Jump to content

Talk:Abdul Nazer Mahdani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linking RSS to the attack on Mahdani

[edit]

Two links have been provided in support of the following sentence, "In 1992, Madani became the target of an assassination attempt by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in which he lost his right leg." The first one is from Deccan Chronicle and is a dead link.

The second one does not talk about the involvement of the organization in the attack. It does not even establish, without reasonable doubt, the identity of the parties involved in the blast. From the link, the only inferences which can be drawn without indulging in original research and synthesis are -

  1. An activist of the RSS, Shaji Kumar, was asked by the Court to surrender in relation to the attack on Mahdani
  2. Kumar contended that he was innocent, which was rejected by the court
  3. Police framed charges against Kumar on the basis of confessions of the prime accused in the case, one Reghunathan Pillai.
  4. He (who? Police? Court?) also submitted that investigation in the case is complete.


From the above links, it cannot be reasonably established that RSS, as an organization was involved in the attack on Mahdani. I'll rephrase the sentence once a consensus is reached on this. Shovon (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the second link dubious? Wasifwasif (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second link was tagged as dubious in the context of the statement. After you have rephrased the sentence, it is a perfectly valid link. Shovon (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing Edits of User WBRSin

[edit]

Hi WBRSin, I would like to put forward these things regarding your edit.

  1. Where it is mentioned that it was done thru hidden camera recording?
  2. Why do you keep on deleting the Yoganand part of the interview?
  3. citation needed lines need not be necessarily deleted within a month. Leave it for some editors to find source. That too, ist not that every single line in WP ha a reference added.
  4. The RSS page of Wikipedia itself says that it was banned in 1992. Stil why do you want to remove that?
  5. The word subversive is clearly prefixed with the word "alleged" in the source. Don't involve in such intentional POV pushing. pls be clear and neutral while you write to WP. Wasif (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden camera recording by Tehelka is the basis for their claims is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0FFmzinBmU The persons mentioned in the report were interviewed without them being informed or asked for their consent, which is clearly unethical journalism. The report by Tehelka is more like a PAID NEWS segment to exonerate madani who is accused in terrorist crimes. I reverted the tehelka claim of investigation to neutral point of view even though it's not worthy to be considered a reliable source.

Unsourced edits are removed, I know you inserted that false quote by madani to portary him as some kind of hero. So either find a concrete reference or stop re-adding it.

The reference you cite to make the claim of ban on other groups which is this http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/03spec.htm doesn't mention it, and why should other groups of which madani is not a part be mentioned here?

You seem to be blind to the fact that i added the part subversive activities in double quotes which is how it should be. You are the one doing POV pushing by adding titles such as "Fabricated allegation on Coimbatore blast case" while the neutral one would be Coimbatore blast case trial. And stop reverting edits. I see you a thingy for islamofascist groups, you did the same thing on Popular Front India page and deleted references pointing their involvement in murder cases. Stop being an disruptive editor WBRSin (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If you feel that Youtube is a reliable source for WP, the go ahead and add it. Don't simply keep on undoing to push your POV.
  2. You have no answer for 2nd question.
  3. Its less than a month with cn tag being placed there. Nowhere WP says that sentences with cn tag should be removed within a week or 2.But still am removing for now to STOP users like you from taking ownership for pushing your onse sided and biased POV.Nothing to make Hero of it. You want Narendra Modi to be King of social media. But was stopped from adding that. Do a self analysis who is trying to create heros out of Fascists amd trying to push to WP. Its very common for people like you to blame co-editors with words like "Islamofascit". Least bothered about that.
  4. It creates a false image as if PDP was responsible for Babri Masjid Demolition and so banned. So its quite referable to mention all the other outfits which were banned along with it.
  5. Read properly. The word alleged is given in reference and why do you want to intentionally hide that for just because its againt your POV. Wasif (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hero worship of madani by Wasif and adding dubious statement

[edit]

To wasif, Read what i wrote before replying, Tehelka indulged in an unethical practise and made the interview using a hiddem cam where the alleged witnesses were interviewed without asking their consent. This is not fair to add such a dubious source to proclaim the alleged innocence of a person accused of terrorist crimes.

I replied but you to question but you lack the ability to grasp it, read again.

You cant add a dubious statement by a person and there is no rule that you have to wait a month to remove such instances of puffery. Dont turn this page into your personal page for hero worshipping

Well PDP was not banned, it was Islamic Seva Sangh, I suggest you dont add anything unrelated to the bio of the person in question. What has narendra modi to do with this, well i guess every islamofascist hates to see their rival succedding while they wallow in their misery.

Understand the meaning of double quotes before spouting off your lecture. And finally stop revertingWBRSin (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your talk page Edits clearly shows your bias towards certain idealogies and use of abusive language on co-editors. I will NOT go down to your level to call you a Saffronofascist. You still pretend not to understand what my question is? Let me put in simple words.

If you claim that the recordings where done through hidden camera without the knowledge of the person being interviewed, then add the reference for that.Wasif (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i already posted the hidden cam reference, here once again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0FFmzinBmU Stop reverting and using biased sources. Wasif you have history of vandalising articles related to Hinduism as you did here, it's better you stop now before you get banned for it. WBRSin (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a long term contributor, Do you really think youtube is a Reliable source in wikipedia? Wasif (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Wasifwasif

[edit]

The contributor Wasifhas been intentionally removing all the contents which are against Madani. Please see the references given before removing any content. This is not a pro-Madani article. — comment added by Cyril84 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a pro-Madani article. LOL. And you are attempting to make it anti-Madani article. Maintain neutrality. Wasif (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and POV pushing by user Cyril84

[edit]

Hi cyril84,

  1. Surat, ahmedabad blast linkage has not got any reference added or allegations proven.
  2. Dasooqiyathul muhamamdiyya is His organisation.
  3. Why do you want to Vandal his recognition part.?
  4. ref 6 (your version) never says provoking and ref 7 (your version) alleges. so changing accordingly.
  5. Nazeer's connection - read the heading of the reference properly. Don't just go blind to push your biased POV. Its alleged on Sufiya and not on Abdul Nazer. That too an allegation.
  6. CBE blast - When court says, the person has no connection with the blast, then what do you call the allegation? as per your reference 6 (your version) its a politicaly motivated hidden agenda.

Pls discuss before you push your POV. Wasif (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Wasif

[edit]

Wasif, Please see the explanation:

  1. Surat, ahmedabad blast linkage has not got any reference added or allegations proven. → See ref 18 http://www.rediff.com/news/report/madani-faking-illness-for-more-conspiracies-says-ktaka-govt/20110429.htm which is already there in the article.
- changing as found in the reference.
  1. Dasooqiyathul muhamamdiyya is His organisation. → Agreed, this is not a change done by me. Will change it.
- ok
  1. Recognition part.? → Please list any recognitions he received. 'Considered' or 'well received' cannot be listed as recognition.
-I go with these. http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/06/stories/2006120608540300.htm http://specials.rediff.com/news/2009/apr/01slid1-interview-with-abdul-nasser-madani-pdp-kerala-leader.htm PDP have won elections. Its a recognition. can you please explain what else is recog.?
- The references you have provided says nothing about any recognitions. Madani has not won any elections so far. Any other PDP member winning elections won't come in Madani's recognitions list. You can list it seperately as PDP's accomplishments. --Cyril84 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ref 6 clearly says "Abdul Nasir Madani, who is well known for his provoking speeches" → ref 7 clearly says about inflammatory speech cases registered by Kerala police at Muthalakulam and Parappanangadi.
-This is very trivial. Every other politicians do register fake cases in India for no reasons. Doesn't worth a mention
- How did you conclude that the cases are fake? Did the court acquit Madani of charges? If not then these cases stays valid. Remember that these are for inflammatory speeches and are serious cases. --Cyril84 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nazeer's connection → Last paragraph of ref 20 clearly says "Investigators say that Nazeer came into militancy through the Islamic Seva Sangh (ISS) founded by Madani. After the banning of ISS, Madani formed the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and Nazeer became its active member. " This is what Karnataka police informed the court about Madani and cannot be ignored. I've clearly mentioned it.
-Agreed. Go ahead
  1. CBE blast → ref 6 says " its a politicaly motivated hidden agenda" according to Madani. And you are stating it as a fact or a court observation. Dude, what are you trying to prove? What else is this other than a pro-Madani argument?
-You didn't answer to my question here. I took that sentence from reference which already existed in the page
- I did answer your question. The above is a statement by Madani and you cannot state it as fact and use the term 'Fabriacted'. --Cyril84 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to keep the neutrality by adding arguments from both the sides and by stating facts. But you are removing contents against Madani without even reading the references. Please add you comments here or it will be reverted. --Cyril84 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sad that you went ahead adding everything including those topics where we din't arrive consensus. So changing accordingly.

in India, it's common that a party's performance is attributed with its leader.

Refer to the pages of any Indian politician. For eg: take Karunanidhi, the senior most active ploitician in India. 'n' number of cases have been filed on him for inflammatory or other speeches. Is that mentioned in his page? This is never worth a mention dude.
→ Yeah, but this article says: `His oratorical skills were well received`. This is just one side of the story and the perception of only some people. The same oratorical skills are considered as inflammatory by Kerala police. To keep the neutrality, we should keep both the views in the article. Cyril84 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that, its not required then it can be removed. But mentioning the case details of case filed for speech, is never worth a mention in Indian political arena.Wasif (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked CBE blast - When court says, the person has no connection with the blast, then what do you call the allegation?. you didn't answer.Still i am not changing that.

→ That is called a false allegation. The court has not mentioned about any conspiracies by prosecution against Madani in the case. The fabrication is only alleged by Madani (you have already mentioned it in the article). Keeping it as is. Cyril84 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok agreed. Let that be false instead of fabricated.Wasif (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also i have already told, I didn't add anything new. I Just took that from the existing link.Wasif (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing vandalism by Wasif

[edit]

Wasif keeps deleting the contents related to the alleged connection with Nazeer, which is supported by valid references. This user has been filling the article with pro-Madani content for quite some time now. I have added more references now to re-enforce the statement. Please discuss here before deleting any content with references.

Its stupid with concerned to Wikipedia to say that a user adds pro content and that will exactly mean that you need the page with anti-madani contents and its true that you keep filling with decade old media garbages written simply in news papers. Talk pages will clearly show that i have invited several users for discussion, and agreed on many things which i was not aware, arrived at consensus to make the page neutral. Its very easy fro me to create a discussion topic Vandalism by Cyril84 and put my words. But please be aware commenting on a co-contributor will not help build an UN-BIASED WP article.Wasif (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When Madani was connected with Nazeer, was he in LeT.? Please add from the media dumps which you have pulled in.Wasif (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasif, you are in denial mode. Whatever you don't like is media garbage? Here is more references from rediff

  1. Terming their association as deadly, the government states that it was Madani's speeches that inspired Nazeer to carry out the blasts and he even sheltered him. The petition also lists three mobile numbers -- 9349955085, 9349955082 and 9426838833 -- which were used by Madani to keep in touch with Nazeer.
  2. According to the Bengaluru police, the nexus between Madani and the other accused in the blasts was very strong. The accused have stated that they were in touch with Madani and have also outlined his role in the bombings. ... Apart from the confession of the other accused in the case, Madani's brother Jamal Mohammed too had informed the police that the Kerala leader sheltered the accused in the Bengaluru bombings.
- Cyril84 (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Go ahead with appropriate sentnce terming the allegation by police. Wasif (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DOB changes

[edit]

The link from evi.com is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. User:Wasifwasif is edit warring by inserting that link and removing reference titles from links. The user is asked to kindly refrain from such disruptive edits and use the talk page to settle matters. Thanks --Neelkamala (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have better evidence to substantiate that Madani was born in 1956, then do add it. That will settle the issue. Please do not change the year blankly without giving any citation. Wasif (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim he has born in 1956, I asked for reliable source for you changing it twice to 1965. Since none of the reliable source is available the unsourced Date of birth has been deleted. --Neelkamala (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you cant prove your claim and therefore leave a message of vandalism on my talkpage. Keep in mind such fake warning may lead to administrative action against you for disruptive behaviour. --Neelkamala (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to find atleast a source and its you who questioned its reliablity. But you never added any source and want your Guessing year (without any source) to be in WP which is a clear Vandalism. Please refrain from such activities to be avoid administrative action.Wasif (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This the edit which you reverted and added unsourced DOB changes. Now don't claim to being innocent and go on accusing others. Accept your mistakes and stop your disruptive editing. --Neelkamala (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yoU added a dubious year and asked me for source. Don't assume that people in WP are fools to make false accusations. be constructive in Editing and adding year and then accuse others. Wasif (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little unclear on who started what, but the page is correct as it stands now--the DOB cannot be included without a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

[edit]

