Jump to content

Talk:Ghulam Azam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Header to allow for archiving

His status as a "war criminal" was pretty much a cute little propaganda play done by the always reliable Awami League party. They haven't so far managed to prove any war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.255.19 (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are no more dispute. Article is written from neutral POV. tag removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esha795 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Read books of GHULAM AZAM without any assumption may be you will change your mind

He is a great scholar.Just read his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.102.36.2 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Autosigned by SineBot-Ghulam Azam living traitor of Bangladesh

Post-war - "Remaining in Bangladesh illegally"

At the beginning of the last section of the article, Azam is said to have been 'remaining in Bangladesh illegally'. However, to take his Bangladeshi passport away when he was born in Bangladesh is illegal according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15[1]. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayizmi (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

written from a neutral POV. So we will collect all the reliable resources and literature on the life and works of Azam. First I am preparing a draft with the names of the heading only (references are numbered):

- Khan Muhammad (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's pleasing that you want to improve the article, but some of those websites do not meet the standards set by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - especially self-published sources such as muktadhara.net and bangladeshmariners.com, which should never be used. There are many such websites out there which may be tempting to use, but they are rarely reliable and never NPOV. (Also, please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes). Rayizmi (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Now listen, I have kept your version and added mine. Here my references are Daily Star and Daily Sangram which are reliable. So you have no right to eliminate these. I have added the "citation needed" tag in your portion because you didn't mention any citation. And when you quote from "জীবনে যা দেখলাম" you have start with "according to Golam Azam". - Khan Muhammad (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
And okay. I won't use anything from so-called self-published sites. I will check their infos with other reliable sources and use those. And please don't erase anything without discussing here. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Azam's own writeup is not very reliable when it comes to information about his life ... it is yet another self-published source :). We need to provide info from third parties. The NYtimes and the Daily star are quite reliable sources. By the way, Rayizmi, you should refrain from editing the article as you have a serious conflict of interest here ... by virtue of being related to Azam, you are in conflict of interest. Please make suggestions in the talk page without further changing content. As you are related to the article subject, your edits are actually the subject's POV. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I fail to understand why there is no reference drawn to একাত্তরের ঘাতক দালাল নির্মূল কমিটি related information where he was found guilty of charge and was awarded capital punishment in March 26, 1992 (More info available on Wiki).-- Ruman962 (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Article violations of Wikipedia policy

This article contains a surprisingly large number of very serious violations of Wikipedia's policy of living persons, verifiability, libellous or defamatory material, original research and NPOV. Wikipedia policy is that such material should be removed immediately:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

— Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

"Anyone may delete biography-related material that is unsourced, poorly-sourced, or otherwise unreasonable for a biography."

— Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help

"Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."

— Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people"

— Wikipedia:Verifiability

Therefore, I will remove such obvious material, and explain here why certain sources are poorly sourced, and will place an message box at the beginning of the article so that other editors will be alerted its presence and will help contribute to make sure that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for reading! Applesandapples (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed the citation Akattorer Ghatak O Dalal-ra: Kay Khutay? (Where were the collaborators and murderers of 1971). It is badly spelt, does not give evidence for what it alleges, and seems to be self-published source. Overall, a poor source. Applesandapples (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Given that the source গোলাম আযমের বিরূদ্ধে ডঃ আনিসুজ্জামান উত্থাপিত অভিযোগপত্র (Allegations against Ghulam Azam submitted by Prof. Anisuzzaman); The Daily Prothom Alo - March 14, 2008 is a list of allegations, I think it should be made clear that anything cited from it (and there are a number of citations from this source in the article) is an allegation and not fact. Applesandapples (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps also, unverified allegations should not be given undue prominence in the first paragraphs, but mentioned later on where relevant. Where it is mentioned, it is best to summarise rather than quote in toto. Applesandapples (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


I have reinstated info about Azam's role in 1971 in the lead. This is a critical piece of info that is central to his notability. Also, the info is properly referenced. I'll get back to your other points later. --Ragib (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't me who removed that part. Yes, I think that's both important and referenced. Applesandapples (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First Section

The first section (the second paragraph in particular) is getting too long. Could we move some of the material there into the rest of the article? Applesandapples (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. This talk page feels like such a monologue! Applesandapples (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

References

I want to review all the references in this article because it seems to be one sided, if references are given it has to be from both the sides and also it should mentioned which side carries how much weight. Like, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXsRkXlDxiM this kind of reference for sure is the speech of the accused himself, while citing these one must say, "according to Ghulam Azam". I will be posting comments regarding references here. In the meantime I realised some of the portions of this article has been removed without any prior notice, like the "Anti-Bangladesh Lobbying after 1971" paragraph. It is not acceptable. Please discuss before removing any sentence. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC) "Azam opposed the independence of Bangladesh before and during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War out of a desire to maintain a unified Pakistan, and fear of potential Indian hegemony after independence." - this line is not supported by reference, first of all it is Ghulam Azam himself speaking, so you have to write according to Ghulam Azam, also he did not mention 'and fear of potential Indian hegemony after independence', it seems to be the original work of the wikipedian without any reliable source. This portion will be re-edited if the previous editor does not provide any explanation. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC) "Despite this, on 11 January 2012, Ghulam Azam was arrested on charges of committing war crimes in Bangladesh Liberation War by the International Crimes Tribunal. Set up by the present Awami League government in Bangladesh, the tribunal has been characterised as politically motivated, and has garnered international condemnation from human rights organisations such as the International Bar Association, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International." - this portion is totally biased, the tribunal was condemned only for the reason that a defence lawyer of Jamaat was not allowed visa to enter Bangladeh once, it does not mean overall condemnation of the tribunal. Besides many organizations and human rights group also supported the tribunal like in this reference http://www.kalerkantho.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Download&pub_no=775&cat_id=1&menu_id=14&news_type_id=1&index=6&archiev=yes&arch_date=28-01-2012. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Also any reference of defence layers of Jamaat is like a reference of Ghulam Azam and his supporters, it has to be mentioned. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. I agree with some of your points, but not all:
—If videos of interviews with Ghulam Azam must be used as references, you are right, it should be made clear that anything mentioned is his viewpoint, and not verified facts.
—The section "Anti-Bangladesh Lobbying after 1971" was not deleted, but was incorporated with the beginning paragraphs in the section "Years in Exile". It was not removed without prior notice, as I did say over a month ago in the talk page, "Where it [an unverified allegation] is mentioned, it is best to summarise rather than quote in toto." I do stand by that, and will remove the word for word quote that has been re-inserted into the section. After all, we must remember that this article must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of living persons, and as such, unverified allegations made by one man in 1994 should be summarised, if mentioned.
—The 'fear of potential Indian hegemony' line does seem a little contentious. I haven't had time to watch the entire video which was used as a reference, but I'm not sure that Azam doesn't mention something like that in the video. Also, when writing specifically about Azam's viewpoints, an interview with him does seem to be reasonable source of information.
—I think the wording in the paragraph you mentioned about the ICT should be qualified more, eg "the tribunal has been characterised as politically motivated"(by whom?). But it has certainly not been, as you said, "condemned only for the reason that a defence lawyer of Jamaat was not allowed visa to enter Bangladeh once". There are a very large number of sources in which international figures and organisations condemn the ICT for many different reasons:
• Al Jazeera (lack of rules of evidence, restricted rights to accused and bias of chairman of tribunal)
• New York Times (political motivation of tribunal and bias of chairman of tribunal)
• Human Rights Watch (six different points mentioned)
• UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (arbitrary detention breaches Universal Declaration of Human Rights, restrictions on defendants' access to legal assistance and refusal of bail)
• International Criminal Law Bureau - British House of Lords peer Lord Avebury outlined as many as 20 different problems in the tribunal.
The Kaler Kontho article you linked states that Lord Avebury supports the ICT, whereas the International Criminal Law Bureau article statement written by him has him confronting the Bangladeshi Law Minister over concerns in the ICT. The International Criminal Law Bureau statement is a more reliable source of what Avebury thinks, as it is written by him in the website of an internationally renowned law organisation. Also, Bangladeshi newspapers tend to be biased one way or the other, and have a record of misrepresenting the views of international figures with regards to the ICT (see the last couple of pages here). As it flies in the face of a more reliable source, I wouldn't use that article as a source. However, more reliable sources showing support for the ICT are welcome. Applesandapples (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with some of you points but not all.
- I have listened to the whole interview and did not find anything related to the line 'fear of potential Indian hegemony'.
- Yes there are criticisms but I don't support the use of the word 'condemnation', based on the references you can only say that it has been criticised and several amendments have been suggested. And remember this is an article about Ghulam Azam, not ICT.
- I understand that The International Criminal Law Bureau statement is more reliable than Kaler Kantho. But you cannot omit Bangladeshi newspapers saying that they are biased. For that you will need even further references that identifies any particular news in a Bangladeshi national newspaper to be biased. I think both the references need to be used emphasizing ones dominance over the other.
- And also they are many more issues regarding POV in this article that need to be solved. I will state those one by one later. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning to Aminul802 and a response concerning the biases of the Daily Star

The user named Aminul802 is undoing all my edits without any reason and without any discussion. This is not acceptable. For every undoing you have to first discuss here on the talk page. Administrators please take necessary action. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Khan Muhammad, I was not aware of your being Hermitage17, and so it appeared that it was your edits were being done without discussion. Since I have now clarified who you are, I will address you directly wrt any changes I make to your edits. I undid some sections of your edits as they are in violation of wikipedia policy being contentious material about a living person. The policy states that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Your citation of the niruml committee committee, which was a people's court and had not official sanction, as the lead of the article places undue weight on the judgement of mock court that is of a particularly questionable nature. The committee is mentioned later in the article, and thus does not need to head the article, where relevant information about Azam should be cited only from uncontentious sources.
You were also quoting from The Daily Star newspaper, which is clearly hostile to Azam and should be referred to in that light. An example of that hostility is shown in this article that was recently added to Azam's wikipedia page: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=213916. The article is lead by a caricature of Azam which one of the comments on the article notes is more appropriate to the Nazi propaganda machine than a respectable journal. I would tend to agree, as the paper is only referring to charges that are yet to be proven by a competent court, but the caricature presumes Azam's guilt. Such references should only be made with the appropriate qualifications.--Aminul802 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is yet another unusually caricture-led item from the Daily Star: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=218438. It appears that the paper has made up its mind concerning Azam's guilt before the tribunal proceedings have begun. It is unfortunately in flagrant disregard for wikipedia's guidelines concerning NPOV that such sources are being readily used in this article without any clarification as to the biases of the sources. I have been concerned with noting explicitly that Azam is a source whenever I use him as a source, and would appreciate the same sort of candour from people who use sources that are hostile towards him regarding the biases of their sources.Aminul802 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Concern of Bias in Bangladeshi News Sources

There have been a number of references in this article to the fact that the Daily Sangram is a journal that is pro-Jamaat. I think we need to highlight that a number of other papers that are being referenced in this article, and related articles, are particularly hostile towards Jamaat and/or particularly pro-Awami League, thus very much in favour of the Tribunal's arbitrary detention. I am beginning to note this in my edits, but I would like everyone working on this page, and related pages, to highlight what the British journalist based in Bangladesh has noted about the woeful lack of independent journalism in the Bangladeshi media on the tribunal. http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2012/02/govt-pr-debacle-on-un-detention-ruling.html (see the last section of his post)

In particular, he notes that aside from "three opposition papers - Noya Diganta, Sangram, and Amar Desh - [...] all the other media outlets [have] either taken an explicitly supportive position either of the government or at least of the tribunal (including Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Bdnews24.com, Independent and the Sun)." Hence, just as Khan Muhammad has noted in his edits that Sangram is pro-Jamaat, we need to make absolutely clear that the papers named above are anti-Jamaat, and so their statements regarding the ICT or Azam should be understood in that light, and the editors of the article should point this out.Aminul802 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The reference you provided regarding the bias of Bangladeshi newspapers is not reliable, it's from an arbitrary blog that I never heard of. I did not find any reference as to the papers you mentioned being anti-Jamaat. Based on the caricatures (in the Daily Star) you cannot state that they are hostile towards Azam. Caricatures of politicians and even the prime minister are frequently published in Bangladeshi newspapers, that does not necessarily make them anti-Govt. But, yes you can state in the article that a caricature of Azam has been published in the Daily Star. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Activities during the war

