Talk:Dawood Ibrahim

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

POV tag- Voting[edit]

User:Freestylefrappe claims this article to be baised. The world knows that Dawood Ibrahim runs the biggest illegal empire in the world. Calling him a Mafia don is not a POV, its a fact. --IncMan 04:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • The irony of someone who's obviously emotionally biased in regards to the article's content accusing another of bias is, hopefully, not lost on the crowd. More to the point, the commonly-held format in any and all publications of any repute is to use terms such as "accused of" and "allegedly" until a criminal has been tried and convicted in a court of law. Regardless of how obvious it may be that Dawood Ibrahim has committed these acts, it cannot be stated that he has because it has not yet been proven. By all means, if you can prove he's guilty, then you should be bringing your evidence to the attention of the Indian police, not arguing about it on Wikipedia. In the meantime, please adhere to publishing common sense. Gila m0bster 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and while we're at it, this thing needs proper citing format. I don't know what parts of the article are citing what outside links. Gila m0bster 04:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of the POV tag[edit]

  • Innocent until proven guilty. I feel that if the phrasing is changed to "allegedly" or "is generally thought to be responsible for" or "is wanted on charges of..." would be more neutral. The way it is now...it just doesnt seem NPOV. freestylefrappe 20:17, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The fact that Ibrahim is a underworld don is widely accepted. Problem is that, Dawood Ibrahim has successfully foiled all Indian attempts to catch him. Osama has not yet been proven guilty, does that mean he's innocent? --IncMan 20:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Osama admitted his role in 9/11 and previous attacks...as far as I can tell from the Dawood Ibrahim page he still maintains his innocence, or at the very least has yet to go out and admit he is respoinsible. This is the major difference. freestylefrappe 20:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Then why doesn't he surrender himself and come up with evidences proving his innocence? 1000s of people have testified against him. If Dawood Ibrahim was innocent he would have faced the charges against him instead of hiding in Pakistan and UAE. Mumbai Police has never got a chance to put up a case against him because Pakistan refuses to extradite him to India. Why? thats anyone's guess. In such a scenario, I regard a person guilty until proven innocent. By the way, Osama praised the 9/11 attacks but never admitted his role in them. --IncMan 06:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin laden, Teleban and Lashkar i taibba are not terrorists or terrorist organizations. they are terrorists only for those who see them as a threat to 'their own personal' interests. unfortunately for the world, they are the ones who control the media and have somewhat successfully brainwashed the public into believing that OBL, teleban and mujahideen are infact violent thugs. but in general, muslims all over the world support jehadi politics if not their tactics. this article is definately biased. OBL and mujahideen were considered heros 20 years back, they r considered terrorists now, who know what they would be after another 20 years? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.96.16 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 July 2005.

Heros don't fight like cowards. Terrorising innocent people is a coward act. By the way, this article is on Dawood Ibrahim and his underworld/illegal business, not on so-called Jehadis. --IncMan 06:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not in favor[edit]

  • --IncMan 04:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hitler, Stalin, Osama all were not convicted of any crime. If there should be a NPOV tag in front of this article there should be one in those articles also. This is utter nonsense. --DuKot 15:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that dawood is a terrorist of the worst kind because he finances terrorism against innocent people, while he lives a luxurious life. i dont care what his philosphy is, but drug dealing, prostitution and killing innocents isnt sanctioned by ISLAM the last time i checked. BTW Drugs are how he earns his cash, if the prophet were alive today he would definitely condemn this man. Funny how a CROOK has gained the cloak of respectability by putting on the cloak of radical islam.

Couldn't Care Less[edit]

  • The article needs a lot more improvement before this topic is even discussed. There needs to more information about his past, how he came to be, how far was his reach, how much power he still holds, and most of all: what the authorities say about him and how they are trying to catch him! And someone please explain to me why the second paragraph in background has 'according to United States'?? Since when did they become the leading authority on him?
hydkat 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

according to me and the world being involved or on knowing and hiding a criminal is also considered as a crime and as per indian government and other international security agencies dawood ibrahim is considered a criminal who was involved in killing of so many innocent people and in destruction of childrens'futures by the supplying of drugs dragging them to the hell of crime who is biased? nobody is biased protesting against crimes and criminals is not biasment Ayd003 (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Mastana[edit]

Dudes! How come there absolutely no mention of Hajji Mastana?? For pity's sake if you are going to give a history of the man atleast give a correct account about it! They are tons of stuff written about this guy.
hydkat 14:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dawood ibrahim most dreaded don is under pakistans protection what can united states do about it???.U.S.never been clear about its foreign policy .which ever faith man follows it is wrong if one smuggles drugs, arms ,kills people .definately he will be punished on earth or after death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.130.129 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 March 2006.