Hi, I do not have to discuss to add a sentence what exactly is said in the source just for the reason one of the user is Edit warring and undoing it. The changes which i am adding are well sourced and even the wordings do appear in the source. If some one wants that to be removed, please discuss here why that has to be not added. Wasif (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First question: why did you remove the whole paragraph, containing several reliable sources, that starts with "In connection with the Bangalore blast case, Police have presented phone records..."? Second, as for the other part, we cannot state it is a fact that he involvement is unproven, because that is merely the opinion statement of one police officer/department. It's conceivable that we could work that information in somewhere, but it would need to be in the form "In 2010, a police commissioner from Bengaluru stated that the involvement of Mahdani had not yet been proven". That probably doesn't belong in the lead, however, because it's a minor note, the opinion of one investigator/set of investigators, and won't integrate well with the rest of the paragraph. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First;- It was unintentional which went together while undoing. I have no issues in re adding that.

Second:- Its not statement of an irrelevant person. The Bangalore police commissioner is the head investigating authority of the case. The sentence "A police commissioner from benagluru..." will be a pure dilution of the fact. It would be neutral to write "According to Police commissioner of Bengaluru, Madani's involvement is unproven yet".This is surely not a minor note until he is convicted by the court. No officer dares to say this when the matter is in the court. This is never trivial. Wasif (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not editing the lines which are being discussed. lets arrive at a consensus and then proceed. Wasif (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing you propose is fine for me, unless others object. It still shouldn't go into the lead--it's a phrase of one person (representing a department), with no other sources with a similar statement. We wouldn't put a similar statement about guilt in the lead, either. The lead states the fact that he was investigated, and does not state that he was convicted or even imply that, as is appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased POV pushing and deletion of cited facts by Zeeyanwiki

[edit]

Hi, This regarding your deletion of my edits in this article.

Please STOP repeating this and do discuss before you revert/delete/vandalize/push your POV in the article. Wasif (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you remove a short summary line from the lead "because it is discussed in detail in the section"? That is, in factt, the exact opposie of what you're supposed to do--the lead should contain a concise summary of what is covered in detail in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasif I removed some para mistakely there and it was already reverted by Qwyrxian.I did it intentionally because you never discuss it and you are non-neutral there.Moreover you provide bogus warning on my talk page and removed info from two sources.First you read what sources really explain there.---zeeyanwiki discutez 05:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did it intentionally.......... This can be reported to admin for any action. Moreover if you browse thru the talk page you can see the discussions which i have participated and agreed with consensus with other users. without doing that you just blame me you never discuss it. Personal comments are not supposed to find a place here n WP. Wasif (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC).  ::I don't think any user above agree with you so dont tell me these fairy tales .your worshipping of madani doesn't help.plz explain why r u removed two reliable sources.I dont understand why are you try to hide facts,this is wiki not madani's blog.---zeeyanwiki discutez 12:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read carefully my last reply, i have replied ONLY to your personal attack on me and your statement I did it intentionally........... i dont want to spend time on your absurd personal attacks. Coming to subject.
  1. I have clearly mentioned already that i have removed since it is already discussed in detail with all valid references in the below section. If that has to be added in the header, then it should very clearly state that it is Unproven as mentioned by the investigating officer.
  2. The bangalore case line in the header is repeated for the 2nd time in the header itself along with his arrest line. Combine both or delete one.
  3. Why do you keep on Deleting the Supreme court's divided observations on Madani's bail plea. You have repeatedly deleted Justice Katju's findings even after explanation. So i couldn't find an appropriate word other than vandalism to refer this. The next time you revert Justice Markandey katju's findings, you will have to meet the consequences.
  4. Your blind undoing, has removed even the correction of 'Supreme' to 'Supreme court'. you have blindly undid my correction and the current version reads, "High Court and Supreme observations in Bangalore blast case". Which is correct? 'Supreme observations' or 'Supreme court observations'? Don't be in haste to undo. Put some attention before undoing.

I am not going to reply to your personal attacks like 'fairy tale', 'worship', 'Madani's blog' etc since its no way going to help in building a constructive WP. Finally, I am in verge of 3RR and so will wait. Wasif (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presently busy, not have enough time,will tell you where you were wrong and biased.History speaks not me.---zeeyanwiki discutez 05:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still are you busy? Will wait some more time for your reply before i proceed with reverting.Wasif (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A gentle reminder. If you have anything to answer to my above questions? Its 7th day since i haven't touched the article after your edit and awaiting your reply. Wasif (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proceeding as confirmed by the co-editor in my talk page.Wasif (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Abdul Nazer Mahdani. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdul_Nazer_Mahdani&oldid=1203548472"