Talk:Asad Ahmad

Someone keeps reverting the sourced inclusion of the harassment charges against Ahmad. It appeared in the London Paper on the date stated, the paper does not archive all article online however. Read wiki policy, sources do not need to be internet based.

Also do not make personal attacks.

i have tidied up the article, removing unverified material and inserting sourced material. i note some of the contents of this article appeared to be entirely untrue - for example it would appear he did not win a royal television society award - a programme he worked on did! a bit of PR work has been at play methinks!

wikipedia is not free publicity! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

Your reference needs additional information, such as the title of the article involved. While offline references or sources are permitted, they must be identifyable rather than being a newspaper and a date. --Sigma 7 01:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To User Sigma 7: but there IS an identified source - it just isn't online. I have the paper! Also this is a matter of public record. He's been in court, he's currently on police bail, it's been in the papers. You should note that the person who is reverting all these mentions has been responsible for also putting in lies about Asad Ahmad an award, when he didn't! It doesn't take a genius to work out this is some very ham fisted PR. Delete it if you want, but it's all sourced.

To the person doing the constant reverting - are you denying that Asad Ahmad was arrested, charged, and bailed? Are you denying this was reported in thelondonpaper? Are you denying that he is to appear in court to face these charges? What has been written that is untrue? Everything is true, everything is public knowledge - what is the problem? Answer that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

I think you're asking me, right? I don't have an opinion on whether or not thelondonpaper reported that he was arrested - it's not particularly relevant, as we need to have reliable sources. If a local entertainment rag is the only media outlet to report on a major media personality being arrested, then I suspect they probably have it wrong, and it's not worth connecting WP with potentially libellous claims. WP:BLP is there for a reason - it's not some PR excercise (I have nothing to do with Asad or the BBC - I've never even been to the UK!). If you can find a reliable corroborating reference, then I have no problem with it going in.

In answer to your question about what more information is required than publication name and date: We really need author, title, and page. But that's all moot without a corroborating reference. Mark Chovain 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The London Paper is *not* an entertainment rag - it's a London evening newspaper published by News International. The story was also reported in the Daily Mail - look back at the article's history and you will see back and forth about the inclusion of this. Someone - not hard to guess who - is attempting a cover-up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.143.107 (talk • contribs).

Don't confuse News International with News Limited (not that it would change your argument much). "The paper is targeted towards young readers, with emphasis on celebrity and more light hearted news, little analysis of news stories and uses lots of images and color." I'm not from the UK, but I'm pretty sure I know this kind of paper. In Australia, it's called MX: It gets handed out for free to commuters in and around all the major transport centres after work. How is that not an entertainment rag? The story was somehow overlooked by all the major news wires. This is sounding like a pretty serious cover up! Even Reuters are in on it! Is it at all possible that one of thelondonpaper's work experience students got confused by another Asad Ahmad? It's a pretty common name, you know. Regardless, in biographies of living people, references must be verifiable and WP:RSreliable. Thelondonpaper is neither of those. Potentially libellous claims must be taken out as quickly as possible. Mark Chovain 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user's objection to proposed expansion

I'd like to expand this article using the information in this revision. An anonymous user (btw please start signing your posts - we can't work with you if you won't work with us properly) objects to some part of this revision, claiming that it contradicts the BBC source. Could the anonymous user please state their specific concern here, so we can move to get this article expanded? Mark Chovain 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are very keen to show positive PR is being done as far as winning the Award is concerned - implying lies and a cover-up. If you take a look at the sources and official BBC site - you will see it is correctly sourced. So what is your motivation with this page then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.148.26 (talk • contribs).

Unlike you guys (Chovain and abusive anon) I don't check this every day so didn't have a chance to respond. Why is it considered sensible to restore the article to a version which isn't written in house style (i.e. calls him "Asad"), contains unsourced and/or unverifiable statements (i.e. nominations for awards, things he reported on, him being a "recognisable face around the capital)? Chovain, you just seem to be a petty person who likes to have his way. You know nothing about the subject - or indeed London (you thought one of the city's main evening newspapers was an "entertainment rag"). The other anon. user has a very clear agenda. Still, I will work with you - I will make amendments to have this reflect style, and I will remove unverifiable and challenge verifiable but unsourced statements.

To the abusive anon - want to know what my motivation is? Well tough - I won't tell you and I don't have to. As long as I stick to truth and you peddle lies and cover ups, all will be as it was.

One question though - when Ahmad next appears in court, and it is reported upon, you're going to look pretty silly for all this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

Before we discuss this further. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Especially when there are two anons refusing to sign, it just gets way too difficult to work out who is saying what.

Wikipedia's Manual of style is a guideline, not a policy. That means that while we should work towards getting a version of the article that follows MOS, it's not grounds for reverting entire chunks of sourced information. Likewise, WP:RS is also a guideline. It says that material that is challenged, or likely to be challenged, should have a source, and the onus is on the editor that put the information in to find a reliable source. The guideline does not say that articles with unsourced claims should be immediately reverted, bowever, we do need to be a bit more wary with articles about living people. WP:BPL says that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives," and that "poorly sourced contentious material [...] should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" (emphasis not mine). I hope that answers your first question about why we don't need to revert entire blocks of data just because he is called "Asad" instead of "Ahmad".

You are correct in claiming that I know nothing of the subject. I hadn't even heard of Asad Ahmad until I came along this conflict by accident. That's my strength here: I know WP's policies and guidelines, and I'm able to help apply them without subject bias. That's a good thing.

If Ahmad appears in court, and it is reported by sources that other editors can reasonably confirm, I won't look silly. If you think that, then you have missed all of my points. I am not saying he wasn't arrested: I'm just saying we don't have a good enough source for such a contentious claim at this point. If it is picked up by mainstream media, or in an offline format that others can easily confirm (doesn't really apply to recent "news"), then I'll be more than happy for it to go in. I will have done my job by stopping it from getting in here until it was verifiable. Mark Chovain 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice 82.35.76.75 hasn't accepted that his previous comments about not winning an RTS award were wildly false. I thought that would make you feel stupid enough and show how wrong you can be. We also look forward to the 3rd August to see if you are right about your "sourced" claims about a court case. You clearly accept you have a motivation and your abuse of Wiki clearly shows this and your fierce attack claiming Ahmad hadn't won anything before proves this also. Looking at your previous amendments, it looks like you must be working on behalf of a certain person don't you agree? After all isn't your vitriolic attack the best form of defence? You clearly have a nasty tone and bad intention as well as abusing Wiki for genuine users by covering up sourced facts - so why don't you leave Wiki to genuine users and possibly try getting a life? I am sure if sourced material does appear in the future nobody will object to its inclusion - this isn't about looking silly unless you wilfully try and abuse the system. Nobody is trying to do that from what I can tell apart from you. So why don't we all stick to what Wiki regard as sourced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.148.26 (talk • contribs).

At the same time, it's important that all sides of a debate assume good faith. Accusations of bad faith and hyperbole achieve nothing. Mark Chovain 23:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So you admit something is happening on 3rd of August - something that was inserted in the article in a sourced manner (i.e. referenced in an article in thelondonpaper? Why did you object to it's inclusion then? Are you gaming the system? I am not wilfully abusing the system - in inserted sourced material about harassment charges which you do not deny have been made, and about a further court appearance which has been scheduled which you do dot deny is happening. You've managed to find a regular user who will back you up - that doesn't make you right though. Anyway, I'll let it lie. Time will tell.

No. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It doesn't matter if it's true or not. When you edit a page (even a talk page), you get a little line above your edit summary that says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." (emphasis not mine). The first line of WP:V is really worth reading: 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' Now the definition of reliable source is a flexible one, and WP:RS is only a guideline, but where we must take it literally, is in the context of WP:BLP, which is policy. It says, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.". (emphasis still not mine)

Offline sources are fine if it's taken from books, as anyone can verify them (with a trip to their local library). Even a lot of newspapers are fairly widely available in libraries around the world. Offline sources are probably okay if the edit is not contentious. If you can find a reliable reference, then it should go in - hell, if it's true and he's found guilty, it'll probably get it's own section.

