Talk:Ahmed Hassan Imran

Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

@Nirmalya1234:, 117.194.32.72: This is not how you make an edit request. You summarize what you'd like to change, not copy and paste your version of the article. But instead of jumping to do more editing, let's talk about the disputed content. Explain your viewpoint on how you think the article should be constructed. Through discussion we can develop a consensus, a common ground, something we all can agree on as collaborators – then will implement those changes. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:BengaliHindu. Discussions are relevant.

Sir, In reference to the Ahmed Hassan Imran page, you are posting purely allegation which are not proved yet. Those allegations were published in Anandabazar Patrika without any solid proofs and are being challenged now including the DIG report of the Canning riots. Yesterday the paper published SIO link with Ahmed Hassan Imran but today they published that Ahmed Hassan Imran has no link with SIO. Similarly allegations were made against his birth place on yesterday's publication. These facts are changing day by day and are mere allegations. Those allegations are being backtracked now. Hence in this regard your are requested not to post anything which is not proven in Courts since posting of such unproven libelous news information against an elected Rajya Sabha MP in public domain falls under Cyber crime. If you are not the rightful authority then we would like to request you to forward us to the Wikipedia's actual authority. Thank you.10:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are the people you mentioned as "we"? BengaliHindu (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are the readers of Kalom newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talk • contribs) 10:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should not vandalize Wikipedia. All mentioned information were quoted from reliable secondary sources and even mentioned as "according to so and so..." which is legitimate as per Wikipedia policies and doesn't fall under any cyber crime. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies if I made any mistakes but defamatory news stories about a living person is not reliable unless proven by Indian laws. Ahmed Hassan Imran himself denies the allegations against him (please refer to the Hindu newspaper) so, I request you to wait until further reports come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Wikipedia article is not a news story. A Wikipedia article can only mention information that have already been published in reliable secondary sources. Was there any sentence (among that you deleted) that was not published in a newspaper? In fact the phrasing was like "according to intelligence reports..". Not a single sentence claimed the information to be correct. They only mentioned that such and such reports mention so and so. This is perfectly OK in Wikipedia NPOV terms. Moreover, that fact that Imran himself denied the allegations was also mentioned. There is no Indian law or Wikipedia policy which states that an article can't be edited until something is proven in a court of law. On the contrary what you are doing is against Wikipedia policies. BengaliHindu (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't mean you can post/spread libelous information on an open access encyclopedia damaging the reputation of a Rajya Sabha MP even when it is subject to court's verdict. Which source you are referring to as reliable? Anandabazar didn't provide any proofs. They only published the news of allegations made by other politicians. News are being made each hours so unless it is proved as per our existing laws you cannot spread any information which may be harmful to a living person. However, you can do so after the allegations are found to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talk • contribs) 12:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You have accused me of libel twice. This is nothing but personal attack. Do not violate Wikipedia etiquette. (2) Anandabazar Patrika is a reliable secondary source. When it says that it is quoting from a report of Ministry of External Affairs, you have to accept the fact that Anandabazar has such a report with them. You may or may not agree with the content of the report, but you have no reason to disagree that Anandabazar has such a report. (3) The content of the report may or may not be true. I don't know who who will adjudicate whether the content of the report is true or not. Maybe the court will do it. But unless that is done, there is no law which can stop anyone from mentioning that "According to a report of the Ministry of External Affairs, Imran did this or that" and providing the reference of Anandabazar. Making such statement doesn't require any proof under Indian law or Wikipedia policies. Hope this explanation helps. BengaliHindu (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not get me wrong. I have no intention to accuse you of anything unless you do any such. Anandabazar has a report but Wikipedia is not a newspaper that you will post the same report. I am pointing to the unproven allegation you are posting which may damage the reputation of an elected MP. You cannot post based on an unverified report of a newspaper. Its newspaper's duty to report news but Wikipedia provides accurate information. So, an encyclopedia cannot make such allegation which my harm a living person even while this case is not resolved. If you are posting the report as Anandabazar did then you have to take its responsibility too. The report is no way reliable to be posted on Wikipedia. That is why I requested you to wait until further reports come out. Are you getting my point sir?

A report published in The Hindu on 11 May 2014 states that Gautam Deb, former Housing Minsiter of West Bengal, alleged that Ahmed Hassan Imran maintained close relations with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh. According to the same report, Imran, reacting to Deb's statement, had said that he might consider legal action against Deb. Deb made further allegations against Imran. For example Deb alleged that Imran had misappropriated money from Islamic Development Bank. Imran in reaction had said that Deb must produce evidence for his claims otherwise he will take proper legal action against Deb after 2014 general elections in India. The elections results were declared on 16 May 2014.

Another report published in the Sunday Guardian on 30 August 2014 states that although Imran had threatened to sue Deb in case he failed to substantiate his claims, Imran hadn't actually sued Deb in the last four months i.e. between 11 May 2014 and 30 Aug 2014. Imran, when asked by the Sunday Guardian that why he did not take any legal action against Deb, Imran said that a legal action was far from his mind. At the same time also admitted that he should have taken legal action (earlier).

Now comes the question of personal harm. It has been contested that mere stating of the fact that someone has alleged something against Imran would harm him. The question concerns a living person who said that he would take legal action (against allegations on him) on 11 May 2014, and did not take any till 30 August 2014 and wasn't even considering an legal action as of 30 August 2014. Would he be reasonably harmed if the Wikipedia article on him stated that "During the 2014 general elections [which ended on 16 May 2014], Gautam Deb, the former Housing Minister of West Bengal, quoting from a secret report, alleged that Imran was a front man of the Jamaat-e-Islami." with an inline citation to the report published in The Hindu on 11 May 2014? BengaliHindu (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again not true when you said that ″Imran said that a legal action was far from his mind″. This is editor's own assessment. Now, why Ahmed Hassan Imran is not filling any legal action or what strategy he is following or how much impact the allegations have as per his view is not known by you, me or the newspaper so it is irrelevant here. Like the report published on CNN IBN on 13 September 2014 states that he filed case against another politician Siddharth Nath Singh for the allegation.

A politician Gautam Deb, former Housing Minsiter of West Bengal accused Ahmed Hassan Imran, Rajya Sabha MP of India from West Bengal of something but still not been able to prove it neither Gautam Deb made any legal action against him as per the allegations he made nor even provided any counter proof or something from his ″secret report″ when Ahmed Hassan Imran asked for evidences. And this recent report published on the Statesman on 14 September 2014 states that ″The state panchayat and rural affairs minister and Trinamul Congress vice president Subrata Mukherjee today said that the claim that Trinamul's Rajya Sabha MP Ahmed Hassan Imran has alleged links with a Bangladesh-based militant group was a heinous plot hatched by the Bharatiya Janata Party and a section of the media. Mr Mukherjee also challenged the state BJP leadership and a particular newspaper which published the news to provide proof.″ Hence, such unproven allegations against each other of politicians suit news reports but not for an encyclopedic article which is based on accurate information and verification. These news are changing as further probe is going on and the Kalom is publishing counter evidences to the accusations hence if you have to add the news stories then articles on politicians will be infinite.

Next, it is not only a question of physical harm to the person but also about his reputation because he is an elected MP & editor of a newspaper representing vast group of people specially when none of the allegations are proved to be true yet and there is no public scandal over the allegations. As per the noticeboard's assessment you should abide by the existing rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLPCRIM which clearly states ″A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law″ thus as an editor its your responsibility not to write something on a public domain which damages the reputations of a living person based on unverified claims. However you can write when there are strong evidences of such allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MehulWB (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connection with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh is not a crime. It may be look immoral or anti-national to some people, but its not a crime as per Indian law. Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh is not banned in Bangladesh. Its counterpart Jamaat-e-Islami Hind is not banned in India. No FIR has been lodged against Imran, no lawsuit has been filed, no criminal charges has been brought against him, no prosecution is going on. WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable here.BengaliHindu (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you have the rightful authority to judge ″Connection with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh is not a crime″ or ″It may be look immoral or anti-national to some people, but its not a crime as per Indian law″. It is your personal views unless you provide an evidence of Indian law supporting your comment.

You are turning the context to Jamaat-e-Islami. The discussion is not whether Jamaat-e-Islami is good or bad. The person denies his links with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh and there are no proofs yet to prove him wrong. Hence, any assertions against someone without valid proof when he is denying the claim is a crime when you cannot prove your claims and this is termed as lie. You not only added his links with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh but also with several riots based on a single unverified claim of a Bengali newspaper. This is libelous for a living person and as the noticeboard mentioned WP:BLPCRIME does apply here.MehulWB (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give one reliable reference which states that connection with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh is a crime under Indian law. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is out of context here to decide connection with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh is a crime or not. Secondly, when you said that then it becomes your responsibility to prove it so you may provide one reliable reference which states that connection with Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh is a not crime under Indian law. Thirdly, you are requested to address the issues I posted about Ahmed Hassan Imran and not whether Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh is good or bad. There is a separate article on Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh so you can decide that there.MehulWB (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all out of context. You have said that, by stating "Imran has close connections with Jamaat-e-Islami" the Wikipedia editor has accused him of crime. First of all, the Wikipedia editor has provided reference from a reliable source. Secondly, having close connection with Jamaat-e-Islami (which is not a banned or terrorist organization) is not a crime under Indian law. It is you who is indirectly stating that it is a crime. If so, prove that having links with Jamaat-e-Islami is crime. Its you who is making the accusation of crime. If you think that Ahmed Hassan Imran has committed a crime, please provide references for that. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The birth place of Ahmed Hassan Imran is not mentioned in the Rajya Sabha website and it is not proved whether he is from East Pakistan or Mal police station area of Jalpaiguri district in West Bengal. His birth place was added by an editor based on a single bengali newspaper report which didn't carry any evidences for its report. The article current says ″However according to a report of the Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka sent to the Ministry of External Affairs, he was presumably born in East Pakistan.[8] He infiltrated into Indian territory in 1970 or 1971 from Sylhet in present day Bangladesh. Initially he stayed in Dhubri district in Assam. Later he shifted to Dhupguri in Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal.[8]″ but there are no proofs of existence of any such reports from the Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka. Further this report published on the Daily Star on September 16, 2014 states that ″India has not received any report from its mission in Bangladesh″. Ahmed Hassan Imran's own newspaper published evidences of his birth place which mention Jalpaiguri district. This report published on the Statesman on 14 September 2014 states that allegations against him were challenged by Ahmed Hassan Imran & the state panchayat and rural affairs minister and Trinamul Congress vice president Subrata Mukherje.[1] Ahmed Hassan Imran also filed case against the allegations which is subject to court's ruling now. Publishing such unverified news report on an encyclopedia may damage his reputation as he is representing wide range of people. Hence, I request to remove his both birth places until his actual birth place is found & verified. MehulWB (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mere mentioning of the contradicting facts from various secondary reliable sources regarding a living person's place of birth does not damage the person's reputation. If Kalom has published something regarding Imran's place of birth, that information should be added as well. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously damage the living person's reputation when there are unproven allegation against him of Bangladeshi link. The are no strong evidences that 'He infiltrated into Indian territory in 1970 or 1971 from Sylhet in present day Bangladesh' like I also mentioned that there are no proofs of existence of any such reports from the Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka which you cited as reference. Moreover, which ″various sources″ you are mentioning as ″secondary reliable sources″ because its only one newspaper ″Anandabazar Patrika″ which published what you wrote about his birth place and this report published on the Dhaka Tribune on 13 September 2014 states that ″The Anandabazar report is yet to be verified independently″ so I do not see any strong points to add this news report to the article. When it is not verifiable then it is better to avoid adding as this is part of the allegation against the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talk • contribs) 16:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't trust secondary reliable sources we can't write one single line in Wikipedia. Anandabazar Patrika and Rajya Sabha websites are secondary reliable sources. If you want to contest this there are other forums to do that. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajya Sabha website can be a secondary reliable source which does not mention Ahmed Hassan Imran's date of birth. This is acceptable. But other claims are based on a single news report by Anandabazar Patrika which is based on claims by other politicians and not unverified even found to be false can not be a reliable source. And which forum you are referring to?MehulWB (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were references from established secondary reliable sources, which you chose to ignore. You can only explain why. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section contains contradicting statements about the birth place of the subject. There are allegations not proved yet that he is actually from Bangladesh and infiltrated into India. The official Indian Rajya Sabha website does not mention his place of birth. Now, a news report by a bengali news paper Anandabazar Patrika[2] published on 12 September 2014 mentioned his place of birth as East Pakistan referring to another report of the Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka.

1) But according to a recently published news report on September 16, 2014 by the Daily Star[3] states that as per Syed Akbaruddin, Indian Govt. Spokesperson there were no reports of any such from the Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka. Furthermore, Asaduzzaman Khan, Minister of State for Home Affairs also concluded that there are no such reports to Indian Govt.

2) As per this report[4] published on Dhaka Tribune on 13 September 2014 states that 'the Anandabazar report is yet to be verified independently'.

3) And this report[5] published on the Statesman on 14 September 2014 states that the state panchayat and rural affairs minister and Trinamul Congress vice president Subrata Mukherjee challenged the particular newspaper Anandabazar Patrika to provide proofs for its report.

4) Ahmed Hassan Imran's own newspaper daily Kalom published evidences which contradicts to the claim by the single news report.

In this regard there are contradiction to the report of his birth place and there are no strong proofs yet to conclude his actual birth place thus as per BLP which states that ″Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.″, I am removing the contentious material. Please, do not undo my edit unless you can provide strong evidences which do is not contradicting.MehulWB (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same unproven claims are being added in the article which do not comply with Wikipedia's BLP criteria. The news article claiming reports from Ministry of Home Affairs but in earlier section I have added news links which contradicts with the claims. The news reports are not even verified. Such as this report published on the Indian Express states that CM of West Bengal denied the allegations against Ahmed Hassan Imran. This report states that probes have been started and it is under court's ruling but since, no such reports as per the news source have been officially claimed or the court's have not given yet its ruling so I am requesting again not to add unproven allegations. I think the users adding the allegations are somehow connected with each other. MehulWB (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:8:9100:9D1:D4CF:F2E0:4D82:B4E6 (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have make a change restore good version of that. If any one add or remove anything in this article or fell that any bias statement or unreferenced statements or NPOV issues, before revert, please discuss there first.--- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have undid your change. This is not last good version and I have already discussed the reason in earlier sections with links. Till date none of the news stories are found to be correct. The other accusation that he sent money to Bangladeshi radical groups now found to be wrong. Please, see the Hindu newspaper. Links to riots such as 2007 Kolkata riots are all allegation and not proven and the reference source itself clarifies that. This is another source[6]. You can elaborate why you think the edits are good since you just restored all the contents which were removed after discussion.MehulWB (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We know that allegation is allegation. You can not say that "none of the news stories are found to be correct" . Corrrect and incorrect you personal views , it is personal opinion. You can edit the page a you need, but dont revert full content. again. If you you do that I shall be at WP:AI again. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 16:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend MehulWB, please write here, how you would like presents the sentence as per present report. We will add a rewite the article with WP:NPOV manner. Please help me to do that without reverting.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will write here then. The section "Links with Jamaat-e-Islami" states that "Imran has close connections with Jamaat-e-Islami" but this is not found to be true. The Wikipedia policy states that "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty"[7] which applies here. Please tell me if a person accuse someone of something then should you add it to his bio on Wikipedia? Accusing without evidence is very frequent behavior among our politicians. I wanted to mean that you can add whatever found to be right by the investigation which is still going on but not the reports which quotes another person or reports which do not provide any evidence as I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. MehulWB (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having links or close connection with Jamaat-e-Islami is not a crime under Indian law. Jamaat-e-Islami Hind is not a banned organization or listed as a terrorist organization. Do you have any reliable reference which states that "having links to Jamaat-e-Islami" (Jamaat-e-Islami Hind or Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami) is a crime under Indian law? Is any criminal investigation case going on against Imran? So how can you say that Ahmed Hassan Imran is accused of crime. I don't think this is a case of WP:BLPCRIME. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember I have already replied you regarding this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahmed_Hassan_Imran#Description_of_allegation_of_Jamaat_connection_and_possibility_of_harm MehulWB (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the proper answer to my question. Would you kindly write your answer again (below this line)? BengaliHindu (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir can you please read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahmed_Hassan_Imran#Description_of_allegation_of_Jamaat_connection_and_possibility_of_harm ? MehulWB (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Please sir include the Hindu newspaper link I posted above in the article which states that the CBI has given him clean chit for Saradha money transfer case. There are more sources available for verification.MehulWB (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Early life section is well referenced. so please don't remove the reference content.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 17:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly requested you to check my message about the early life section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahmed_Hassan_Imran#Place_of_birth_in_Early_life_section but you're ignoring it. Please, discuss it here before removing my edits. MehulWB (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mehul, I have agreed. Are there any information about his early life??18:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I will search for it on Internet but I think I have to go through Kalom newspaper as there is not much information about his early life on the Internet. I will let you know before adding any information I get about his early life. MehulWB (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, adding references from Kalom may fall within WP:COI, because Kalom is edited by Ahmed Hassan Imran. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will not use Kalom. I will find something else. But please you cannot use speeches by other politicians who are against his party. MehulWB (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a notable person X alleges something about person Y which Y denies and this event of allegation is published in some reliable source Z, it is legitimate to mention in the Wikipedia article of Y that "According to Z, X alleged this and this about Y" and provide the reference of Z. If an established reliable source Z mentions something against Y, then also it is legitimate to mention in the Wikipedia article of Z that "According to Z, Y did such and such things". This doesn't violate WP:BLP or WP:BLPCRIME. Adding the facts relating to accusation is not the same as accusation. I think you are confusing between the two. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule in Wikipedia which says that "I can't use speeches by politicians who are against his party." This is totally against NPOV. Rather all viewpoints including especially those of his political opponents should also be covered. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed in the talk page when another user BengaliHindu was involved but if those are wrong then please discuss why instead of restoring the same content which was removed earlier after discussion. I request the involved editors to follow BLP and BLPN boards of Wikipedia to justify their edits.MehulWB (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Till date you have not expand the article, deliberately remove the content. Please expand the article as you want. Dont created look like stub. There huge content need tobe write about him. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 18:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you sir and I will need your help in this. Can you please? I feel you can help with guidelines and I am eager to expand this article with neutral facts. MehulWB (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will need some days to gradually expand it. I request to allow me few days please.MehulWB (talk 18:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mehul, I shall wait for your expansion of this article with proper WP:NPOV style. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 18:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I will follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as well.MehulWB (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MehulWB, you mentioned on 27 October that you intend to contribute together. But till date you haven't written a single line in the article, where you have blanked out entire section many times. This clearly proves that you have single purpose account and fail WP:DUCK. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MehulWB: Expanding the article does not mean stubbing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am joining in here to improve this article. STUB is best way to start fixing it SLOWLY with CONSENSUS. Now before we proceed, how many users here have a 'Conflict of Interest' for this subject (I don't have any) ? MonaPisser (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have either. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MehulWB might have a Conflict of Interest here. Initially he/she/they used the terms "us" and "we" and referred themselves as "readers of Kalom newspaper". Ahmed Hassan Imran is the chief editor of Kalom. Again, MehulWB pleaded that "speeches by those politicians who are opposed to his (political) party" should not be mentioned. MehulWB has very few edits outside Ahmed Hassan Imran and related stuff, and that too after several other users repeatedly spoke of his/her/their account being a single purpose account. MehulWB fails WP:DUCK, is a probably a single purpose account and is possibly being used by multiple users to promote the interest of a particular person, group or political party. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing intrinsically wrong with being a SPA. Anyway a little AGF goes a long way. I think we are all agreed that the present stub is 100% factually correct and that this page is about a controversial BLP ? MonaPisser (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we agreed on the article's name ? any variations ? COMMONNAME ? What is his name in the Rajya Sabha website ? MonaPisser (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to argue Commonname policy then you asking someone to quote his name from an official government website. The common name would be the name most commonly used by the sources not the official name used by the Indian congress. Mahatma Gandhi is not listed as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Bill clinton is not listed as William Jefferson Clinton, ect ect ect.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His name is "Ahamed Hassan" from the Rajya Sabha website. The "Imran" is an alias. So this article should be titled "Ahamed Hassan (Imran)" or similar to distinguish him from other "Ahamed Hassan"s. MonaPisser (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the common name used by sources is Ahmed Hassan Imran. The Common name is the name we use per wp:commonname.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user:MonaPisser about the name because myneta.info listed him as "Ahmed Hassan" only - http://myneta.info/rajsab09aff/candidate.php?candidate_id=523 and user:Serialjoepsycho is also right because as per the Wikipedia rules "Ahmed Hassan Imran" is more acceptable. MehulWB (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we allow 'MehulWB' to suggest 200 words for insertion supported by at least 5 reliable sources. These should be factual and avoid all controversies about the individual. MonaPisser (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So nominate this article for deletion. MonaPisser (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point to that either. Unless you are suggesting this individual isn't notable. MehulWB can suggest 200, 100, or 500 words for insertion with 1, 5, or 8 reliable sources.They can avoid or not avoid controversy and then bring it here. Here in discussion it can be determined if that controversy is due or undue in the article and it determined if the content and the sources are acceptable. Anyone other than MehulWB can do the same. There is no need to vote about it on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in order to overcome the impasse, I have created a temporary subpage Talk:Ahmed Hassan Imran/temp. Editors are requested to make edits there to reach such a content which is agreeable to all the parties. I have copy-pasted and then edited the erstwhile "early life" section as a start.

Since the topic is sensitive and subject to ongoing edit war, I request all the editors involved to understand WP:BLP policies. Please understand, that any potentially debatable/questionable assertion needs not only appropriate citation, but proper attribution in the prose. For example, if quoting a The Hindu report, alongside providing the reference, please mention in the prose that the sentence is according to the The Hindu newspaper. Even better, you can name the news reporter and the date/ month-year of the report. In case of very sensitive, it may be ok to use quotations, and even then attribute to the particular source in prose.

Thanks, --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. We can go thru piecemeal and find what is acceptable. Then we can move what is not to some dispute resolution process if need be. Although I would like to recommend that related discussion take place here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I think it would be better off to nix the portion about his Date of birth. This is trivial and original research. Someone saw that the webpage did not include his DoB. If there is some controversy about it then a reliable source will show this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the discussion should be here in this talk page.

I agree with you regarding the date of birth. That's trivial, and can be deleted. However, what about the place of birth (East Pakistan versus India). That, in my view, is not very important. But others may differ. And that probably is not trivial.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, please refer to this article - [8] from a reliable source. It talks about his date of birth and possible Pakistani citizenship. BengaliHindu (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First hand I'd say it's trivial. But some of this editwar suggest perhaps otherwise so other people should really offer more on the subject. We should see if we can replace that second source with an English source.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask, BengaliHindu, if you have other sources. Not merely one.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: Please have a look here - [9]. This article mentions that the person illegally migrated from Sylhet in what was then East Pakistan to Indian territory. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ping me everytime. I wouldn't call this editorial a reliable source. I think with this issue a number of sources on the subject should be reviewed. From what I can see right now this seems alot like the birther conspiracy theory that has followed Obama.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you because you specifically mentioned my username. Regarding reliability of this specific source, please consider that the article has been written by the former vice-chancellor of the University of Chittagong, one of the reputed institutes of Bangladesh. If it sounds like a controversy, it should be mentioned as a controversy in the article. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank all of you for coming together to expand this article. I saw the temporary page Talk:Ahmed Hassan Imran/temp. It only includes the "Early life" section which contains controversial texts. I think it should not be included in the bio because those claims do not merit an encyclopedic article. I posted my rationale in the Place of birth in Early life section. What do you suggest as per existing Wikipedia rules?MehulWB (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go back and read the first paragraph and that will explain why currently there is only an early life section in the temp. As far as the controversial statements, we should see how broad the coverage is and then judge if any of those sources are reliable. It maybe necessary to take that to some form of dispute resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that part. Please, judge my statements on Place of birth in Early life section. I though this part already reached consensus as user:JayantaNath "agreed" here Early life section.MehulWB (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]