Talk:Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProjects

MAPC is a Muslim activist group based in Britain. There seems no reason whatsoever for it to be part of WikiProjects 'Judaism' and 'Palestine', unless someone decided to try and draw in people from those projects and turn the article into a battleground. I suggest the 'Wikiproject' tags - both of them - are removed.Jamal (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should be more balanced

It appears that the vast majority of contributors to this entry (and this related discussion) are either MPAC UK opponents or MPAC UK supporters. The result is that the entry does not appear neutral or balanced.

The tone of the entry suggests that MPAC UK is a hate group targeting Britain's Jewish population. This suggests that opponents of MPAC UK have the upper hand in editing the entry.

The only way in which to achieve a balanced or neutral entry would be to have a neutral contributor edit the entire entry. Unfortunately it does not appear that either the opponents or supporters of MPAC UK would allow that to happen. This is a great shame and highlights the principal weakness of the wiki process: it requires everyone to 'play fair' - a concept which not everyone seems able to understand.

Funkybassuk 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

---

These are facts:

1. A section in the September 2006 British All-Party Parliamentary Report into Antisemitism was devoted to allegations that the group uses material from white supremacist and neo-Nazi publications, that it uses the word "Zionist" as a replacement for "Jew," and that it engages in the spread of conspiracy theories about Jews.

1. They led an anti-semitic smear campaign against NON-JEWISH Lorna Fitzsimons

1. The leader sent money to Holocaust denier David Irving - who he claimed was not anti-semitic

1. They have had their platform withdrawn by the NUS on anti-semitic grounds.

Isnt it fair to mention these things? Should we delete these facts in the interests of being nice to Islamofascists? Perhaps we should remove any reference to anti-semitism on the Nazi party website so that we can "balance" that article out too! There is a difference between an anti-Israel lobby group and an anti-Jewish lobby group. The blurring of these 2 is anti-semitism which targets Britain's Jewish population. Breed3011 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The trouble is that these aren't ALL the facts, are they? I agree that they might seem like the only relevant facts to you but you must admit that you are an opponent of MPAC UK and therefore you do not have a neutral point of view.

And if you don't include MPAC UK's responses / explanations / excuses, you aren't even attempting to present your legitimate concerns with any kind of balance or context.

A few other facts you could mention:

1. MPAC UK has never been investigated, charged, prosecuted or convicted of any criminal offences relating to racial or religious hatred.

2. You mention that a section of the 2006 Report is devoted to allegations about MPAC UK's conduct - but then you fail to mention what the findings of the report are!

3. You do not mention MPAC UK's response to the Lorna Fitzsimons election campaign. (And you also suggest that simply accusing a candidate of being Jewish is enough for Muslim voters to stop voting for the candidate.)

4. You do not mention the simple chronology of events relating to Bukhari's donation: it was made before David Irving's prosecution and conviction for Holocaust-denial - and before MPAC UK existed.

I agree that there is a difference between an anti-Israel lobby group and an anti-Jewish hate group. The relevant facts supporting and contradicting each analysis of MPAC UK must all be presented if this entry is to be in any way encylopedic. Otherwise it reads as an opinion piece.

Further, the purpose of this entry is not to provide a platform for a debate over whether or not MPAC UK is an anti-Jewish hate group. Wikipedia is not a platform for original work.

The conclusion you reach (when you assert that the blurring of an anti-Israel lobby group and an anti-Jewish hate group is anti-semitism targeting Britain's Jewish population) is clearly original work (even if I think it is completely logical).

I think the best way to deal with your legitimate concerns about a perceived anti-Jewish slant to MPAC UK's activities would be to dedicate one entire section of the entry to it: incorporate the 'Hate Campaigns' section into the 'Anti-Semitism' section. It would have to be delicately worded to avoid being potentially libelous but would be a perfectly valid section, given that these concerns do already exist and that they are already documented in reliable sources. It would be sensible to change the title of the 'Anti-Semitism' section to 'Charges of Anti-Semitism' or something similar.

If this was done then the tone of the rest of the entry could be modified to make it more neutral and more balanced.

The main problem is that the entire article is devoted to this single aspect of MPAC UK.

What do you think?

Funkybassuk 11:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, I've edited the Alleged Anti-Semitism section. I think it looks pretty good now: detailed, with lots of sources. I basically just restructured it and crunched it down slightly.

I think to become more balanced the article should be beefed up with a new (2.) section inserted before Alleged Anti-Semitism, which should cover MPACUK's activities/notable campaigns. Then after or before the Alleged Anti-Semitism section there could be a section (4.)dealing with its Relationship With Other British Muslim Organisations and then a section dedicated to other criticisms of MPACUK, on the subjects of terrorism and homophobia. I'll get working on that.

