Talk:Azad Ali

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Azad Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221163746/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/44965 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/44965

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Major improvement of article needed

This article was initially authored by User:Indiasummer95 and edited by User:Tátótát one of Indiasummer95's many sockpuppets. He/she has subsequently been blocked indefinitely for abusive use of multiple accounts including vandalism of similar Muslim community activists pages. The initial text appears to have been selectively clubbed together from only negative newspaper articles which themselves do not always give citations to the claims made.

This is one of the most prominent British Muslims and its a shame that were people to visit wikipedia to check the veracity of a newspaper article all they will find is a rehash of unverified claims made in newspapers. I have removed a few unverified claims which may well be libellous and will research the points left before rewriting where necessary citing primary sources where possible. I will also find new information to give a fairer and more balanced overall picture.

I am not an experienced editor so please give advice in talk rather than just changing something I have done and walking away. Thankyou. Aathomson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the article with as much primary source material as i can find and removed some of the contentious material which was only referenced by tabloid journalism as per BLP guidelines. I have tried to balance the tone of the content too which was very negative being based entirely on critical tabloid articles. I would appreciate any feedback and suggestions to further improve the article or to learn from as far as editing in general goes.Aathomson (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Major improvement of article needed (again)

I notice that every edit of the page i have done has been deleted with no contact and no discussion on the talk page. I see i'm assumed to be someone with COI from the AfD page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Azad_Ali Actually this makes me wonder what the purpose of wikipedia is. It seems notability has to be from the perspective of the the white western perspective. In the Muslim community there is no doubt that the subject is notable, though all of the activities he is notable for have now been removed from the page leaving once more just unbalanced repetition of claims made by journalists. Is that what wikipedia is for? I notice that self published sources such as MEND website and the subjects official blog is discussed as though it is not allowed as a source while the BLP policy is clear that it can be used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source I was trying to present a more balanced overview of a notable person in the Muslim community and in fact i would say notable in Britain generally considering his political work.

I notice that the editor who proposed the article for deletion dropped the suggestion and 4 minutes later reverted the article back to the oldest purely negative state before i attempted to balanced it. Then he was happy. This suggests to me a POV. The article is certainly not better now, for example he no longer works for MEND but this editor is happy with the inaccurate article now. What does that say. I'm going to undo that revision and then lets discuss the article section by section rather than bulk undoing. Aathomson (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If a subject is covered negatively by WP:RS - we reflect that. BLP policy has us take a conservative stance regarding inclusion of negative information (so on the balance, a Wikipedia page on a BLP will tend to be slightly positive in relation to outside coverage) - however if RS are for the most part negative, then so are we.Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Most Muslim personalities in the West are covered in the media primarily negatively which will likely be reflected here, in fact the editor who reverted this page seems to believe the only thing the subject of this article is noteworthy for is the negative press reports. That's his POV, that's all he/she is interested in. Because that is such a common area of interest i added a "media portrayal" section which ironically he/she deleted. The issue of balance i mention is having both sides of the issues in question presented. It would be a sorry state if all wikipedia is is a summery of newspaper journalists slanted pieces. Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopaedic. In many cases self published clarifications/rebuttals of what is in newspapers are needed to provide a rounded overall picture and that is likely why self published is an allowed source in BLPs. The reasonable way to deal with this is a "controversies" section where each publicised issue has more than just the negative opinion presented. Aathomson (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This deletion was outrageous - 20:20, 2 March 2018‎ Anarcho-authoritarian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,164 bytes) (-8,037)‎ . . (reverted to edition before possible COI account deleted all third-party references, removed words like "Islamist" and "extremist" and Breitbart reference) The edit undid everything that was neutral and the positive activities which made the subject notable. Leaving only negative opinions of the subject. The reason for doing it? He/she claims my account was possible COI, due to not being entirely negative about the subject presumably. Aathomson (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The possible use of WP:SELFPUB material is quite limited - read the policy. End of the day - we cover what WP:RS say (which in this case, seems to be mainly newspapers). If you wish to take the article in a different direction, I suggest locating WP:RSes that support the text you are attempting to insert or modify.Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read the policy and it covers the sources I used for the purposes I used them. There should be no problem. When newspapers are only interested in publishing negative stories about someone it's no surprise that they do not publish balancing evidence and views as well. The only way to balance these things is often going to be self published, hence it is allowed by the policy. Aathomson (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)