Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:35, 16 June 2007

Pakistan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bangladesh B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: edit history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 October 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

We need a web link.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Founder

Is Syed Mohamed AlRefaie from Yemen also a co-founder of Thabiligi Jamaat ? An anon ip added this to the article. can any one confirm this ? I have temp removed it because I could'nt find anything in this regard. --Soft coder 14:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sympathatic to Taliban

I have removed a sentence which stated Tablighi Jamaat is sympathatic to Taliban. There is no reference provided or any statements from their leaders to prove this fact. Also, I removed a sentence, grossly praising the Tablighi Jamaat as "extremely courteous and broad minded", which is just authors POV.--Soft coder 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tabligh naming and founder correction

Tabligh jamat was named by people as "tabligh jamat", it was not picked by the revivalist of the work. Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas did not found the effort of building Muslims faith and conviction; he merely revived one of the efforts of Prophet Mohammed(saw). Prophet Mohammed(saw) founded the effort of spreading the message of Islam and to build faith and conviction among Muslims. To attribute the title of founder of the effort to ones faith and conviction in Islam to Sheikh Mohammed Illiyas is blasphemous! This is a very common mistake on most online articles on Tabligh. Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas role was to revive the effort and providing guidelines on how to conduct them effectively among Muslims.

This article is regarding Tabligh jamat and not Tabligh(meaning "to deliver(the message)".I agree with you that Tabligh efforts are not started by Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas but all Muslim sects claim to do that. This article is only related to "Tabligh jamat", which is a movement, as you said revived by Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas. Currently "Tabligh jamat" refers only to this movement. --Soft coder 05:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have included the meaning of Tabligh. --Soft coder 05:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Un-cited article

Except for the "Allegations from U.S. counter-terrorist officials", this article is completly unsourced so there's no way to determine if, for example, the Saudis tolerate, or suppress them. I've added in a bunch of referenced which I (and anyone else interested) will read through in order to fix the article. Armon 00:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. allegations of ties to terrorism

I was the one who added this section. I would argue that, in order to be encyclopedic, the allegations deserver mention in this article.

I've come across more information. Murat Kurnaz, one of the Guantanamo detainees who was detained largely because he had traveled to Pakistan and been hosted by Tablighi, went through an Administrative Review Board hearing last fall. In preparation for that his lawyers submitted letters from three Professors of religion, explaining the peaceful nature of Tablighi:

• Letter from Qamar-ul Huda - pages 93-95
• Letter from Barbara D. Metcalf - pages 96-98
• Letter from Jamal J. Ellias - pages 103-105

Rather than add this material, and possibly a lot more material, documenting the US allegations, and the defenses against those allegations I thought it might make sense to spin off another article, entitled something like allegations that Jama'at Tablighi is tied to terrorism.

Is there anyone who doesn't think this is a good idea? Cheers! -- Geo Swan 17:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea. Allegations of Tablighi Jamaat's ties to terror are largely insignificant and have little bearing on the actual organisation. The organisation is an international worldwide organisation, and is most famously known for being apolitical. While there have been a few allegations, no more so than there has been for all Islamic organisations. These allegations are very small in relation to Tablighi Jamaat anyway, so they are not large enough to warrant a separate article, perhaps not even significant enough for a separate section within the article, but the latter is not so objectionable, as it is worth mentioning, but nothing more than mentioning. That's my opinion. Tanzeel 21:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tanzeel. Also, Allegation is not against Tablighi Jamaat but Al-Quida using Tablighi Jamaat to mask its travel. As I understand, Tablighi Jamaat is not a very strict organisation, any muslim can easily join their travel. Some Al-Quida people may have used this for masking their travel since Tablighi Jamaat is apolitical no body will suspect them.--Soft coder 13:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Whether the allegations are significant is a judgement call. Individuals are being held in indefinite extrajudicial detention based on these allegations. To my way of thinking, that makes them significant. The existence of the allegations are also verifiable, from authoritative sources. Perhaps Tanzeel and Soft Coder know enough to be able to tell that the allegations lack credibility. But I don't know that, I couldn't tell that, not without doing some research. I think the wikipedia should be a tool for people like me, who come to this question without any background knowledge on Muslim organizations, to determine for themselves whether the allegations are credible.

• Whether the allegation is against Tablighi Jamaat, or against al Qaeda members who use Tablighi Jamaat as a front -- the USA maintains lists of organizations tied to terrorism, and it is Tablighi Jamaat that is on it, not al Qaeda members who use it as a front.

