86.4.136.50 (talk) |
86.4.136.50 (talk) |
||
Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
:::I agree with S Marshall- as a BLP, we need to take care in how the article is written, both in content and in presentation. I don't think this means excising everything about this case from the article, but it certainly does mean at least ''addressing'' [[WP:AGF|good faith suggestions]] that an article is problematic. WebHamster, please take a break and rethink your approach to this... I don't mean to offend, but it strikes me that you're making some very broad assumptions of bad faith that are only serving to inflame this situation. —/[[User:Mendaliv|<b>M</b><small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
:::I agree with S Marshall- as a BLP, we need to take care in how the article is written, both in content and in presentation. I don't think this means excising everything about this case from the article, but it certainly does mean at least ''addressing'' [[WP:AGF|good faith suggestions]] that an article is problematic. WebHamster, please take a break and rethink your approach to this... I don't mean to offend, but it strikes me that you're making some very broad assumptions of bad faith that are only serving to inflame this situation. —/[[User:Mendaliv|<b>M</b><small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::: I've never asked for it to be removed. I originally edited it with very similar wording to Hamster, with the exception that I disambiguated "Ahmed". The edit was not allowed as it in theory involves OR and speculation based on the facts. On this basis the consensus at the time |
:::: I've never asked for it to be removed. I originally edited it with very similar wording to Hamster, with the exception that I disambiguated "Ahmed". The edit was not allowed as it in theory involves OR and speculation based on the facts. On this basis the consensus at the time suggested striking (not my suggestion). As I state above I'd personally be happy with full, balanced, clear and accurate inclusion. I'm sure Mr Ahmed would rather see it removed. All I ask is that if it is to be included it is clear and balanced. Any wording that insinuates guilt by association would not be agreeable under Wiki policies. Any wording would have to take the position of "innocence until proven guilty" which is the law of this land. The facts are there in the sources to support this. The only thing missing is a reported outcome. It's quite clear why an outcome was not reported. [[Special:Contributions/86.4.136.50|86.4.136.50]] ([[User talk:86.4.136.50|talk]]) 06:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:56, 15 May 2009
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Biography B‑class | |||||||
|
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[1], 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)
- I beleive that the article as it stands currently is largely neutral, adequately sourced and reasonably balanced. However with regard to your point of reinstating the arrest story - simply reporting this without qualification, or follow up is certainly not neutral and is definitely defamatory. There is no source for qualification because it's no longer newsworthy or noteworthy. The Daily Mail has now entirely withdrawn one of its articles on this, although I note that it still seems to have one you link above (presumably an oversight on their part). The others publishers will follow shortly or will publish a follow up. You can your own conclusions as to why this is but I can assure you that Jimbo Wales very much applies. I also dispute that just because one enters the public eye "shit happens, whether you like it or not" as you so eloquently put it; there are statutory recourses for "shit" that shouldn't have happened. I would also remind you that this discussion page is a public forum and as such comments here are "published" with all the due considerations that this brings (Note Reference 3 WP:DOLT). Amicaveritas (talk) 18:45, 10 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)
- 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[1], 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)
- I'm not sure why you allude to WP:DOLT. Are you saying that if the mention of the arrest is included someone will be threatening legal action? Regardless, the fact of the matter is that he was arrested for quite a serious matter. Whether he likes it or not this is now public record. Also whether he likes it or not it's a notable incident both in his life and with regard to this article. You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote above though. I did actually mean that when his arrest is mentioned it should also be quite clearly mentioned that he was released without charge. To not mention this event in the article is very definitely a requirement to avoid POV. This guy has been implicated in several unlawful shenanigans whether by design or by accident and this requires an addition to the article to show this.
- Now so far we've assumed good faith that your attempts at keeping these negative events out of the article were for purposes of BLP. With you bringing up WP:DOLT I am starting to doubt that. I'm also starting to doubt your neutrality and am starting to suspect that there is a WP:COI going on here, especially given that this is seemingly the only article you are interested in. I sincerely doubt that your interest is for the benefit of the project or for the article. So could you please declare any relationship you have with Mr Ahmed, or are you Mr Ahmed? Either way the mention of the arrest should be included if a reliable source is still available, although as I said earlier, it should be done in a balanced way that makes it clear that charges were not brought. Oh, and by the way, the truth is always a defence against defamation, at least here in the UK anyway. --WebHamster 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can see no good faith on your part. There is plenty from the other editor involved in this discussion. Yes - there is an established COI - which I do not dispute. Gwen and MR Marshall are quite aware of this - which is why Gwen is mediating and Mr Marshal - an experienced biographer did the re-write.
