edit to the talk header or to the article, please create an account --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

not sure why his educational information was deleted but I believe consistent with biographies of living people, it should be included. If any reason why let me know J araneo (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed on 4 November [1] some educational information. It was supported by a webpage citation, not by independent publication of the details. I wasn't convinced that the website was an independent, reliable source. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks. I added back in his educational information. I also added a link to Cybertrader founder Philip Berber who has a link on Wikipedia. I am adding a citation for subject's educational background momentarily. Hope this is acceptable. J araneo (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Found a citation from one of the university's own webpages http://www.whartondc.com/article.html?aid=538. Checking if this is acceptable to add as a citation. J araneo (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, section on self-published sources, I don't find either of the Alacra Wiki or classicalmusic.com websites to be a reliable source on a strict reading. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, section Maintaining biographies of living persons, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic." There is a basic problem with this article, which is the shortage of good quality sources, and absent those it is likely that this article will remain concise. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the citation from the educational institution's own website pages in order to justify adding back in subject's educational information. This should qualify under Wikipedia:Reliable sources as an independent reliable source. J araneo (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page at WhartonDC.com belongs to a club, not any university. There is the obvious problem that if they just post details supplied by their invited speakers, then this cannot be considered a third-party source. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since that page just posted details supplied by the invited speaker who is the subject of this article, it can be taken that the subject of this article claims credit for having launched Bridges TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.27.108 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Amanat has had the page at WhartonDC changed so as to eliminate the reference to his claiming credit for the launch of Bridges TV. The original page where the speaker Omar Amanat claimed credit in the launching of Bridges TV is still available via Google cache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.166.135.45 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly concerned at the low quality of sourcing of biographical information in this article. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In both places I read He is currently working on launching the first Muslim American cable and satellite channel in the United States. I'm not able to verify the claim about the Einstein techology award. Some groups of people were given this award in 1999, 2000 and 2001. I haven't been able to check whether Amanat was among those. Subsequently (and this is quite confusing) the same award was given for different achievements. The absence of clear dates for the biographical information is one of my major concerns about verifiability in the article. There is no date of birth, and no date for any educational attainment. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

I have added a PROD template, because there seems no way currently to bring the article up to standard, the references being brought forward being flawed and contested, and not obviously reliable even by quite low standards. If this PROD is contested, then we have to move to a serious application of WP:RS, line by line. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search turns up [2] and [3]. Looks like he has produced (or was a producer of) several movies and was the CEO of tradescape. I'm removing the prod and suggest reducing the article to its stubby essence (produced movies and was ceo of tradescape) instead. If flawed references continue to be added to the article, protect it (or ask me or another admin to do it if you consider yourself involved) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself involved. He has been executive producer (i.e. financier) of films. This is not in dispute. Nor is the fact that he used to be involved in financial trading (the article from 2000, which contains much speculative froth). All this means is that some deals took place. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I stubbed it for you and will watch for the quality of sources for any new material that is added to the article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" really ought to be considered for deletion as it seems to be a self-promotional fluff piece by Omar Amanat, his aliases, stand-ins and relatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.36.66 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is one of the oldest biographical articles on wikipedia and has been on the site since 2005/06. The information is properly sourced from reliable impartial 3rd party sources and noteworthy.. Your continuous anonymous edits are in violation of the 3 edit rule and not objective.68.193.141.77 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search turns up all of these credible noteworthy sources about the subject. Wikipedia is not meant to be a sandbox for your personal gripes against the subject. Please cease anonymous continuous edits in violation of the 3 Edit rule and NPOV or we will seek page protectionJ araneo (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search turns up links that have relied upon the representations of Omar Amanat and his aliases and stand-ins but are not shown to have been independently validated. Given the disputes over the representations made in this self-promotion piece and the lack of ability to achieve a NPOV, deletion of the "article" seems appropriate since Wikipedia should not be a self-promotional fluff marketing venue for Omar Amanat or anybody else.

Is there a listing of Omar Amanat as an executive producer in any of the actual film credits of the movies for which he has claimed credit on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.32.38 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone recently verified whether or not the name of Omar Amanat is listed in the actual film credits on the DVD and video releases of the movies he is claiming credit for on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.36.54 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition by E*Trade[edit]

The article reports a total compensation number that includes 'contingent' compensation. Apparently, E*Trade had a subsequent dispute with Amanat and I'm wondering if the total compensation number ever became actuality. Comments, with reliable sources are welcome. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of evidence about "contingent" compensation having been paid, the total compensation related to this acquisition which ended up in mutual claims of breach of contract leave in doubt the "total" compensation figure as well.

Omar Amanat, being a repeat contributor to this self-promoting item on Wikipedia, is of course free to try to submit documentary evidence to back up his claim about the amount of actual compensation paid by E*Trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.29.112 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The press releases at the time inluding the Wall Street Journal article and NY Times articles describing the acquisition including E*trade's own press release is to state that total consideration (consideration being the key word) was $276.2 million. Saying "Potential" AND "contingent" consideration is redundant. J araneo (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

not sure why the continual edit wars are re-occurring over this long established article. One of the earlier articles on notable businessmen published on wikepedia.

J araneo (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own investigations into references for this article, as well as those of others, find little enough solid factual information. The time elapsed since the article's creation has little to do with it. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be consideration to delete this article given the investigation into references for this "article" reveal the references to be based on self-promotional claims made by Omar Amanat but not verified independently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.166.135.45 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Blogger article Summit letter[edit]

A blogger posted a purported letter from a film company that makes twilight films. The blogger slanderously interpreted the letter to call Mr. Amanat an imposter whereby the Letter itself makes no such claims. There is no confirmation from Summit as to whether the letter is real and moreover, the letter from Summit itself makes no such claim and only references that Mr Amanat is not "currently a director, officer etc" and cites an earlier letter regarding a charitable screening of twilight. To devote three paragraphs to this immaterial, not well sourced issue does not seem to be in the best interest of the reader. Mr. Amanat's response posted by another blogger is not cited so this is not consistent with NPOV. J araneo (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadline Hollywood blog by Nikki Finke would probably not qualify as a "reliable source" under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper). Blogs generally are "largely not acceptable". According to the next paragraph of that policy, however, and given that, if our own article on Finke is to be believed, "In 2009 she sold Deadline to Jay Penske's Mail.com Media Corp, reportedly for $14 Million, under an agreement by which she continues as the writer and editor of the website", there might be some room for argument on editorial control. In the light of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources no benefit of the doubt can be given in this case: the only reason for inclusion could be that Finke does not have editorial control. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Charles. Mr Amanat's legal letter response to Summit has also been published on another industry blog. http://industryhollywood.blogspot.com/2010/11/summit-shareholder-responds-to-execs.html which seems to be a less reliable source than Finke. Nonetheless, according to the letter it appears that there is a substantive dispute between the parties presumably over demands for bonuses by Summit Executives which were rebuffed by Mr. Amanat, and a claim of slander and defamation by Mr Amanat. Nonetheless, it is hard to see how the Nikke Finke article is a reliable source when, according to our own article on her, she appears to rely heavily on certain industry executives for her sources and is known for treating them favorably--which would potentially be a violation of NPOV if we cited a potentially biased source. While there is no evidence that these industry execs include Summit execs, I believe we should wait to see how this one plays out. If the letters are to be believed, it appears litigation is likely in which case we can revisit as it would likely be published in more reliable sources. J araneo (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of NPOV does not arise if the matter is confined to such marginal sources. Under BLP policy claims made of such a nature really cannot be included at all in Wikipedia without better support. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bridges TV[edit]

We dealt with this previously in the discussion forum. There is no independently verifiable information that is cited to make it clear that he was a "spokesman" or an "investor" or that the relationship "floundered" by 2004. Open to a mutual resolution that is verifiable using reliable sources. J araneo (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo News reported
The text I added was: Amanat was a spokesman and investor for the start-up Muslim-American channel Bridges TV, along with spokesman and founder Muzzammil Hassan, but the business relationship floundered by 2004 and I cited Jay Tokasz (December 20, 2004). "Muslim TV Network Debuted Amid Litigation". Buffalo News. p. B.3. You're right about the "investor" part, on second look. My apologies. It is clearly stated, however, that Amanat was a "key spokesman" and that the "relationship disintegrated". How about we say "Before its debut, Amanat was a spokesman for Bridges TV alongside founder Muzzammil Hassan; Amanat planned on organizing investment in the channel but the relationship disintegrated."? Jesanj (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, while the article cites the original default judgement, a subsequent ruling by the same supreme court justice ruled that the $500,000 judgement was vacated because Muzzammil Hassan never gave notice to Amanat that he was suing although claimed he had. Moreover, given that this is a stub article your proposed edit seems to be a disproportionately large amount of information to include for a relatively minor chapter in the subject's life that lasted less than a year and "disintegrated". Finally, we discussed this earlier on the discussion page, but saying the words "alongside Bridges TV Founder Muzzammil Hassan" would also imply that every venture that subject was involved in would entail naming who he worked "alongside" i.e he produced Darfur Now alongside George Clooney, or The Visitor alongside Ebay Co-Founder Jeff Skoll or "Smart People" alongside Sarah Jessica Parker" Seems superfluous. I would suggest a compromise by adding a verifiable and readily accessible articles and broadening the theme to be more notable. "He was involved in launching several media ventures including Bridges TV, the U.N.'s Alliance of Civilizations Media Fund and Groundswell Productions http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2008/0216_islamic_world/0216_islamic_world_proceedings.pdf If you think something like this makes sense to make the point more broadly. J araneo (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the mention was disproportionate, but the reference needs to be adequate. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the brookings source should be incorporated. Thanks for mentioning it. Jesanj (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOPIC[edit]

Is it appropriate to include details about Tradescape such as "Tradescape is reported to have processed 7% of NASDAQ's daily trading volume and was named one of the "Top 50 Private Companies in the United States" with annual revenues of $250 million.[4]"? It seems off-topic to me. The dollar amount that it sold for to E*TRADE should be enough details, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Including that much information about Tradescape may not be neccessary since it is not directly about the subject.. but we should probably consider adding other notable information such as subject being named "Top 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World by Georgetown University" http://www.rissc.jo/docs/muslim500-1M-lowres3.pdf or Top 10 Muslim Americans by Islamica Magazine. http://islamicamagazine.com/?p=722 or he was voted "Top Ten Most Influential Technologists" on Wall Street http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=430125&privcapId=40485923&previousCapId=639098&previousTitle=Cooperative%20for%20Assistance%20and%20Relief%20Everywhere,%20Inc. as well as the above noted Brooking information. J araneo (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit[5] added material I find off-topic. Amanat worked at Datek for a year after undergrad. Whatever Datek sold for has no verified relevance to Amanat. I don't see any source that says Amanat played any key role at the company. It serves as an example of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. The NYT source[6] doesn't mention Amanat. It should be removed. Jesanj (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Surviving" 9/11 & fluff[edit]

I haven't read the source, but what is "surviving" 9/11. Was he wounded? Seriously? Critically? I keep seeing fluff pop up in this article. Why? Jesanj (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the "twin towers collapsed, leaving 500 of his employees out of work". Did all of his employees survive? What business was this? Jesanj (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New referenced content?[edit]

This article was recently published in the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3132778/GIRL-TOWN-Naomi-nobbles-gatecrasher-45th-birthday-bash.html

Perhaps this text can be included in the article:

According to the Daily Mail, in June of 2015, Omar Amanat arrived, apparently uninvited, to Naomi Campbell's party. Reportedly, Amanat was asked to leave, at which point he tried to ban Campbell for life from the Aman Resort chain. A spokesman from Aman Resorts commented: ‘Mr Amanat is not a representative. We very much look forward to welcoming Naomi’s continued patronage.’

What do other Wiki editors think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.96.139 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reads a little bit like tittle tattle to me; for the dispute over the ownership of the resort there are probably better sourced articles. But feel free to Be Bold!. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Omar Amanat. 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) 13:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI Editor??[edit]

Hi all,

I'm a new Wikipedia editor, so excuse me if this is out of line, but this page seems to have a very prominent COI editor in "J araneo" damaging the value of the page. Specifically, I'm not sure why this editor feels the need to make the out-of-date claim that Amanat is still the Chairman of Aman Resorts, when this has not been the case since 2014. Aman's Leadership page at https://www.aman.com/leadership will confirm that Vladislav Doronin is now the Chairman. In addition, I agree with the recent IP editor's assessment that the current version of the page contains far too much detail into the legal battle over Aman Resorts and is in violation of WP:UNDUE.

A look at J araneo's list of contributions makes it clear that he is a one-issue editor who has almost exclusively been editing this page and other related pages since he joined in December 2005. In addition, he admitted a relationship to Amanat's MarketXT company in his edit here. Isn't this the type of COI editor who is strongly discouraged and/or banned from editing the page? I am now returning the page to the way it was before J Areneo reverted those previous edits. Jeremy Harrison (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Amanat is definitely NOT the chairman of Aman Resorts[edit]

Hi all,

I just did some extensive research looking for a recent mention of Amanat as the chairman of Aman Resorts, and there is not one mention in a long list of recent articles about Amanat (see below). There is one article that directly states, referring to Amanat and a "Russian-born real estate developer (Vladislav Doronin):"While the pair started as co-investors, they wound up as rivals, battling in courts in the U.K. and U.S. for control, which Amanat lost."[1]

This source is more recent than the source that is being used to make the outdated claim that Amanat is the chairman. He is no longer the chairman, so please do not put this incorrect information back on the Wiki. Here are some of the other articles from as recent as May, 2017, which describes in detail what Amanat has been up to recently, and none of it includes being chairman of Aman Resorts. Editors coming across this discussion are welcome to use the following sources to put together a more accurate and up to date discussion of Omar Amanat on the article space.

[http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/how-big-was-influence-of-huma-abedins-family/ How big was influence of Huma Abedin's family?: World Net Daily]

New Arrest in Fraud Probe of Bankrupt Video Tech Firm: Fortune

Amanat Arrested on fraud charges: Page Six

New York entrepreneur Amanat indicted for fraud scheme: Reuters

Omar Amanat can’t afford to make bail: Page Six

The Mystery Behind Wall Street’s Wildest Party: Fortune

--- Jeremy Harrison (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Van Voris, Bob; Berthelsen, Christian. "Fraud Charges Cloud Entrepreneur's Story of His Success". Bloomberg Pursuits. Retrieved 16 July 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omar_Amanat&oldid=1198529699"