• I can understand how some people who appreciate the non-violent, non-political work Tablighi Jamaat does find any mention of the US allegations unpleasant. I agree, US officials have not make any meaningful effort to substantiate the allegations. But ignoring them won't make them go away. -- Geo Swan 15:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The allegations do lack credibility. Very little hard evidence is produced and is largely speculation - research should confirm this. The fact that the USA maintains lists of organisations "tied to terrorism" including Tabligi Jamaat means very little; the USA includes almost all Muslim organisations on that list, moderate or extreme, simply for the sole reason they are Islamic, which is, perhaps understanadable given the nature of terrorism today. The nature of the allegations are such as is expected for all Muslim organisations and allegations go hand in hand with the existence of an organisation based around Islam and Muslims, so the allegations are largely insignificant. If these allegations are deemed to be significant enough for the Jamaat, then all Muslim organisations, such as Muslim Council of Britain, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic Circle North America, Muslim American Society, Muslim Students' Association, FOSIS, Jamiatul Ulama USA, Muslim Association of Britain, United Kingdom Islamic Mission, Islamic Foundation...I think you get the message. I think once you have completed your research, on which I wish you good luck, I think you wil realise the nature of my opinion. Yours appreciatively, Tanzeel 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any individuals held because they are members of any of the organizations you listed. I have heard of individuals held because they were members of Tabligh, or the Revival of Islamic Heritabe Society, and several other charities accused of ties to terrorism. Ironically, while several of these charities do seem to have been fronts to channel funds and other support to extremist islamic fighters, they also seem to have initially been set up by the CIA back when the supported extremist islamic fighters helping the Afghans to drive out foreign occupiers, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Like I said above, it may be obvious to you that the allegations lack substance. But it is not obvious to readers who know nothing about those organizations other than that they have been accused. The wikipedia should be serving those readers. If other organizations, including the ones you listed, are accused of ties to terrorism, those allegations too should be addressed, When there are verifiable, authoritative sources that can be cited, that refute the US allegations, those should be cited. I believe that the three letters from the Professors of the history of Religion, prepared fro Murat Kurnaz's Administrative Review Board hearing serve to refute the allegation.

I am going to repeat that I would really hope someone who is familiar with Tabligh will read them and post comments here. They are each about three pages long. -- Geo Swan 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, OK well I've said that the article needs work but I haven't actually done anything about yet -sorry. I bring this up because I don't think the we should spin off the terror links article until and unless we actually need to. Whether the accusations are valid or not, they are certainly notable and should be included -but a lot of the objections Tanzeel and Soft_coder brought up would be addressed in a proper article. Simply presenting the accusations without any background on Tablighi Jamaat, donsn't enlighten anybody -which should be our goal on WP. For example, from what I've read so far in the references I posted to the page, there's conflicting reports about the organization. On the one hand, it's basically a broad Islamic missionary movement, and as such, as Tanzeel pointed out, they have little control if someone wants to use their networks for nefarious ends. However, on the other hand, there's also been allegations that high-ranking members been involved in Pakistani coups -this doesn't bolster the "apolitical" claim. In summary, vote no to new article, vote yes to include accusations, but lets not make them 90% of the article, let's get some cited background info in there. Armon 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with you Armon. Thanks Tanzeel 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

hi, im not sure how to use the edit facilityso please edit my edit as you see fit.......

saad is not the fourth ameer of tabligh. after the third ameer died, another ameer was not appointed. instead tabligh leadership consists of a shuraa which loosely means council. how do i know this? because i was there. i have been to their centre in delhi nizamuddin and stayed there for quite a while. another interesting thing is that according to tabligh jamaat, the devil beomes the ameer of the jamaat that does not have an ameer!

reverted unexplained excision

I reverted another unexplained excision of material about the US allegations against Tabligh today. I have reverted unexplained excisions of this material something like half a dozen times already. What I suspect is that merely reading the allegations inflames the emotions of some readers, who don't fully understand the wikipedia's commitment to balanced, neutral coverage of topics.

I continue to think a separate article, that just addressed the allegations of US intelligence establishment against Tabligh is a good idea. I pointed out that there are excellent resources to keep that article balanced. I cited the three letters from American professors of the history of Religion, who offered very fair sounding explanations of the Tabligh movement, and its apolitical roots. Have any of you looked at them?

• Letter from Qamar-ul Huda - pages 93-95
• Letter from Barbara D. Metcalf - pages 96-98
• Letter from Jamal J. Ellias - pages 103-105

I have been reading through the transcripts of the Guantanamo detainees. Literally dozens of the detainees, including one of the men who committed suicide on June 10 2006, are being held, in part, because the US intelligence establishment maintains that membership in Tabligh is indicative of a tie to terrorism.

I have held off on expanding on this section out of deference to the feelings of followers of Tabligh. I too don't find the US allegations credible. But the wikipedia NPOV policy prevents you and I from asserting that.

I continue to think that the best way for the wikipedia's coverage of Tabligh to be balanced and neutral, while minimizing the extent to which repeating the allegations inflames wikipedia readers and contributors who are sympathetic to Tabligh, or followers themselves, who aren't familiar with the NPOV policy, is to have two separate articles -- one on Tabligh, and one on the US allegations.

I would really appreciate it if those who are more familiar with Tabligh would read through and comment on the three letters I cited above. Thanks. -- Geo Swan 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read through the links you posted...but that is irrelevant. The fact remains that allegations of Tabligh's link to terror are completely unsubstantiated and largely insignificant, please see my earlier comment. I cannot understand your persistence in creating this article that, most people agree, is completely unwarranted. I hope that this is not a disguised attempt to assassinate decent Muslim organisations' good reputations, as this seems to me to be your agenda. I hope I am wrong. Yours, Tanzeel 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reading them. I'd appreciate your opinion as to whether the opinions of those American Professors of the History of Religion descriptions of Tabligh matches your own.

I am going to remind you to assume good faith. I have no hidden agenda.

I agree that the USA hasn't seemed prepared to offer any substantiation of their claims that Tabligh is tied to terrorism. I strongly disagree that their allegations are insignificant. Many detainees are being held in large part because those detainees are alleged to have participated in Tabligh activities, and their captors believe that Tabligh is tied to terrorism.

You say that most people agree that an article that attempts to present the facts, such as they are, about the US allegation is unwarranted. Well, people over on Talk:charities accused of ties to terrorism thought it was a good idea. What conclusion do you think fair-minded readers of a fair, balanced, NPOV article about the US allegations are likely to conclude? I suggest that they will reach the same conclusion that you and I have concluded -- (1) that the USA hasn't offered any substantiation, (2) that the USA can't offer any meaningful substantiation, because they don't have any.

I find your concern that I have a secret agenda to tarnish the reputation of Muslim organizations highly ironic. I get many comments from other contributors who call my contributions "anti-American" because they feel they are biased in favor of the detainees in the GWOT.

Tanzeel, I don't have to get the agreement of you or any of the other contributors here in order to start that article. I hoped that people here, who have a greater knowledge of Tabligh than I do, might be interested in helping make the article a good article, because doing so might help get those held on the basis of the unsubstantiated allegations an earlier release. It looks like that hasn't turned out to be the case. So it goes. -- Geo Swan 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

reverted unexplained excision

The section that touches on the allegations from U.S. counter-terrorist officials has been deleted again -- this time by an anonymous editor, with no previous edit history. I've restored it, again. -- Geo Swan 14:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This sections has been excised -- again -- without any explanation -- AGAIN. That is not how the wikipedia is supposed to work.

Possibly those who keep excising this section are doing so because they feel the US allegations are nonsense, and an insult to the Tabligh movement.

After reading about half the transcripts from the Guantanamo detainee's transcripts I will agree that US allegations are -- largely -- nonsense. I had my suspicions, from the beginning. I can't tell the rest of you how many hours it took me to learn enough that I felt confident I knew whether the allegations were nonsense.

Whether knowledgeable people could dismiss the US alleations has nothing to do with the merit of including the allegationss in the wikipedia. The wikipedia is supposed to address the needs of those who aren't yet knowledgeable about Tabligh Jamaat.

Consider Mani Al-Utaybi, one of the three men the USA reported committed suicide in Guantanamo on June 10 2006. He was the one who the Bush administration had cleared for transfer out of Guantanamo -- but didn't tell him. He had been on a hunger strike, for ten and a half months.

The USA was able to trot out some other (uncorroborated) minor allegations against the other two men. But the only allegation the USA was able to produce to justify holding Al Utaybi was his participation in a group tied to terrorism -- namely Tabligh Jamaat.

IMO it is absolutely essential for the wikipedia to cover these allegations. People who don't know anything about Tabligh Jamaat are going to try to read about those allegations. Fair-minded people will want to use the wikipedia to learn about Tabligh Jamaat. If the only thing they know about Tabligh Jamaat is that the USA has targetted it as a terrorist organization, but they find that the wikipedia doesn't even mention the allegations, aren't they going to abandon the wikipedia as a trustworthy source?

Our readers deserve full coverage of the topics we write about -- not just the positive portions of the topics we write about. -- Geo Swan 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me just state myself as an example here. I first heard of the Tablighi Jamaat in reference to Murat Kurnaz - although what I heard elsewhere already made me quite sure that the US allegations are unfounded, and I just came here to know more about what the group is instead (and found the article helpful) I certainly would have been surprised to see nothing about alleged Al-Qaeda links. So that should stay in - maybe the article text should make it a little clearer that the US' allegations are unsubstantiated, though. (And look less as if it was written by millions of people. :) ) -Lewis

This article needs to cite more references

I would encourage contributors to this article who want to balance the US allegations with references to authoritative, verifiable sources that refute those allegations.

Over and above that this article needs more verifiable authoritative sources in general.

I mentioned the three letters from three American professors of the history of religion. Each of the letters is about three pages long. They provided short accessible histories of the movement -- exactly the kind of reference this article needs. I provided the URL of Murat Kurnaz's Administrative Review Board documents, including those letters. And I provided the page numbers within that file where the letters began.

I would encourage other contributors to this article tor read those letters, with an eye to providing references to all the sections of the article that lack references.

And I would encourage other contributors to this article tor read those letters, with an eye to providing authoritative, verifiable references to refute the US allegations agains Tabligh Jamaat. -- Geo Swan 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Spin off the bulk of the discussion of the US allegations to a different article?

I sounded out the other contributors to this article as to whether they would feel more comfortable if the bulk of discussion of the US intelligence and counter-terrorism establishment's allegations against Tabligh Jamaat into a separate article. Other contributors did not respond positively to this suggestion.

Since I made the suggestion I have come across many other Guantanamo detainees who the US justifies continuing to detain based on participation in Tabligh Jamaat. -- Geo Swan 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert excision justified by WP:RS

Wow, did I ever get tired of admirers of Tablighi removing references to the allegations of US intelligence analysts. Admirers kept removing them on the ground that they considered them ridiculous. At one point the subsection devoted to those allegations was the only part of this article that cited any references at all.

Today User:Netmonger excised the section about the allegations of a connection to terrorism claiming WP:RS. WP:AGF. I am going to assume User:Netmonger forgot to review the talk page prior to his or her excision.

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I seriously didn't read the talk page. Why don't somebody use the citation templates and move the references in the talk page to the actual relevant sections? Otherwise readers like me who are not bothered to read the talk page would just remove it on the basis its an exceptional claim without any references. I am little busy these days with some exams, so I cannot do the referencing right now. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That is just it -- readers like you shouldn't really be making big excisions without reading the talk page first. May I suggest that if you are too busy to read the talk page you are too busy to perform the edit?

Cheers! Geo Swan 12:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Geo Swan, "Readers Like me" I dont quite understand how you have categorized me and I dont want to know. I assume you didn't mean to be rude here, please read WP:BOLD, before asking editors to read the talk page before editing. I removed the text because it was not cited, (please read WP:CITE), and that is being bold, I dont want your rude advices on how I should edit in wikipedia, when I am not violating any policies (actually when adhering to them), lets just drop this at this. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Readers like you" no mystery there -- I merely echoed the phrase you used to refer to yourself. You wrote,

"Otherwise readers like me who are not bothered to read the talk page would just remove it on the basis its an exceptional claim without any references."

I think you re seriously misreading WP:BOLD. Please note the 3rd paragraph of WP:BOLD#… but don't be ''reckless''., which states:

"Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories ... should be done with extra care. ... If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject ... it's a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page."

I am sorry to read that you regard my advice as rude. But I am afraid you are mistaken if you think WP:BOLD authorizes you to make large, poorly explained edits to articles you haven't really taken the time to read first.

Cheers! Geo Swan 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not reckless, and my edit was not poorly explained, that is your prejudice. The section is still not cited. And how do you know I haven't read the article? I suppose you have some kind of magical orb that tells you who reads the complete article and who doesn't (I'd like to get one of those :o) ). And also take a look at WP:Ignore all rules NëŧΜǒńğer 07:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I know you didn't read it? Why, you said you didn't read the talk page.

