Talk:Inayat Bunglawala
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Contents |
[edit] Completely unacceptable
The following lines I have removed immediately:
Presents himself as a "moderate" however, upon closer scrutiny has been revealed to a born Jihadist.
He is the son of a convicted heroin smuggler [1].
His cover was blown again recently when he was discovered to have been the culprit who sent a death threat to an anti jihadi web blogger [2]
First, saying that he presents himself as a moderate but is actually a "born jihadist" is completely and utterly POV. It is thoroughly unencyclopaedic and is not backed by any citation. Furthermore, using the term "jihadist" is POV in itself. In this sense, it is a term of abuse used by the anti-Islamic far right. Jihad in its strictest terms does not entail violence or the support of violence.
Second, linking the BNP is also unacceptable. The British National Party is a far-right-wing, neo-fascist party on the very fringes of British politics. Several of its leaders have been convicted for race-related offences. Its leaders are Holocaust deniers who have links with the KKK and other well-known far-right parties. If his father was indeed a heroin smuggler, this is any case utterly irrelevant to the article.
Third, a link to Little Green Footballs, which is well-known for its far-right anti-Islamic stance, is not enough of a citation for a death threat supposedly posted to the site. While it may be true, it has not been investigated by the police nor has it been reported in the mainstream media. What if LGF got it wrong? It's their word against his. This does not deserve to be in the article.
If any of this information reappears, most especially the link to the BNP, I will be reporting the responsible user to Wikipedia administrators.
JF Mephisto 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Completely unacceptable" is a far greater use of POV than the examples you whine about. You are extremely biased and hysterical and are unfit to edit Wikipedia. Please cease and desist.
-
-
- First, you're allowed POV on discussion pages, just not in articles. That's the point of discussion. Second, for someone who is accusing me of being unfit to edit Wikipedia, you seem to incapable of signing your own posts. Third, how old are you? "Cease and desist"? Pffft. JF Mephisto 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
The article is not posted from a NPOV. The comments made are all negative and aimed at casting aspersions on him. Quotes have been dug up and placed out of context to damage his creidbility at the expense of listing the more significant contributions made by the person in question. One need only see that right from the start inayat is posted in a poor light. If he was as tickleme attemps to indicate, than ht would not have been selected for the government task force nor allowed to make regular contributions to the Guardian newspaper.
[edit] "Despite accusations of anti-Semitism"
User:Deuterium, why do you keep removing the phrase "Despite accusations of anti-Semitism" from this article? The linked reliable source (an article in The Telegraph) explicitly opens with the phrase "A Muslim accused of anti-Semitism", later uses the phrase "despite a history of anti-Semitic statements", and lists a number of examples of such statements. [3] Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your so-called reliable source gets a basic fact wrong (alleging that the Omar Abdel-Rahman did the 93 WTC bombing) and appears to be a hatchet job against Bunglawala. Deuterium 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"Despite accusations of anti-Semitism": should be well sourced now. --tickle me 02:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It would perhaps be less POV if we said why he was appointed "prominent muslim blah blah..." (since the reason for his appointment was clearly not his alleged anti-semitism) and then added the reported criticisms that (some clearly feel) make him unsuitable. - Paul 09:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
The article is not posted from a NPOV. The comments made are all negative and aimed at casting aspersions on him. Quotes have been dug up and placed out of context to damage his creidbility at the expense of listing the more significant contributions made by the person in question. One need only see that right from the start inayat is posted in a poor light. If he was as tickleme attemps to indicate, than ht would not have been selected for the government task force nor allowed to make regular contributions to the Guardian newspaper. (some ip)
- You're to explain why the article should contain "comments" instead of descriptions. That the quotes have been "dug up" is a slur, not an argument. If there are significant contributions of his, you are to mention them, instead of being disruptive. --tickle me 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
why isnt the fact that he is known for criticising the israeli oppression of palestinians up there? the article is by no extent neutral. Any neutral observer can see that.
[edit] Y'all HAVE to read LGF's take on this
LGF pretty much did catch him red-handed: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20760_A_Death_Threat_from_Reuters_(Bumped)&only Their IP analysis and tracking is above par and air tight.
-
- Please see WP:VERIFY. It might be true, but that doesn't mean it can be verified to an encyclopaedic standard. We'd need some sort of fallout, or report to the police, or something other than accusations on a blog that isn't exactly sympathetic to people like Mr Bunglawala. Personally I'm inclined to go with what LGF said on the issue, but it isn't enough to go in Wikipedia. Not until more citations are found.JF Mephisto 18:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- An even more critical violation happening here is of WP:LIVING. The deleted info is based solely upon the private investigations/musings of the blog site's owner, who happens to be the alleged victim. If it is verified independently that Inayat Bunglawala committed this act, then by all means the info should return. Tarc 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- This is not a violation of any policy. If someone smeared Mr Bunglawala he should be suing them for Liebel.
- Here, in wikipedia, we are only repeating what was published elsewhere. If it was only LGF (a blog) we could not have used it.
- The info in this article was published by a WP:RS source ynetnews.com - this is the biggest news site in israel part of Israel's largest newspaper "Yediot".
- So again, if they published something false Mr Bunglawala should be arguing with them not with Wikipedia. Zeq 13:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- again - this is the source: "Reuters employee issues 'Zionist pig' death threat" [4] - it is a WP:RS, articles from this site are used all over wikipedia . Does Mr Bunglawala ever tried contacting ynetnews ? does he work in Reuters ? they have relationship. if YNETnews smeared a Reuters employee Reuters should also be upset - please provide more info on why nither Mr Bunglawala nor reuters complained to YNETnews. Zeq 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- YNETnews listing it does not substantiate an unsubstantiated and unproven allegation. Also, LGF itself in its final update on the matter 1 explicity states that there is no proof;
Note: this is not proof that Bunglawala used our contact form to send the following message:
However, he probably knows who did.I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut....
This is an unproven allegation, and the way I read the WP:BLP sections "Biased or malicious content" and "Presumption in favor of privacy", this sort of unproven claim should not be put into the Wikipedia. This isn't a gossip-filled tabloid, and unless something new comes out to prove that Mr. Bunglawala committed this act, then please do not add this potentially libelous speculation to this page. Tarc 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You fail to understand what WP:RS is. As long as a source that conform to WP:RS (i.e.a source like YNET) has published something we can repeat it in wikipedia. Zeq 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have already referred you to other Wikipedia Policy pages that would appear to trump this. Perhaps you should revisit WP:RS and take note of the "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" guideline towards the Wiki pages of bio pages. Tarc 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You keep arguing it from the perspective of "Did Mr. B did what ynet said LGF said " or "Didn't he do it". The issue is NOT if he did or did not the issue is if it was published . We don't say anything beyond what YNET already published. what is your strong interst in saying that Mr. B did not do it ? what do you know about it and from where ? was it published (what everr it is YOU know ) ? Zeq 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- what is your point exactly ? Can you focus on the issue ?
- The story is published in YNET. If you have a WP:RS source with a differenr POV - plaese bring it to the article. In nay case the published info goes in (with your POV or without it). Everything that was published by WP:RS source (such as YNET) could and should be the article. So my advice look for such material. Zeq 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- YNET is not a tabloid. It is the web site of Israel #1 news paper. If your problem is with YNET I suggest you look all over wikipedia - it is used as a source all over. Zeq 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As for your referncing - it is specificaly talks about info that "unless it can be sourced" - which is not the case here. The story is sourced. (it does not mean it is true so you are free to bring another POV). Zeq 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No answer, No dialogue ? and the article would be changed unless there is a good reason not to. Zeq 06:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Inayat Bunglawala I would like to invite all to attend. Tnx. Hopefully we can reach agreement. Zeq 07:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I posted about this on the BLP noticeboard (scroll down to #158) and already and received a response on the matter. A request for mediation does not seem necessary, as this was always about an issue of Wikipedia policy, not content dispute. Tarc 15:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- wrong. I am not going to deabte the same issue on 3 different places. see ynetnews - it is a wp:rs source. Zeq 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Tarc, by now 3 diffreent people have point out to you that removing the content is wrong. Please restore it. I will agree to continue the medaition so it may get removed eventually but now there is a clear majority for this material to be included. Zeq 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- And I have one from the BLP noticeboard that says it is right to remove it, and I can surely go rustle up buddies to support it just as you have done here, here, and here. Are we dueling to see who can round up the most "yea" votes, like a beauty queen contest? Tarc 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is here. Not in the BLP board where it was presented incorectly. In any case, you have removed sourced info - please restore it. Thanks. Zeq 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was not presented incorrectly, and do not for a moment presume to think you can issue directives for others to follow. Unless I missed the vote, you are not an admin. Tarc 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes from his work
Here are some comments by Bunglawala from his time as editor of "Trends", the "magazine for young Muslims". The comments date back about 12 years, and Bunglawala admits that those for which he has been challenged are indefensible.