Now im not doubting that Dawood Ibrahim is an extemely controversial figure. However, the article needs to be extensively revised. I'm pretty sure someone has done a copy paste job from an Indian newspaper on the latter section of the article. The latter part should be removed until someone who is knowledgble on the matter will write it in an unbiased manner. Sandbreak 04:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

links with mqm[edit]

no one has mentioned about dawoods links with MQM

Content removed, probably copyright violation, taken from [1]. See Wikipedia:COPY#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others Bazzargh (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byword[edit]

"His name has become a byword in political, business and law enforcement circles."

A byword for what? This is meaningless. --IRONY-POLICE (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai 08[edit]

Is this of interest? mum08

Guess it has to mature more before added as a paragraph, - but might under "current status" kind of review?

Edmundmedmunn (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ach, never mind. Read the article without catching it. Do not know how i managed that. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Edmundmedmunn (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to D-Company[edit]

He isn't important.--24.171.1.195 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it seems unlikely to me that anyone would agree with you there, and I certainly would not since Ibrahim has clearly been covered in reliable sources, and indeed was ranked as the 50th most powerful person in the world (whatever that means) by Forbes magazine as the article intro points out. We need to watch for BLP violations but he definitely warrants an article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massive reversion necessary[edit]

User:Bugnot more than doubled the size of this article by adding a bunch of new text, but a huge percentage of it (if not all of it) was taken verbatim from other sources and is as such a copyright violation. I have thus reverted to a much earlier version. This material is not lost (it's there in the edit history), and I imagine much of it can be incorporated, but it needs to be written in our own words, not taken directly from news sources. To Bugnot, please discuss this matter rather than simply re-adding it—violating copyright is a major problem and we cannot have that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bugnot[edit]

Dear Bigtimepeace: Thanks for your comment on the Dawood article. While I understand that some of the new information is portions of news/other articles but please also note that I've mentioned them as quotes from newspapers (which are copied as it is) and have also referenced the source appropriately, in which case, they can't be termed as copyright violations. If you think that there is any copyvio, please correct that portion of the article and/or reword it and/or summarize it but please don't delete information because information regarding Don Dawood's early years and criminal-career is scarce and is very difficult to find. However, I've worked hard and collected information from many, many different sources and referenced them appropriately so that any Wikipedian is able to get any/all info. regarding Dawood very easily. As such, I'm reverting your edit. I hope you will understand. Thanks.--Bugnot (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's simply not acceptable. Citing a source does not mean that you can steal their exact wording—Wikipedia can get sued for that kind of thing. I'm reverting you again, and I'm going to have to ask you to not add any further information to this article until we clear this matter up. You put the entire project at (legal) risk when you put material like that into a Wikipedia article, and this is a completely non-negotiable point. Nothing will be fully "deleted" by my reversion, you can still look at the old revisions obviously. Please discuss this further before re-adding anything though, since you do not seem to have an adequate understanding of issues relating to copyright and plagiarism. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't revert back again and again as it will lead to an edit-war. OK, I will try to do my best to reword the article as you have mentioned but please don't delete the info completely due to the reasons mentioned above. Thanks & Regards.--Bugnot (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted per my note to your talk page. Much of the material is copyrighted, and simply cannot sit around in this article. Again it's not something that is up for debate. This is the place to discuss what can be re-added, something you will have to do slowly. Mostly what you need to do is use the sources to write something in your own words. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bigtimepeace: OK, I'm not going to revert back again and again because my intention is of benefiting Wikipedia, not of harming it. However, as I'm confused as to which edits are copyvios and which are not, I sincerely request you kindly to take some time and reword or summarize the Dawood Ibrahim article as well as the other articles (especially Abu Salem and Hasan Ali Khan) because full information on these people is very difficult to find on a single page and, being an experienced user, you're in a much better position to do the required improvements than I am. Let me know what you think. Regards.--Bugnot (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to still be a pretty big problem. Bugnot must have reverted, yet again, because a massive proportion of the article is comprised of verbatim multi-paragraph quotations. Bugnot, Bigtimepeace is right, your additions are copyright infringement and put Wikipedia at serious legal risk. For quotations to be protected as fair use, must account for the amount and sustainability of the work as a whole. That is to say, a few sentences taken from a book, used in a book review is acceptable, reproducing half of the book is not. Your quotations amount to significant proportions of the news article from which they were taken, and serve as substitutes for original content. Quotations may act to further illustrate points or provide examples, but may not make the entire argument themselves - the quotations cannot be the content, they may only serve to better illustrate the content. Furthermore, by reproducing such large portions of these articles, you have potentially negatively impacted the market potential of the originals - thus violating fair use protections. If large enough portions of a work are quoted to act as an effective market substitute (if people could just read the wikipedia article, instead of the news sources from which you were citing), it is a direct violation of copyright law. I am reverting this page to its previous state. If you wish the page to have the additional material please illustrate the salient points in your own words, and cite your sources properly. Otherwise, do not re-re-re-re-revert the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.54.159 (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Copyvio[edit]

I've blanked the article and am submitting it for copyvio clean up. From the looks of the talk page this doesn't appear to be the first time this problem has come up. I checked about 4-5 references and most of the associated text is either outright copyvio or a close paraphrase. Here are some copyvio sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.224.238 (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dawood Ibrahim. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dawood Ibrahim. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and other changes[edit]

Please change Infobox and starting content to this. The edits are appropriate and sourced. Please don't reject IF found a minor error.--119.160.101.59 (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New edit
Dawood Ibrahim
दाऊद इब्राहीम कासकर
Born
Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar
दाऊद इब्राहीम कासकर

(1955-12-27) 27 December 1955 (age 68)
Khed Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India.
Occupationgangster
OrganizationD-Company
Opponents
At least 5
Criminal statuswanted
SpouseMehjabeen Shaikh (aka Zubeena Zareen)[3]
Children3
RelativesShabir Ibrahim Kaskar (brother); (deceased)
Iqbal Ibrahim Kaskar (brother)
Haseena Parkar (sister); (deceased)
Criminal chargeorganised crime, terrorism
Reward amount
US$ 25 million[1]
Wanted by
India India
Wanted since1980s

Dawood Ibrahim (Marathi:दाऊद इब्राहीम कासकर, born Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar 26 December 1955) also known as Dawood Bhai or simply Bhai ([Brother, Big brother or Boss] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a crime lord and terrorist originally from Dongri in Mumbai, India.

 Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV in lead[edit]