Making a large excision, without checking the talk talk page, was reckless. If you had checked the talk page:

• You would have seen that, for a long period of time, the section devoted to the US allegations against the Tabligh movement was the only portion of this article that cited any references whatsoever.
• You would have seen part of the long struggle I went through with admirers of the Tablighi movement, who wanted to suppress all coverage of the US allegations. They were unprepared to have coverage of the US allegations in the Tablighi Jamaat article. And they were opposed to the compromise I suggested, that most of the material on the US allegations being spun off into a separate article, with a relatively brief pointer remaining here.

Then you came along, and removed the link to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism, which is completely referenced, claiming authority that you were removing material that was not referenced.

Regarding citation, so what exactly are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that all three dozen of the authorititative, verifiable references used in the other article be pasted in here? No, I didn't think so. Are you suggesting that a selection of those references be pasted in here?

If so, why didn't you go and select a couple of the references from Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism yourself? You are the one with the concern. Are the rest of us supposed to guess when your concern has been addressed?

I continue to believe that removing the link to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism was reckless, and not justified by WP:RS, WP:CITE or WP:IAR, or any other wikipedia policy.

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose by saying

"poorly explained edits to articles you haven't really taken the time to read first."

you meant I didn't read the article. I dont think you read the article completely in the first place, because if you had read you would know, in wikipedia you are not allowed to use Peace be upon him,(RA),SAW terms, which I removed in my previous edit, you have been only busy trying to push your own POV about TJ, I am not attached to TJ or anything, I am just trying to improve the article so it is not bias, and doesn't violate NPOV and POV. Also please read WP:OWN. NëŧΜǒńğer 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful to refrain from leveling accusations?

I am glad to hear you are not pushing a POV. Unfortunately, there are times when well-meaning contributors, who are in a hurry, or aren't paying attention, or youare attempting to edit articles on topics they aren't well-informed about, can make edits that come close to resembling vandalism. No offense, but the choice you made, to excise the link to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism looks like an instance of a well-intentioned edit that nevertheless comes close to looking like vandalism.

I continue to think that removing the link to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism can not be justified by WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:IAR, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, or any other wiki policy.

For the record I dispute that I am pushing a POV in the Tablighi Jamaat article, in Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism, or in any other article.

You cited WP:IAR. Some people suggest that WP:DICK is the corollary to WP:IAR, so if you are going to cite one, maybe you owe it to yourself to read the other. Geo Swan 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uganda and Somalia

As you say Geo Swan, in your main article I did not find any reference or mention about these incidents, so I have removed it again, please do not restore it unless you have reference, please use your sandbox to complete the section with reference if you decide to add it back, don't add it in the pretext of referencing them later. Please read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence which says

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.

NëŧΜǒńğer 19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Further history, for the record

After repeated attempts to reason with admirers of the Tabligh movement, and explain to them that they couldn't simply remove the wikipedia's coverage of the US allegations against the Tabligh movement, no matter how ridiculous, flimsy, uninformed they personally thought them to be,

1. I did start Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism, only to have an overzealous wikipedian tag my first draft for speedy delete, only a couple of minutes after I started it. (This is not in compliance with WP:CSD, which recommends that speedy delete not be used on newly created articles, because they might be the first draft of a perfectly valid article.)
2. I placed the {{hangon}} tag, as the rules recommend, only to have a reckless administrator ignore the {{hangon}} and delete the article anyway, before I completed a justification on the talk page.
3. I set in motion the procedure for a deletion review -- an unnecessarily long process.
4. The administrator who undeleted the article also instantiated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism -- unnecessarily, in my opinion.

Cheers! Geo Swan 11:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the section with reference. NëŧΜǒńğer 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I continue to think your removal of the link to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism was not authorized by any policy. What the record shows is that every time I have added material on this topic to this article it has always been completely and properly cited. I am clarifying this here because your comment above implies that I had not provided any references in the past. As I noted above the record shows that there was a time when my contributions to this article were the only sections that cited any references at all.

Reviewing the talk page would have shown you this.

Checking the talk page is recommended in the WP:BOLD guideline you cited. And I encourage you to add a talk page review to your procedures when you make a big excision.

Further, your accusation of POV pushing was insulting, and, I believe, not supported by the record. I suggest you reserve accusations of POV pushing to instances (1) when someone has been uncooperative, and (2) you can point to specific contributions to articles which you believe show a biased POV. 09:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look back at my edits, I added the above said link in the SEE ALSO section see the diff here, the rest of the section I removed was uncited, and as I said above couldn't find any info about it in the Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism, yes you had been uncooperative in adding reference that you claim you had in Uganda and Somalia incidents section. But I am happy now the allegations of terrorism section has the required references and looks unbiased thanks for that. NëŧΜǒńğer 10:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Slow down partner. Where did you get the idea I was the original author of the Uganda and Somalia material? Have you ever considered being less hasty in leveling accusations? Have you ever considered checking the history before pointing fingers?

My previous to add a brief pointer to the new article Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism I started, and to revert a vandal who made essentially the same edit you did.

I continue to believe you were reckless in removing the link to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism. I continue to dispute that your excision of the link to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism can be justified by any wikipedia policy or guideline. I continue to believe that your feelings I have been rude to you are misplaced.

I have stated that, in my opinion, you have been reckless, you have accused me of violating WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. Note: wikipedians who try to own articles make more than three edits to them per year. Note: I try my best to keep my POV from getting into article space. I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. So I take every serious concern about Pov seriously. But, when the person with the concern can't be specific about which portion of my contributions breached WP:NPOV I feel safe in discounting their concern. If you can't be specific about which of my contributions violated WP:NPOV I will feel safe in discounting your accusation.

I continue to think that anyone who checked the link to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism would see the link was to an extensively referenced article, and would have counseled you that it would be a mistake to justify the removal of that link through WP:RS. Your best friend would tell you that. I dispute that it was rude for me to tell you that. I dispute that it was uncooperative of me to revert your excision of that link which was justified by a clearly reckless and poorly researched justification.

I'd like you to consider the other choices you had when you came across passages that concerned you, because they were unreferenced. One choice would be to look to see whether there were any nearby references that would back up the passage(s) you were concerned about. IMO the wikipedia would be improving more quickly if fewer contributors devoted their main effort to applying tags, or making excisions, and more contributors devoted their main effort to adding material that complied with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. I wasn't the original author of the material that quoted the commentator from the Nixon center. But hunting down a reference to that reference wasn't really much more work than the work you put into your excision and your tag placement. IMO putting in references that an inexperienced editor failed to put in would have been a stronger contribution to the wikipedia than your reckless excision or your tag placements. Spending a few minutes to dig up references would have built your skills, and made you a better, more skilled, more experienced editor.

Note, one of the alternate names for WP:BOLD is WP:SOFIXIT. But "fixing it" was not what you did.

Your initial comment was that you were too busy to do more than make the excision. Well, that is a weak argument. Excision shouldn't be the preferred choice because it is less time-consuming than making a positive contribution. Excision should be reserved for instances when it is clearly the best choice, without regard to how long the various choices take.

I am going to repeat one of my earlier comments. I am going to ask you to consider the idea that if you don't have time for anything beyond excision, if you are too busy for anything other than excision, then you are too busy to be making any contribution to the wikipedia at all, and should reserve your contributing for a day when you can do justice to the material you work on.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Partner, if you read my first ever comment on this talk age I said "Why don't somebody use the citation templates and move the references in the talk page to the actual relevant sections?" because you claimed there is enough and more reference for the Uganda and Somalia incidents (which I removed on the basis they were not cited). How am I suppose to fix it if I cannot find the references which you claim that were there? Please do not tell any editor how they should edit wikipedia, because you dont own wikipedia, please read WP:Harassment, and regarding the link which I removed, I added it later see this diff here, also do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. Also stalking is another thing that is against the wikipedia policies see WP:STALK. Finally I thank you again for removing the section (Uganda and Somalia) which was without reference, lets not drag this anymore and waste our time. NëŧΜǒńğer 13:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Times story about Tablighi

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2316667,00.html this is in conection with the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot Hypnosadist 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Catstail's edits - blatant POV

The latest edits by Catstail demonstrate blatant POV. There are no reliable citations and the article is riddled with POV ("despite an apolitical facade, etc.). Had I the time I would sort it out myself, but I don't, so I request someone to address this article and make it balanced again. Tanzeel 13:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Coming in from the "Somalia" Tangent