I think if all these different things are included - and nothing is left out - then the overall tone of the article will appear balanced. I think the main reason it hasn't looked balanced so far is that the sections other than Alleged Anti-Semitism have been underdeveloped and that some of the titles have not been neutral.

Hopefully if we make these changes we'll get an article which both the opponents and supporters of MPACUK are happy with.

Funkybassuk 10:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Breed, can you leave the Alleged Anti-Semitism section as it is please?

The revisions you made to the Lorna Fitzsimons section just don't work. They're not neutral or supported by any sources. I'll edit them. What I can do is put in the info that Rochdale has a large Muslim population.

The revisions to the David Irving section also don't work for the same reason - except the one about the libel suit. If you don't mind, I'll develop that slightly. But it'd be good if the subsections remain at one paragraph each until the other sections of the article are written. Otherwise the article doesn't appear balanced at all.

Funkybassuk 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Under the heading "NUS Campus Ban" there is reference to material being posted on MPACUK's website which was "encouraging activists to break the law". If this is the case then a link back to the relevant webpage on MPACUK's website should be included to verify this claim.

(Benaam (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The sections relating to MP Interviews and Voting in Islam are sourced directly from MPACUK's website and in the case of the MP Interview represent actual events, why then should it be deleted. Also The section of Voting in Islam is important as it differentiates MPACUK's position from other Muslim groups like Hiz ut Tahrir. (Benaam (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

I've removed anything sourced to the MPACUK website, and sourced the rest. Don't insert that "Smear campaign" nonsense, nor the rest of your original research, again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's quite clear that you are not interested in presenting a balanced view of this particular organisation and are misusing your position as adminitrator. The whole point of this article is to inform viewers what MPACUK is about? Is it not therefore logical to source some information of things that thay have done i.e. the MP interviews from their website. I feel that you are abusing your position and presenting a non neutral viewpoint.(Benaam (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

There is nothing in the article from "the MP interviews from their website"; the only thing sourced to the website is their response to the fact that Bukhari offered David Irving support and money. We can leave that out if you like, but that would tend to make it more unbalanced, don't you think? As for the rest, neither the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism nor the National Union of Students have conducted a "smear campaign" against MPACUK. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased Editing by Pro Israeli Web Extremist

Yellowmellow45 is constantly reversing changes to this page. He should not be allowed to do this as a simple google search shows his pro-Israeli bias. He is a constant poster in the pro-Israeli forum http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com/

I wonder when Wikipedia will put a stop to such bias

--

Perhaps you could add a signature to this? It's certainly isn't Yellowmellow45 who, for example, has been performing wholesale deletions of the entire Criticism section. And it's not just unreferenced material being deleted either.

--Paul Moloney 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not a web extremist and have nothing whatsoever to do with that site. I will go on to say this contravenes WP:No personal attacks and that the criticisms section does not represent the view of the editor, it is the view of others, and, seeing that it is a contraversial topic, it needs to display both sides and I'm sure you'll agree that one-sidedness is not encyclopedic material, so I therefore come to the conclusion that it is you who is pushing for a systematic bias. Dave 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

--

Oh and Now Paul Moloney is in on it too. Again your bias is patent as you yourself admit to being a fan of Harry's which is an Anti-MPAC blog. The point here is not that someone is deleting the criticism section, that can be undeleted, its the fact that Wikipedia editors with a PRO-ZIONIST, ISLAMOPHOBIC and rabidly Anti-MPAC stance are constanly making changes to this page that are factually incorrect.

For example, In the criticism section it says that articles taken from a Neo-Nazi newspaper were published on the site (the link is surpise surprise from harrys, nice one Paulmoloney). This same article appears in aljazeerah.info, mathaba.net, rense.com. How come YellowMellow, and PaulMoloney don't have a problem with that.

I'm not pushing for any bias, just a removal of biased editing to maintain the integrity of wikipedia. You both are on hera to push your agenda, and I urge you to go elsewhere for that.

OK, Mr annonymous, who cares so much about the integrity of wikipedia, what would you propose the criticisms section include. As I say, they ARE criticisms which have been made by people, and so including them in the article is not part of an agenda, as they have to be mentioned in order to cover a contraversial topic in an unbiased fashion. Heck, most of the article is pro MPACUK. You cannot just insert propaganda.