The sources all state that india either insists or claims he resides in Pakistan the information should reflect the sources can neutral users please read this as the ones with pov agenda seem to think its pov to state this is a Indian claim. 82.132.187.115 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More neutral sources have been added which state that he is in Pakistan. Please stop with your POV editing and block evasion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@82.132.187.115: Back at ya. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And plenty of neutral sources state that India accusses Pakistan of him being there....Pakistan nonetheless refutes all these allegations so Pakistans response atleast needs to state that they refute Indias claim of him being there. Just like In the Balochistan insurgency article Indias refusal to accept its role in terrorism is stated alongside Pakistans claims. The articles also state Pakistan denies hes there. So atleast we need a Pakistani refutation. 82.132.187.115 (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources are opinion pieces so this is not good enough. 82.132.187.115 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide more sources. Here are more books (1) Film Piracy, Organized Crime, and Terrorism (Auhtors:Gregory F Treverton, Carl Matthies, Karla J Cunningham, Jeremiah Gouka, Greg Ridgeway), Rand Corporation, 2008 (2) The Most Dangerous Man in the World (Author:Gilbert King), Chamberlain Bros., 2004 (3) Karachi in the Twenty-First Century: Political, Social, Economic and Security Dimensions (Authors:Mansoor Bin Tahnoon Al Nahyan), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016. These are books published by neutral authors and esteemed publishers. It seems that all you see is writing a POV version before actually researching the subject. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alright then, let's discuss each of the "neutral" and "credible" sources you've listed here (i assume you believe them to be so else it would be pointless to share them here). first, even without diving into the book, telling by the fact it is a piece by the RAND corporation, we can deduce that it is not a credible source in the context of Pakistan. not only does this organisation have a history of one-sided analysis on issues relating to Pakistan, they are a think-tank. Think tanks are not, by nature, reliable sources of information regardless of how "independent" they claim to be (see this page for discussions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Think_tank). now, onto the book itself. this book was published in 2008. a lot of things can and have changed in 10 years since then so already this book is outdated. Now, the book, in order to justify its claims of Dawood's relocation to Karachi, references the book "Karachi, a terror capital in the making" by Wilson John which was published by rupa and co, an indian publisher based in kolkata in association with the observer and research foundation, an "independent" indian think tank whos notable advisors and fellows include indian ambassadors, media advisors an a former head of the indian Research and Analysis Wing. so not only is the book you mentioned uncredible, but so is the book it references.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NsJGLW_hX3IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Film+Piracy,+Organized+Crime,+and+Terrorism+(Authors:Gregory+F+Treverton,+Carl+Matthies,+Karla+J+Cunningham,+Jeremiah+Goulka,+Greg+Ridgeway&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6xJCGo5XcAhXHLMAKHUpJClEQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=karachi&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a5DaAAAAMAAJ&q=8129102234&dq=8129102234&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTupPGppXcAhUIK8AKHSJDC-YQ6AEIKTAA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupa_%26_Co.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_Research_Foundation

so that's the first source refuted, now onto the next one. sadly i don't have the book at hand nor can i find an available online copy so i can't dismiss it but neither can it be accepted as a source to support the idea that ibrahim is in pakistan unless evidence can be provided from the book. finally onto the last source. if we take a look at page 69, the only page that even mentions anything about dawood relocating to karachi, we find that it is said that he relocated to karachi and indian claims this to be the case, not that it is a certainty. interestingly on the same page, we find that "In 2000, a campaign was orchestrated by India to link Dawood to Al Qaeda and the global network of terrorists. The main objective was to enlist the support of the United States and other Western countries in finding him."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pSj5DAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Karachi+in+the+Twenty-First+Century:+Political,+Social,+Economic+and+Security+Dimensions&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0t5G7qZXcAhVlBsAKHTFkDWEQ6AEIKTAA#v=snippet&q=dawood&f=false

so that's 2 of the sources refuted and 1 neutralised. if you hadn't just written a "POV version before actually researching the subject", you would have realised the books were not "published by neutral authors and esteemed publishers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi as residence should not be mentioned, only Pakistan. Even the current citations in the main article merely say things like "organised criminal syndicate that is steered from the Pakistani port city of Karachi"... they do not say he has a residence in Karachi...https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/02/mumbai-most-wanted . And the points above by Gangadesh721 seem to hold. Further the actual lines within the current sources are vague and do not categorically state the "residence' is in Karachi. I don't think Karachi should be mentioned as residence, rather it is more a operational headquarters... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gangadesh721: Think-tanks are considered WP:RS, especially, ones that are notable. RAND corporation is up there with Brookings, IISS and so on. I am not entirely sure where you get this notion from. Secondly, I am adding more sources which should rest this case:
(1) Karachi in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge Scholars Publishing - "he is said to have relocated to Karachi". Moreover the book dedicates multiple pages to him. [6]
(2) Storming the World Stage: The Story of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Stephen Tankel, Oxford University Press - "Ibrahim fled to Karachi following the attack" [7]
(3) Crime-Terror Nexus in South Asia, Ryan Clark, Taylor & Francis"Dawood Ibhraim strategic asset in Karachi but wanted in Mumbai" [8]
I am happy to provide more. But these should suffice for now in addition to the existing sources. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

first, i would recommend you read through my first response carefully this time. second, i would appreciate if you were to provide the page numbers in the books that you provide to support your claims if it is possible.

now, think tanks are not automatically WP:RS. even if i were to give you that the RAND corporation is reliable, you cannot deny their explicit bias toward nations and ideas that oppose their agenda. just one indicator of this is their funding which can be seen through this link (https://www.rand.org/about/clients_grantors.html)

the first source you provided has already been debunked in my first reponse. please read my first reponse more carefully.

the second source you provided is by stephen tenkel, an american who has closely co-operated with the US department of defense and US policy makers and members of the US intelligence community so the bias in his writing is irrefutable (https://www.american.edu/sis/faculty/tankel.cfm). also, the page where the author claims that dawood fled to karachi has no citation for this and is outdated since it makes claims that no plan has been adopted by pakistan to clean up karachi but not long after the book was published, pakistani rangers were sent into karachi to eradicate terrorists and terrorist sanctuaries as well as gangs and very significant progress has been achieved. (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Iu1wBAAAQBAJ&q=dawood#v=onepage&q=dawood&f=false).

the third source you provided is written by Ryan Clarke who has links to the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (New Delhi) (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=765) (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4379559.Ryan_Clarke). this overwhelmingly references indian sources, namely news outlets and web portals and exclusively references them with regard to dawood ibrahim. examples include rediff, an Indian news, information, entertainment and shopping web portal, founded in 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rediff.com), the hindu and the times of india so there is undoubtedly bias.

now that that's cleared up, let me make a few important notes: first, i know that sources don't have to be neutral to be reliable according to wikipedia rules; however, these need to be used in proportion to sources that present the opposing case when cited in a wikipedia article (WP:NPOV) else they should not be used at all. second, this discussion was not about whether dawood moved to karachi, but about whether he currently resides there. all of these sources that you've provided mention that he moved there but like i said, it's been more than a decade since the claimed date of his relocation to karachi so there is no certainty that he still resides there (if he resided there at all). that's why my edits were perfectly reasonable when the article was changed to read that india "alleges" he lives in karachi because that's the truth. you can even throw in that the US alleges he lives there but they are only allegations. also there is no reason to revert my edits when i added that pakistan refutes these allegations, which it does. i even provided sources.

i hope you read this response and my first response carefully before posting more "sources" to backup your claims. thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gangadesh721: Please ping in the future when you respond. I am going to reply to your points as follows:
(1) Some think-thanks and international organizations irrespective of their sources of funding are considered WP:RS. This is the case for RAND and many others. This is per WP:RS and they are considered WP:NPOV. If you feel this is not the case, please take this to WP:RSN.
(2) Same applies to scholars and their publications from known publishing houses specifically, ones like Cambridge and Oxford. If you would like to "discredit" these references please take them to WP:RSN
(3) Yes all these sources do state that he moved to Karachi and some of them are recent while others are a decade old, do you have a scholarly reference of equal standing which places him in another country or states that he has moved to some other country since then? If yes, please provide us one.
(4) When you say Karachi was cleaned up of gangs and criminals, how does that matter? Does the source explicitly state that Dawood Ibhraim was removed from Karachi? Unless it states that, what you are trying to do is WP:SYNTH.

I hope this answers all your questions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your response @Adamgerber80:. Here are my responses: (1) I can accept that RAND is WP:RS though that is only due to their stated high editorial and research standards but they are by no means WP:NPOV. This is not possible due to their funding by government institutions especially when those institutions are related to defence, security and intelligence.

(2) I don't understand how this counters my point about stephen tenkel's bias due to his association with those as stated in my previous response as well as his failure to back up his claim of dawood moving to karachi with with a citation.

(3)Good point though like I've said, these are biased sources. I did, however, find this article which states that the indian media's so called "proofs" were fake: https://www.dawn.com/news/1203319 and this article which states that the addresses that india believed dawood was living at were fake: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1168888/india-embarrassed-dawood-ibrahim/ therefore there is good reason to believe he is not presently in karachi or in pakistan as a whole.

this article quotes an indian official as saying dawood was shifted from karachi to the pak-afghan border and even to central asian countries: https://tribune.com.pk/story/898391/dawood-ibrahim-shifted-to-pak-afghan-border-region-indian-official/ the article originally appeared on the indian express, for the record.

i'm not claiming these sources are neutral but according to WP:NPOV biased sources must be balanced out proportionally to represent both sides.

