This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: |
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- KGV ( Talk) 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why my addition of the fact that he also lives in the Aldersbrook area of London (E12) was deleted. I have seen him there various times (I also live there), he currently has a planning application to the local authority there posted outside his house (and has previously had others posted there, before) and his car, from a Sheffield dealer, is in his driveway.
It may be argued that the place of residence of someone is not generally for Wikipedia. I would agree with that but there already exists a reference claiming he continues to live in Rotherham. Wikipedia profiles of politicians are notorious for their hagiographical content. If it is written that he continues to live in his home town then my addition should remain. Alternatively both places should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.200.152 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 January 2009
I haven't added original research - my comments about seeing him are just reported here in 'talk' - I used a source (planning application details from a local authority) to support this addition. I shall try and tidy up the link (as much as my technical abilities allow). I think the para reads fine; it shows its evolution.
My point about "hagiographical" is that the profiles of many politicians seem to be often written, or amended, by their staff. I don't know who added the bit about him still living in Rotherham but I read it as likely to be an addition put there just to portray him as sticking to his roots. If whoever wishes to state he lives there then other residences should be also added. Personally I'd delete both but I was disinclined to delete a fact (living in Rotherham) that I have no knowledge about, hence my factual addition.
I have no interest, whatsoever, in happening to live near a Lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.207.223 ( talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The unaltered link works for me and also follows the format (albeit longer) of the first foot note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.207.223 ( talk) 14:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
According to a BBC report < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17723890>, he has been suspended from the party after allegations he called for a £10m bounty for the capture of US President Obama and President Bush.
Lord Ahmed is reported to have made the call after the US offered a $10m bounty for the conviction of the founder of a Pakistani-based militant group. He denied offering a bounty, saying he was talking about "war crimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Labour Party said if the comments were true they "utterly condemn" them. Lord Ahmed's alleged remarks, published in the Express Tribune newspaper, were said to have been made in response to an announcement from Washington earlier this month of a $10m bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Hafiz Saeed, the founder of the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group. The Indian government blames Mr Saeed and his organisation of carrying out several militant attacks on its territory, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Ahmed, according to the Express Tribune, said: "If the US can announce a reward of $10m for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10m on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.225.188 ( talk) 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Sort of buried the lead here. The fact that the party suspended him PALES in comparison to his calling for the illegal capture of two American Presidents. Maybe if he murders Obama with his car you people will stop defending him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.196.81 ( talk) 19:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that referring to his suspension is burying the lede. These allegations (and the other "controversies" associated with him) are significant because he is a public figure; and he is a public figure largely because of his political career. If he were some random millionaire the allegations would hardly be newsworthy. Joe in Australia ( talk) 07:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is detail on a lot of what was reported in Pakistani media; http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6288.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.194.96 ( talk) 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Why was Ahmed appointed to the House of Lords? 76.246.36.153 ( talk) 08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a good question per se, but please--also see all the foregoing disussions and notes etc: the article has several highly contentious points and is non neutral. It requires to be submitted to a very rigorous and expert editorial cutting/check and amendment, please, thanks. 39.54.58.4 ( talk) 06:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)D'Olyly Vere
Do we have a source for this claim? As it's manifestly false (there weren't three Muslim peers created at the same time - Lord Alli and Baroness Uddin were both created peers a couple of weeks before Lord Ahmed), it would seem to be an odd claim to make. Proteus (Talk) 15:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently reads: "On the 14th of March 2013, reports surfaced that Lord Ahmed had blamed a Jewish conspiracy for his driving conviction.[36] He allegedly said in an interview in Pakistan that the judge who jailed him was appointed to the High Court after helping a "Jewish colleague" of former Prime Minister Tony Blair during an important case.[37] Lord Ahmed was suspended from the Labour party, for the second time.[38]"
I'd removed the second sentence (referring to the judge), as it's all part of the same conspiracy claim Further, from what I can see (without having access to the full transcript), the reference to the judge appears to represent a small fraction of his allegation, the main part being that the "Jewish media" placed pressure on the courts. It's been reinstated now because of the presence of Blair's name, but I'm not clear exactly what allegation Ahmed's making with the statement as reported (i.e. " the judge who jailed him for 12 weeks was appointed to the High Court after helping a “Jewish colleague” of Tony Blair during “an important case”.”"