As has been the basis of many discussions over the last month the COI in no way invalidates the mass of arguments I have put forward which to my understanding have consensus where as you do not. You have been informed the content is defamatory. You are now liable for any consequences by reposting it. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for the republication of tabloid sleaze. The policies are quite clear - I'm not going to restate it here yet again - reliability is NOT the only consideration. The other considerations of Neutrality, Weight, Defamation, DOLT, Living Persons Biography guidelines all carry greater weight and take precedence. Please revert your last edit. It is not neutral. It is defamatory. It violate wiki policies. It is against concensus.Amicaveritas (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- With regard to your defense of "truth" as you put it - you'd better be 100% certain that all facts have been reported "truthfully". Please supply your contact details. However that in no way alters the arguments that the comments have no place in wikipedia. It also in no way invalidates the fact the headings such as "legal problems" have no place in Biographies of Living. The a similar heading has already been removed by Gwen. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I should also add if you are not aware of the COI you clearly have not read all the debate realting to this article. You should do so before suggesting edits, let alone making them. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly I don't respond to threats legal or otherwise, whether in the real world or on Wikipedia. I suggest you quit whilst you are ahead. Secondly you should be aware of WP:OWN, something you seem intent on doing with this article. The facts are that Syed was arrested, it's a fact he was arrested on suspicion of money laundering. What is also a fact is that the basic ethos of Wikipedia is not truth, it's verifiability. All the information in the section you are concerned with has been verified from multiple, numerous and reliable sources. I've just rewritten the loan paragraph to try to be as neutral as possible and to be as accurate as possible given the references. Whether you like it or not being arrested for a serious offence such as money laundering is notable both for him personally and for Wikipedia standards. As such I strongly feel it should be included. Don't forget, consensus, although desired, is not compulsory. My reasons for including this information and my methods for doing so are well within the rules here and don't even come close to being "vandalism". Unlike you I edit on varied subject matters. I have no personal interest whatsoever in Ahmed or what he does. What I do have is a genuine interest in WP. I wish the same could be said for you.
- I do find it somewhat hypocritical that right from the outset you have wiki-lawyered with the best of them to prevent anything negative being said about Ahmed, but once those same rules start proving to be a hurdle you immediately start throwing accusations of others being unfair towards you because of the rules.
- If you genuinely want to improve this article, rather than playing the defensive line-up for Ahmed, why don't you fill out the article with noteworthy positive information? That would sort out the undue weight accusations. Accusations which I personally think is bull. If this article was the article of a murderer then pretty much everything in it would be negative. As it is there are a couple of instances of Ahmed getting in strife with the Old Bill. So what, they're true, they happened and they are noteworthy. Both you and Ahmed need to learn to live with it and move on. --WebHamster 14:19, 14 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangali71 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
WebHamster is continuing to vandalise this article with defamtory content that clearly violates Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living People. His edits are not Neutral and are against concensus. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- We had a consensus to strike. This was your view, my view and Mr Marshal's view. Roger also voiced his concerns. Has this changed? How can Hamster be permitted to edit without consensus? In your comment above you state that edits should only be made with consensus achieved after discussion. This is clearly not the case.
- Ironically his edits are similar in content to my original ones. Originally I was not opposed to the inclusion just the wording (I am still opposed to the wording and also it's inclusion) and while some of his commentary is laudable it is original research and cannot be published on Wikipedia. It was on this basis we all agreed to strike the comments. Additionally the heading "Legal Problems" is no better than "Controversies". The edit is also factually incorrect as it misleads readers to believe that the police suspected Syed Ahmed of misleading Terry Brady which was NEVER the case and has NOT been reported as such. It was Afted Ahmed that was accused of potentially misleading Brady. With this and the weight issues please remove his edits and replace the full protection. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally given the weight of previous argument, the consensus reached, the fact his edit is a total reversal of the entire debate and that he's doing this without consensus I'd argue that it is clearly a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" which most definitely falls under the heading of vandalism. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain how am I supposed to accept that a single editor can ammend a semi-protected article, without concensus, immediatley after concerns have been raised again (the same concerns that removed the text in the first place) as an act of good faith? He made the edits immediately after I raised concerns. This appears to be one sided edit warring. It's wrong. It's against policy and it's not an act of good faith. If it's not vandalism then Hamster should remove edits (pending discussion and concensus) and retract his libellous comment above immediately. I also believe if he doesn't then they should be removed immediately in any case pending discussion and consensus. Amicaveritas (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
full protection
I have fully protected the article owing to edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Gwen, once again - it is quite wrong and against wikipedia policy to protect the article with contentious text in it. I ask that as before it is removed pending discussion, debate and concensus. The current content does not have concensus and should not remain. This view was accepted before. Nothing has happened to change this. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- The content is factually incorrect. The article reports that "Ahmed" mislead - this refers to Afted Ahmed. The current article make it appear that this is Syed Ahmed. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- See The Wrong Version. I protected the article as soon as I saw the edit warring, the version I protected was happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
A call for calm, neutrality
Amicaveritas has asked me to step in and take a look at this, and while I had been previously involved in this dispute when Amicaveritas first showed up, to be honest I've been so embroiled in other things since, I can't remember a damn thing of what happened. Here's what I see now:
- We have a section that mentions the following:
- Allegations of involvement in a money laundering incident, and discussion into the details thereof
- Syed Ahmed's arrest/surrender to police during the investigation into that incident
- No conclusion of this matter appears to be mentioned
- Amicaveritas objects to this section, though it is not clear to me which of the above points, if not all of them, he objects.
- This matter appeared to be resolved (judging from the article history) by S Marshall's 2 May revert, excluding the money laundering section, and calling for discussion per WP:BRD.
- WebHamster re-added the section with some decent references on 11 May. However, there are portions of that new section that aren't well-referenced or are unclear (e.g., the lack of conclusion).
- There are two arguments for excluding this content: WP:BLP (it is harmful) and WP:WEIGHT (it is not significant)
- There are two arguments I see for including it: WP:WEIGHT (it is significant), WP:V (the allegations themselves are verifiable as having been made)
What I suggest is that we can reach some middle ground here. I personally believe that an arrest for a white collar crime, whether Syed Ahmed actually committed a crime, is very significant in this case considering Syed Ahmed's background as a business executive, and therefore merits mention. However, in that same vein, misreporting it here can be extremely damaging to his career as a business executive, and therefore constitutes an enormous legal threat to Wikipeida which should not be overlooked.
Therefore, if we are to discuss Syed Ahmed's arrest, and/or the allegations of his involvement in a money laundering incident, we should at least take care to sit down and discuss the wording carefully. As a show of good faith to Amicaveritas, I would suggest that per S Marshall's 2 May call for WP:BRD on this specific topic and per WP:BLP, we should temporarily remove the money laundering section from the article until a consensus can be reached. Following this, a discussion as to under what terms Amicaveritas would consider including a treatment of the arrest and/or allegations of involvement in a money laundering incident appropriate, if any.
I would strongly admonish all involved to keep a cool head and avoid suggestions that any party is engaging in libel, defamation, disruption, or has a disruptive conflict of interest. Such comments will only serve to derail the discussion, and only reinforce prior feelings of bad faith. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)My concern is also the last sentence in that I gave in to 'pressure' of trying to make the section neutral. Personally I would prefer to remove it because as you said it leaves it open-ended. I couldn't find anything anywhere that reported what the conclusion was which is why I worded the way I did. I put it in because of concerns (from the previous debate) that it wasn't mentioned. Personally I'd like to see it removed purely because it isn't referenced and isn't likely to be anytime soon. I've also attempted to reword the section to point out what exactly what Ahmed's role in the affair was, at least the role that was reported. Pointing out specifically that he voluntarily attended the police station and that he wasn't carted off in cuffs. That all he did was sign a transfer authority and why he did so. From my perspective the section is currently as NPOV as it's every going to be without indulging in grammatical semantics.
