Talk:Dawood Ibrahim

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: In favor of the POV tag

message: * --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)
thread_title: Not in favor

message: *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)
thread_title: Couldn't Care Less

message: :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)
thread_title:  Hajji Mastana 

message: no one has mentioned about dawoods links with MQM
Content removed, probably copyright violation, taken from . See Wikipedia:COPY#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others Bazzargh (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  links with mqm 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Byword 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mumbai 08 

message: He isn't important.--24.171.1.195 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  redirect to [[D-Company]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Massive reversion necessary

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments from Bugnot

message: 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:
, , , . —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131019170124/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/dawood-behind-mumbai-attacks-ats-sources/79364-3.html?from=rssfeed to http://ibnlive.in.com/news/dawood-behind-mumbai-attacks-ats-sources/79364-3.html?from=rssfeed
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081201082310/http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in:80/index.php?option=com_content&issueid=81&task=view&id=21254§ionid=4&Itemid=1 to http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&issueid=81&task=view&id=21254§ionid=4&Itemid=1
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131229163322/http://www.indistannews.com:80/nepal-freezes-assets-of-entities-with-dawood-al-qaeda-links/ to http://www.indistannews.com/nepal-freezes-assets-of-entities-with-dawood-al-qaeda-links/
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 16:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212112236/http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/9367.asp to http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/9367.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423185846/http://www.ibnlive.com:80/videos/63608/30-minutes-dawood-decoded.html to http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/63608/30-minutes-dawood-decoded.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox and other changes  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Currently resides in Dubai 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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. GenuineArt (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie

message: The article could even be merged into D-Company DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Gang wars between Chota Rajan and Dawood Ibrahim]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: change to counterfeit. Otherwise intra-wiki link is correct 94.109.18.101 (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . Wyliepedia @ 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterfiet money