Talk:Nafeez Ahmed

Editing by Philip Cross
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]

Editing by JTully234
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)

Video sources
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 and is one of multiple different copies of this same event. Other copies may be found on McKinney's Youtube channel, 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)
 * Blogs and primary sources cannot be used for this (WP:BLPRS). — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a blog or primary source. It is a Video website-hosted copy of a public presentation to members of Parliament from 2010 that was recorded for broadcast. Vimeo simply hosts one of the available copies, as does Youtube and other similar video sharing websites. JeetFuel (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously Vimeo video hosted by random person is primary source and not reliable as PaleoNeonate said. You should never add vimeo video as the sole source for adding content to any Wikipedia article. If its BLP, then avoid it like a plague. WP:VIDEOLINK is a guideline applicable to External Links, which is different from referencing (see WP:CITE for more). WP:VIDEOLINK is not applicable here, rather you should see WP:RS. You should also see WP:OR, to understand why you can not and should not add your opinionated commentary in Wikipedia article on a biography of a living person. Please have a look at WP:BLP. Also, JeetFuel, Wikipedia suggests us to assume good faith about other editors so try to avoid harsh or offensive words maintaining WP:CIVIL while addressing or referring others. Lastly, please have a look at WP:SPA and your contribution history so far before accusing others. It is concerning that JeetFuel, JTully234, Garydcohn, Jeet001F were involved in a slow edit war in this page. I have edited the page and have cleaned up the bias per WP:DUE based on WP:RS and following WP:BLP. All of you are strongly advised not to edit the page given the history of edit war without attaining any consensus through this talk page. Chirota (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "full-comments" section of the National Post is blog/op-ed (vs the "news" one) if I understand. Is it notable (has it been reported by secondary sources?)  At least it's attributed to the author at current time.  Another problem I see with the section is a lot of original research using Ahmed's own writings to then dismiss those claims.  WP:ABOUTSELF allows some use of such sources but it seems extensive.  Here again, if secondary independent sources have reported on these, these ideally should be used instead (if no secondary source exists, is it really a notable "controversy" and should there be a section at all (WP:DUE)?)...  Lastly, I find that the section is quite long.  As for pro/anti claims, it's possible for some editors, WP:SPA would be an indication for instance, but let's focus on the sources and the content instead, as Chiro said (WP:FOC).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahmed & 9/11 viewpoints
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)
 * In 2014 Ahmed penned a glowing profile in the Guardian of well-known conspiracy theorist Robert David Steele. Link here
 * Ahmed's own website contains numerous articles promoting fringe theories about 9/11 being a controlled demolition, claiming that the 9/11 hijackers may still be alive, and similar. They also approvingly quote figures such as Steele to support those theories. Link here


 * You need secondary sources, it is not your job or the job of WP editors to research what Ahmed's positions might or might not be.Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article could do with cleaning up and perhaps better sourcing.Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)