Talk:Abdul Ahad (disambiguation)

The astronomer

Abdul Ahad - the astronomer guy from Sylhet, bangladesh. He's perfectly notable, though I suspect there has been some sort of an orchestrated camapign in the past to permanently edit him out of wikipedia for reasons beyond my understanding. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.88.17 (talk • contribs) 14:37, Jul 25, 2008

His article was previously deleted as the result of this debate. If you feel it should be reinstated, please discuss in this section. Once we get some sort of agreement we can, if desired, recreate it. Please address the concerns of any other editors, do not just go ahead against disagreement. Thanks guys. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

hiya, i'm one of Abdul Ahad's myspace friends :) I'm following this with interest on the author's Luton home talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozomi44 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of an article on Abdul Ahad (astronomer).

I don't edit wikipedia as much as I once used to, so it's not like my vote will count or anything. I can see this already appearing on "Wiki rage" four times this week alone :). Looking thru some of the editing history, this Ahad guy clearly already has a presence on the English Wikipedia here and here and here...amongst lots of other places. So to end the repeated vandalisms and endless debates I see an article on him as being conducive to the public good and besiedes his profile seems totally "encyclopedic" from everything I read. It certainly can't do any harm, but please... a "clean" article that is properly sourced, with no sock-puppeting. I use the Wikipedia reference quite a lot and so does my son. Sincerely :) - Tony Barnes (Middlesex, UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.213.242 (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By "Ahad guy present in Wikipedia", you mean he/his friends has posted some info in the talk pages (which you linked above)?? :) --Ragib (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what difference it makes "who" posts what and "where". The question to be asked surely is that material be suitable for "an encyclopedia of world knowledge" which Wikipedia proclaims it is. Abdul Ahad's works are founded on strong scientific principles and as such are notable in themselves. After all, virtually all Wikipedians maintain anonymous profiles and, I dare say, most high profile authors edit their own pages here, secretly under pseudonyms. Is Wikipedia a place for "only the rich and powerful" or does it allow works by shall we say "us peasants" too? :) Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be "democratic" or can only one person who happens to be a senior administrator (i.e. you) control wikipedia all by yourself? The way you un-notabilised this poor guy from his Bangladeshi Wikipedia at the click of a finger(!) suggests to me that nobody else can have a say in what is supposed to be a public encyclopedia. Abdul Ahad is "notable", in my opinion. Just my two cents, which may count for nothing, like I said before :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.213.242 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to take a look at WP:N, WP:V, WP:COI and many other wikipedia policies/principles. The Bengali Wikipedia community had a lengthy discussion about the subject's notability, and reached a consensus that he is not notable. Wikipedia is indeed an open, public encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it is a place for self-promotion. --Ragib (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In May, 2008, Mr Ahad earned an Honorary Membership award from Bangladesh Astronomical Society - the highest honour given for 'outstanding contribution to furthering the cause of astronomy or space science' internationally. 90.217.47.181 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on ... the "Honorary membership" is no big deal for BAS, nor is that the "highest honor". Also, not really an "award". Having personal knowledge of this amateur club, I know quite well that it means absolutely nothing. --Ragib (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Barnes; as discussed above, if you think this article deserves to be recreated, please list some of the particular accomplishments which you feel make Mr. Ahad notable. Re-adding that talk page link to this disambiguation page is a waste of your time, since talk page links from an article wouldn't be allowed for any subject, regardless of its notability. Wikipedia is not a democracy; the reason being that in a democracy all you need is an opinion, while on Wikipedia you're expected to back your opinion up. Please view the notability guidelines to help you build an answer. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the notable achievements that this gent ought to go down in history for is his overturning previous world opinions on the existence of rings of the Earth. See my listing here. Mr Barnes or other editors will struggle to find articles from _established sources_, but for what it's worth, please see these threads. That is going to have an impact on society, per Wikipedia notability.Kingkong77 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll be surprised by the power of usenet. I don't claim to be an astronomer but I have seen amateurs record their observations there in earnest, for later adding to blogs and journals. For instance, that rather big claim that "he was the first to identify the second reddest star in the whole night sky" is rather elaborately recorded here and articled here. No one is going to argue with this being a rather enchanting piece of new knowledge :) - Tony Barnes (Middlesex, UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.206.16 (talk • contribs)

he found the second reddest? whhat are you sayin?? cool :) So who found the REDDEST?

I am sorry, but I don't buy your "usenet is a valid reference for scientific facts" claim. You claim that we should take Ahad's own post as a "Record" for his discovery, but that's utter nonsense. I can go ahead and post such fake claims in an open list, and then make up some fake identities to "support" them there. That's not how any science work. Following your "references" previously provided, I have also seen how his claims have been debunked and even ridiculed by other people in the usenet/google groups. So, don't make the laughable claim about using a usenet post as a reference. Rather, find a peer-reviewed journal/publication that supports anything you/Ahad says. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

well if you did make some fake claims...we'd all be chatting bout you! lol :D

Are you, seriously, claiming that discussion in a Google group "is going to have an impact on society", and "go down in history for is his overturning previous world opinions " :D . Clearly, you need to read WP:RS. Also, please look into how science works. Definitely, NOT through discussion in Google groups or usenet. --Ragib (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But thanks for the Google groups/usenet links anyway ... it was interesting to see how others responded and pointed out the lack of any technical/scientific merit of the subject's posts there. Also interesting to see that the subject has been accused of sockpuppetry there too [1]. There goes the "impact on society", "overturning world opinions" etc. --Ragib (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some USENET discussions really have had interesting global effects. :-) But it is a moot point. Things that are said to be "going to have an effect on society" fall under Wikipedia's "not a crystal ball" clause; we document things that already have had an effect on society!

