Talk:Inayat Bunglawala

The battle is over

After months of fighting with the user 'Zeq', who was completely intent on slandering Muslim people and organisations, the battle is over. 'Zeq' was exposed as being part of secret Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) group. He has been banned from editing Wikipedia - long after much damage has been done(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/29/wikipedia_blocked_doj_ip/).

It's a real shame that this article - which was libellous and slanderous and could have a real, negative effect on a living person - was not deemed sufficiently important by genuine Wikipedia editors to fight Zeq's edits. Let's learn from this. People like Zeq are basically being paid full time to slander people. That's not an excuse for us not to stand up to them.Jamal (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the 'Criticism' section temporarily as it was heavily biased, defamatory and libellous. If someone wants to have a go at writing a more balanced section, please feel free.Jamal (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a criticism section; it's hardly likely to portray him as a greenpeace volunteer who helps out at an old peoples home. The criticism section includes counterclaims; the second para, for example, includes Bunglawala's response, something a biased section probably wouldn't bother with. Come up with something concrete (i.e, involving quotes rather than general claims) or i'll go right ahead and put the para back in. 06:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the claim about supporting the 'blind sheikh', as it was unsourced and thus did not confirm to WP:LIVINGJamal (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup

There are evidently those who insist on using Wikipedia as a way to smear people they dislike. I am going to restructure this article with a summary of Inayat's life and work, and a section on criticism. If you object, let's talk. Jamal (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you review the policy called WP:AGF and raise any suggested change here in the talk page before continuing. some WP:Civility would not hurt either. Zeq (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you review the policies WP:ENC, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Biographies on Wikipedia have information about the person, then a section on criticism. Do you dispute this? It is entirely unacceptable to have a page on someone that simply exists to smear their character. Also, I'm disputing the neutrality of the article, so please don't remove the tag.Jamal (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The primary policy we need to look at here is WP:LIVING. It states: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm" ... The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

The way the article is written is in direct contravention to this policy.Jamal (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is with great care to WP:BLP that the current text is worded. I actually think we have more latitude to decribe relevant facts but since there is a dispute in this area and we have been to one mediation I prefer to keep it as it was before you made your changes.

You should edit with an assumption that other users have reviwed the policy and with good faith decided on the wording - this is clearly the case here. We don't fully agree with each other but we manage to arrive to some balance which I suggest you respect. Zeq (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How amusing that with such great care and attention to detail, you managed to compile a page that was 100% negative, full of poorly sourced cheap smears. Anyway, let's move on. "In an inteview on hate literature and propaganda, Bunglawala justified such material being sold in Islamic bookshops on the ground that material of similar nature is sold by any other religious book shop[1]."

I have removed this line, because as anyone who watches the video can tell you, he wasn't justifying the existence of that material. He was just saying it's widespread.Jamal (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• please WP:AGF and discuss your edits before you make them. This article was a deliacte balance and your edit - although I am sure they represent in good faith your views as Neutral - are at risk of tipping this delicate balance. I am not against changes as long as you source them and discuss them on talk. Thank You.Zeq (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Look, I'm trying to work with you here. The article was NOT balanced. It was simply a smear. I'm adding information about his life and work. This is in compliance with WP:BLP. How can you delete it? It's perfectly relevant. I'm restoring it until you can show me how it contravenes WP:BLP. Jamal (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind biographies of living persons must be neutral, the criticism should be a relatively small and well-sourced section. What we had before was a page at least 95% criticism, all of it dubiously sourced. For you to say that was a 'fine balance' is laughable.Jamal (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not "working with me" by claiming that other editors have done abd job from non good faith motives and by edit war. I will be happy to work with you after you restore the mediated vesrion and suggest what you want to cange and why. Zeq (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can show me why adding relevant details about someone's life should not be done on an encylopaedia, I'm afraid I can't consider you as acting in good faith at all. I've left the criticism up and I'm happy to discuss it point-by-point. That doesn't mean I can't add relevant details about Inayat's life. Look, I understand it's important to you to smear this man. But you're going to have to compromise.Jamal (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand what WP:AGF is. As long as you continue to claim that "it is important for me the smear this man" there is not the minimal common ground for us to discuss ina civil way how to progress. I understand you think your view is correct and my view is wrong but the reason WP:AGF is blue color of link is that you click it, read it, understand it and cat upon it. We can continue this discussion after you self revert your edits and discuss the issue without accusing others. Zeq (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My changes don't rest on the accusation. I have no doubt that you are conducting a smear campaign, and on a personal level I think you should be ashamed of yourself. But let's ignore that. I've already quoted WP:BLP. Let's try again:

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm" ... The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

I'm following this to the letter. Why should I remove the details I added? Please explain to me why you think the article should consist of negative comments people have made about this man, in direct contravention to WP:BLP? And I have no desire to make this a personal issue, so let's stick to the facts.Jamal (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand something simple:

