Talk:Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist). 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/20080719213110/http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006510314,00.html to http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006510314,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127011334/http://www.izharudeen.com:80/abu-bara-audios.html to http://www.izharudeen.com/abu-bara-audios.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226081056/http://www.salafimedia.com/media/audio-lectures/abu-bara/item/1169-muslim-captives.html to http://salafimedia.com/media/audio-lectures/abu-bara/item/1169-muslim-captives.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Balance

The recently reverted version, created by a single editor, appears to be a complete whitewash of this person. This section in particular is problematic in attempting to portray Rahman in a positive light, and there are significant OR issues in this section. FDW777 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The above concerns appear unfounded. I have reviewed the page, there does not appear to be a whitewash, there is clear reference to criminal history and criticisms and the citations in the reverted version are by counter terrorism academics clearly neutral or critical of the personality. The highlighted sections appear to be well referenced to academic works. There does not appear to be OR issues in either of the highlighted sections. Perhaps, rather than a reversion that removes strong citations, more citations could be added to other works that point to what FDW777 is concerned about? 141.105.214.205 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

A man convicted of supporting terrorism, no controversy about his conviction, yet this article creates one. Unacceptable, see WP:ONUS. FDW777 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Futhermore the cherry picking of quotes from a primary reference to support him is highly inappropriate, considering the verdict. FDW777 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

the controversy cited appears to be a small paragraph referenced to a law professor. No OR or NPOV issue. The verdict seems to be cited accurately with references to both published academic works and government websites. The deleted content doesn't appear to contest the verdict or the facts of the conviction. If anything, it brings more balance to the bio not less. 2A02:C7F:F2BA:F600:397A:D927:CF26:EBA7 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to delete more than a dozen citations to actual academics and leave only journalist citations. Perhaps it would be better to read the published research and summarise it yourself to show what you mean.2A02:C7F:F2BA:F600:397A:D927:CF26:EBA7 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

No consensus for the hagiographical changes. Perhaps it would be better if you stopped trying to write a fawning article over someone repeatedly convicted? FDW777 (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

At the very minimum, it needs a heavy rewrite to be less of a testimonial and more of a prose text. Also, it is far too long.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A rewrite might be a good idea, but the content and citations clearly improve the page. rather than wholesale deletion, perhaps adding new citations if you feel they will add balance or adding [citations needed] tags to content you are unsure of? 2A02:C7F:F2BA:F600:397A:D927:CF26:EBA7 (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you propose a non-fawning change here, since there is no consensus for your disupted version. You only have to look at text like This is corroborated further in the sentencing remarks of Justice Holroyde (refernced only to the judge's remarks) to see the blatant OR issues involved. This isn't an isolated example either. FDW777 (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS its down to you to write it in a way those of us who are unsure what this adds will find acceptable, we are happy leaving it all out.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Reading the (now-reverted) version you propose, it reads too much like a poorly-worded, non-neutral and WP:OR summary of the trial. If there's anything that could be kept, that isn't hagiographical or unnecessarily based on primary sources, that would support starting all over from scratch on your proposed additions, since they're simply too problematic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

To add to the above, this was rejected testomony from the trial, we know it was rejected as he lost. If someone loses a trial we do not put in the defences arguments that he was not guilty, as the court found him to be.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia says, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

I don't think warring is the best way forward here.SteveCorrigan1970 (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Except it does mislead, the courts found he is, this evidence (from the trail, and thus rejected) says he is not. We go with what the courts say if he is found guilty of a crime (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Per above, specifically @RandomCanadian:, the material is that biased the best alternative is to start again from scratch with any proposed additions. FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Something like "but at this trial defence witnesses contested this, the court rejected their arguments".Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a non-starter. Per page 207 of Douglas Weeks's book (the one cited in the disputed version) he was supposed to be a witness for the defence, but he didn't testify at all. Douglas Weeks is someone critical of government responses to extremism, but he is not a legal expert and since the crux of the issue is that there is a claimed "Legal Controvesy" that's a problem. There is absolutely no evidence of any legal controversy, that an academic may consider locking up unrepentant supporters of ISIS not the best approach is a different kettle of fish entirely. FDW777 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I was just offering as possible for the proposer to work with. Personally (as I said above) I am not sure this adds anything and may violate our rules on reporting crimes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

BY the way, if any edit can be seen as wp:vandalism or as violating wp:blp we should always revert, those are in fact about the few times we can even edit war, they are NO's!.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a BLP and needs to follow the guidelines accordingly. Also, Simon Cottee seems to be the legal expert cited on controversy, not Weeks. But anyway, I don't want to get into a edit war with anyone, so I am leaving it for now. But I don't think the deletions is in line with Wiki guidelines and actually, you could argue blanking is vandalism not contributing - contributors often have biases and that can't be helped, but I don't think the contributions made could reasonably be called vandalism. It could have been written more academically, but that is still not vandalism.

WP:ONUS means that consensus is needed to decide NOT to include something, not the other way around. There is no consensus that the citations you are deleting is not needed or does not improve the page. There is bias potentially on both sides. A neutral rewrite that includes all contributions is more in line with wikipedia guidelines and ethos. Perhaps this needs to go to dispute resolution, otherwise this could be vandalism.SteveCorrigan1970 (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The removal of a version fawning over a person convicted of inciting support for ISIS is not vandalism, and never will be. FDW777 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

And I quote for wp:onus "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.".Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it is about, wikipedia is not about politics, follow the guidelines whether we like the BLP in question or not SteveCorrigan1970 (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)(for example) that a convited mu

He was found guilty, we do not put in rejected defence arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Also you said you would not reinsert it, you have.Slatersteven (talk)

Quote: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

and "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal."

