Amicaveritas (talk | contribs) |
S Marshall (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 110:
:::I was about to protect the page myself. I've handed out edit warring warnings and have removed more questioned BLP content from the text while this is sorted out. Although the source is reliable, the coverage of the claims is thin, they are ''only'' claims and this brings up meaningful [[WP:WEIGHT]] worries. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 12:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Please see also my comments at [[User_talk:Amicaveritas#Syed_Ahmed_.28entrepreneur.29]]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
== Query regarding a point of fact, and pointers to policy ==
Was Ahmed ever ''convicted'' in relation to the alleged money-laundering offence? Did he return to Court in October 2006 at all?<p>This is of critical importance to this discussion, in my view. The underlying principle is ''[[Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit]]''—in other words, if not convicted, Ahmed is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and I feel this should be clearly reflected in any section of the article that relates to the controversy.<p>Another key point to bear in mind, as Gwen Gale has rightly pointed out, is [[WP:WEIGHT|due weight]], which as a subsection of our policy on [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] is a core Wikipedia policy. In other words, the "controversy" section of the article should comprise no more than a small part of its overall treatment of Mr Ahmed, and its previous length gave disproportionate emphasis to that event.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Black">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<font color="black" size="0.5"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<font color="Black" size="0.5"><sub>Cont</sub></font>]] 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 20:28, 21 April 2009
Biography B‑class | |||||||
|
Develop list
Early life
Details of his parents names, when or where they moved to the UK?
Business Career
Information or list of business owned, or currently now in. Salary details etc.
Television career
Add details of his appearance in British television, in The Apprentice, Cirque de Celebrité, Hot Air etc.
Relationship
His former relationship with Michelle (from Apprentice), miscarriage details and break up.
Sourced Content Removal
I am having a hard time understanding why you are removing sourced content from the article. All of the info is backed up by published sources and directly pertain to the subject. TNXMan 19:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The content I specifically object to relates to the money laundering probe. There are two Ahmeds. Some information pertains to Afted Ahmed not Syed Ahmed; that relating to the former this specifically has no place on this page. The remaining text that I ammended refe;ct accurately the article - the existing text deos not. The link to the article is maintained.
Content relating to religious conversion is misquoted - comments relating to his family were unsourced. It has no relevance here in either case. User:Amicaveritas 20:56 April 2009 BST
- Actually, it seems that it is very relevant. To quote, "But Syed Ahmed's financial affairs have attracted the attention of the police after he helped a former business partner transfer money from a disputed £400,000 loan out of a joint account.". Also, the info pertaining to his parents is sourced directly from the article. Again, to quote, "He concedes. however, that his family, who are devout Muslims, would feel more comfortable with the situation if Michelle were to convert from Christianity.
"Yes, they would like it, but only if Michelle wants to. That's how I feel. It has to come from inside. She needs to feel it in her heart. There is no point doing it just to please me."" TNXMan 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I accept your quote regarding Ahmed's comments on his parents liking it if she converted. Liking and hoping are two entirely separate items. If you wish to use the quote: Yes, they would like it, but only if Michelle wants to. That's how I feel. It has to come from inside. She needs to feel it in her heart. There is no point doing it just to please me." I have no objection.
With regard to the charges:-
reading
"Mr Ahmed, who regularly clashed with Sir Alan on the BBC TV show in the spring, was quizzed by detectives over a £400,000 loan from self-made millionaire Terry Brady. It was allegedly used by Mr Ahmed's business partner Aftab Ahmed, who is no relation, to buy a flat. Mr Brady claims he was misled.
Mr Ewing said Aftab Ahmed paid the money into a dormant business account connected with IT People, the recruitment consultancy the pair set up, but which Syed Ahmed has since left.
Aftab Ahmed is understood to have transferred half of it to a personal account and then, while he was abroad, asked Syed Ahmed to transfer the rest. It was this transaction that Syed signed for. Mr Ewing said: 'That is the only involvement he had. I am confident the police interview will be the end of the matter.'
Mr Ahmed, who has confirmed that he is the father of the child expected by Michelle Dewberry, the eventual winner of The Apprentice, insists he did nothing wrong. A friend said: 'It was a personal
loan to Aftab and had no connection to Syed or the company. He is very angry that he is being connected with whatever happened between the other two men.
'Syed is a businessman with a lot to think about, not least the fact that Michelle is pregnant. This is the last thing he needs.' The source added that Mr Ahmed went to the police voluntarily. He said: 'Syed could never have known that one small favour could result in this.'
Last month Bangladesh-born Mr Ahmed appeared in court charged with drink-driving for a fourth time but escaped a jail term after claiming that taking part in The Apprentice had left him depressed and he was struggling to cope with the news that his mother had cancer."
from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-400186/Yes-Apprentice-parents.html and other material it is quite clear that he was guilty of nothing criminal and that any misleading was done by Afted Ahmed. The existing edits do not make this clear, they are hughly one-sided and contravene the wikipedia neutrality policy. They are also tantamount to libel in implying that Syed Ahmed did the misleading, when the article replrts otherwise.
I am seeking a fair representation. The facts are he went voluntarily, had to be arrested to questioned and was not charged - as quite clearly there was no evidence of any wrong doing.
User:Amicaveritas 20:56 April 2009 BST —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC).
Sourced Comment Removal
In regards to the multiple removal of this edit [1], how is it "libelous" to include the properly sourced comment "If there was a Bollywood version of The Office, he would be David Brent." How is it libelous to compare him to a humorous fictional character? I believe in WP:BLP, but this seems to be too much. It's a humorous comment, not libel. Dayewalker (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Your argument is flawed
So we've established that you find it funny to demean a person’s character. Personally I find humour that publically denigrates another human being disgusting. I’m really pleased that you have reported it. I am now requesting mediation on this issue. As previously stated this element of the article is the subject of dispute resolution. Simply because multiple editors make an interpretation of policy does not make it right. If you stand by your comments please pass your name and address to Wikipedia. The policy regarding defamation of the living needs to change. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I also draw your attention to following wording of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
"...Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines..."
I believe this takes precendence over your claims that it's valid because in your opinion it's funny and correctly sourced. As the person who aledgedly said it not attributed it's hearsay and should be stricken as a poorly sourced defamatory comment. Amicaveritas (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're the only person here who disagrees with the sourced information. Just because it is under dispute does not mean it is removed during the resolution process. Since you are contesting the material, and it had previously existed in the article before, the material remains until you can gain consensus for it's removal, which you clearly do not currently have.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- To word it in a better way. You are the only user who disagrees with the material. You are not going to get your way while the material is being discussed, the material will stay until it is deemed able to be removed. You came to this article and started removing the material. It doesn't work like you continue to suggest.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a defamatory and potentially libellous comment about a living person that falls below Notability, serving no other purpose than titillation. On this basis alone it has no place in Wikipedia. The policy is clear. This is grounds for speedy removal. I've only not escalated it to this point only as I believe I'm following protocol by using the DR process first. I disagree that material remains. The policy is clear on this matter. Is this a close shop of frequent editors ganging up on newcomer? Dealing with this is like having to learn for a bar exam in a day. Yet I see no cogent argument against my points raised above. Read the underlying articles in full before quoting policy and re-instating comments. Titillation and or defamation have NO place in Wikipedia - or do you disagree with this? YOU have to prove that the inclusion satisfies ALL Wikipedia policies, not just the ones you choose to look at. The burden of proof is with the restoring editor or contributor. The fact that this has been allowed to persist unchecked for so long is quite disgraceful; it is most certainly not a valid argument for it's re-insertion. Amicaveritas (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're quite backwards, it is not our burden of proof. You are the only one disputing the material, several experienced editors and admins have disagreed with your assesement. The material stays until you gain consensus to remove it, period.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely not.
- 3RR WP:GRAPEVINE
- WP:BLP
- You're quite backwards, it is not our burden of proof. You are the only one disputing the material, several experienced editors and admins have disagreed with your assesement. The material stays until you gain consensus to remove it, period.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a defamatory and potentially libellous comment about a living person that falls below Notability, serving no other purpose than titillation. On this basis alone it has no place in Wikipedia. The policy is clear. This is grounds for speedy removal. I've only not escalated it to this point only as I believe I'm following protocol by using the DR process first. I disagree that material remains. The policy is clear on this matter. Is this a close shop of frequent editors ganging up on newcomer? Dealing with this is like having to learn for a bar exam in a day. Yet I see no cogent argument against my points raised above. Read the underlying articles in full before quoting policy and re-instating comments. Titillation and or defamation have NO place in Wikipedia - or do you disagree with this? YOU have to prove that the inclusion satisfies ALL Wikipedia policies, not just the ones you choose to look at. The burden of proof is with the restoring editor or contributor. The fact that this has been allowed to persist unchecked for so long is quite disgraceful; it is most certainly not a valid argument for it's re-insertion. Amicaveritas (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]
Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines."
Regarding biographies of living the burden of proof lies with the restoring editor. Not the other way round. Which admins? I have no way of knowing who is an admin and who isn't. I've followed all the correct procedures on this. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests. I do not believe that the community of editor can possible condone titilation and defamation. Judging from the outcome on this link I would say that the admin jury is still out on this. Even Black Kite admits the issue is complex.
Can we take a vote?:
All those who believe Titilation & Defamation belong in wikipedia sign here:
Those that believe biographies of the living should adhere to policy above: Amicaveritas (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If you want to build consensus for your edits, a good way to start is not assuming the motives of others.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop bickering the pair of you. Discuss the content not the conduct. Roger Davies talk 12:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Roger, with all due respect if you read my posts relating to this you'll note that the overwhelming majority are entirely focussed on content and policy. Thank you for your protection during the dispute discussion and also for your comments below, especially regarding the nature of the essence of WP:BLP Amicaveritas (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring
I've just fully protected this page for three days. This will enable cooler heads to prevail and, hopefully, give the community time to sort this out. Whether or not the information is sourced, the essense of BLP policy is that the article should not disparage the subject. It might be helpful if there was a calm discussion about this. Roger Davies talk 12:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, you protected it as I was about to add some {{cn}} tags, specifically to the line about his having made 52 flights, and possibly to the line about his educational qualifications. Could you/someone do the honours please? --WebHamster 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Thrash out any additions/deletions/tags here first. One question you might all wish to ask yourselves is whether this article goes into an appropriate level of detail for someone of his level of notability. Roger Davies talk 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't be arsed messing around with an admin who doesn't want to be bothered. I'll just wait the 3 days. --WebHamster 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. Thrash out any additions/deletions/tags here first. One question you might all wish to ask yourselves is whether this article goes into an appropriate level of detail for someone of his level of notability. Roger Davies talk 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for going through with the protection, WebHamster, though I think it may have been unnecessary considering that Amicaveritas agreed to cease reverting for the time being, while the dispute is under discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to protect the page myself. I've handed out edit warring warnings and have removed more questioned BLP content from the text while this is sorted out. Although the source is reliable, the coverage of the claims is thin, they are only claims and this brings up meaningful WP:WEIGHT worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please see also my comments at User_talk:Amicaveritas#Syed_Ahmed_.28entrepreneur.29. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Query regarding a point of fact, and pointers to policy
Was Ahmed ever convicted in relation to the alleged money-laundering offence? Did he return to Court in October 2006 at all?
This is of critical importance to this discussion, in my view. The underlying principle is Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit—in other words, if not convicted, Ahmed is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and I feel this should be clearly reflected in any section of the article that relates to the controversy.
Another key point to bear in mind, as Gwen Gale has rightly pointed out, is due weight, which as a subsection of our policy on neutral point of view is a core Wikipedia policy. In other words, the "controversy" section of the article should comprise no more than a small part of its overall treatment of Mr Ahmed, and its previous length gave disproportionate emphasis to that event.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)