Jump to content

Talk:Mohammad Asghar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welsh speaker?

[edit]

Would be interesting to know. - Francis Tyers · 07:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/betsanpowys/2009/12/oscar_on_the_move.html


Mohammad Asghar Updates

[edit]

Suggested updates:

Mosque Election Dispute The story was found libel and should be deleted: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-32441557 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womeninpolitics (talk • contribs) 11:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your refusal to edit the article and your question of what has been retracted: the entirety of the Injunction was removed by the court a refusal to edit the content is therefore libelous, I have explained what needs to be changed in each section stating which citations are referred to and what you need to change it to. Could you please now make the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.157.4 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2016

[edit]

please review the current references for the article. Some have been removed by the original publishers as the Court has found in the favour of Mr Asghar and thus is deemed as defaming. certain sections will need substantial alterations or removal due to these developments which occurred as early as 2015, however, some occurred prior to this.

Stedav02 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. What specific references in this article have been retracted? Cannolis (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background and Career

[edit]

One of 7 children not an only child. The reference to his Daughter Natasha – she was an unpaid volunteer who helped her father while his office had no staff and the correct procedures were being followed to employ new staff.

References: 8

Action to take – information and citations need to be removed. Family information corrected.

Regarding "only child", isn't clear to me whether the Who's Who reference and the subsequent sentence is intended to support this claim or not. I have a request in here: Does Who's Who claim Mohammad Asghar is an only child?.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
per the response there, I have removed the uncited claim--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim that his daughter Natasha was "central to several scandals involving her father's career": this is purportedly supported by a reference "Conservative AM Asghar criticised over researcher job for daughter". Western Mail. 10 January 2012.. However, while that link brings me to the publication, it doesn't bring me to an article with that name. I did an Internet search for the title as well as a search within the publication for the title and did not track it down. There is another reference in this article which does discuss his daughter:link. However, it states she is working as a volunteer, part-time and does not remotely support her claim that she is central to any scandals. I am removing the statement. Unless someone can provide a reference linking the daughter to specific scandals, it should not be restored.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses scandal and corruption

[edit]

Mohammad Asghar was official assembly business and if citation 13 is read correctly that is clearly stated by the office including what was being done and the visits that took place: citation 13 - Pointing out that no expenses claims for alcohol had been made, a spokesman for the Welsh Conservatives said: “These accusations are a complete fabrication aimed entirely at petty political point-scoring. This was a group visit on Assembly business and included meetings at a hospice, schools and a hospital. Shadow ministers should not be isolated in a ‘Cardiff bubble’ and should fully understand the needs of people right across Wales.

References: 13, 14, 6.

Action to take – citation 13: edit in impartial information to remove the inaccurate accusations. Citation 14: as already explains Asghar’s daughter was unpaid and helping her father out.

Regarding In November 2010, Asghar was one of nine Conservative AMs accused of wrongly claiming expenses for an overnight hotel stay coinciding with the birthday of fellow Assembly member Nick Ramsay., the Tories claim it isn't official business because they sang Happy Birthday, and the Conservatives say it was official business. The only reference sheds no light on which claim prevailed. differences of opinion about the propriety of funded trips are a dime-a-dozen, and I see nothing to suggest this is encyclopedic. One minor news item which doesn't even provide an answer is thin gruel. I'm removing it.
The subsequent two sentences, starting with "Accusations of corruption..." are overwrought. It may well be appropriate to ask questions when staffers are on paid leave, but that doesn't even constitute "abnormal pay arrangements" without further information not yet supplied and certainly doesn't justify the term corruption without much more information. One of the sense sentences claims his daughter became a "paid member of his staff" but the reference neither supports the claim that she was paid (it specifically refers to her as a volunteer) nor explains why it would be wrong if she was paid. The phrase set off by em dashes " who was explicitly banned from his employ by the Plaid Cymru leadership while he was a member of the party" is a non sequitur. Who cares that a different party decided she couldn't be employed in a particular capacity; it isn't alleged that she was. The text alleges she's a paid member of staff of the conservative party but that's nothing that says that was banned and it is an even supported that it's true. I've changed the first sentence to the more accurate: Issues were raised regarding two staff members remaining on permanent paid leave until the Welsh assembly was dissolved in 2011. If you remove the non supported and irrelevant comments in the second sentence is nothing of substance left so I removed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 6: invalid link and needs to be removed.

Citation 6 has been rescued.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Newport Council Election 2011

[edit]

This has been found to be libellous and defaming. The court has removed the injunction and publishing groups responsible for the articles have had to issue full and printed apologies due to the decision of the court.

References: 17, 18, 19, 20,

Action to take: all citations and reference to this article needs to be removed, if it is to stay as a record then the apology needs to be the front and centre piece of information as this is libellous and standing against a legal ruling.

The court case identified an article in an Urdu language newspaper. I don't believe that article has been cited as a reference; in fact I haven't identified any references in Urdu. The article included a number of serious charges (which I won't repeat here). While the court found problems with those charges, I don't believe they are the subject of this section. I note that the edit request was added well over a year ago; I checked the last version of the article prior to the date of the edit request on the chance that some material had been present but subsequently removed. It looks to me like this particular section is substantially identical, if not exactly identical to how it appeared on the date of the edit request. At the moment, I don't see any evidence that the court findings apply to any of the references or any of the material in this section so I do not plan to remove it. (The court cases are long and in legalese; I'm open to the possibility that someone needs to identify the exact wording that might be relevant to this request.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque Election dispute

[edit]

Same matter as before, it has been to the courts and the injunction has been lifted.

References: 21, 22, 23

Action to take: this needs to be removed entirely including citations.

I'm not quite sure what is meant by the phrase "same matter as before". The immediately prior entry on this talk page is the discussion about the Newport Council election. Similarly, in the article itself the "mosque election dispute" Is in a section which is immediately preceded by a section discussing "Newport Council election 2011". However, while the court case appears to make reference to some of the items in the Moscow election dispute, I did not see any reference to the issues in the Newport Council election 2011. If I missed something, please let me know. The rest of the sentence notes that the injunction has been lifted. The article section states that there was an injunction and it was subsequently lifted. That's entirely consistent with the claim here that the injunction has been lifted. I failed to see any justification for removal of the section.
The user above posted this content at the top of the talk page. I am moving it here to the bottom where it might be considered. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Edits seem to be geared towards a biased presentation of the subject, removing content and sources that are deemed negative or libelous. These are still events that occurred. If there have been retractions or new developments, they should be added to the article with proper sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'm in the process of reviewing the court document and plan to look at each one of the proposed edits and see if it is a valid request. This will obviously take some time but I'm working on it currently.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now (at least temporarily) done with my review of the article, the edit requests and any edits necessary to meet justifiable requests. If you think I've missed something, let me know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to an article about the court case outcome.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Asghar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Asghar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

[edit]

Please change the category Category:People who died in office to Category:Politicians who died in office. 2601:241:300:B610:2827:6075:D9FB:E6EE (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Terasail[✉] 20:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohammad_Asghar&oldid=1256887615"