I am rewriting this entire paragraph:

'On 25th March Pakistan army cracked down on the unarmed people of Bangladesh (Operation Searchlight) that precipitated the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities and caused roughly 10 million refugees to flee to India. The violence resulting from Operation Searchlight led to the declaration of independence of Bangladesh and subsequent liberation war against Pakistani "occupation" forces.[18] Azam's activities and speeches after 25th March used to be published in the spokespaper of Jamaat named The Daily Sangram. According to him, as alleged by Bangladeshi newspapers hostile to him[citation needed], whatever Pakistani army did after 25th March was only for the betterment of Pakistan. He used to call the people fighting for independence as Indian and anti-Pakistan agents and openly expressed his support to eradicate them wherever they were. He also urged the workers of Islami Chhatra Sangha, the then student wing of Jamaat, to help Pakistani occupation army with their lives. On 20th June 1971, Azam reaffirmed his support for the illegal occupation force by saying that, Pakistan army has eradicated all criminals of East Pakistan.[19]'

in order to make it more balanced. There was no 'Bangladesh' on the 25th March 1971; Operation Searchlight's stated aims were not to 'crack down on unarmed people' (even if that was the result in many instances), and reports of armed resistance at some of the Dhaka University residence halls exist. Also, referring to Pakistani forces as "occupation" forces expresses a clear point of view. Finally, it's not clear for what reason "occupation" is in quotation marks in one place (is it implied that they weren't in reality an occupation force?) and 'illegal occupation' force in another place. Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You can rewrite or delete anything, but remember with references. I don't believe you, don't forget that. I only believe in the solid references you provide. All the things that were references in my version cannot be deleted simply because you don't like it. And, Bangladesh declared its independence on the 26th March, that's why this day is celebrated as the independence day in Bangladesh. -- Khan Muhammad (talk)
I am changing back 'whom he referred to as secessionists' to just 'secessionists', since that's technically what they were (see here for definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession). The word doesn't carry any negative connotations, if this is what you're worried about.

Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship trial and misquote regarding exoneration from war crimes

"In 1994, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh exonerated Azam of alleged complicity in atrocities committed by the Pakistan military and its supporters, stating that 'there is nothing to directly implicate the petitioner (Ghulam Azam) in any of the atrocities alleged to have been perpetrated by the Pakistani Army or their associates- the Rajakars, Al-Badrs or Al-Shams.'"

  1. This quote is not from the operative part of the judgement in question. It is a mere remark in passing by one of the Appellate Division jduges (ATM Afzal), who quoted another such passing remark from another judge (Ismailuddin Sarker) when the case was before the High Court Division. The reason the remark is not included in the operative part of the judgment is because the subject-matter of the remark had nothing to do with the subject-matter of the case. In this case, the subject matter of the case was Azam's entitlement to citizenship, and not determination of his alleged guilt.
  2. Which particular issue the Supreme Court (the High Court Division first, then the Appellate Division) did set out to determine was clearly mentioned by the judges in the judgment itself. And that is - to determine "Golam Azam's right of citizenship", and not his alleged crimes. This is something the judges themselves had reiterated couple of times, see the references to specific paragraphs of the judgement. [in "Bangladesh v Golam Azam and Others." 23(CLC) AD (1994).]
  3. International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 [ICTA] clearly sets out the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Section 3(1) of the ICTA deals with the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal where it clearly states that the purpose of the Act/Tribunal is to investigate and try the "international Crimes". As to which "international crimes" are triable, are set out in section 3(2) of the ICTA, which lists the various kinds of crimes that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to try. On the contrary, Supreme Court is not expressly given by law any such jurisdiction. Supreme court in general cannot try criminal offences through investigations and testimonies from witnesses, and in some limited cases even if it can the case first has to be submitted by a lower court to the high court. So, in effect supreme court actually did not have any right to exonerate Azam. By the remarks of the 2 aforementioned judges you can say: they are saying the court did not find any proof as to the criminal offences committed by Azam only because the court itself does not have any jurisdiction over the case.
  4. Another judge from the Appellate division clarified it in more detail: "First – commentaries on the criminal aspects of the political antecedents of the Respondent were never tested in a court of law. Secondly – even if the allegations are correct, our (Bangladeshi) citizenship law does not deny citizenship to those who opposed the creation of Bangladesh and even killed freedom fighters and were engaged in murder, rape, etc,"