1. acknowledge please that you read understood and accept WP:AGF. Othere ditors have views different than yours but this does not make them have any diffrent right than yours - especially since you have claimed that they 'wish to smear the man"
2. to show that you understood and respect other editors viwes and edits you will self revert your changes, propose them and we can at that point discuss the issues you have and reach resolution. If we can not we will seek mediation. We will not let your edits stick just because you force tem in an uncivil way. Zeq (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything, except one piece of potentially libellous criticism. I've just added some much needed information. I haven't forced anything on anyone. What have I added that you wish removed? Or do I have to check every sentence with you piece by piece? It's entirely uncontroversial, well sourced, neutral biographical information. And for the sake of argument, I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything as if you were acting in good faith. Please read WP:BLP and understand that the current version is moving closer to being in agreement with the guidelines than the previous version. I haven't even touched the controversial stuff yet.Jamal (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want discussion to be fruitfull, restore the article to it's earlier version and raise here the items you want to add and the proposed nwew structure for the article. You also have to accept (not "as if") that others are operating with Good faith. I trust your good faith so I expect that you will be civil and restore the article to the delicate balance it was based on aftyer the previous mediation. We can change from that version after we discuss it not by you forcing your changes. Zeq (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The clean-up has clearly brought about a more balanced and better referenced encyclopaedic article. I have thus reverted to the clean-up and any modifications should be applied to this version. If you wish to slate the guy, go to a forum. usayd (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No. What you call "clean up" was interduced by an editor who clearly did not assume the article was edited with good faith. he wrote it himself several times and like you he failed to discuss the suggested text changes on talk page before making them. Please review what wikipedia is WP:Not before writing articles that advertize activities by indivudulas or organizations. Zeq (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you consult the WP:BLP you will see that there is a strong emphasis on no personal attacks. The current article is clearly an attack on Inayat Bunglawa with extremely unbalanced criticism. In the edited page it is clearly sectioned and separates criticism (which is based on opinion) with the facts of what this person has done. It is simply inappropriate to continually revert the page whilst there are clear improvements in both structure and content. usayd (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did follow this policy as well as others. We had a mediation on this issue as well and the text only include facts that have been published elsewhere. Even facts that were admited by Reuters his employer - facts whicgh are relevant to the case - were removed from this article. all in all I think we strike an NPOV balance as the text now stands. Zeq (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear Bias in recently added link. Furthermore, it is an allegation with no evidence: "There is strong circumstantial evidence connecting Bunglawala to the threat, but there is no way for me to verify this for certain. Only a Reuters network administrator would have access to the necessary records," Johnson said. rebel 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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 [2].

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 [3]

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.

(Actually, jihad is the warfare which must be waged against non-Muslim states which do not pay Jizya, to extend Islamic rule over all the Earth) (Please stop using emotional terms like anti-Islamic far right. We're not here to criminalise thought or political views)

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.

(love them or hate them, linking to the BNP IS acceptable. They are not an illegal organisation, even if they are complete whackos most of the time. It's typical for some people to censor political views with which they do not agree. I don't believe censorship is a good thing)

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.

"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. [4] 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)

A reputable newspaper is still a reliable source even if you disagree with it. Pecher ^Talk 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium, have you read WP:RS? You might also want to read this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 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)

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.

Addressed. --tickle me 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can a country really be described as oppressed if it is willing to be used and armed by Iran to fight a proxy war? Be brave - if you hate Jews, say so and accept the consequences. Just don't be cowardly and pretend you didn't say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.240 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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" [5] - 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:

I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut....

However, he probably knows who did.

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)

You may wish to reference WP:AGF, as well. Tarc 22:28, 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)

I cannot make my point any clearer than I have already. Tarc 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, you are wrong, please see WP:RS. KazakhPol 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have, and I suggest you reference the section of WP:RS entitled "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Also, I would question whether an Israeli tabloid even qualifies as a reliable source. Tarc 21:15, 17 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)

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)

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)

Dude, he said it and he obviously believes it. Stop protecting racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.112 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Tarc 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed you missed that point when you said it was biased towards the Israeli side of things. If it's an Israeli newspaper is not that a given? KazakhPol 19:41, 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[6]. 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)

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)

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)

Third opinion

Unless you find a quote by Bunglawala himself saying "I am an Islamist" (or something along those lines, albeit explicit), then no, your sources aren't enough to categorize him as such, especially when dealing with the biography of a living person. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But saying "i want the caliphate - albeit in a modernized fashion", isn't that (emphasis on the first part) making him an islamist ? Suppose a men ( active member of a political group, not just a John Doe ) was saying : "i want global communism - albeit in a modernized fashion" - wouldn't you call him a communist? RCS 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not unless said person was a member of a particular country's Communist Party, no. This sort of thing is simply running afoul of BLP violations now, and could be considered vandalism on your part. Tarc 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us steer away from warning each other of vandalism and focus on the discussion at hand for now. Anyhow, RCS, he doesn't say, "I want the caliphate - albeit in a modernized fashion". What you are doing is interpreting the facts for the reader. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we must present the facts as they are and allow the readers to reach their own conclusions. Again, unless you find a quote that is clear of contextomy, your source is simply not enough. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading the source cited, I agree with Dorvaq. Zeq 09:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

