Talk:Ghulam Azam

message: I noticed the following line:
:"The judicial process under which Azam is on trial has been criticised by international organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as well as supported by European Union."
When I checked the four given sources for that sentence, three of them relate to the first half (about criticism of the trials). Only one related to European Union comments, specifically this Daily Star article dating from 2009, back when the judicial process first started up. Considering that the subject of this article wasn't arrested until 2012, it doesn't seem factually accurate to use that source to support the claim that the EU supports the judicial process used. Criticism of the tribunal occurred later on, and the article itself only mentions support for the establishment of such a tribunal - not the process which was later carried out. Perhaps the EU did contradict the mentioned human rights organizations later down the road - I haven't followed the case that closely - but what I do know is that the given, dated source I mentioned above does not support the comment which I bolded. I will remove it for now as it simply doesn't seem to verify the text, nor does the text appear to be factually accurate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supported by the EU? 

message: I appreciate the tremendous work in making this scholary article a neutral toned and well sourced article, but noticed that Ctg4Rahat has labelled reverting the edit of a previous user ( see my revert:Revert ) as being due to the issue of neutrality. So the revert is about basically contending that calling it controversial is going against neutrality, which doesn't make sense at all. I'm sorry, but I'd expect better reasons for carrying out revert of a well sourced and much welcome addition to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husain007 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's uncontroversial that the ICT is very controversial. The evidence speaks for itself. It has been noted as problematic by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and various other independent observers. Others defend it, hence it is subject to dispute and disagreement, i.e. it's controversial. This is a neutral description.Woodensticks (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of ICT 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ghulam Azam. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216000012/http://www.dailysangram.com/news_details.php?news_id=76627 to http://www.dailysangram.com/news_details.php?news_id=76627
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215235934/http://www.dailysangram.com/news_details.php?news_id=77204 to http://www.dailysangram.com/news_details.php?news_id=77204
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718095056/http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/latestnews/2013/07/15/4965 to http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/latestnews/2013/07/15/4965
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified