Talk:Inayat Bunglawala

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The battle is over 

message: 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.  Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A reputable newspaper is still a reliable source even if you disagree with it. Pecher Talk 22:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Deuterium, have you read WP:RS? You might also want to read this. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Despite accusations of anti-Semitism" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Addressed. --tickle me 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: 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)
replies: text: When you provide a verifiable source for the quotes, we can proceed from there. Tarc 13:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from his work 

message: → (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 </font>  ✉  12:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ynet is an Israeli newspaper. KazakhPol 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Captain Obvious. Tarc 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  That "editorial" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Maybe if the death threat material were posted elsewhere 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19 Inayat Bunglawala]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: After reading the source cited, I agree with Dorvaq. Zeq 09:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Third opinion|Third opinion]] 

message: I fully support keeping this article balanced like Tarc did here:  Zeq (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good edit by Tarc 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remark about Azzam Tamimi under Controversies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Inayat Bunglawala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified