WebHamster (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
::: Well, I'm certainly with you that well-sourced material belongs on Wikipedia. And I agree that articles should reflect what the sources say. But I think in this case there's a conflict between what the sources say and [[WP:NPOV]]; in other words, I think the press have been very unkind to Ahmed by printing that he was arrested, printing that he was on bail, but then not printing anything when the case was dropped. (The "bail" you're talking about is police bail, which in UK law doesn't necessarily mean Ahmed was charged with anything.)<p>So I think our guiding policies are in conflict with one another, and this is a [[WP:BLP|biography of a living person]], which means we need to seek local consensus before we add any material about this incident to the article.<p>It would probably help if you provided the actual wording you propose to use?—[[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>]] 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
::: Well, I'm certainly with you that well-sourced material belongs on Wikipedia. And I agree that articles should reflect what the sources say. But I think in this case there's a conflict between what the sources say and [[WP:NPOV]]; in other words, I think the press have been very unkind to Ahmed by printing that he was arrested, printing that he was on bail, but then not printing anything when the case was dropped. (The "bail" you're talking about is police bail, which in UK law doesn't necessarily mean Ahmed was charged with anything.)<p>So I think our guiding policies are in conflict with one another, and this is a [[WP:BLP|biography of a living person]], which means we need to seek local consensus before we add any material about this incident to the article.<p>It would probably help if you provided the actual wording you propose to use?—[[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>]] 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::I can't say that I have any problems with what has been written so far. It's been referenced from a reliable source, it's certainly noteworthy that he was arrested, whether or not he was charged is immaterial so long as the article makes it clear that this is the case, and so far the new additions do just that. This gentleman has made a deliberate attempt to come into the public eye and with that comes a certain amount of acceptance that shit happens (whether he likes it or not), and when it does it's going to be written about. When the Old Bill comes-a-knocking on your door for something like money laundering then that is not something that wriggles out of an article using the [[WP:WEIGHT]] get out of jail free card. If it was something minor like enjoying the odd joint or not paying parking tickets then that's one thing, and I'm pretty bloody sure that if I was arrested for that same offence then I'd tick the box that says "yes I think I'll remember that for the rest of my life". So all in all given that this is adequately referenced and neutrally worded then I !vote that it should stay. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<font color="#000000">Web</font><font color="#ff0000">H</font><font color="#000000">amster</font>]]''' 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
::::I can't say that I have any problems with what has been written so far. It's been referenced from a reliable source, it's certainly noteworthy that he was arrested, whether or not he was charged is immaterial so long as the article makes it clear that this is the case, and so far the new additions do just that. This gentleman has made a deliberate attempt to come into the public eye and with that comes a certain amount of acceptance that shit happens (whether he likes it or not), and when it does it's going to be written about. When the Old Bill comes-a-knocking on your door for something like money laundering then that is not something that wriggles out of an article using the [[WP:WEIGHT]] get out of jail free card. If it was something minor like enjoying the odd joint or not paying parking tickets then that's one thing, and I'm pretty bloody sure that if I was arrested for that same offence then I'd tick the box that says "yes I think I'll remember that for the rest of my life". So all in all given that this is adequately referenced and neutrally worded then I !vote that it should stay. --[[User:WebHamster|'''<font color="#000000">Web</font><font color="#ff0000">H</font><font color="#000000">amster</font>]]''' 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::Definetly agree! |
|||
* Expanded the biography section (looks small) with these informations (hope it meets to requirement): |
|||
''Brought up in a devout Muslim family,[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-436491/My-love-Syed-tore-apart.html Daily Mail] his father worked as a [[tailor]], and his mother a [[housewife]], raising Ahmed and his five sisters at home. He attended the [[Sir John Cass]] school from the age of 11 to 17 achieving 7 [[GCSE]]s. He then attended at [[Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College|Hammersmith College]], where he achieved a [[BTEC]] in [[Business]] and [[Finance]]. He worked in [[McDonald's]] and [[Burger King]], including selling shoes, working as a waiter and managing restaurants. He trained at the [[Air Training Corps]] who had a prospect of becoming an [[Royal Air Force|RAF]] [[pilot]], but decided to do business. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-400186/Yes-Apprentice-parents.html Daily Mail bio] |
|||
''The relationship between both has been described as 'just friends'. [http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Michelle-Syed-And-I-Are-Just-Friends/Article/200605213523317?lid=ARTICLE_13523317_Michelle:%20'Syed%20And%20I%20Are%20Just%20Friends'&lpos=searchresults Sky News report]'' |
|||
== semi protected == |
== semi protected == |
Revision as of 11:32, 3 May 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)
- Reading between the lines, Ahmed wasn't even charged. He wasn't due to go to court in October but merely to answer to police bail. The Mail quotes Ahmed's solicitor as saying that "I am confident the police interview on Friday (August 14) will be the end of the matter". Roger Davies talk 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- If that's so, then I would recommend the "controversy" section be cut to one sentence, reading:
"In 2006, Ahmed was arrested in connection with allegations of a financial irregularity, but no charges were brought."
We could optionally add Ahmed's solicitor's comments after that, though I'm anxious to keep such a section as brief as possible.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Except, absent a source, that's original research :) Roger Davies talk 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Source :P—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's the bit saying he was not charged that is the OR/speculation. That's the problem with trying to cobble together biographies from press snippets. They don't give the whole story. Best, probably, not to say anything about any of it. Roger Davies talk 22:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Source :P—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Except, absent a source, that's original research :) Roger Davies talk 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- If that's so, then I would recommend the "controversy" section be cut to one sentence, reading:
- So far, given the shorth length of the article, I don't yet see a need to even put that in, since readers could be misled. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think that there are very few situations where information that appears in reliable sources should be cut out of Wikipedia completely. Besides, I think a lot of people who read the article will remember the BBC's coverage and wonder what happened next. This is a chance to draw a line under the event, which (I note) the BBC has neglected to do.
But if the consensus is to cut the "controversy" section completely, I would not object.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I think that there are very few situations where information that appears in reliable sources should be cut out of Wikipedia completely. Besides, I think a lot of people who read the article will remember the BBC's coverage and wonder what happened next. This is a chance to draw a line under the event, which (I note) the BBC has neglected to do.
- So far, given the shorth length of the article, I don't yet see a need to even put that in, since readers could be misled. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Mr Marshal, I'm sure people wonder what happened next. It is my understanding that the matter was dropped and from what I’ve read that it was simply an innocent favour for a friend, that was not illegal, but backfired publically. But without a published sourced stating what happened, inclusion of this doesn’t seem possible. I am fairly sure that had there been more to it, e.g. charges or a trial, instead of - as Roger points out above - answering bail rather than a court appearance it would have been reported on in depth. The absence of this speaks volumes doesn’t it? In the absence of further publication on the story either way - I wouldn’t object if the controversies section was removed. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you and I don't think the sources even support the word "controversey" for anything having to do with this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seconded on that. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you and I don't think the sources even support the word "controversey" for anything having to do with this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Mr Marshal, I'm sure people wonder what happened next. It is my understanding that the matter was dropped and from what I’ve read that it was simply an innocent favour for a friend, that was not illegal, but backfired publically. But without a published sourced stating what happened, inclusion of this doesn’t seem possible. I am fairly sure that had there been more to it, e.g. charges or a trial, instead of - as Roger points out above - answering bail rather than a court appearance it would have been reported on in depth. The absence of this speaks volumes doesn’t it? In the absence of further publication on the story either way - I wouldn’t object if the controversies section was removed. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Rest of the Profile
While we are discussing this can we cast an eye over the rest of the profile also? I've looked at and noted the publicity whitewash that Voicecommunications attempted - and have to say I would have reverted those edits myself. However - I question how relevant the entry on Michele's miscarriage is to a biography of this length and whether it belongs here in any case. I don't dispute the source, veracity or verifiability; I only question its relevance. It was (I'm sure) a painful experience for both of them. Are there any grounds to remove it? I’d say it’s reasonable to mention they dated and split up as they were both notable due to the Apprentice at the time.
In the same section I added information pertaining to Mr Ahmed's education. I cannot cite sources at present. However if it is not considered contentious (or overly publicising) can it stand or does it need to go? I added it to try to balance the section with really otherwise only talked about Michele's miscarriage.
I'd also propose that the tone of Television Appearances is set more neutrally, as it paints a negative picture currently. I have seen other reports as to why Mr Ahmed was fired and I think that the weight of all articles is inconclusive concerning the exact reasons as to why. Surely a neutral tone would just say that: he appeared on the show, was a member of Invicta and was fired in week 10 without going into detail? Amicaveritas (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Once a BLP is drawing this kind of heed, everything in it should be carefully sourced and (neutrally) written. If there are other sources to be had, say about the reality shows (and what's there now doesn't seem untowards or even all that unflattering to me, no shame in losing a public game which is likely rigged to begin with), the article should carry them. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- You should probably not write any of the material yourself, Amicaveritas, because there's a risk you could be seen as having a potential conflict of interest concerning the article. But I can rewrite it once the page protection is lifted. It would help me if you could try to locate sources and point them out here on the talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is likely so, Amicaveritas. Your input here on the talk page is welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I try to maintain detached professionalism in COI situations wherever they occur, but I understand your concerns and the perception that this could create. I've no objection to Mr Marshall doing the rewrite; thank you for the offer. I have somewhat limited time this week unfortunately; I will try to consolidate sources for you ASAP, would Monday be OK with you? Amicaveritas (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whenever you can give it, your input is more than welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. There is no deadline!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mr Marshal: in addition to previous cited links you may find the following useful. Some of the links are obviously his own material (please note I've not had a chance to review the content for each of the links personally) - but I'm sure you'll treat them appropriately. (As a point of interest the Daily Mail has now withdrawn the story from its website relating to the incident with Syed's business partner).
