Talk:Maajid Nawaz

message: This article is extremley biased against the quilliam foundation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.102.112 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to read about this person after seeing a profile of him on the American TV program 60 Minutes, and am frankly shocked at the very strong POV displayed. I'll have to see if I just caught it in the middle of an edit war.K8 fan (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quilliam Foundation

message: Is it proper or indeed appropriate to name Mr Nawaz's family? This information appears to be freely available elsewhere, although only one citation is made.
:The fact that his ex-wife had been a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and left him when he left the organization is very relevant to Maajid Nawaz's life. There are many things individuals would prefer were not reported in the press or were not on Wikipedia, but the relevance seems very clear.K8 fan (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maajid has decided to comply with his ex-wife's wish to not be named on this page. If needed, a contribution to the talk page from his own account can be provided. The article page is semi-protected, so the edit cannot be made by myself.
  
Please remove "Rabia Ahmed" from the spouse section of the quick bio box. Please also replace "At the age of 21, he married Rabia Ahmed, then a fellow Hizb ut-Tahrir activist and a biology student;[8] they have a son named Ammar, named after Muhammad's companion Ammar ibn Yasir.[5][9] On Nawaz's decision to leave Hizb ut-Tahrir, they separated and divorced.[10]" with "At the age of 21, he married a fellow Hizb-ut-Tahrir activist and a biology student; they have a son named Ammaar, named after Muhammad's companion Ammar ibn Yasir.[5][9] Nawaz and his first wife separated then divorced in 2008." In this requested replacement sentence I have also removed the citations; [8] due to concerns on accuracy (but if the citation is still needed for the first wife being a biology student and Hizb activist I imagine that can be left in or discussed further first.) I removed [10] because it is inaccessible without registering one's details first. --LittleBigBlueBox (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

text: LittleBigBlueBox, Mr Nawaz's wishes are irrelevant to us! However, his ex-wife, since she is not notable and has separated from both Nawaz and her previous activist life, is entitled to anonymity from us, I have therefore amended the text such that neither she nor their son is named. Incidentally, she is not actually named in any of the sources which I was able to read (some are ££), therefore the info should have been removed anyway as unverified potentially libelous info about a living person. I have not removed sources Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Nawaz's family 

message: There is an edit war going on here with a user who has just joined and has only edited this article. The user seems to have an agenda to minimize the extent of Mr. Nawaz's abuse at the hands of the Egyptian security services. The highly respected international human rights organization Amnesty International adopted Maajid Nawaz as a "Prisoner of Conscience". I provided links to Amnesty's press release detailing their summation of the abuse. User: Ksmith009 has insisted on removing links to Amnesty sources and replacing it with a single, incomplete newspaper report that minimizes the abuse. We may have to ask an administrator to look at this situation and possible ask for semi-protection. K8 fan (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I requested protection. As this is the only page you have edited, you seem to have an agenda to minimize Mr. Nawaz's abuse and to damage his credibility. I am going to request mediation. K8 fan (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest the page be reverted to the version that existed on 12:19, 7 June 2011, before the recent spate of edits by Ksmith009 and myself. Thank you. K8 fan (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Again, Amnesty International is one of the most widely respected human rights organizations. Your edits appear to be attempting to claim that he suffered no abuse at all. You also dispute that he talked to his cell mates, the time-line of his conversion from Islamist to anti-Islamist and other isses. You have tried to add links to pictures on a blog, calling it a "news report". K8 fan (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Amnesty International would not likely stake it's considerable reputation on someone if they did not have evidence that person had suffered abuse. K8 fan (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

text: A blog posting is not a "news report". K8 fan (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sleep deprivation and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" are considered torturous if used to extreme. An Amnesty spokeswoman said: "At the very least, sleep deprivation is cruel, inhumane and degrading. If used for prolonged periods of time it is torture." I am comfortable with the wording "abused" or "subject to harsh treatment" instead of "torture" if that is an issue. As previously noted, Amnesty International wouldn't have adopted Nawaz as a "Prisoner of Conscience" if they had reason to doubt the validity of his experience. K8 fan (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: The extent of the abuse  

message: In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9PUDoYc8s8 he clearly states that under Sharia Law, as an apostate, he would suffer execution. Is it therefore correct to have him described on this page to be a British Muslim? JAC Esquire (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like he's variably an atheist and a Muslim depending which is more convenient to his arguments. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he still a Muslim? 

message: It may be worth having a separate sub-section for Maajid's selection as the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, as this has already received significant media coverage. Since then Maajid has already been included in The Telegraph's Top 50 Most Influential Liberal Democrats (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10312680/Top-50-most-influential-Liberal-Democrats-26-50.html). Particular attention will likely be given to the campaign, due to it being the most marginal seat in England, with current MP Glenda Jackson winning in 2010 with a majority of 41 votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampstead_and_Kilburn_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Other recent media coverage arose from Maajid's leadership, through Quilliam, in persuading the founders of the English Defence League to resign from the leadership and publicly renounce the violent methods of the organisation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10363174/EDL-Leaders-quit-over-concern-about-far-right-extremism.html). This however, would probably fit best in the section on Maajid's work with Qulliam Foundation, rather than Maajid's campaign for the parliamentary seat of Hampstead and Kilburn.
For information, I am not a member of the Liberal Demcorat party, but am a supporter of Maajid's campaign.
Many thanks,
Rob  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.253.34 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request: Hampstead and Kilburn 

message: I've been away from WP for a while, and went through the changes since I last worked on it. I wanted to compliment Alfietucker especially on the excellent work. K8 fan (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - very cheering to have one's work appreciated (though I'm sure some more tidying could be done - RL work has got in the way!). Alfietucker (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent work on this article 

message: I would like the photo removed as I own it and it was placed in the Commons without my permission. Thanks, Chris.
Chriscambridgeshire (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done - it has both been deleted from Commons and removed from the article. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014 

message: Does this category remain even though he is now a vocal critic of Islamism? Áccénté Áígúé (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it does, so I've taken the liberty of removing it. Alfietucker (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:British Islamists 

message: Please delete references to Khudi, because Maajid Nawaz is not currently working with Khudi. Source: maajidnawaz.com
There are three mentions of Khudi that should be deleted:
1) In the first paragraph, this sentence: He is also co-founder of Khudi, a counter-extremism social movement working towards the promotion of social democratic change in Pakistan.
2)In the side information panel: Organisation: Khudi Pakistan should be deleted, leaving only Quilliam Foundation
3) In the section 'Return to UK and founding Quilliam': The sentence 'He has also started an activist group in Pakistan, Khudi,[26] using his knowledge of recruitment tactics in order to combat extremism' should be deleted
Timstockman (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very odd edit request. First, Nawaz undoubtedly co-founded Khudi (it even says so at maajidnawaz.com), whether he is working with the organization today or not: so 1) and 3) should most certainly *not* be deleted in any case. As for 2), until there's a reliable source to indicate that Nawaz is no longer working with Khudi, then I don't see good reason to make that deletion. Alfietucker (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014 

message: it would be nice if someone linked to the wiki for "hit ut tair" (or whatever) in the biography section where it is first acronymised , thanks much66.225.160.9 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: Reworded to put the link with Khudi in the past, did not, however, move the Khudi reference from the lede, would want further discussion regarding that first Cannolis (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki link for 'hit ut tair"  

message: The Arabic term for the Egyptian State Security is Amn al-Dawlah or Amn ad-Dawlah and not Aman al-Dawlah as stated.
Binnaeus (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  09:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015 

message: In the 'External Links' section, please add the link to Maajid Nawaz's political website standupforliberty.co.uk This is officially substantiated in that a link is provided to it from his twitter account: https://twitter.com/MaajidLibDem
Skinnermichael32 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  (e • t • c) 11:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015 

message: There is some material in the paper alleging controversial aspects of his life (google news search for "Maajid Nawaz").  It seems to have rs's ...could a more experienced editor suggest if this should be included? Springnuts (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: I have removed the edits concerning this as they do not appear to adequately either summarise the issues, nor to demonstrate that they are truly of concern regarding Nawaz's career rather than some shit stirring in a disreputable tabloid. Unless there is demonstrably some major fall-out from this would-be publicity (which would therefore be covered in reputable papers) then I don't see it has any business in an encyclopaedic article. Alfietucker (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it looks like there are some repercussions (not least the death threats); but we must ensure that significant details pertinent to the story - e.g. the timing of the CCTV 'leak', where it first appeared, etc. - are included for the sake of NPOV. Alfietucker (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The stripper saga definitely has notability to the article: it severely affected his electability and was big enough news. Novinar~enwiki (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That hasn't been demonstrated.  (And what does "notability to the article" mean?) Please see the previous discussion, and keep in mind that unlike the Daily Mail, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The most notable event of his campaign was the stripper scandal. You can't will it away. Plenty of news sources of varying reliability reported on it. Novinar~enwiki (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what "you can't will it away" means.  Perhaps that would be a good starting point for this discussion about your proposed addition. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, i think a good starting point would be explaining why you reject my edit based upon its current sources and wording. You cannot base your rejection upon past edits and sources that were used and discussed on the talk page long ago. Please scrutinize my current edit and tell me why it doesn't belong. Novinar~enwiki (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

text: "Wikipedia is not run by the Hadith"! What a stupidly irrelevant thing to say. Who says my edit has anything to do with the hadith? "This lap dance story is only relevant if you are an Islamist or fundamentalist"! So all those news articles were written by Islamists? Your comments are embarrassing. "It is no problem even if he drinks alcohol and eats pork." Nobody said it's a problem, but if many reliable sorces then reported that he ate pork then i see no problem if it were added to the article. Novinar~enwiki (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

text: "I read all the sources.  I learned that the club is owned and run by a Muslim.  I learned that Nawaz was at the stag party with his fiancé's permission (and insistence)." These have no relevance to whether the edit should be included or removed. "I learned that his political aspirations were not "tarnished" by the event". Not true: it is generally believed that his political career has been severely dented owing to the footage. "supporters and political opponents alike consider it an attempt at playing "dirty politics" with a non-story." Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the story has no right to exist on Wiki, and not all supporters and political opponents agree: Conservative politicians have already called for him to step down. So, with your disproven arguments, you have not excused yourself for opposing the edit. You need to prove that NPOV, Verifiability and NOR are lacking to remove the edit. So please tell me if my sources are unreliable, if the strip club incident wasn't widely reported, or if the wording is misleading or subjective.Novinar~enwiki (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 3 to 1 opposition.  And you are a WP:SPA.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: VictoriaGrayson, are you in the habit of embarrassing yourself. Please stop making inaccurate and unrelated remarks that only portray you as an immature Maajid Nawaz fangirl who is hurt that her idol has something possibly embarrassing added about him on Wiki. I am clearly not a SPA account; any moron looking at my edit history can figure that out. There is a difference between a SPA and an editor who repeatedly returns to an article to defend his edit against others who improperly remove his additions. You and Xenophrenic should respond to my points with relevant, accurate arguments (which youse have failed to do) if you seek to have my edit removed; otherwise, your 2 to 1 advantage is meaningless. You can't oppose reliably cited content just because you have a crush on Nawaz.Novinar~enwiki (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't resort to sexist and patronizing comments.  Also follow consensus.  VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Victoria and Xenophrenic. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and the segment seems to be misleading considering the contents of the sources. David A (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I second this. The event itself might not be noteworthy, but its political impact and consequences are substantive and serious enough to warrant inclusion. This follows existing precedent, such as in the BLP of Bill Clinton, whose sexual behavior with his intern Monica Lewinsky, while in the White House, warrant inclusion in his BLP. The inclusion of the details of that event are not a reflection of "the Hadith", but, among other things, of the serious political implications on Clinton's career. Likewise for Jim McGreevey, and several others. —Approaching (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lap dancer story 

message: I found an article written by Nawaz on Index on Censorship:
*"Maajid Nawaz: On blasphemy" (Archive). 28 January 2015.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to this article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Maajid Nawaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/9437550/An-insiders-expose-of-Islamist-extremism.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've trimmed the "Quilliam Foundation" section quite a bit. Especially here, since this is about the person and not the think tank, secondary sources should be used for appearances to prevent this from degrading into indiscriminate examples. By listing many appearances without differentiating between major and minor conferences, the article was suggesting that every appearance listed was of encyclopedic significance, but this should be supported by sources. Event listings and press-releases are very poor for this kind of thing. Being a prolific public speaker is not, by itself, a valid justification for such a lengthy article. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloat 

message: I have altered Nawaz's birthday to 1977 based on a tax return document I got from the critical Nathan lean article of Nawaz in the New Republic. I know some may be not like it that I got it from an article by a known critic of Nawaz, but I see no reason to question it as no one has claimed that the document is fake.
Further it is supported by other articles. This New York Times article [] from September 12 2007 lists Nawaz age as 29 which is before his November 2 birthday. Also this Sunday Times article [] from September 2014 lists his age as 36, also before his November 2 birthday.
In looking at the history of this article I think what happened was that whoever created this article listed his birth year as 1978 and then later when his November 2 birthday was discovered, people just assumed that was correct. I don't think he himself ever said he was born in 78 and people just assumed because nobody asked him directly.
I know that the Guardian interview article list's him as being born in 78, but the person interviewing him could have simply been basing it off the Wikipedia article. Given the evidence I've gathered, The New York Times, The Sunday Times and the tax return document, I believe I've made a convincing case that November 2, 1977 is the right birthdate. annoynmous 19:04, 31 December 2106 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in 77 not 78 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Maajid Nawaz. 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://archive.is/20151120051618/http://www.liv.ac.uk/events/2020/maajid-nawaz.php to http://www.liv.ac.uk/events/2020/maajid-nawaz.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410071944/http://www.khudipakistan.com/central-executive-committee/ to http://www.khudipakistan.com/central-executive-committee/
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) 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I couldn't find any. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any evidence of an active lawsuit against the SPLC? 

message: I think the 'Bibliography' section should be best reserved for publications, to which Nawaz made a significant contribution as a writer, (possibly with the exception of full-blown biographies by third parties), and propose that the works listed in the 'Portrayals' section under this should either be moved elsewhere in the article, or be removed entirely. Perhaps the works could be considered "Further reading", but at least one book only mentions Nawaz on one page ... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "Bibliography" about books that relate to the subject, not that were written by the subject? This article is very heavy on references, but none are books. Should you just throw away the name "Bibliography", rename (and fix) the section, and put it up higher? Sammy D III (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare THIS previous edit — I think "Sources" and "Works" or "Publications" should be clearly distinguished. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed something. You changed the name from "Sources" to "Bibliography"? Is either one correct? I think you are using the word "Bibliography" wrong. I think it is usually a section title below the "References" (or "Notes") section and is about the book refs. When there are no book refs it is not used. I think you are using the word as a body section title. This is an unusual (confusing to me) use of the title. Sammy D III (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography / Portrayals section 

message: COI SOURCES policy (at Verifiability § Questionable sources) says not to use COI sources for contentious claims about other parties. These sources include "".
So, should this source stay or go?
:: The U.S. Southern Poverty Law Center accused Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist".
A related discussion is underway at RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center.
Also, could Nawaz be used as a source for contentious claims about SPLC per WP:IAR policy? (Would this "improve the encyclopedia"?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like saying that citing the website of Yad Vashem would be unreliable because it seeks to prosecute Nazis, or is part/accessory to such prosecution. Or that people/institutions who litigated against David Irving should not be quoted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any of them can be used as a source to support a claim that isn't contentious. None of them can be used to support a contentious claim about a counterparty. COI SOURCES policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: First, what you cite is a footnote to policy. Second, the policy does not say what you claim that it would say. It's like saying that public prosecutors have a COI against thieves, and therefore are unreliable sources about thieves. I suggest that you WP:DROPTHESTICK before you find yourself in hot water. I mean: it is not even stated as objective fact, it is stated as a claim (with attribution). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI SOURCES question 

message: This whole paragraph is sourced to Nawaz himself, yet much of it is in WPVOICE:-
 In the same essay which he wrote for CentreForum, Nawaz criticised cultural relativism for entrenching unhealthy taboos in U.K. just to appease the community heads. He cites a 1993 attempt in the London Borough of Brent to make female genital mutilation (FGM) legal among African communities, just because it was "their tradition".[43] Although a local councillor, Ann John, was able to oppose this motion, the subsequent torrent of abuse and threats she received created an atmosphere of fear.[43]
Anyone who understands UK politics would know that the LB of Brent can no more make FGM legal than the Washington Board of Education could decide to increase its spending on nuclear weapons or declare war on China.
I lived in the LB of Brent at that time and dimly remember an individual, or small number of individuals (I don't recall whether European or African, nor whether they were members of the public or elected councillors) articulating the view that FGM should be allowed. I am also unable to find better refs to the incident itself - but as LB of Brent was one of the favourite Loony left boroughs of the English tabloids - any idea that this could have even been proposed by them without it being widely reported at the time is barely credible. 
There are several recent (post 2014) interviews with Ann John in which she makes similar claims to Nawaz E. Standard and Kilburn Times.
Incidentally, the LB of Brent administration at the time was Conservative: "Ms John was vilified in 1993 for opposing the then Conservative-run council from legalising the practice." I also knew some LB of Brent councillors, and believe me, the reasons for allowing a discussion to be heard (not attempting to make legal), probably had very little to do with 'cultural relativism' and a great deal more to do with grubby local power-brokering. I don't for one moment of course suggest that my memories are RS for anything at all, but the lack of independent RS to characterise the incident, should make us very sceptical about how Nawaz describes it.
I don't quite see how to edit this appropriately, the only available sources are self-sourced, which is legitimate perhaps for their beliefs, but not legitimate for any inference that the event happened as they describe it. Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Further source, it does nothing to answer how to edit this article, but does establish the 'back story'. Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to look into this further, but the Google Books link you provided doesn't appear to be working properly for me.  Could you confirm for me the title & author of the source to which you refer? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Xenophrenic, apologies, I've been off-Wiki for 2 wks. Book is "Modernity, Medicine and Health" edited by Paul Higgs and Graham Scambler, page 119. The (brief) content doesn't relate directly to Nawaz, but to the incident he describes. The individual Brent Conservative councillor (not LB of Brent itself) was herself FGM'd and I believe was Somali. There is quite a big difference between individual councillors expressing 'potty' ideas and Councils actually seeking to implement those ideas. Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural relativism section - London Borough of Brent - FGM 

