Talk:Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin

Untitled

This article has been written by people intent on smearing this individual. In a matter-of-fact, citing poorly researched and biased newspaper sources, the wiki article states that the person has been found guilty and tried of war crimes. He has only been accused in certain newspapers, and in others, they were made to apologise because the person felt it was not true. If this article was the least bit neutral, it would be written in a more neutral way, mention his other work, as a previous version did, and suggest that he has been accused, and also mention that he has denied these accusations. Previous attempts to netralise this article has been vandalised by what clearly seems to be a lobby group in favour of the current government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristartelm (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 June 2010

This article is neutral

This article states what the leading newspapers from home and abroad says and clearly is not intended to vilify anyone. And also, this article is not biased by government or any of opposition parties. Enough references, authentic references have been provided to support the contents of this article. I request to go through the references, specially reference no. 5, 6 and 7 which refer 'The New York Times' report published in 1972, just after the liberation war of Bangladesh. Now, tell me, is 'The New York Times' poorly researched and biased newspaper? 'The New York Times' had any problem with Mr. Mueen-Uddin in 1972 so that this newspaper published a report against Mr. Mueen-Uddin? Think about it. If the answer is a 'NO' (which is obvious), then please don't doubt about neutrality of this article. Please go through reference no. 11 which says that Prof Farida Banu, sister of martyred intellectual Giasuddin, filed a case against Mr. Mueen-Uddin with Ramna Police Station on September 24, 1997. So, Mr. Mueen-Uddin has not been accused by anyone as you stated is not true. If you do not believe in the report of this top and the most read and neutral newspaper, then you can go to Ramna Thana and check whether the case was filed or not to clear your confusion. If you have any confusion about the reputation of The Daily Star, please go through it's website. The newspapers (Bangladeshi) I have mentioned are: New Age (Bangladesh) and The Daily Star which are well known and reputed newspapers in Bangladesh. I request to go through the websites of these newspapers. Again, the newspapers from abroad I have mentioned are: The New York Times and Guardian and Front Page Magazine. I request to read about the newspapers to be sure about reputation and neutrality of these newspapers.

I again claim that this article is neutral because I have mentioned (in section 'Controversies')that a newspaper(Guardian) had withdrawn the complaints against Mr. Mueen-Uddin and provided the reference too. I included his current association and activities also (in career section) and provided a link to his company's website. If I were not neutral in writing this article I could have not mentioned these facts.

Think carefully, only one newspaper (guardian) 'withdrawn' complaint against Mr. Mueenuddin (and I have mentioned it) and this incident (complaint and withdrwal) occured in 2009, long after the liberation war. On the other hand, other newspapers namely 'The Daily Star', 'New Age', 'The New York Times', 'Front Page Magazine' reported about the activities (which are against the liberation of Bangladesh) of Mr. MueenUddin. Again, look, the report on 'The New York Times' was published just after the Liberation war(1971) which is important. I have gathered all the information from all these Newspapers. I did not skipped or exaggerated anything which you can check by going through the references. This proves the neutrality of this article.

I request to go through the online archive (Ref. no 1) to check if the archive is authentic or not.

Previous version of this article which completely removed all the information I provided did not included any reference except the link to the website of Multi-Faith Group for Healthcare Chaplaincy (Ref. no 2 in current article) in which Mr. Mueen-Uddin is the Vice-Chairman and did not mention any of the references (reports from 'The Daily Star', 'New Age', 'The New York Times', 'Front Page Magazine') which are very much available on net. Thats why, I should say that, the previous version which contained only the biodata of Mr. Mueen-Uddin was totally biased and completely not neutral.

A law court has already been formed in Bangladesh for the trial of war criminals. According to law minister, a notice will be issued, as per law, to the alleged war criminals like Mr. Mueen-Uddin to come to Bangladesh and face the trial. If they don't come Government of Bangladesh will negotiate with the Governments of other country to bring them back. (See Ref. No. 10). So, the claim that Mr.Mueen-Uddin is not convicted is not true. This article is not intended to defame anyone. This article organizes relavant information published in leading newspapers in Bangladesh from 1972 to 2010.

Again, I claim the neutrality of this article because this article contains information reported in leading newspapers in home and abroad. No imaginary or false or baseless information exists in this article. This article is not intended to vilify any individual. This article is intended only to record and make everyone known about the incidents; related, relevant information about the Liberation War of Bangladesh. And each line of this article is authentic supported by the reports in leading newspapers in home and abroad. Thanks. NasrinatWiki (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to remove the message from this article. Appropriate references have been provided to resolve the dispute.NasrinatWiki (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag. The article now contains appropriate references. NasrinatWiki (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Full Protected

Having closed the AFD as keep I see that the BLP vios have crept in with ancient sources and no effort to balance the allegation with the result of the tribunal and withdrawal of the grauniad article. I have therefore removed and full protected to allow time to reach a consensus on what should be put up. If this happens before 2 weeks let me know and I'll unprotect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• As I said during the AfD I think having a short bit on the allegations and the withdrawn Guardian article is appropriate. Given how short the current article is I'd say only a sentence or two. Hobit (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think being ancient of a source fails to keep its credibility. If you think the ancient source (The New York Times) and withdrawal of allegation of the Guardian Newspaper together makes the content of this article balanced then I request to remove protection and let editors make appropriate changes. Otherwise I vote for the deletion of this article (which contains merely the career) . NasrinatWiki (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Mueen-Uddin is a trustee of Muslim Aid

I have corrected an information on this article which is now removed. At present Mr. Mueen-Uddin is not the chairman of Muslim Aid. He is one of the trustees. You can check the fact following these links.

http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/about-us/governance http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/media-centre/495-response-to-pakistan-floods-

This article refers to BBC news (dated 2003) which refers Mr. Mueen-Uddin as the chairman. But the website of Muslim Aid and media news (dated 2010) say that the chairman of Muslim AId is Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Not Mr. Mueen-Uddin. I am going to add this information. PLease let me know any problem regarding this issue. NasrinatWiki (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm sorry for reverting your edit, but I wanted to revert back to before Esha795 made these edits, which were clearly defamatory in nature. I accidentally caught your edits in that reversion as well. Silverseren^C 05:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. NasrinatWiki (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Silver seren. Would you please restore Nasrinatwiki's edit, which is npov and updated info of the subject's current role in the organization? --Ragib (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NasrinatWiki has already put the info back in the article. Silverseren^C 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Recent developments"

The sources cited make no mention of Mueen-Uddin being extradited to Bangladesh, or "currently awaiting trial in Bangladesh". The articles, in fact, mention that there is no extradition treaty between Bangladesh and the UK and that extradition is unlikely. I removed the section, because the information given seems to have been conjured out of thin air. Applesandapples (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems not to be the case according to the Telegraph of 02/05/2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bangladesh/10032961/British-Muslim-leader-Chowdhury-Mueen-Uddin-indicted-for-genocide-and-crimes-against-humanity.html - this says "Bangladesh will be required to establish that there is a prima facie case against Mr Mueen-Uddin," said lawyer Toby Cadman in a statement to AFP. "They will also be required to give an undertaking that Mr Mueen-Uddin will not receive the death penalty." Perhaps the foreign office have had reassurances - I think Theresa May would simply accept them?79.67.246.12 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)nhsnh79.67.246.12 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Acted as Spiritual Adviser to GMC on Liverpool Care Pathway

Seems rather odd the group he chaired should have been advising on this, as its been termed the 'Death Pathway' by a volume of bereaved relatives who's loved one's were not even terminally ill: see Reference section at: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/end_of_life_wishes_and_needs_of_the_bereaved.asp 79.67.246.12 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)NHSNH79.67.246.12 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by editor Applesandapples

User:Applesandapples is deliberately removing cited contents from the article. Please raise your points in this section and ask for a consensus of the editors. Please do not consistently revert the edits. Vortex Shedding (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What cited content has been removed? Applesandapples (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns after November trial

Hi all. I note that the article has since been updated to describe Mr Mueen-Uddin as a 'war criminal', but the international press has reported that the court who convicted him is flawed:

• "The proceedings of the International Crimes Tribunal have come under criticism from several rights groups, including the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which has described the trials as flawed."
• "...human rights groups have criticised the tribunal for being politically motivated and falling short of international standards."

His defence were apparently unable to call any witnesses for their side (or at least, only one or two), and his barrister has said that "The trials are hugely politicised, involving instances of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct bordering on a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice." As a result, I don't think it's appropriate to put so much weight on the 'war criminal' description as we do in the article at the moment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 13:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am not agree with you. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin was recognized as war criminal, long before the creation of International crimes tribunal. See this Twenty Twenty Television's documentary on Mueenuddin's War Crimes involvement, directed by David Bergman (journalist)‎ and aired on 3 May 1995 The War Crimes File: Dispatches, Channel 4, 1995. Not only that, there are lots of evidences to prove him as a war criminal. All the allegations against International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) mostly circulated from Human Rights watch and other media just echo that. HRW is not a angle type organization, there are many criticizes against them. Their report against ICT is highly biased.[1]. Few more organizations are there, who talk against ICT just for heavy lobbying of Jamaat-e-Islami (Mueen-Uddin was a member of this party). So it is logical to treat him as war criminal. See these sources-[2][3][4] --FreemesM ^(talk) 07:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, I respect you disagreeing with me, but I am concerned that you're quoting a 20 year old documentary, a website called 'Genocide Bangladesh', and a Telegraph article which doesn't back up any of the assertions you're making - in fact, it says that the entire court system has serious difficulties and leads one to believe that the court system is fatally biased. You say yourself that he was recognised as a war criminal before he was even tried! I know that Human Rights Watch has its critics - mainly from right-wing Israelis - but it is quite clear that the court has major problems. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin has been found guilty for war crimes committed during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971 by Dhaka based International Crimes Tribunal.. Hence, it would be more appropriate to change "Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (Bengali: চৌধুরী মঈনুদ্দীন; born 27 November 1948), is known as a key character of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war" to "Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (Bengali: চৌধুরী মঈনুদ্দীন; born 27 November 1948), is a convicted war criminal of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war". Introducing this complies with wikipedia policy for BLP of Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability(V), and No original research (NOR)--Kaisernahid (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kaiser, I appreciate what you are saying but it is not OK to refer to someone as a war criminal when they have been found guilty, in absentia, by a court which is recognised as flawed. It does clearly does not pass the BLP test. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think in that case, it would be appropriate to mention the concerns about the court in the wikipedia page for the court, have proper link to that page from this page and mention clearly that he has been convicted as war criminal by that court in absentia.--Kaisernahid (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How about 'convicted in absentia of war crimes by a court described as flawed by Human Rights Watch'? Would that be acceptable? I am no fan of Islamic extremists but we really need to mention the shortcomings of the court. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What extremists are you a fan of? YousufMiah (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In short, I am concerned that a man's reputation is being damaged unduly here, by people who are too close to the issue to decide properly. I will read a bit more into the ICT and the BLP policy and try and come up with a solution. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)