Talk:Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject 
Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.--KGV  (Talk) 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I don't know why my addition of the fact that he also lives in the Aldersbrook area of London (E12) was deleted. I have seen him there various times (I also live there), he currently has a planning application to the local authority there posted outside his house (and has previously had others posted there, before) and his car, from a Sheffield dealer, is in his driveway.
It may be argued that the place of residence of someone is not generally for Wikipedia. I would agree with that but there already exists a reference claiming he continues to live in Rotherham. Wikipedia profiles of politicians are notorious for their hagiographical content. If it is written that he continues to live in his home town then my addition should remain. Alternatively both places should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.200.152 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 January 2009
:The fact that you have seen him does not make it a valid addition to Wikpedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. The link you added is not working at present. Also, when you add links, please could you format them properly, not just paste in a bare URL. Other authors have taken time to format references nicely for this article. If you must add this detail about where he lives, at least take the trouble to rewrite the whole paragraph. As it stands it doesn't read very well. I don't know what you mean by "hagiographical". But adding the fact that he lives in your street makes it look like you are boasting about the fact a lord lives nearby. JRawle (Talk) 00:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is working now. I've formatted the two bare URL references. The first time details of his address were added, there was no reference, which is why it was removed. I agree it's not really necessary to say where he lives, and I don't think there's a reference for him living in Rotherham. JRawle (Talk) 11:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the Aldersbrook statement from the WP page.  There's been no confirmation other than the planning application.  This guy is a property developer (strangely absent from the WP) and that application is for 3 dwellings on one site.  Do the maths.  The reference to the application was removed to protect his address, which is a bit silly as his real address is easily visible (assuming the Cracrofts Peerage reference is correct).  The application reference was 04/01184/FUL and it was with Barking & Dagenham. Bromley86 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residence 

message: According to a BBC report <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17723890>, he has been suspended from the party after allegations he called for a £10m bounty for the capture of US President Obama and President Bush.
<P>
Lord Ahmed is reported to have made the call after the US offered a $10m bounty for the conviction of the founder of a Pakistani-based militant group. He denied offering a bounty, saying he was talking about "war crimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Labour Party said if the comments were true they "utterly condemn" them. Lord Ahmed's alleged remarks, published in the Express Tribune newspaper, were said to have been made in response to an announcement from Washington earlier this month of a $10m bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Hafiz Saeed, the founder of the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group.  The Indian government blames Mr Saeed and his organisation of carrying out several militant attacks on its territory, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Ahmed, according to the Express Tribune, said: "If the US can announce a reward of $10m for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10m on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.225.188 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he cannot sit as a lord due to his criminal conviction and subsequent jail term so it does look like he's finished as a politician of any stripe. Twobells (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

text: header changed and updated with latest info, seems that Ahmed's title is being considered for revoke under the Titles Deprivation Act Twobells (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Calls For Capture Of US President/Former US President - Suspended From Labour Party

message: Here is detail on a lot of what was reported in Pakistani media; http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6288.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.194.96 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Reports 

message: Why was Ahmed appointed to the House of Lords?76.246.36.153 (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because he had blackmail information he could use to pressure other nonces. 2601:647:4D81:4206:8D65:1E62:E21A:53EA (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointment 

message: This is a good question per se, but please--also see all the foregoing disussions and notes etc: the article has several highly contentious points and is non neutral. It requires to be submitted to a very rigorous and expert editorial cutting/check and amendment, please, thanks. 39.54.58.4 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of view/contentious article

message: So, was he expelled in 2009, as per the Sky cite in the main article?
http://news.sky.com/story/677016/jailed-peer-ahmed-freed-early-from-prison
I've a feeling that he might not have been, as I can't find any mention of him being let back in after his release.  However, I've seen a number of reports that mention that he would have been automatically expelled.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155043/Labour-peer-Lord-Ahmed-jailed-12-weeks-text-message-death-crash-M1.html Bromley86 (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 Expulsion from Labour party? 

message: Minor point and one I'm not certain of, so I've not reverted.  Born 1957.  Immigrated when 12, so 1969.  Per Oakwood High School, Rotherham article, Spurley Hey became a comp in the mid 60s.  So likely a comp when Lord Ahmed attended? Bromley86 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, you're right. I'll revert it now, thanks. Captain Conundrum (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Modern or Comprehensive? 

message: Any objections to me deleting that section?  There's almost nothing out there about TWF and even its own website is remarkable free of real content. Bromley86 (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's still on the board, and if there's still an article about it, then it makes sense to mention it here, though a sentence in another section would be  adequate, rather than a separate section. However, a case could be made for deletion of The World Forum: I can likewise find almost nothing about it online from a Google search (including Gnews and Gbooks). Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a couple of hits using the prime patron, HH Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum.  Both from the main UAE/Dubai-based newspaper Gulf News.  The earliest reads like a prelim press brief, whilst the second mentions what was presumably to be the first meeting April 2007.  No report on how that meeting went (or even that it actually went ahead) and no subsequent reports.  Sounds like The World Forum has fizzled, as with HH & Khalaf Al Habtoor involved I'd expect it to be constantly in a paper like the Gulf News if it hadn't. Bromley86 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Using KaH's name, I've found confirmation of that first meeting actually taking place. Bromley86 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Entry removed now as TWF wiki page has been deleted. Bromley86 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The World Forum 

message: Removed the Libya visit following from Controversies as there was no real controversy.  Lord Ahmed's piece in the Guardian said, "Parts of the British media have already mischaracterised my visit to Libya as a "peace mission to Gaddafi"."  However, there was only one article I could find with a negative spin on the visit - the Telegraph.  The Guardian ran a pretty complimentary article on it, and everyone else seems to have missed it. Bromley86 (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libya visit 

message: At the moment we have a mix of styles in the article re. use of the honourific "Lord".
 WP MoS is on the fence on this one; basically, they seem to say "figure it out yourselves".  Way I see it, there's 3 ways to do it:
1.  As far as the article is concerned, he's "Lord Ahmed" every time we mention his name (except when he's referred to as "he")
2.  He's "Ahmed" at all times other than when we're discussing his investiture
3.  He's "Ahmed" before his investiture and "Lord Ahmed" after.
Although the pedant in me likes (3), I can see that it'd get a bit messy and not be immediately clear to future editors.  I looked at Lord Levy (predominantly plain Levy, but as with this article a mix of styles).  Lord Archer is plain Archer throughout.  Likewise, looking at the peers mentioned in this article,  Baroness Uddin,  Lord Alli are plain-name throughout, although  Baroness Warsi suffers from a lack of consistency, naming-wise.
An argument against (1).  Consistency across WP would argue against it, as AFAIK there are some lords out there who have "of somewhere" as part of their official title.  Lord Ahmed isn't one of them (so he shouldn't be referred to as Lord Ahmed of Rotherham), but Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is (i.e. he shouldn't be referred to as plain Lord Ahmad).  So, to avoid cluttering up the encyclopedia with Lord xxxxx of yyyyy, it might just be better to default to plain xxxxx.
Another argument against (1) and (3) might be how we treat royals; so the  British monarch is called Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth.  Although I accept that's a different case, it's perhaps related.
When talking about him, I invariably refer to him as "Lord Ahmed".  Ditto for other Lords/Ladies/etc; to do otherwise feels passive-aggressive.  I'd say the same for news articles on them.  However, within the text of an encyclopaedia, my vote is for (2). Bromley86 (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Bromley86. Great set of questions. I would prefer Lord Ahmed in the lead and perhaps first bio line (or first mention of his investiture), and Ahmed thereafter. My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks GCS.  Went with your suggestion; he's Lord Ahmed in the lead, Ahmed elsewhere.  I did leave one Lord Ahmed in just after the investiture, as there was a certain symmetry given the context (it's talking about exactly when he was raised) and it fits with your preference. Obvious I didn't touch his name if it was in a quote. Bromley86 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Ahmed, just plain Ahmed or a mix? 

message: There's been a number of edits recently from 194.60.38.198, which apparently is registered to Parliament.
There's nothing wrong with that, unless you're aware of a conflict of interest, but please explain why you're making the edits.  Especially if it's removal of cited material.  Bromley86 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Houses of Parliament-based editor(s) 

message: I didn't add this as a cite, because it's arguably in WP terms lower quality than The Peerage.  I will add this, as it's unarguably of higher quality.  Bromley86 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The existence of Babar 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3317931/the-intimidation-of-short
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords-interests/lords-interests-amendments/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The introduction says Lord Ahmed has been convicted of rape in 2019 but the section only mentions him being charged. Which is it? This needs correcting. If both then additional information is needed. Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape - charged or convicted? 

message: * Ahmed was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison by Mr Justice Wilkie, which meant he would serve six weeks in jail, and he was disqualified from driving for 12 months.
Why does "12 weeks in prison" equate to "six weeks in jail"? --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Late reply but: non-life prison sentences in Britain are served behind bars to the halfway point (two thirds if a serious crime). For the remainder of the sentence, the convict is back in society, under restrictions if required, and can be recalled to prison if he or she reoffends in that time. I agree it should have been worded better. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing sentence

message: My understanding (after an initial error) is that Ahmed as of January 2022 is still a lord (Lord Ahmed of Rotherham aka Baron Ahmed), but no longer a member of the House of Lords. Is he still a Lord Temporal? Wikipedia (not an authority!) says without source "The Lords Temporal are secular members of the House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament". This in contrast with Lords Spritual, bishops in the HoL. So is a Lord who is not a member of the HoL a Lord Temporal?
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status after retiring from HoL 

message: Is this appropriate, especially in the lede? It doesn't look like the article cited mentions this, nor do I believe he was being charged with statutory rape. And is it factually correct that all his offences were committed while under the age of consent? I believe it was 16 at the time, and he was 17 for some of them. Although the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 at that time. Don't know if the UK has Romeo & Juliet laws, or whether they had them in the 70s. Still, I don't understand how age of consent is relevant in a case like this. KRLA18 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "committed whilst he himself was below the age of consent"