- Ultimately I strongly believe that what is there has every right to be there, that what it says is accurate based on public reporting of the affair. Its inclusion does not come under the banner of WP:UNDUE. What I do find interesting though is Amicaveritas' username. Latin for (paraphrasing) "truth of a friend". I might be less cynical if it was just Veritas! --WebHamster 14:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If Amicaveritas will agree to hold to his previous agreement not to edit the article, I will put the article back into semi-protection and, acting as an admin, remove the worrisome BLP content pending discussion here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed this, owing to edit warring, I think the page should stay fully protected for now. Since it's fully protected and following WP:BLP, I have restored the last stable version pending further discussion here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- By stable you actually mean the censored version? The version that panders to Ahmed's publicist?--WebHamster 14:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not censored. There are meaningful BLP worries when a short article about a marginally notable person brings up the term money laundering but there has been no criminal conviction and the incident was three years ago. Otherwise, I've already said why I protected the page and reverted to the stable version. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- The brevity of the article is immaterial. The incident is noteworthy both to him and to us. Weight doesn't come into it. He's probably just as notable for that incident as he is for anything else. When his arrest hits all the tabloids then weight becomes pretty well moot. And frankly I do hate it when admins kow-tow to CoI publicity machines, even when it's not deliberate. --WebHamster 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not censored. There are meaningful BLP worries when a short article about a marginally notable person brings up the term money laundering but there has been no criminal conviction and the incident was three years ago. Otherwise, I've already said why I protected the page and reverted to the stable version. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Instead of attacking other editors and clumsy, hapless admins like me, I suggest any editors who care about this topic talk about the BLP worries here and try to sort them out. I'll lift the protection early if a consensus as to sourcing and wording is reached. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Content Discussion
I refer to:
"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." Amicaveritas (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, you're absolutely correct. However, I believe it is possible for us to have a fair, balanced treatment of the arrest, while still staying well within the lines that WP:BLP defines. However, I do find that an interesting portion of WP:BLP, which says whomever adds or restores the material is responsible for ensuring that the content is in line with WP:BLP.
- However, given the circumstances (namely, that we're having a decent-sized discussion here), we can forego the whole "responsibility" deal for the time being and agree that the content shall remain out until we establish a consensus as to both form and content.
- I will ask all involved to please comment on content, not on contributors. No matter what the other party may do, be the bigger person and try to let things slide in the name of progress. In any case, those of us watching from the sidelines are quite capable of discerning between a personal attack and a genuine concern. I don't mean to direct this at any editor in particular- rather the group in general, in the hopes that we can resolve this as professionally as possible.
- All that said, I'd like to ask of Amicaveritas to let us know if there are any conditions under which he'd consider a treatment of the money laundering arrest in this article to be appropriate. If not, please let us know if you are absolutely adamant in your position that there be zero mention, rather than just being unable to think of any conditions under which you think WP:BLP, etc. would be satisfied. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It was in fact my original view it was included, disambiguated and the outcome detailed to neutrally reflect the true course of events.
- While this is possible in part by ensuring that Afted Ahmed's full name is used when indicating who Brady alleged mislead him it is not possible regarding the outcome as it requires content not published and is therefore not possible under policy.
- If it is to be included I would suggest that full wording similar to that used in the edit I objected to, disambiguating the "Ahmed" references and detailing more positive comments such as those made by his solicitor regarding it being unfortunate that a favour for a friend backfired publically - which is reported on although I need to find the source again.
- If it is going to be in it should be fully detailed. I'd also suggest that neither the drink driving ban nor arrest deserve their own section and should be included in the main biography.
- The facts as reported from the various sources are:
- He went voluntarily to a police station, was arrested (it was not fully reported as to why it was deemed necessary to arrest him, whether this was procedural or otherwise only the what it was in connection with), was questioned regarding activities of his then business partner and friend Afted Ahmed (who had been alleged to have misled Brady) over the transfer monies in a loan. He was bailed. No further media coverage was given (this in itself is telling) and the matter was dropped. Why? Well this source gives a reasonable idea why:
“Detectives began the investigation after a complaint by Mr Brady, Mr Ewing said. Mr Brady, a printing tycoon who is father of Birmingham FC managing director Karren Brady, loaned the money to Aftab Ahmed in circumstances now in dispute. "Terry Brady didn't get paid and the allegation is that Aftab Ahmed deceived him," said Mr Ewing, who also represents Syed's business partner. According to Mr Ewing, Aftab Ahmed paid the £400,000 loan into a dormant business account connected with IT People, the recruitment consultancy the pair set up. Companies House records reveal that Syed resigned from it in June. Some of the money is said to have been used to pay for a ten per cent deposit on property. "When Aftab Ahmed went on holiday, he asked Syed if he could transfer the rest of the money to his wife to complete the property deal," Mr Ewing said. "That is the only involvement he has had. I am confident the police interview on Friday will be the end of the matter." He’d resigned from the company in June, this was reported in August. Brady was disputing the “circumstances” of the loan.