I agree with Slatersteven about rewriting, and some of these things should be discussed here, but that doesn't mean we delete sourced content either. see earlier quote.SteveCorrigan1970 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I see your quote about "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", that's fair, I take that back then. But that doesn't change anything, the process of consensus is still through edit and talk not deleting or blanking. I don't see the sources you are deleting as vandalism. If we stop edit warring, we can actually try to rewrite it in a neutral tone, but every time i try, my draft is obsolete because someone has blanked it again.SteveCorrigan1970 (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It does, material should not be added back in without consensus. wp:brd give a good idea about how this should be done. It should be removed (per wp:brd) and then discused here what to write it. Nor is it a draft, that is what your sandbox (or the talk page) is for, this is a mainspace edit. We do not use article space for "drafts" (it is why we have article talk pages). You agree it is problematic, yet you are edit warring to keep it in (and call removing it vandalism, which is a violation of wp:npa).Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

i don't think it is problematic, i think it improves the page. But i think it could be improved further with more neutral tone. I don't agree that it is vandalism as suggested by User:FDW777. Anyway, let's talk about how we can rewrite the content in a neutral tone and try to acheive consensus.SteveCorrigan1970 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

i'm heading off for now as I got stuff to do at home, i hope i remember to check this page again later to help fix it, would love to be part of making the page betterSteveCorrigan1970 (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hold on, you said you were going to rewrite it, you are now going to leave it as is, in its contested state?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely up to those, or them (singular, since everyone can see through this charade), seeking to include the content to present a proposal with content that is not in violation of multiple policies. FDW777 (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the proposed edits and the text seemed to rely too much on primary sources, including youtube videos... WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RS are relevant. And maybe WP:COI if relevant, because it seemed promotional. —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Simon Cottee article, having read the article there is still no evidence of a "Legal Controversy". He appears to object to the convictions on the grounds that while Choudary personally supports the Islamic State and tried to persuade others to follow him in such beliefs. But we have no evidence that Choudary went any further than that — say, by facilitating the journeys of men and women to Islamic State territory. He is entitled to his opinion, but it is legally irrelevant. Simply by encouraging support is sufficient for conviction, which Cottee concedes earlier in the article when he says Choudary’s offense, rather, is to have pledged support for the group and encouraged others to do the same. Cottee is ill-informed about the history of prosecutions for encouraging support for banned organisations. He says The deeper significance of Choudary’s conviction is that it inaugurates a new and disturbing phase in Britain’s pushback against “extremism”: the criminalization of radical dissent and defection. Before Choudary’s conviction, the drastic widening of the definition of terrorism to include speech-acts was an abstract worry here. Sean Hughes was accused of encouraging support for a banned organisation in 2013, by speaking at a meeting. Marian Price was accused of encouraging support for a banned organisation in 2011, by holding a piece of paper from which a masked man read a speech. So the idea that Rahman was convicted under some new draconian legislation is false. The law has been the law for a long time, ever since the Terrorism Act 2000 was first introduced. Even if there was a push to convict Islamists in the mid-2010s, it is hardly surprising that after the murder of David Haines in 2014 (and other similar murders) by ISIS that the British government would crack down on those that encourage support them is it? There is no legal controversy. He was charged, found guilty, and there's absolutely significant concern that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice or that the law was wrongly applied. There is no controversy, certainly not that should be expressed in Wikipedia's voice anyway. FDW777 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

the difference here is that Sean Hughes spoke at a meeting organised by the proscribed organisation, and the masked man read the paper as part of a proscribed activities. On the other hand, Sinn Fein and lots of people in Northern Ireland might agree with IRA without facing prosecution. Simon Cottee was not just expressing an opinion, his opinion as a legal expert in criminology is suitable for reference here actually. His point, it appears, is that the conviction is controversial on the grounds of it criminalising dissent in the UK in a way not previously seen in the courts. Even if it was seen, it is still controversial from a democratic standpoint. I might not agree with everything in the article, but he is an academic, our opinions are not enough to exclude his quotes. I think it should be written back in. Perhaps retitle it without 'Legal controversy' as the title?2A02:C7F:F2BA:F600:CD8F:7F60:C1BB:539 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the opinion of one sole academic is just that, an opinion, and it might very well be WP:UNDUE, especially if he is the only one to make mention of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reading posts more carefully. Marian Price was prosecuted, not for something she said, but for holding a piece of paper from which someone else read a speech. Rahman and Choudry went far beyond holding a piece of paper. It is not controversial from a democractic standpoint to prosecute people for incitement or encouraging or assisting a crime in English law, and the Terrorism Act 2000 is just an extension of those. Simon Cottee is perfectly entitled to think encouraging support for ISIS is "dissent" and acceptable behaviour in a civilised society, the law disagrees as does pretty much everyone else. FDW777 (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Cherry picking

As happened in this edit, we are not cherry picking from a primary reference to make Mizanur Rahman look less guilty. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)