(4) Yes I will accept this but it is a testimony to how outdated the source is that it was published before major developments in the region it was centred around.

The article should also read that Pakistan denies dawood is in pakistan, like i said in my previous response:

https://www.firstpost.com/india/its-official-fresh-photo-and-passport-copy-of-dawood-ibrahim-confirm-hes-in-pakistan-2403302.html

https://www.deccanherald.com/content/379857/dawood-ibrahim-not-here-pakistan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I am going to repeat this for the very last time since this is turning into a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sources which are WP:RS are based on scholarly sources and the quality of their publication. You cannot term a source not meeting WP:NPOV simply because the source has funding from something you "don't like" or they spent their time in a place you think is pro one side. For example, Ryan Clarke easily qualifies as an expert in the field based on his Bio([9]). He has spent a lot of time at different places and received his PhD from Cambridge. Just FYI, academics usually publish their content and since it needs to be peer-reviewed this is generally considered to a a great WP:RS on Wikipedia. The only way you can counter this is with a source of equal scholarly repute. If you have issue with any of these sources then I believe this is not the right forum for it and you should take it WP:RSN.
(2) If you wish to state that this information is outdated and does not reflect current situation, then do you have a scholarly source which actually states clearly that he is no longer in Pakistan? Unless you provide us one, what you are doing is plain WP:SYNTHESIS and is not acceptable here.
I am happy to engage in this discussion if you actually provide quality counter references which have not done and are basing much of your conclusions on random hearsay. As of now this debate is simply you not liking stuff. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never tried?[edit]

Was he never put on trial for his involvement in terrorist attacks? Or is there no trial in absentia in Indian law? Totally confused here. --Prüm (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prüm here is my understanding. The court has accepted his involvement in the 1993 Bombay bombings case per these sources ([10],[11]). In this case, his aides were convicted of perpetrating the blasts. He is still wanted in this case but he has not been tried in absentia. Although there is provision in Indian law to do so based on this source ([12]). AFAIK, this has hardly been done so far and most cases in India do wait for the accused to be caught before initiating the trial.
Having said this, his role in the incident is widely accepted in the international community. He was designated a terrorist by the US in 2003 ([13]) and he was added to the UN list of designated terrorists in 2011 ([14]). Hope this helps. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind response. This should help me and others a lot to gain a finer understanding of the issues involved. Peace, --Prüm (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently resides in Dubai[edit]

The introduction says that Dawood is in Dubai. There is an entire section about the location of Dawood and the various claims of India, Pakistan, etc. What does it even mean "Currently"? Why is no-one disputing it? If it is so confidently known, Dubai police should know it before Wikipedia! Breakfastisready (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Movie[edit]

@Arjayay: Why you have reverted as unsourced speculation? These things at "In popular culture" require no sources. You can just click on the article of the movie name D-Day (2013 film) and find the details. GenuineArt (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GenuineArt - I'm always willing to learn - please point me to the section of WP:Verifiability (or any other core content policy) that says things in a "Popular culture" section (or any other section) do not need sources. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable", it says. Source is probably not needed since the main page provides the information and sources for this information would be also easy to discover.[15][16] GenuineArt (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Search for Dawood Ibrahim[edit]

WP:MERGEREASON - Short text and context. Also, Dawood Ibrahim isn't too long either, so a merge won't result in the target article becoming to big and can easily become a subsection. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. That was a required one. Thank you Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk)

Proposed merge with Gang wars between Chota Rajan and Dawood Ibrahim[edit]

The article could even be merged into D-Company DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "3 students forced to end their 'Dawood hunt' after money runs out". First Post. Retrieved 25 July 2017.
  2. ^ "Dawood Ibrahim is the 2nd richest gangster of all time". India Today. Retrieved 25 July 2017.
  3. ^ "It is official: Ahead of NSA meet, fresh photo and passport copy of Dawood Ibrahim confirm he's in Pakistan". Firstpost.

Counterfiet money[edit]

change to counterfeit. Otherwise intra-wiki link is correct 94.109.18.101 (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Wyliepedia @ 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawood_Ibrahim&oldid=1217516978"