As you berate us for a persieved "bias" we have, you ignore the fact that you are the one who is personally attacking us, and although you wont admit it, pushing for a whitewash. As it happens, I am neither "Pro" or "Anti" Zionist, but you seem to be using pro-zionist as an insult here, which further disproves your claim to neutrality. And the accuation of Islamaphobia - well, if you knew me, you'd know that definately isn't the case, Dave 08:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge MPACUK into Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK

This makes sense to me. Two articles on the same topic are not both necessary. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 21:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavy Bias and Violation of NPOV

This Article is being hijacked by users who obviously have an agenda which does not go with Wikipedias policies of unbiased articles.

Even in the intro to the article it states "Whine writes that the group is Islamist." Whine being Michael Whine of the Jewish and Pro Israeli "the Community Security Trust."

I would also point out the user "Paulmoloney" has various links to "Harrys place" on his personal blog which a link to is given on his User Page, Harrys Place being one of MPACUK's most vicious and Islamophobic critics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmoloney

Link To His Blog:

http://oceanclub.blogspot.com/

Can we please have a article without the violation of NPOV and villification.There is no place for people on Wikipedia who are here to abuse this noble project for their own ends.

--Taz Manchester 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Taz Manchester

NPOV

Can users not remove the POV check till one has been conducted. I personally find this entry to be heavily biased, with heavy reliance on citations to sources that would naturally have an opposed view to the view of the organisation.

Lets be fair, remember what Wikipedia is about and don't let your personal interests get in the way.

--IbnWiki 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

PaulMoloney's Reply

Interesting use of the term, "rabid", which means "Extremely zealous or enthusiastic".

Let's compare my list of contributions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paulmoloney

with yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Taz_Manchester

There only appears to be one of us obsessed with a single topic. And it's not me.

You point out that I openly admit I'm a fan of a particular blog. Can you tell me where this is against the Wikipedia rules? Or that someone skeptical of an organisation shouldn't be allowed to contribute to an article about it?

(At least I have a user page where I give facts about myself; you give no details of yourself whatsoever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taz_Manchester) yet criticise me for my openness!)

I emphasise contribute, as I have only performed the following three edits on this page:

1) Reversed an unannounced unexplained deletion of material by yourself (perhaps this is the source of your ire)

2) Changed the link for "Jenin massacre" to "Battle of Jenin", which is the actual title of the corresponding Wikipedia article, since that page itself states:

"Later inquiries by human rights groups and the UN commission did not find evidence of massacres by Israeli forces in Jenin."

So you're right about allegations of an "agenda" on this page, but wrong about the source of it - that is, me.

3) Added the section about MPACUK republishing articles from a neo-Nazi newspaper. This is fact. Your allegation that this was done accidentally is not proven, and you have not substantiated it in any way.

An objective reader is invited to give their own opinion on how someone would "accidentally" republish neo-Nazi material. It's possible this is true; however, it's up to you to substantiate it rather than simply whine about "agendas".

P. --Paul Moloney 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

"MPACUK has repeatedly been criticized for publishing anti-Semitic material based on its criticism of Israeli forign policy."

Is that even a proper sentence? I have no idea what it means. Can the original writer try and rephrase it?

P. --Paul Moloney 10:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders of MPACUK

You only have the two Bukhari brother as founders but "it was originally run by four activists, Asghar Bukhari, Zulfikar Bukhari, Tassadiq Rehman, and Muddassar Ahmed, who operated from home, according to Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust." Robert C Prenic 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I need to go back and locate my source for this. Please bear with me!

In the meantime do you mind if we keep it like this until I insert my source? If not, please feel free to put your source in for the time being.

Thanks

Funkybassuk 10:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'l wait friend. Robert C Prenic 11:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 Facebook controversy

There is no need for this section to be in this article. What Asghar Bukhari said in a facebook comment has nothing to do with MPAC as it was not in that capacity that this was said. I am removing it entirely. Please post on here before re-adding it. ~Anony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.53.36 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It ceased to be Bukhari's private business when

1. the Centre for Social Cohesion passed his comments onto the police
2. Bukhari confirmed his stance with the Daily Telegraph
3. The Jerusalem Post reported on it

Nobody would care for Bukhari's opinions on Mujahadeens, martyrs, and public attacks on Islam had he not founded MPAC. Anyway, it's not Wikipedians who judge on relevance, but reliable sources. CSC, Daily Telegraph, and Jerusalem Post are just that, and they reported this incident referring to Bukhari as MPAC's founder and spokesman, whether you agree or not this to be pertinent. Please refrain from bullying WP. --tickle me 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This should go into Asghar's profile, not MPACUK's wiki page - 21/12/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.94.185 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Talk: page comments

Asifkhanj, please do not delete Talk: page comments. If you feel they are too old, you can add them to the article Talk: archives first, and then delete them, but you should not just delete them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)