Amicaveritas (talk | contribs) |
Daedalus969 (talk | contribs) →Your argument is flawed: consensus is against you |
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
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. [[User:Amicaveritas|Amicaveritas]] ([[User talk:Amicaveritas|talk]]) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
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. [[User:Amicaveritas|Amicaveritas]] ([[User talk: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.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 09:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:55, 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 evididence 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 users make on 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)