- There’s a whole load of detail missing, but to me it seems clear that this affair is entirely to do with Afted Ahmed and Syed was unfortunate to get caught up in it. There are for that matter no articles referring to Afted Ahmed being charged or even likely to be charged.
Also:
Reports Syed's lawyer SCOTT EWING says, "Syed has been knocked for six and is devastated he has a stain on his business reputation which is wholly undeserved. "This should never have been dealt with as a criminal matter. It is a straightforward dispute."
- That said we still have innocent until proven guilty, he was never charged nor was there ever any reported likelihood of him being charged. So without being able to make it clear he was innocent of any wrong doing I believe that given the relative weight it should be excluded in its entirety. If it can be made clear that there was no wrong doing by Syed I’d support the inclusion.
- If he had been guilty of anything – I’d support the inclusion of that too – but he’s not.
- You’ll note I have nothing to say on his driving ban – he was guilty, it’s fact and it’s covered neutrally. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- On reviewing the history of this talk page, I find my position is well covered in previous posts. For convenience, I'll copy the relevant parts here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
S Marshall's position
|
---|
(1) ...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. (2) ...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." (3)...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. (4) ... 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. (5) ... 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. (6) ... 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. |
Note
I've archived old content from this page as it was getting too long. The link to the archive is in the notice at the top of the page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why do people keep going on about what wasn't mentioned in the press? It's immaterial. WP is only interested in material that is published in reliable sources. It isn't our place to judge, either positively or negatively. It's a fact that he was arrested, whether procedurally or otherwise, it's a fact that the arrest was significant enough to be announced in many media outlets. It's a fact that Ahmed deliberately put himself in the public eye by wishing to go on the programme in the first place therefore the "do no harm" bit is redundant when all it is is a simple reporting of what has been publicly reported... primarily becausae he was already a so-called celebrity.
- The position that we shouldn't include it because not all the facts are in the public domain is laughable, if that was the case there'd be bugger all in the Universe article. We limit ourselves to what is available and report that.
- As regards the "undue weight" BS, well that isn't relevant here. This article is about a public figure (voluntary remember!) so he has to take the rough with the smooth. It's not our fault, nor should it be our concern that there is more information available that is rough rather than smooth. You don't dispense with significant negative material simply because there isn't enough positive to go round. If that was the case Harold Shipman wouldn't have much in his article!
- I do wish Amicaveritas would actually read the rules he's copy and pasting all over the place as he seems to be interpreting them in a way that gets him and his client what they want. So here's a suggestion, why doesn't he relate back to Ahmed that this could all go away by sending an OTRS request on that grounds that Ahmed is only marginally notable and that he wants his article to be deleted? In my view it's better to have no article than one that is run by his PR department. --WebHamster 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let's stop these accusations of bad faith and focus on policy and content.
I do not agree with WebHamster when he describes "undue weight" as "BS". Core policies are not BS.
As for Harold Shipman, he is (a) irrelevant per WP:OCE, (b) a convicted mass-murderer, and thus a little different from Syed Ahmed who was never even charged, and (c) dead, hence by definition not a BLP.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let's stop these accusations of bad faith and focus on policy and content.
- I agree with S Marshall- as a BLP, we need to take care in how the article is written, both in content and in presentation. I don't think this means excising everything about this case from the article, but it certainly does mean at least addressing good faith suggestions that an article is problematic. WebHamster, please take a break and rethink your approach to this... I don't mean to offend, but it strikes me that you're making some very broad assumptions of bad faith that are only serving to inflame this situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've never asked for it to be removed. I originally edited it with very similar wording to Hamster, with the exception that I disambiguated "Ahmed". The edit was not allowed as it in theory involves OR and speculation based on the facts. On this basis the consensus at the time suggested striking (not my suggestion). As I state above I'd personally be happy with full, balanced, clear and accurate inclusion. I'm sure Mr Ahmed would rather see it removed. All I ask is that if it is to be included it is clear and balanced. Any wording that insinuates guilt by association would not be agreeable under Wiki policies. Any wording would have to take the position of "innocence until proven guilty" which is the law of this land. The facts are there in the sources to support this. The only thing missing is a reported outcome. It's quite clear why an outcome was not reported. 86.4.136.50 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)