Now, it seems (I am told) that Mr. Ahad has appeared on TV, on BBC radio, in the Guardian, and is an honorary member of the Bangladesh Astronomical Society. Probably some of the former of these relate more to his role as an author rather than as an astronomer particularly, as I understand it, but that's OK. If these statements can be sourced properly (Exactly where and when did he make these appearances? Do the B.A.S. have a published statement somewhere (including offline) as to his honorary membership?) then there may be a basis for an article.

However, attempting to talk about what you believe will happen in the future is of no use here. I see from reading around that Mr. Ahad promotes his theories with this in mind — which is probably fair enough for him — but that is not what an encyclopaedia is for. Please let us know if you find any useful sourcing information. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't rate Mr Ahad's astronomy skills particularly highly neither, but I do find his "First Ark to Alpha Centauri" a pretty well-researched piece of writing that addresses the science around a realistic voyage as such. I would support an article on him about that as an author. Pomona17 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by all this talk! we know Ahad pretty well in Bangladesh that why I created the page (disambig). now i hope I did not start something here...he's been on Bangladeshi newspapers and TV. Saajan99 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, international views are welcome and needed on Wikipedia. Can you help us collect together some sources, then? Newspapers and TV appearances are probably both worth a shot. Do they relate to his books or to astronomy in particular? It looks so far like the books are his most famous feature. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, the BBC is obliged to archive all radio broadcasts for legal purposes, and they ought to have a record of the interviews he's claiming to have been on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.206.16 (talk • contribs)

Really like to help, but i only edit on Tuesdays. Most of his sources are in English from his news pages and back issues of Bengali newspaper Janomot is available in London's Brick Lane (i think) where the issues are printed. I will ask if Mr. Sarker of Bangladesh Astro Society, Dhaka can do anything to confirm his membership. If you know editors in Luton, UK they can send you his newspaper back issues there too. i must dash :) Saajan99 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• My relation in UK have a video of Ahad's Bangla TV show. It covers his astronomy + books. if you need, pls ask me.Saajan99 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider the British Library Newspapers archive at Collindale reading rooms where they will have back issues of The Muslim Weekly and other papers per his claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.206.16 (talk • contribs)

british scientist A. Ahad spelled out the specifics of terraforming the Sahara dessert cheaply using solar energy for irrigation and such like by building a 69 megawatt solar power station on the north African coast.Gilgamesh007 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And what are we supposed to learn from a user profile created by Ahad himself at LibraryThing.com? Or are you claiming Ahad's own promo profile to be some kind of reference??? --Ragib (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A most amusing discussion ;)Isabelle 67 (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have been following this up in a bit more detail and I wish to comment: Not having this published in third party reliable sources does indeed seem a pity. However, Mr Ahad confronted many learned scholars on that very same environment forum, who had hitherto steadfastly held onto a worldview that changes in the Sun were the overwhelming driving force behind global warming. Ahad [argued strongly against that notion] (his profile is ‘AA Institute’) and put forth his Sahara solar engineering directive as a viable means for dealing with the imbalances right here on Earth, caused by man-made factors such as uncontrolled industrial pollution, large-scale deforestation of our natural rain forests, etc Some eighteen months ‘’after’’ that discussion, it would appear some people connected to that same forum took his views forward and published [this article] which supports the notion that a greener planet would be a healthier planet overall, that is less prone to global warming. “Terraforming the Sahara desert” may be a hugely staggering and wildly out of proportioned idea, but it does set into motion many other trains of thought for redressing the deforestation that our planet has suffered over recent decades, with things like the depletion of the Amazon rain forest, etc, In short, Abdul Ahad has clearly made a direct and positive contribution to the global environment debate - right where it mattered the most: at the environment site, using hard scientific facts and figures to justify his ideas, which is evidenced in his discussion [2][3]Uranometria (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

Ahad's personal propaganda in various sites does not count towards proving his notability at all. You need to provide from third party scholarly sources that Ahad's propaganda and personal promotion holds any academic value at all. So far, he does seem to be very active online and in various forums to promote himself. Doesn't look like a researcher dedicated to science, rather looks like a person promoting his personal image through shameless propaganda. Sorry, but have to be blunt about this. I also suspect his socks being quite active in WP, judging by the same language and verbal pattern coming from several users. --Ragib (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In May, 2008, Mr Ahad earned an Honorary Membership award from Bangladesh Astronomical Society - the highest honour given for 'outstanding contribution to furthering the cause of astronomy or space science' internationally.

Honorary Membership of the Society may be awarded to a person of international repute in the area of astronomy and space science. Bangladesh Astronomical Society 90.217.47.181 (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble Ahad, I know very well about BAS. Please stop self-promotion here and everywhere on the Internet. --Ragib (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)