This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2006 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
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 the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another editor, User:JTully234, contributed the following edit summary a few hours ago: "Reverting vandalism by user 'Philip Cross'. Cross abuses Wikipedia notability guidelines to systematically erase contents of this entry despite them being sourced validly."
They were indeed sourced, often to highly reputable publications, but the deleted material contained summaries of articles by Nafeez Ahmed. In other words, there was nothing cited to third-party articles which establish the notability of material authored by Nafeez Ahmed, which is a standard requirement. Much higher profile journalists are not treated to such an extensive outline of their work. There was a problem with reasoning too. It helps, if you are going to cite comments by Ahmed rejecting the label of a 9/11 truther, that the accusation has been made by reliable sources, but no citations were included. Nothing usable making this assertion existed on the web in February, when I made most of my cuts to this article, and the situation doubtless remains the same now.
I use my real name on Wikipedia, so placing the form I prefer between quotation marks did not assume good faith. Philip Cross ( talk) 18:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC) [minor amendment made on 17 July 2015. - PC]
Looking at the page history, I noticed that user JTully234 appears to be a single-purpose account for only editing this particular article, going back 5+ years. Most of the edits from this account are mass-deletions of any critical or unflattering content about the article's subject. In each case JTully234 mislabels the deleted section as "vandalism." JeetFuel ( talk) 05:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Echoing this concern, there appear to be several accounts on this page that exist primarily to edit out and delete critical or unflattering content about the article's subject. I have attempted to rewrite in NPOV and removed dependence of claims that rely on Ahmed's own word as a defense from criticism on his 9/11 writings. JeetFuel ( talk) 20:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Another pro-Ahmed account is justifying the deletion of the 2010 Ahmed/McKinney presentation on alternative 9/11 theories on account of it coming from Vimeo. Contrary to this user's claims, WP:VIDEOLINK states that "There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources" provided that they abide by other appropriate sourcing guidelines. The Vimeo link may be found here [1] and is one of multiple different copies of this same event. Other copies may be found on McKinney's Youtube channel [2], and on different video hosting websites. Given that this was a professionally recorded event with two public figures and multiple extant copies on different video streaming website, it clearly meets Wikipedia's standards for acceptable cited sources. JeetFuel ( talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
As currently written this article appears to show bias in downplaying Ahmed's connections to fringe viewpoints about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. Two examples come to mind:
I am raising these issues here because Ahmed's work is cited on several other subjects where he may not be a reliable source, and because this is a bio of a living person. Based on these links, it appears that the current version of the article exhibits a strong bias in favor of Ahmed that downplays his history with the 9/11 Truth movement and fringe figures such as Steele. If so, they should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. FranciscoWS ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2006 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
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 the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another editor, User:JTully234, contributed the following edit summary a few hours ago: "Reverting vandalism by user 'Philip Cross'. Cross abuses Wikipedia notability guidelines to systematically erase contents of this entry despite them being sourced validly."
They were indeed sourced, often to highly reputable publications, but the deleted material contained summaries of articles by Nafeez Ahmed. In other words, there was nothing cited to third-party articles which establish the notability of material authored by Nafeez Ahmed, which is a standard requirement. Much higher profile journalists are not treated to such an extensive outline of their work. There was a problem with reasoning too. It helps, if you are going to cite comments by Ahmed rejecting the label of a 9/11 truther, that the accusation has been made by reliable sources, but no citations were included. Nothing usable making this assertion existed on the web in February, when I made most of my cuts to this article, and the situation doubtless remains the same now.
I use my real name on Wikipedia, so placing the form I prefer between quotation marks did not assume good faith. Philip Cross ( talk) 18:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC) [minor amendment made on 17 July 2015. - PC]
Looking at the page history, I noticed that user JTully234 appears to be a single-purpose account for only editing this particular article, going back 5+ years. Most of the edits from this account are mass-deletions of any critical or unflattering content about the article's subject. In each case JTully234 mislabels the deleted section as "vandalism." JeetFuel ( talk) 05:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Echoing this concern, there appear to be several accounts on this page that exist primarily to edit out and delete critical or unflattering content about the article's subject. I have attempted to rewrite in NPOV and removed dependence of claims that rely on Ahmed's own word as a defense from criticism on his 9/11 writings. JeetFuel ( talk) 20:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Another pro-Ahmed account is justifying the deletion of the 2010 Ahmed/McKinney presentation on alternative 9/11 theories on account of it coming from Vimeo. Contrary to this user's claims, WP:VIDEOLINK states that "There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources" provided that they abide by other appropriate sourcing guidelines. The Vimeo link may be found here [1] and is one of multiple different copies of this same event. Other copies may be found on McKinney's Youtube channel [2], and on different video hosting websites. Given that this was a professionally recorded event with two public figures and multiple extant copies on different video streaming website, it clearly meets Wikipedia's standards for acceptable cited sources. JeetFuel ( talk) 19:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
As currently written this article appears to show bias in downplaying Ahmed's connections to fringe viewpoints about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. Two examples come to mind:
I am raising these issues here because Ahmed's work is cited on several other subjects where he may not be a reliable source, and because this is a bio of a living person. Based on these links, it appears that the current version of the article exhibits a strong bias in favor of Ahmed that downplays his history with the 9/11 Truth movement and fringe figures such as Steele. If so, they should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. FranciscoWS ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)