message: The opening line claims Maajid is a politician. Should this not read "former politician" as he only achieved 5.6% of the vote in 2015 and has since had no involvement in this field? I'd also argue having his role at LBC feature more prominently as this, alongside Quilliam, are what most people know him for.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffsmith01 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for this "bump" edit but after not signing the original message wasn't sure if this had been registered (still new!). Once again to reiterate the original I believe the opening line should be changed to "former politician" which reflects the current facts at hand. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe he qualifies as a politician AT ALL - being once a Lib-Dem candidate in a 'no-hope' constituency doesn't make someona a politician. I was once asked to put myself forward as a candidate, for the then liberals, and I wasn't even a party member. It is apt that his candidacy is mentioned, but that is enough. Do sources actually describe him as a politician?  Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maajid Nawaz is not a politician 

message: SimpleTruth12 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2018 

message: It's more precise, and it's done in other articles. --84.189.95.128 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We usually only describe somebody as English (or Scottish, Welsh or Irish), when they themselves, and the majority of sources describe them thus. This can create anomalous results, Billy Connolly is described as a Scot, but Gordon Brown isn't!Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be called "English", not "British" 

message: Under "Views" > "Political Commentary", change "He has argued argued that" to "He has argued that". Alyosha.the.thot (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannolis (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021 

message: Remove the word innocuous from the the text about Jesus and Mo cartoon. 
"Nawaz decided to tweet the cartoon after a BBC programme censored two audience members' shirts displaying innocuous cartoons of the prophet Muhammed" 77.98.164.244 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template.  Seems to be how it's described in the source.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022 

message: "In February 2019, Nawaz was reportedly assaulted in a racially-motivated attack by a white man".
Nothing "reportedly" about it - he was assaulted in a racially motivated attack. The BBC News item used to attribute it even confirms it. I can't edit it because it's been locked. Someone please amend. FGMC1870 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC report does not state as a fact that Mr Nawaz was assaulted – it says that he says he was assaulted. The wording in the article is correct. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording may be correct, but it is not "reportedly" an assault; it was an assault.  This, according to The Guardian here, which states the following: "Nawaz was hit from behind outside the Soho theatre on Monday after 7pm by a white man who the presenter described as “a racist coward”, posting a photo of the cut to his forehead caused by a punch with what could have been 'a signet ring'." FGMC1870 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point that the Guardian actually says he was hit. But in view of the extreme caginess of the BBC report, I would prefer to leave the wording as it is, because the current wording is correct, and non-committal. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life section 

message: In light of his public output since 2020, Maajid should be identified in the first line as a "British conspiracy theorist, activist..." . 2601:643:8B80:1A00:44E6:DF1A:D26A:D333 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 11:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

text: The lead (introduction) of a Wikipedia article is a summary of the body of the article. There is nothing in the body of the article which describes him as a conspiracy theorist. And in order to have him described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead, this would have to be the principal thing for which he was notable; this is not the case. If you wish to add some material to the article referring to him as a conspiracy theorist, you will need to provide references from reliable sources describing him as such. See WP:RS  Sweet6970 (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022 

message: In the infobox, change  to ; the article body states that Nawaz's first marriage ended in divorce. LethologicalLinguophile (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023