I'd suggest that the whole conspiracy is expanded on as soon as someone gets their hands on the transcript. Until then, best remove the reference to the judge as that's (IMO) drawing attention away from the core of this alleged allegation. Bromley86 ( talk) 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the following is right for inclusion at the moment, but it might be useful when the antisemitism section gets fleshed out in supporting Medhi Hasan's assertion (on the back of the reports about Lord Ahmed's comments) of endemic antisemitism in certain sections of the Muslim community. “Lord Ahmed has, in fact, been made the target of a deep-rooted vendetta by the rivals – mostly the Jews lobby for his “crime” of exposing the increased anti-Muslim approach and policies of the Jews including their backed British media”, observed Mir Muhammad Sideeque Khawaja, Chairman Kashmir Watch International" [4] [5]. (Love the reporting in that second one, "an alleged road accident while taking an alleged cellphone call during driving" - it ceases to be an allegation when you plead guilty to it!). Unsurprisingly, given the importance of Kashmir to Lord Ahmed, he knows Khawaja. [6] Bromley86 ( talk) 10:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
So, was he expelled in 2009, as per the Sky cite in the main article? http://news.sky.com/story/677016/jailed-peer-ahmed-freed-early-from-prison
I've a feeling that he might not have been, as I can't find any mention of him being let back in after his release. However, I've seen a number of reports that mention that he would have been automatically expelled. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155043/Labour-peer-Lord-Ahmed-jailed-12-weeks-text-message-death-crash-M1.html Bromley86 ( talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Minor point and one I'm not certain of, so I've not reverted. Born 1957. Immigrated when 12, so 1969. Per Oakwood High School, Rotherham article, Spurley Hey became a comp in the mid 60s. So likely a comp when Lord Ahmed attended? Bromley86 ( talk) 20:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to me deleting that section? There's almost nothing out there about TWF and even its own website is remarkable free of real content. Bromley86 ( talk) 09:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Removed the Libya visit following from Controversies as there was no real controversy. Lord Ahmed's piece in the Guardian said, "Parts of the British media have already mischaracterised my visit to Libya as a "peace mission to Gaddafi"." However, there was only one article I could find with a negative spin on the visit - the Telegraph [10]. The Guardian ran a pretty complimentary article on it [11], and everyone else seems to have missed it. Bromley86 ( talk) 10:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
At the moment we have a mix of styles in the article re. use of the honourific "Lord".
WP MoS is on the fence on this one; basically, they seem to say "figure it out yourselves". Way I see it, there's 3 ways to do it:
1. As far as the article is concerned, he's "Lord Ahmed" every time we mention his name (except when he's referred to as "he")
2. He's "Ahmed" at all times other than when we're discussing his investiture
3. He's "Ahmed" before his investiture and "Lord Ahmed" after.
Although the pedant in me likes (3), I can see that it'd get a bit messy and not be immediately clear to future editors. I looked at Lord Levy (predominantly plain Levy, but as with this article a mix of styles). Lord Archer is plain Archer throughout. Likewise, looking at the peers mentioned in this article, Baroness Uddin, Lord Alli are plain-name throughout, although Baroness Warsi suffers from a lack of consistency, naming-wise.
An argument against (1). Consistency across WP would argue against it, as AFAIK there are some lords out there who have "of somewhere" as part of their official title. Lord Ahmed isn't one of them (so he shouldn't be referred to as Lord Ahmed of Rotherham), but Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is (i.e. he shouldn't be referred to as plain Lord Ahmad). So, to avoid cluttering up the encyclopedia with Lord xxxxx of yyyyy, it might just be better to default to plain xxxxx.
Another argument against (1) and (3) might be how we treat royals; so the British monarch is called Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth. Although I accept that's a different case, it's perhaps related.
When talking about him, I invariably refer to him as "Lord Ahmed". Ditto for other Lords/Ladies/etc; to do otherwise feels passive-aggressive. I'd say the same for news articles on them. However, within the text of an encyclopaedia, my vote is for (2). Bromley86 ( talk) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
There's been a number of edits recently from 194.60.38.198, which apparently is registered to Parliament. [12]
There's nothing wrong with that, unless you're aware of a conflict of interest, but please explain why you're making the edits. Especially if it's removal of cited material. Bromley86 ( talk) 15:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There's been a couple of recent attempts to add a baby milk scandal. I've reverted these for a few reasons:
1. There's only one mention in anything like a reliable source, The Guardian. [13] One mention means it wasn't really a controversy.
2. BLP. This is a biography of a living person. As such, anything that's in it needs to be solid, rather than vague accusations. That Guardian article doesn't sufficiently assert that he did anything wrong.
3. Neutrality. We need to be neutral; these entries have not been (even without the bolding of statements in inappropriate places. Bromley86 ( talk) 20:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't add this as a cite, because it's arguably in WP terms lower quality than The Peerage. I will add this, as it's unarguably of higher quality. Bromley86 ( talk) 03:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The introduction says Lord Ahmed has been convicted of rape in 2019 but the section only mentions him being charged. Which is it? This needs correcting. If both then additional information is needed. Andrew Swallow ( talk) 05:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Why does "12 weeks in prison" equate to "six weeks in jail"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My understanding (after an initial error) is that Ahmed as of January 2022 is still a lord (Lord Ahmed of Rotherham aka Baron Ahmed), but no longer a member of the House of Lords. Is he still a Lord Temporal? Wikipedia (not an authority!) says without source "The Lords Temporal are secular members of the House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament". This in contrast with Lords Spritual, bishops in the HoL. So is a Lord who is not a member of the HoL a Lord Temporal? Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 19:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I imagine the article is being edited right now, so I'll let it settle down. I'll come back in a few hours.
I think much of the article currently violates WP:BLP, and there is a lot of material in the Controversies section that is over-the-top polarized, without contributing useful information.
When I come back, I'll just excize stuff that I think violates policy. I'm not going to do much checking of sources, because WP:RS isn't my main problem with this article.
If you disagree with my edits once I've made them, revert me, and then come here and talk.
MrDemeanour ( talk) 23:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this appropriate, especially in the lede? It doesn't look like the article cited mentions this, nor do I believe he was being charged with statutory rape. And is it factually correct that all his offences were committed while under the age of consent? I believe it was 16 at the time, and he was 17 for some of them. Although the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 at that time. Don't know if the UK has Romeo & Juliet laws, or whether they had them in the 70s. Still, I don't understand how age of consent is relevant in a case like this. KRLA18 ( talk) 22:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)