Talk:Mo Ansar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two points

1) Is this page really relevant? Wikipedia is not a record of every person who has ever existed. Biographies should be of notable people. 'Twitter polemicist' is not a notable occupation.

2) If the page is going to stay, shouldn't it at least contain some mention of the dubious and unverified claims made by Ansar? His Twitter profile claims that he is a visiting lecturer, yet he has never produced any evidence to corroborate such claims. I would suggest that the widespread claims of fraudulence, and arguments with notable people such as historian Tom Holland, are article worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuscorkscrew (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Mo Ansar is significant enough to be covered in the national press; 2) It is Wikipedia policy to use reliable secondary sources: since Twitter is a primary source, it can only be used - if at all - in conjunction with such reliable secondary sources (i.e. published texts or documentaries with responsible editorial control). If you can find such secondary sources, go ahead. Alfietucker (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Would a Spectator article which echoes the aforementioned criticisms suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJones1172 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not having seen it, I imagine it can be used as a citation, though, depending on the wording, the source of the criticism may need to be made explicit in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion?

Why is this page still here? No consensus, default to delete? 9 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No consensus means no change (which means no delete). As that was back in 2012, if you still feel there are serious problems that merit deletion (see the deletion process), then you can renominate it. With coverage by The Guardian, BBC, Al Jazeera, and a couple other reliable but not as prominent names, I think delete is a hard case to make (but that's just my opinion). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced Info

Isn't a lot of this information unsourced, including rather basic info such as birthplace and ethnicity? Is this article worth keeping while so much is unverified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readyhamster (talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Needing more sources isn't a reason to delete a page. If the material you'd like to request sources for is controversial, it can be removed until sources are found. If it's not particularly contentious (like a birthdate), that's what tags like {{citation needed}} and {{refimprove}} are for. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed text

Someone added a statement about "an article decrying Ansar as a fraud who has claimed to hold many professional positions, for which there is no evidence" with the source here. While it looks to be a blog of a journalist, which is likely reliable, for such allegations we really need more than just that one accusation. The statement that he's a fraud and holds many professional positions (especially that generalization), effectively negates all of the other sources and content current in the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Rhod- Please see the Cohen article for further details aswell. I would agree. I would argue this page needs to be deleted; otherwise it is essentially going to become a list of things Ansar lied about, which is not really article worthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readyhamster (talk • contribs) 01:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, that's not reason to delete the page. In fact, more sources means more notable. It does, however, mean that the article would need some significant changes. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rhodedendrites on this: if there are several reliable sources demonstrating that Mo Ansar is a fraud, that in itself is noteworthy given the amount of media attention he has received. WP does, after all, have articles on such frauds as Princess Caraboo. Alfietucker (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

New info

For anyone interested in writing about it, a large amount of information about Ansar has recently surfaced. See Nick Cohen's spectator article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readyhamster (talk • contribs) 19:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please post a link and I'll take a look. This is Paul (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

here's a link. Alfietucker (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not gettin gback to this sooner. Someone else added stuff, some of which I've removed because it was sourced from twitter, and the Spectator article doesn't mention it all. This is Paul (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph article

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100013574/mo-ansar-and-rise-of-the-bogus-social-media-commentator/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readyhamster (talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Source please

What is the source for the claim that " Ansar became the first Muslim to address an audience of EDL members, when at his request he talked to one of the group's gatherings about Islam."? I have deep reservations about using an article written by Ansar to this claim. Crystalfile (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The source is the BBC documentary When Tommy met Mo: you can find the documentary on Youtube - see from 8:20. Alfietucker (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Self-______

Isn't calling him a "self-styled social commentator" or inserting "self-described" into the first sentence pretty unencyclopedic. His media appearances on which he acted as a social commentator weren't found to have never happened. They did happen, no? And others have called him a social commentator, even if they now add all sorts of other less glamorous nouns, right? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Occupation" in the infobox is certainly a bit odd and should probably be changed. I guess the first sentence might be better if it had both the most common description(s) used by secondary sources in the voice of the encyclopedia and an attributed "describes himself as" statement (if there is a discrepancy). I would imagine what is happening here is that the actions of editors hostile to the subject are degrading and may continue to degrade the quality article through poorly worded content and the use of substandard sources. I've never heard of the guy personally so I don't know the background, but it might be worth posting something at the BLP noticeboard if things get out of hand. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Having revisited both the infobox and the opening sentence, I understand concerns that NPOV may have been breached. I've reworded these, and added a new paragraph giving some background to Ansar's career as a Muslim commentator, according to the reliable sources already used in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand "self-styled" to refer to his lack of credentials to merit the title of "social commentator", not to whether he has actually commentated on social matters. Ansar is explicitly referred to in the headline of one article as a "bogus social media commentator", Cohen's entire piece is one of bemusement at Ansar's role and Dale, referred to in both of those articles is equally dismissive of Ansar's "commentator" status - ‘He invented himself as a rent-a-quote commentator’. Seeing as the sources challenge and qualify his job title, it is not unreasonable to be similarly cautious when describing him in this article. At the very least, some indication of the unease as to his self-styled role should be intimated. Perhaps the vague, meaningless and possibly misleading title of "social commentator" should just be omitted? Crystalfile (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In principle WP editors should always be wary of basing any fact upon a newspaper article's headline, almost invariably not written by the article's author but by a sub-editor and therefore of dubious reliability (a sub's job is to get a reader's attention rather more than accurately reflect an article's content). To call Ansar a British Muslim commentator is factual and NPOV, and the main article makes clear the nature of his "qualifications" and what he has done (so far as can be pinned to reliable sources). While I personally do not doubt the content of Iain Dale's blog, it would fly against WP policy to quote this as a reliable source, as the policy is "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Alfietucker (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess with Bartlett's caveat mentioned. that description can be used. Crystalfile (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

The critical aspect of the article is pretty unclear as written and appears still to be quite undersourced for the claims it brings to the table. Maybe these articles will help:

• The Truth About Mo Ansar
• Mo Ansar and the Truth Teller Account
• The Truth About Mo Ansar 2.0
• Hurrah! A setback for the enemies of free speech
• Spectator blog
• Yiannopoulos -- and another
• Jeremy Duns
• Spectator podcast

--— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these. Perhaps something could be done with the Spectator sources (particularly the podcast which I don't think has been referred to as yet), but unfortunately we can't use any of the blog sources. As I've pointed out just a bit earlier today, WP policy is "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

Could you, perhaps, highlight what in particular you think is "unclear" in the article as it stands, please. Alfietucker (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed Ansar v His Detractors

Why do you think it is not important to state that those who have written about or commented about Ansar are pro-Zionists or neo conservatives. Why do you believe their political persuasion has no role on what appears to be nothing more than gossip intended to hurt Ansar? That the allegations against him are unverified / unproven and that you have not sought any 'right of reply' link from Mohammed Ansar.

Is this profile about accuracy or your personal bias

See my reply at User talk:89.238.143.70, which concerns our approach to similar issues. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As someone who you claimed was a neo-conservative and a pro-Zionist, I'd like to see your evidence for either assertion, please! Jeremy Duns (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

mohammed ansars detractors

It should be acknowledged that all of those being critical in this profile of mohammed ansar are politically either Neo Conservative and or pro Zionist and that the allegations against him are unverified / unproven. - unfortunately not. There are many, many proven articles and with no written counter from the subject other than 'it's lies' or 'no it isn't' they stand.

Please provide your evidence that I'm a neo-conservative or a pro-Zionist. Thanks. Jeremy Duns (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Promotional website or a Wikipedia page?

It looks like this article has undergone a thorough marketing revamp over the last few days with enormous additions of promotional and disputed information (claims on the Al Shabab kill list, in particular, are controversial). I'm new to Wikipedia's editing so I'm appealing here for the advice of the elder sages rather than fiddling with any of the text myself. Does this fit with Wikipedia's standards for editorial objectivity? Does Mohammed Ansar require as long and rapt an introduction (it currently stands at 351 words) as, say, John Lennon (which currently stands at 334 words)? Does he merit an article at all? I write here because I am uneasy about Wikipedia being exploited as a marketing tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Babbington (talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to ask for help at WP:BLPN where the bio experts hang out.-ukexpat (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC) ukexpat (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

- Likewise. It seems likely that Ansar himself has edited this page. he is known to have used sock puppets in the past on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avenger786 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Ansar — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutonPete (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been subjected to significant vandalism. There was a previous page under the name of ‘Mohammed Ansar’ which was vandalised, edited numerous times and then pulled down.

The article entry has been placed on par with people in the same ilk, such as Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz and Mehdi Hasan. The following has been removed as it is in breach of the WP rules:

1. Non-NPOV items
2. Personal blogs which fail verifiability guidelines
3. Libellous, defamatory material, and material which is alleged as being untrue

Nada ALBUNNI (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you confirm your connection to the subject 'Nada' seeing as you were able to get a personal photo from him. Seems bias that you would re-write this page, which looks very much like his website. Or did, before it was edited.

The photograph was provided from the Daily Echo article and is in the public domain. This was mentioned in the title of the uploaded picture.

You also said 'personally given to me' in the upload. Also what is your connection to the subject? user:LutonPete

The edits made by Pablo constitute vandalism. There is clear bias and non-NPOV and this is wholly inappropriate. The article has been cleaned up and brought into line with other articles of the similar - such as Douglas Murray, Mehdi Hasan etc.

References relating to potentially defamatory or libelous material, non NPOV, personal blogs and smears are not for WP. The article covers his positions as a commentator, his history and personal life as for other personalities in the public domain. Whether someone is a regular broadcaster with BBC, RT or CNN is irrelevant.

Why did you add it nearly every single media appearance then? I'd also like to point out a broadcaster is VERY different to a guest on one channel. His history is non verifiable. Talk of his views, his family in the war, no evidence exists of this, likewise his qualifications. in anything. . point taken on the dismissal from the bank. I have added the court page instead rather than a blog citing it. User:LutonPete

The article should be reverted.Nada ALBUNNI (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Nada, but that wasn't vandalism. That was an attempt to reverse some of the cosmetic puffery added by you and others.
Other people have edited the article too, why pick on me? But if you want to report me for vandalism please have at it. pablo 18:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC) I very strongly suspect that this user is, or is very close to the subject himself. user:lutonpete

COI

This page has been edited by several editors who have a conflict of interest with the subject. It needs a thorough rewrite, which I will not have time to do in the near future If any impartial editor would like to jump in that would be great. pablo 12:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It needs pulling full stop. or a one line introduction such as: 'former regular on television and radio, views questionable'— Preceding unsigned comment added by LutonPete (talk • contribs)

It's awful, and unacceptable for a BLP. Not only is it badly written, but it reads like a hatchet job. It looks like it's just been stuffed wuth everything bad anyone's ever said against him. Then there are bits simply based on innuendo about what he "claims" followed by "but"s, "however"s, and assertions intended to suggest he's a liar, written in WP's voice and without any secondary source. Im going to gut it of the worst bits. N-HH talk/edits 09:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. I've spent a few minutes just taking out the most egregious bits of unsourced and loaded commentary and assertion, but it needs a fuller, proper copyedit and reorganisation, and even where there are sources for the content, there's still the question of overall balance and the huge "Criticism" section. N-HH talk/edits 10:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)