1) "The Jews consider themselves to be God's chosen people - although the blessed prophet Jesus called them the children of the Devil (John 8:44) - and so can do just whatever the hell they like". Vol 3 issue 6
2) He cites claims that the Zionist movement is "at the core of international banking and commerce " and asks "Nonsense? You be the judge". Vol 3 issue 7
3) He highlights the presence in the media of "Michael Green, of the tribe of Judah, Michael Grade .. Alan Yentob. so that's what they mean by a 'free media'" Vol 4 issue 4
4) His campaign against Israel does not stop at attempts to deselect pro-Israel MPs. His routine description of Israel as "the Zionist cancer" is matched only by his praise for Hamas " a source of comfort for Muslims all over the world" Vol 6 issue 2.
Nevertheless, Bunglawala was appointed as the convenor of a UK Home Office working group on "tackling extremism", one of seven such Muslim working groups set up after the July 7th bombings.
This was a remarkable appointment, given Bunglawala's past and present statements.
He still invokes conspiracy theories about Jews when complaining to the BBC about a 2005 programme on Islamic extremism:"the Panorama team seem intent on creating mistrust by serving the interests of the pro-Israeli lobby and undermining community relations..The BBC should not allow itself to be used by the highly placed supporters of Israel in the British media to make capital out of the 7 July atrocities in London."
comments to how much of this should be placed in the article are welcome. Zeq 08:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- When you provide a verifiable source for the quotes, we can proceed from there. Tarc 13:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] That "editorial"
→ (Cross-posted on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19 Inayat Bunglawala#Discussion.)
It took nearly an hour, but I finally found the piece that's been referred to here as an "editorial."
It was not an editorial. It was an opinion piece Inayat Bunglawala posted on a collective group blog called Comment is free which is hosted by The Guardian. Bunglawala's post, "This code could open doors," is about the Dan Brown book The Da Vinci Code.
It appeared on May 22, 2006 and comments continued to be added through June 10. The few Bunglawala remarks disputed here for the past month or more were among those comments.
I think anyone who reads the page itself will see that the ynetnews article about it was not straightforward reliable reporting and should not be cited as the basis for a suggestion that Bunglawala emailed anonymous death threats to anyone. — Athænara ✉ 12:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Ynet is obviously biased towards the Israeli side of things; that fact is made quite obvious by their selective quoting of just the "methinks..." line and not Mr. Bunglawala's more detailed refutation of the charge. But the way I worded the current paragraph is at last leagues better that the weasel-wordy "There is evidence to suggest..." nonsense that was there originally. The new one acknowledges that the controversy took place, but highlights both the accused's strong denial and the weakness of LGF's circumstantial accusation. Having said that, I would not shed a tear if it were excised from the page entirely. Even in the current form, I feel the BLP line is as close as it ca get to being crossed. Tarc 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ynet is an Israeli newspaper. KazakhPol 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be in this article at all. It might perhaps be appropriate in the ynetnews article, in a criticism section which discussed examples of journalist distortion, but that has nothing to do with the subject of this article. — Æ. ✉ 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Journalist distortion..? I cannot tell.. are you joking? Why would it be put under the section on criticism? KazakhPol 03:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
MPACUK discusses the incident here[5]. KazakhPol 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why there are people who blamed "Zionists" all the time ? what dos zionismhas to do with this person ? 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Maybe if the death threat material were posted elsewhere
The dispute seems to be not over whether there was a death threat but whether Bunglawala sent it. Would having a detailed description at either Reuters or the article on Little Green Footballs, and having a brief section in this article about suspicions about Bunglawala (and his response), make things any better? Andjam 03:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- reported on a wp:RS source. that is enough. Zeq 07:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Andjam, there is no dispute on whether Bunglawala sent it; there is simply no proof that he did. At all. What the dispute was about was whether the mere appearance of this event in a "reliable source" warrants automatic inclusion in an article, or whether the WP:BLP policies prohibit this sort of unproven, accusatory information from being entered into an article. For the moment, mediation has brought about the current form, which makes clear that LGF's accusation is baseless. But since then, two editors have appeared and argued to the contrary, that it should not be in at all. For now, I will stick with the current revision, but if more people show up and make the point that the inclusion violates wikipedia policy, then I'll go with that. Perhaps it might be time to bring this elsewhere and get a broader opiion, such as an RfC. Tarc 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19 Inayat Bunglawala
There has been no activity for over a week. Can I close this case? Note that I would need statements from all the involved parties (User:Tarc, User:KazakhPol, user:Zeq) that they agree to mediation to keep the case open. --Ideogram 03:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