I think these should be clarified in a separate section named "Citizenship trial of Ghulam Azam". There we can mention that it was only a citizenship trial and had nothing to do with trying war crimes, as the court itself is not eligible enough to perform the job. In reality Azam's alleged crimes have never before been tested in a court of law. As it is in no way an exoneration from the alleged crimes it cannot be mentioned so boldly in the introduction; yes, but the citizenship case can be discussed in short in the beginning. You can say that the court decision was for Azam to get back his citizenship as according to them it was illegal to take away citizenship in the first place no matter what he did. -- Khan Muhammad (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions

Such as the economist hacking has what to do with this article? It does not belong here, and the criticism of the tribunal has no place in the lede and is already mentioned in the article. Stop duplicating crap on all these articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss please

Before removing or modifying any info, please discuss here. This page is heavily biased and has lac of information. Don't put your opinion or any description without any citation. Thank you--Freemesm (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

serious POVvio on "Arrest and incarceration" section

The "Arrest and incarceration" section is seriously unbalanced and violates wp:POV. It just blame the Tribunal. Neutralization is needed. It also discuss some off topic points. I' am tagging it with POV and off topic tag.--Freemesm (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Off topic discussion on International Crimes Tribunal has been removed. General political orientation of sympathizers of Mr. Azam has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.49.76 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Heavily biased remarks on the ICT has been removed. This POV issue was discussed several times earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.49.76 (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

International sympathizers of Mr. Azam, who were referenced in the article, are described as "social conservative" and "hardline" in corresponding wikipedia pages, that's why we are using "right wing" as their description.
Jamaat-e-Islami http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-e-Islami
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-e-Islami_Hind
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.49.76 (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This source

Freemesm, you undid my edit based on this source: "ঢাকায় নাগরিক শান্তি কমিটি গঠিত (Citizen's Peace Committee formed in Dhaka), Daily Pakistan, April 11, 1971" Do you have the article text which you were working from? Applesandapples (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source "ঢাকায় নাগরিক শান্তি কমিটি গঠিত (Citizen's Peace Committee formed in Dhaka), Daily Pakistan, April 11, 1971" states about this connection in formation of Peace Committee. But there are more references, which explains his collaboration in forming Razakar. You can't just remove them without any discussion.--Freemesm (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't remove any sources. I will assume good faith, and that that was an honest mistake, despite the large amount of dubious things you have been saying lately. The source, as you just said, only talks about the Peace Committee. Not about anything else. Therefore, I removed from the sentence the little bit that mentions things not in the source. And I think I might remove that bit again, if removing sources was what you were worried about. Applesandapples (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Just seen your last edit - I won't remove the Razakar/Al-Badr bit now, but I'd like you to verify the sentences in the Daily Sangram article you have cited which mention his leading the formation of those two. As for the Samakal link, it's modern article and pretty ridden with POV (as exemplified by the caricature of Azam). Not really a reliable source for what we're looking for. Applesandapples (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you introduce me with any wikipedia rule, which says don't use any source which contains caricature?--Freemesm (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You should be familiar with BLP by now. No POV sources, especially when saying controversial things about living people. And can you verify the Sangram source that you put in? Applesandapples (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
First let me know where the BLP rule says not to add any source, which include caricature.--Freemesm (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
See above - "As for the Samakal link, it's modern article and pretty ridden with POV (as exemplified by the caricature of Azam). Not really a reliable source for what we're looking for." Applesandapples (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't put your words, show me ant WP policy about caricature. That shamakal article enlisted several news from few news paper of 71. How do you remove that?--Freemesm (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you think riddled with POV is not a violation of WP policy? Applesandapples (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you can't verify the Sangram source it'll have to be removed. Applesandapples (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit [2]

2 sentences + sources deleted here:

1. The JI Pakistan statement - If someone's official twitter feed states something, then this is obviously evidence that s/he has said something. This is a primary source, so the presence of the source itself self-evidently confirms the information. There is no need in this case for the source to be a news article in order to be reliable.

2. The JI Hind statement - if a "seems jamaat backed" newspaper reports on something the JI Hind leader says, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include this as a source. However, this isn't quite as obvious as the Twitter link, so I'll put in another sourcee too to back the information up.

Finally, the information here is a) not really contentious and b) not really likely to be made up, so I don't think the content was hurting anyone. Applesandapples (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Apple lover, Why so serious brother?
1. WP:SELFSOURCE vio, So I'm removing it again.
2. www.radianceweekly.com does not seems reliable source to me. Show some evidence about it's popularity and notability. It is just a Muslim weekly and has probability to be biased. Use another source and then revert it. Thank you!--Freemesm (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not always that serious, Freemesm. :p
It's not a violation of WP:SELFSOURCE, so I'll put it back in. Point 2 taken though. Applesandapples (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No, seems too much serious to bias this article. First explain why it is not violation of WP:SELFSOURCE. Then tell me which WP policy says WP should not recognize non English source?--Freemesm (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the burden of proof should be on whoever is claiming the violation of policy...but anyway here you go:
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."
With regards to the other source, I have twice asked you to verify that the Sangram source you inserted actually does include the information cited, but each time you didn't answer. This leads me to question the source's compliance with WP:SPS:
"Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source."
"When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote." Applesandapples (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I know you are very good in english, but I cant understand why you can't see it does not involve claims about third parties and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity?--Freemesm (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I can very well see that, as it was precisely my point. Applesandapples (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Applesandapples" stop edit waring

Dear Apple, in previous thread I've said the reason why your sources are non-reliable. Again I am saying it again, using any twitter account as source is WP:SELFSOURCE vio. You have removed the Sangram sourced statement as it is not English. Becareful about that dear, as there is no WP rule, which says non-English source is not acceptable. If you revert it again, I will take help from WP authority.--Freemesm (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Would

Inbuilt999 please explain why he keeps removing sourced content? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hitler comparison

This comparison to Hitler which is repeatedly being re-inserted is very disingenuous and obviously violates NPOV. The sentence in question is "His role in the 1971 Bangladesh genocide is often compared to Adolf Hitlers role in World War II and the Holocaust/Porajmos." Of the four references given, three of them refer to the prosecution (ie prosecutor Zaed-Al-Malum) against Azam making this comparison. The fourth refers to a politician opposed to Azam, Sultana Kamal, making this comparison. I have three main points, which I think are more than enough to mean that the content should stay deleted:

  • This is a biased statement of opinion phrased with the weasel word "often" to propogate the opinion of two people.
  • The two individuals in question are not at all neutral, rather in one way or other opponents of Azam.
  • Two individuals comparing Azam to Hitler is not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Editors inserting comparisons by these two people in this manner are giving these people's opinions undue weight. From WP:NPOV, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship". Applesandapples (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
So what is the mainstream scholarship view on this chap? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's quite controversial and I don't think there is one homogenous mainstream view. But a comparison to Hitler by two of his opponents certainly is an extraordinary claim. I think it's outrageous that you keep reinserting this ridiculously biased comparison. Applesandapples (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it attributed? And one is a human rights activist, how is she an opponent of Azam? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
She is also a politician...Applesandapples (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Really? Do I have to repeat myself? how is she an opponent of Azam? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
This is completely bizarre, I just found this [3]. This is you yourself saying to Freemesm that this material "is way over the top, such statements need to be attributed at the least, and ths sourceing needs to be way better for such statements per BLP. I am asking you to self revert and think about the edit." Is it not dreadful hypocrisy to continue to push information that you think is inappropriate? Applesandapples (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, as I had not noticed at that time that one of the references was the Economist. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The Economist mentions that the prosecution against Azam compared him to Hitler. Then it is shoved into the article as something encyclopedic. You said previously that the Hitler edit was way over the top. I agree with old Darkness Shines. Applesandapples (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've placed the page under temporary (2 days) full protection because of the edit warring in the last two days. Please discuss the issue on the talk page and reach a conclusion. If consensus is reached before the protection expires, feel free to request unprotection. Chamal T•C 06:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I really think Sultana Kamal and prosecutor Zaed-al-Malum comparing Azam to Hitler is not appropriate to include in this article. We must write the fairest article possible, and this means that we should not give undue weight to the opinions of two individuals. I think that quoting both of them in full and including one of the quotes in the intro is also very unbalanced. Therefore, I will remove the one in the intro and summarise their content further down the page, for now (I still think that it is not worthy at all of an encyclopedic article). From WP:NPOV: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."Applesandapples (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You might want to try getting consensus before doing that. And you may wish to read WP:UNDUE again, you seem to have a poor grasp on that policy. Given how widely this was reported DUE is not even an issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, read WP:LEDE, the lede is meant to be an overview of the article, so a mention of this has to be in the lede at any rate. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Not everything being reported means that it is due for inclusion on its Wikipedia page. And an overview of the article obviously does not mean that hashing out derogatory comments by an individual in toto "has to be in the lede at any rate". I would say that it is not me that has a poor grasp on policy, and I think that editors trying to force this stuff back in have a really terrible grasp on what a good, neutral article looks like. And in Wikipedia:BLP, you will see that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material" and " When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". This means that the material stays deleted until there is a consensus on how to include it. I think I have included the Hitler comparison in a balanced and neutral way, you are not to restore the full quotes and highlighting in the intro without consensus. Applesandapples (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The burden has been met by the references, which is what WP:BURDEN is all about. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not talking about evidence that the Hitler comparisons exist. I am talking about backing up your idea that quoting the comparisons in full and shoving them in the intro is neutral. Applesandapples (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Far more neutral than you removal of it along with the quotes in the references. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed the quotes in the references because that is not how we do references - the references are articles in which the quotes are easy to find. Quoting entire passages in the reference section is unnecessary and messy. However, it does not affect the content of the article so I'm not that bothered about that. And I think it is completely ridiculous that anyone can think that full quotes of two individuals, one in the intro, can be more neutral than the absence of said quotes and a summary of their content in the "allegations" section. Applesandapples (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Having a quote in a reference is perfectly normal, why do you think there is a quote parameter? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
For books, where it is more difficult to locate a quote by oneself. But I don't have any strong feelings about this point. Applesandapples (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

IP request

Plz add Education, student Politics, teaching profession, 21Feb1952 activity etc. also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.121 (talk • contribs)

Please provide sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Skype issue

Chad, the Dawn reference says "He even drafted the charge-sheet...", that does not mean "Ahmed Ziauddin prepared the charges". Moreover you may know Ghulam Azam fights for Pakistan. So a Pakistani news not sufficient to prove the statement.--FreemesM (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Dawn is among the best publications in Pakistan and so I think that is really pushing the bounds to say that it is dismissed as bias because it comes from another country. Furthermore, you make what Ziauddin did sound so innocent, and yet his COI as advisor and preparer of the "charge sheet" has given the defense in Bangladesh grounds for appeal. This is sourced elsewhere as well. Crtew (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Dawn has been highly critical of the Pakistani government in the past, look at their reports from the 71' war. They undoubtedly meet RS here. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a very dangerous statement. Being highly critical of the Pakistani government has nothing to do with meeting RS. Applesandapples (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
BTW. a draft is not the same as the final proposal, as I am sure Crtew knows and will allow for in his edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
According the Economist article, the final charge-sheet used was identical to the document that Ziauddin prepared. So in this case, the draft is the same as the final proposal. Applesandapples (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Which Economist article? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This one [4]Applesandapples (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghulam_Azam/Archive_1&oldid=1136764183"