reminder - what was the previous medaition about

Tarc,

The mediation was about this edit [7] - I there for ask for you to appologize your false accuastion that i vilated it (I did not) and that you self revert your edit which was based on that false accusation. Zeq (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You violated it in the same sense that you did before; a stubborn insistence that as long as something is reliably sourced, it MUST go in to an article. Such a position violated WP:BLP then, just as it does now. Mr. Bunglawala did not commit this act, and casting aspersions upon him of a crime that he did not commit runs afoul of WP:BLP. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

you seem to be sure he did not commit it....in any case the issue is not WP:RS or not (clearly Reuters is) but the fact that if Retures as his employer allow itself to say what they did they clearly were not "casts undue suspicion on Bunglawala for an action it cannot be proven that he committed" as you claim. If this was the case he should have sued them and won. Employers are mighty carefull not to cast any such hint on their employees. So my argument if you have not yet understaood is that if an employer say something about an employee this can not be a BLP violation - we are only a secondary source. Zeq (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you keep claiming that this violate the policy you need to show which part. Here is the example of the policy which fit what we have here:

"A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. "

.--Zeq (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your cutsey little analogy though is that the affair is already in the article. What the anon user, and then you, are doing is adding more and more and more on. WP:UNDUE. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is not "undue" at all since it give the compelte info about this incident. You have so far:

1. failed to show where it violates WP:BLP
2. failed to show what it has to do with WP:UNDUE as we are not discussing POV here but relevant facts about the incident Zeq (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

/sigh This is extremely exasperating. The subject of the emails and LGF is already covered sufficiently. There is no cause to mention that an unidentified Reuters employee was reprimanded, as that aspect of this has NOTHING to do with Inayat Bunglawala. Including such information is an attempt to cast suspicion on Bunglawala, that he may be the unidentified employee. That is giving undue weight to the topic, as well as violating BLP. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to show where including the info violates thse two policies - please provide which parts of the policy prevent the use of the Reuters info (that was given based on Bunglawala afair) - clearly Reuters (his employer) who is a news agency knows something about what is important and whjat is not. If they would cast suspicion on Bunglawala which is unjust I am sure he could have sued the hack out of them. Employers are carefull and we will be as carefull as they are by provide the same level of information they provided Zeq (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your "he would have sued" argument is patently ridiculous. I have explained it all quite clearly, it was also explained to you in past mediation, and there is little more to say on the matter as far as I am concerned. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

you still failed two basic arguments:

• failed to show where it violates WP:BLP
• failed to show what it has to do with WP:UNDUE as we are not discussing POV here but relevant facts about the incident

Zeq (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have avoided reverting you so far for several reasons:

1. To give you the opportunity to show that you understand WP:AGF and can work with others who have a different view by restoring the mediated version and discussing the changes here first forming a consensus.
2. Waited maybe suer Tarc who for a long time reverted to thios medaited version any time someone made a change will do it again. It seems that so far he did not. I am still waiting for one of you. But not for long.Zeq (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have pretty much said all that I plan to say to you on this matter, as it has been covered ad nauseam. The mediation was to decide how much coverage to give to a particular event (LGF and e-mailed threats) to avoid BLP violations, a very serious issue to watch for on the Wikipedia. What you and some anon user attempted to do before was to give more coverage to this event than is necessary or warranted, given that we are talking about a crime for which no guilty party was ever found. That sort of blacksliding is simply unwarranted and uncalled for.

That of course does not put a gag on further editing of the article of course, and on a quick glance of the most recent edits by Liquidswords, I see no reason for you to be reverting on sight his attempts at expanding the article. Tarc (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No one talking about "a gag" Tarc. There was a balance struck in this article and he comes an editor who decalre left and right that he does not trust other editors Good Faith. this is a violation of key wikipedia policy of WP:AGF. This policy is the key of working together.

So I am not discussing the content here but the behaviour problem. The right thing is to revert all the changes which destroied the balance. To assume good faith and to suggest changes. At that point you can take part in changing the text as well as the new liquid and any other editor. Zeq (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

After waiting few days tio address the concerns raised above I found my self with no other option but to revert the undiscussded major changes. I have reverted back not to my prefeered version but to the last vesrion by Tarc (withwhom I have a dispute). At least the tarc version presreve the delicater balance this article had before the massive changes by the new editor who refused to accept that other editors edit with good faith. (see his accusations above) Zeq (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good edit by Tarc

I fully support keeping this article balanced like Tarc did here: [8] Zeq (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Remark about Azzam Tamimi under Controversies

The Controversies section contains a claim that Azzam Tamimi supports suicide bombings. The source cited appears to offer only a quotation from a third party, a BBC reporter. From the WP page on Azzam Tamimi it seems quite clear that he denies supporting such actions. Is there a source which provides hard evidence to support this very serious claim against him? Scoof (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inayat Bunglawala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060720064716/http://www.commentarymagazine.com:80/article.asp?aid=12201085_1 to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12201085_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)