- Indeed. There is no deadline!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whenever you can give it, your input is more than welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I try to maintain detached professionalism in COI situations wherever they occur, but I understand your concerns and the perception that this could create. I've no objection to Mr Marshall doing the rewrite; thank you for the offer. I have somewhat limited time this week unfortunately; I will try to consolidate sources for you ASAP, would Monday be OK with you? Amicaveritas (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is likely so, Amicaveritas. Your input here on the talk page is welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- You should probably not write any of the material yourself, Amicaveritas, because there's a risk you could be seen as having a potential conflict of interest concerning the article. But I can rewrite it once the page protection is lifted. It would help me if you could try to locate sources and point them out here on the talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Biog links : http://www.ecademy.com/account.php?id=231140 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/a/56a/b19 http://syed-ahmed.com http://www.abfed.co.uk/index.asp?p=News-And-Events&s=News-And-Events-Archive&a=45
Savortex links : http://www.ecademy.com/account.php?id=231140 http://www.angelsden.co.uk/Applicants/AppOne.aspx?tag=191 http://www.etetra.co.uk/design_portfolio_business.html
Apprentice: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/mar/21/the-apprentice-contestants http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-384402/Syed-Youre-fired.html
National TV awards nominee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Badger http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/nov/01/mediamonkey
Public speaking:
Young Chamber, spin off from the Chamber of commerce : http://www.youngchamber.com/CaseStudy-detail.asp?csid=14 http://www.iwcollege.ac.uk/news.php?id=16
Asian business federation : http://www.abfed.co.uk/index.asp?p=News-And-Events&s=News-And-Events-Archive&a=45 Oxford universities , trading places “pioneering ambitions”: http://www.tuduloo.co.uk/mcc/mcc4.html
Oxford entrepreneurs : http://www.oxfordentrepreneurs.co.uk/events/ http://groupspaces.com/oxfordentrepreneurs/emails/11335 http://www.syed-ahmed.com/page-news&page1=4.html
SEEDA : ( make your mark campaign) http://www.seeda.co.uk/Publications/Global_Competitiveness/docs/TheMark_Summer2007.pdf
Herst connections, Ecademy : http://www.danstorey.com/herts-connections-syed-ahmed/
Charities : Non Exec Director of restless beings, helped set this up from scratch : http://www.restlessbeings.org/pages/contact http://www.syed-ahmed.com/page-testimonials&page1=3.html
Breakthrough breast cancer : Standard charter, great city race : http://static.cityrace.co.uk/pdfs/apprentice.pdf http://www.syed-ahmed.com/page-testimonials.html http://www.timeout.com/london/sport/event/110612/standard-chartered-great-city-race-5k.html
Thanks again to both you and Gwen. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Amicaveritas. I'll work on the article in the next few days, you might want to check back in a week.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
← You folks seem to be doing well; do you still need mediation assistance?
- I think mediation is unnecessary. All is progressing well now thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no information of Syed Ahmed being arrested for being involved with money laundering which has been all over on news articles in the past years, if there is denial to this then at least there should be some detail of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.56.3 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The key point is WP:WEIGHT. Ahmed was arrested but, so far as we can see, never even charged, let alone convicted. Therefore, having a lengthy section on that incident in the article is not acceptable; see the discussion above.
At the moment, there appears to be a consensus that no reference to the incident should be made on Wikipedia. I disagree with this consensus, and I have argued that a brief mention should be made here, along with a clear statement that to the best of our knowledge, Ahmed was never charged or convicted. However, the issue is that there's no source for that statement.
I think that what we need is a reliable source that describes the outcome of Ahmed's address, and it'll be hard to reach consensus without one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The key point is WP:WEIGHT. Ahmed was arrested but, so far as we can see, never even charged, let alone convicted. Therefore, having a lengthy section on that incident in the article is not acceptable; see the discussion above.
