Talk:Ibrahim Dogus

Why is page now locked?
I am concerned to see that this page has been locked and no edits can now be made, after verifiable, properly referenced and sourced material was removed by the subject of the page (Ibrahim Dogus/Waggaford). Companies house information has been claimed (below) to be an unreliable source (self published or primary), when the opposite is the case. '''Companies house is a government agency, overseen by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, to which all UK businesses are obliged by law to produce information to. Its about as reliable source as you can get. ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarityRandom (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What has happened on this page, with verifiable information removed by the subject of the page who is seeking election, appears to be an abuse of Wikipedia, and in breach of relevant Wikepidia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarityRandom (talk • contribs) 17:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you consult the protection log, you will see that it was locked agaisnt edits or moves by any user not holding "Extended Confirmed" status because of "Persistent disruptive editing and edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts". Once an admin determines that edit warring requires protection, s/he normally protects it in the curent version, whatever that may be, rather than trying to determine what the "right" version might be, see Wrong version for more information on this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

False allegation about donation to the Conservative Party
Waggaford (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC) I am the subject of this article and I am concerned that the false allegation that I donated to the Conservative Party is damaging to my reputation.

I did not make a donation to the Conservative Party. The money was paid by my organisation, the Centre for Turkey Studies (CEFTUS), for a networking event as part of CEFTUS' work to engage with all political parties on a non-partisan basis. I did not attend the event.

This is confirmed in the following article (in Turkish but easily translatable) by founding and current CEFTUS board member Mustafa Topkaya. The article also notes that on this basis the Labour Party concluded that there was no need to launch an investigation.

https://www.acikgazete.com/p-soruturmasnda-dou-akland/

Hi there, I am not so much into this article, I just saw that there is a lot of movement about this article and what wants to be deleted is sourced with the Enfield Independent newspaper and an other London based news agency, which both do not seem to be partial. Turkish sources are not so good sources usually. They are not independent and often have to write what some person wants.Lean Anael (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Waggaford (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Hi. The reasons I am disputing the article are outlined above. However, most of the sources in the section are from Guido Fawkes, a blog that is known for spreading unsubstantiated rumors and, as I understand, is not considered a reputable source on Wikipedia.

The Enfield Independent does not state the accusation as a fact, rather it quotes Ben Maloney as "claiming Mr Dogus donated £1,250 to Tory MP Nick De Bois". This false claim was made by a disgruntled former member of the Labour Party, who was later banned from representing the party at any level. In contrast, I was cleared by the Labour Party of any wrong-doing and it was decided that there were no grounds for an investigation.

My position is actually confirmed by one of the Guido Fawkes articles, which mentions the money was not a donation, but was used for tickets to an event at which my organization, the Centre for Turkey Studies (CEFTUS), participated as part of its efforts to build cross-party support, but to which I did not attend.

This is confirmed in the Turkish article which, setting aside questions of its own reputation, quotes CEFTUS board member Mustafa Topkaya, a well-known and respected member of the Turkish community in London.

Taken together, the articles represent a gross mischaracterization that I believe have been recently added to my page in an attempt to intentionally damage my reputation. Hence, I have sought to remove them while being transparent about my reasons.

Good luck. Make an effort to source your arguments well and you get through. I will step aside for now. But to delete sourced phrases without a better source is rather difficult on Wikipedia. Lean Anael (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some problems with this article and there's a clear political bent to recent additions that doesn't seem to be observing NPOV. Notably much of the additions are about associations with certain parts of the Labour party (other leadership candidates than Jeremy Corbyn like Owen Smith) and the Conservative Party, but looking at the reporting around Dogus and Labour, there is reporting of his associations with Jeremy Corbyn that are being omitted. The other thing is constant references to primary sources or self-published sources such as Twitter and Companies House to construct narratives. Battleofalma (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Companies house is a legitimate source

Companies house cant be considered self published or primary source. It is a government agency, overseen by the UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. It is the official agency that records data that companies are legally requiredto provide by law - and it would be insane not to view it as legitimate source - its about as reliable as you can possibly get! The page now appears to be locked, while this veriable information on Dogus's companies has been removed. This really not good at all!

Companies house is a govt exec agency see here:


 * Regardless of Companies House's status as a government agency its register is essentially user-generated content with no vetting process. You can pay the small fee and basically register anything in there, which is why companies can be, and often are, registered with directors with misleading or deliberately mispelt names so they can't be easily traced or connected. Battleofalma (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of information perceived as damaging by Doğuş and people involved in Vauxhall selection
User Waggaford has made a large number of edits to this page to remove information that meets Wikipedia's core content policies but which he disagrees with. This user claims to be the subject of this article.

In addition, users with names which directly relate to the seat the subject of this article is seeking selection in (for example User Mattvauxhall, who has made no changes to other articles except this one) have also removed content that fits with Wiki policy but which may not help Doğuş in his efforts to be selected.

Hatchet job - fixed
Plackard and ClarityRandom are both new accounts recently interested only Ibrahim Dogus, apparently determined to have a hatchet job for his Wikipedia page. Presumably this is for the same reason I don't: there's a Labour Party shortlist vote for Vauxhall right now and they don't want him to win. He is likely to win and smearing the next Labour MP for Vauxhall is no good for anyone in the Party, except people like the hard-left Clarion (presumably associated with the Clarion "magazine") who don't really support Labour anyway. So cut it out, and definitely stop using Twitter and Companies House and ridiculous sources like that to spin a narrative. Mattvauxhall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattvauxhall (talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
recently proposed this article for deletion for failing WP:NPOL. I concur he fails WP:NPOL, but have removed that as I think there is WP:GNG-sufficient coverage of Dogus in the article on his business activities. However, there are several related articles, started by the same editor I believe, where I think there are notability criteria, so I have proposed deletion for SME4Labour group. The Centre for Turkey Studies and Centre for Kurdish Progress articles could do with looking at. There is also quite a bit of reliance in the article on sources that may fail WP:RS, like the Mirror and LabourList. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)