Please stop wasting my time with all this, "You're going to feel like an idiot when you find out it's true," and "So you admit its true". We care about verifiability, not truth. Mark Chovain 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation and adding new material

I've reorganised the article as previously it was something of a jumble - I've divided his career into "early" and "BBC London", and created an "other activities" section. I've added a couple of fact tags. I've also included a sourced section on the harassment charges, which have been covered in the national press —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

Well done - looks good. I'm going to go and do some more cleaning up later today, which will probably involve removing most of the remaining unsourced stuff if I can't find any sources for it. Mark Chovain 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Harassment charges

The current section as it has stood in any of the revisions over the past week has been acceptable by WP:BLP standards, so it's not as if we need to immediately revert any changes. Can we please stop the edit warring, and just discuss the paragraph here please? We're so close to a compromise, but we'll never get there unless we all talk about it. Mark Chovain 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand - there's no dispute. It's all cool. Article is like a million times better than it was before and no one is edit warring

Sorry, I thought the recent edits were an extension of the earlier edit war. Mark Chovain 00:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

harassment charges

i've removed the lengthy account of the harassment charges, which have now been dropped. no need to quote at legnth from MPAC article. the case is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.250.13 (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC) the MPAC article is the only source that details the conclusion of the case. while i don't doubt the main thrust of the facts in it, the source seems highly unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.250.13 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The lengthy version of the charges section seems to place undue weight on the charges, which seem like they should be minor compared to the rest of his extensive career. Could the anon(s) putting it back in please discuss it here rather than edit war? -- Mark Chovain 08:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It has clearly been of great significance to some Wiki users that Ahmad was charged and they have tried to use this information to discredit him accordingly on this page (I also note from seeing the history of the discussion page that a user tried to make out tht Ahmad had not won an RTS award - referring to it as PR. A quick look at the RTS's own webpage shows this to be wrong and shows the intentions of some people who clearly have an axe to grind). The case took so many twists and turns and in itself was of significance through the legal process being used to challenge the CPS and Police it would seem highly interesting to many people that this action was taken by a current news anchor. He also always said he was innocent and the allegation was false - to have finally shown it whilst risking his career had he have been wrong, is again of great interest for many people. There is also a great deal of difference between the CPS 'declining to give evidence' and saying they 'have no evidence to offer'. The user who made the change is obviously trying to imply there was evidence but the CPS just didn't want to put it forward. The Crown is legally not allowed to do this in English courts. If they have evidence, they must disclose and present it - and if thy have none, then they must declare it to the judge. There is no option to decline to give evidence. This again supports what Ahmad always said and is of significance as is the fact that the complainant was referred to by the CPS as lacking credibility. It puts the whole case in a new light and begins to explain why Ahmad went to such lengths to refuse the cautions and revive the case (which is again of huge legal significance and possibly a first, in English law). I agree there are opinions in the MPACUK piece eg. islamaphobia etc but these have and should be kept out of the wiki page. For those people who will know about the allegations, it seems fair to present the outcome of the case. If Ahmad had lied and been found guilty, I am sure there would be no shortage of the Wiki user (above) wanting to put every detail in about the case. There is no word limit to Wiki pages, so if the reader does not want the details then they do not have to read on and if they do - they can get a overview of the lengthy MPACUK piece on this page sticking only to quotes and facts of te case without the opinion.

Finally, there seems to be a grudge by the wiki user about the Mpac piece, ad yet he is still willing to use quotes and details from it. If that is the case, the facts in the article (and not the opinion) should remain unchallenged. (

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

)

We don't put undue weight on information because another editor is biased, and we want to get even. If your goal is to use this article to "clear his name", then you're as guilty of axe grinding as the other anon. In a few years time, Ahmad will be remembered for being a journalist, not for his day in court. Yes, it's interesting that the case progressed the way it did, but we need no more than two sentences on it. I think you need to step back a bit, and try to be more objective about this: A few months ago, we had an editor hell bent on discrediting Ahmed. Now the discussion seems to be swinging back the other way. This isn't some huge conspiracy. People are accused of things they didn't do every day. We should note the events in the article, but not dwell on them.

It's also worth reading my comment a few sections above (the one with lots of bold in it, that refers to verifiability a lot). Your source is not the best in the world: It's a blog, for starters. If we want to make claims, whether positive or negative about a person, then we need better sources than that.

I'm not suggesting that we go back to the other version: I'll rewrite it completely if I have to, but the current version is too long, and puts too much emphasis on the events. -- Mark Chovain 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between presenting no evidence and there being no evidence to present. There is no doubt that an allegation was made against Ahmad. There is no doubt that in the eyes of the law he is innocent. Both facts are presented. Anything else needs to be properly verified, not lifted from a source that reeks of unreliability and is peppered with inflammatory and politically-motivated statements. And in any case - is a lengthy discussion of one unfortunate innocent, which is now over - the most important thing about Ahmad? Aren't the details of his successful career in local television more important? If so why is the other user suggesting giving so much weight to the harassment allegation? --78.146.211.70 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of "false" in harassment section heading

An allegation is an assertion, and is neither true of false. It is absolute fact that Thea Rogers alleged that he harassed her. There was indisputably a harassment allegation. The underlying asserted facts can be true of false, but an allegation is just that: An allegation. -- Mark Chovain 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the Wiki page for ALLEGATION you will see the word is described as a statement of fact by a party which they claim they can prove. It is therefore always a statement which is at least believed to be true by the party making it. A false allegation is when the allegation is made, but it is either knowingly false or when the allegation can be conclusively proved to be incorrect. Ahmad always said the allegation were false implying they were made by Rogers who knew they were false. Either way, the case was finally dropped when Rogers allegations that Ahmad had harassed her through various ways were scientifically shown to not be true. This means those allegations, like Ahmad always said from the start, were indeed false. As the case centered around Ahmad always sayng the allegation was false, which was accepted by the court and CPS and was said in court to describe the case, it seems reasonable to describe it in the words it was ultimately shown to be. The word -allegation- could be used if the case went to court and on the balance of evidence Ahmad was acquited, or if the case was discontinued and not revived. Taking into account the desire to revive the case in order to show a false allegation and going to extraordinary lengths to do so warrants the term "false" when it is proved to be so. As for evidence - it seems there was "no evidence to offer" against Ahmad which would have been the exact legal words used in this situation if the CPS were not taking the case to trial based on their lack of evidence. So this was not a case of presenting no evidence. It was a case of analysing evidence and realising it did not support the allegation or charge - therefore 'no evidence to offer' would have been the language used. This is a legal point and no other. As mentioned above the CPS can not decide to present no evidence if they have it ahead of a trial or disclose it. As for the detail of the case, I understand your point but it has huge legal significance through its process that it is worth mentioning in some form of detail for those who want to read it. It was considered by may as a scandal and the lengths a serving presenter went to clear his name by breaking into new legal ground is noteworthy. You may regard this as muck racking, but somehow the editor in question doesn't seem the type to care. It is nevertheless, unique. As for the article, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee are broadly seen as a reputable body who often appear on the BBCboth radio and TV, ITV and other UK and foreign networks as a contemporary voice for British Musims who are often critical of Muslims themselves who may not integrate into British Society. As an article from a reputable organisation that deals in Muslim Public Affairs it should not be discredited so easily on its basic facts. Its own view point of those facts is a different matter and I agree these should not be included. Upon your own or someone else's investigation into the case, it may be possible to discredit the quotes (although this seems unlikely)and the court reporting, but without it, the court reporting should stay.