- But these are obviously factual events which have taken place regards of whether the person likes it or not, it has been in the media for quite some time by the BBC, Sky News, the Daily Mail[2], Evening Standard and many others, how can it be neutral when it is taking the side of 'hiding it', other than the side of neutrality which is obviously breaking the rules of the site. I think it should be written that the the 'claimed' £400,000 misled loan from Mr Brady was actually a mistake, which does state that Syed was released on bail, that is looking at both sides of the story. Those coming to the article may be looking for this event but won't be able to find it, therefore the best solution is to add the correct details based on neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.182.32 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm certainly with you that well-sourced material belongs on Wikipedia. And I agree that articles should reflect what the sources say. But I think in this case there's a conflict between what the sources say and WP:NPOV; in other words, I think the press have been very unkind to Ahmed by printing that he was arrested, printing that he was on bail, but then not printing anything when the case was dropped. (The "bail" you're talking about is police bail, which in UK law doesn't necessarily mean Ahmed was charged with anything.)
So I think our guiding policies are in conflict with one another, and this is a biography of a living person, which means we need to seek local consensus before we add any material about this incident to the article.
It would probably help if you provided the actual wording you propose to use?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can't say that I have any problems with what has been written so far. It's been referenced from a reliable source, it's certainly noteworthy that he was arrested, whether or not he was charged is immaterial so long as the article makes it clear that this is the case, and so far the new additions do just that. This gentleman has made a deliberate attempt to come into the public eye and with that comes a certain amount of acceptance that shit happens (whether he likes it or not), and when it does it's going to be written about. When the Old Bill comes-a-knocking on your door for something like money laundering then that is not something that wriggles out of an article using the WP:WEIGHT get out of jail free card. If it was something minor like enjoying the odd joint or not paying parking tickets then that's one thing, and I'm pretty bloody sure that if I was arrested for that same offence then I'd tick the box that says "yes I think I'll remember that for the rest of my life". So all in all given that this is adequately referenced and neutrally worded then I !vote that it should stay. --WebHamster 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Definetly agree!
- I can't say that I have any problems with what has been written so far. It's been referenced from a reliable source, it's certainly noteworthy that he was arrested, whether or not he was charged is immaterial so long as the article makes it clear that this is the case, and so far the new additions do just that. This gentleman has made a deliberate attempt to come into the public eye and with that comes a certain amount of acceptance that shit happens (whether he likes it or not), and when it does it's going to be written about. When the Old Bill comes-a-knocking on your door for something like money laundering then that is not something that wriggles out of an article using the WP:WEIGHT get out of jail free card. If it was something minor like enjoying the odd joint or not paying parking tickets then that's one thing, and I'm pretty bloody sure that if I was arrested for that same offence then I'd tick the box that says "yes I think I'll remember that for the rest of my life". So all in all given that this is adequately referenced and neutrally worded then I !vote that it should stay. --WebHamster 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm certainly with you that well-sourced material belongs on Wikipedia. And I agree that articles should reflect what the sources say. But I think in this case there's a conflict between what the sources say and WP:NPOV; in other words, I think the press have been very unkind to Ahmed by printing that he was arrested, printing that he was on bail, but then not printing anything when the case was dropped. (The "bail" you're talking about is police bail, which in UK law doesn't necessarily mean Ahmed was charged with anything.)
- But these are obviously factual events which have taken place regards of whether the person likes it or not, it has been in the media for quite some time by the BBC, Sky News, the Daily Mail[2], Evening Standard and many others, how can it be neutral when it is taking the side of 'hiding it', other than the side of neutrality which is obviously breaking the rules of the site. I think it should be written that the the 'claimed' £400,000 misled loan from Mr Brady was actually a mistake, which does state that Syed was released on bail, that is looking at both sides of the story. Those coming to the article may be looking for this event but won't be able to find it, therefore the best solution is to add the correct details based on neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.182.32 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Expanded the biography section (looks small) with these informations (hope it meets to requirement):
Brought up in a devout Muslim family,Daily Mail his father worked as a tailor, and his mother a housewife, raising Ahmed and his five sisters at home. He attended the Sir John Cass school from the age of 11 to 17 achieving 7 GCSEs. He then attended at Hammersmith College, where he achieved a BTEC in Business and Finance. He worked in McDonald's and Burger King, including selling shoes, working as a waiter and managing restaurants. He trained at the Air Training Corps who had a prospect of becoming an RAF pilot, but decided to do business. Daily Mail bio
The relationship between both has been described as 'just friends'. Sky News report
semi protected
I have semi-protected the article so that only established users can edit it, owing to meaningful WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT worries which must be thoroughly talked through here on the talk page. Edits to the article itself should only be made with the consensus of other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've posted on the BLP noticeboard asking for input from other editors so that consensus can be reached.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)