I added something about the arrest of Tabliq clerics in Somalia, as well as a Ugandan woman's complaints against the Tabliq movement, plus other concerns of radical Islamist roots in the organization. Hopefully they will not disappear. --Petercorless 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just Undid an Excision

I just undid an anonymous excision of my recent additions. If someone wishes to remove my work, they should raise the issue here on this talk page, and cite the factual refutations of the points raised. --Petercorless 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

While You have raised some points of interest, what you seem to have forgotten is that those allegations you provided never have amounted to a link between the Jamat and Terrorism. The Somali connection amounts to a mere arrest of a few Pakistanis who were on a Tablighi tour of Somalia, as the article so clearly points out. To subvert the content of the article, and allege that the arrested Pakistanis may be terorists, simply belies the content and the context of the article, and actually defames your editorial integrity. Lets also remember that conditions in Somalia are not condusive for a judicial appplication of law, the country's undergoing a civil war. Due to these reasons, I have taken upon myself to delete this portion of the article. On a broader scale, for a world wide movement ideological connections to terrorism are more important then alleged or actual terrorists attending a mosque in the west, which may be the only mosque in their area, and by sheer incident a tablighi one. Your arguments are based upon weak, illogical association, for God's sake lets us not forget that this is a world wide movements with 70-80 million followers, and a terrorist attending an affiliated mosque or a few "allegation" driven arrests should not taint such a large movement. It's not a cell of 10 people, it's a group of 70-80 million people, lets use some common sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.246.233 (talk • contribs) 2007 February 8

Certainly, let us use common sense. The reasons for the arrests were not made public. I will reinstate the information until you provide counter-evidence that these arrests were wrongful, in which case, you'd probably want the citation to remain to show that they were wrongful arrests. Or, if these allegations turn into criminal proceedings with the new Somali judiciary, we can find out the manner in which justice is done in this nascent state. However, under no circumstance have you given any reason for there to be a deletion of the information in its entirety. Note how in the case of Uganda, it later turned out the government released some of the TJ members, but continued to prosecute the rest. We have to wait to see what the result of the cases are in Somalia. Don't just throw away the facts. Follow the case, if you are interested, and add an update when you get substatiation of guilt, innocence, release without charge, etc. --Petercorless 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned wrote above:

"To subvert the content of the article, and allege that the arrested Pakistanis may be terorists, simply belies the content and the context of the article, and actually defames your editorial integrity."

Unsigned, may I suggest you review the wikipedia policy what wikipedia is not? The wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy. If followers, or supporters, of the Tablighi movement want a forum where they can tell interested parties about Tablighi, without any input from writers who aren't supporters of the movement, nothing stops them from registering http://www.tablighi-explained.org. But you can't expect to suppress contributions from other editors, so long as their contributions conform to wikipedia's polices, like neutral point of view, no original research and verifiable, reliable sources

The allegations of links to terrorism deserve mention without regard to whether you, or I, agree that they are credible. The USA, the worlds lone remaining super-power, has announced that they feel entitled to kidnap anyone, anywhere, and assert they are "enemy combatants", and detain them, and interrogate them, for the rest of their lives, with no meaningful avenue of appeal, or to challenge the evidence against them. And, one of the triggers for their suspicion that someone is one of these "enemy combatants" is an association with the Tablighi Jamaat movement.

Personally, I agree, the association between Tablighi and terrorism are tenuous, not really credible. If some lone, crazed kook, ranting on a streetcorner, was the only person ranting out these allegations, I would agree that they wouldn't merit coverage in the wikipedia. However, that these allegations are credible is the official policy of the world's sole remaining superpower. I believe that means they merit mention, without regard to whether you or I, in our private opinion, think they are credible.

Personally, I think being extra suspicious of people, based on their association with Tabligh, because a limited number of Tabligh participants might be terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers, who, with the right nudge, might flower as terrorists, makes as much sense as if the USA were to be extra suspicious of all former Green Berets because Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, applied to become a Green Beret.

The policy that the wikipedia has to be written from a neutral point of view means we can't insert our own opinion as to whether the allegations are credible. But you are fully entitled to balance the allegations with quotes, citations, or paraphrases from verifiable authoritative sources that provide rebutals of those allegations.

This article lacks sources. Six or eight months ago one wikipedian commented that the only part of the article that cited any sources whatsoever was the allegations. Can you think of places where you could cite verifiable sources? What about those three letters from the three American professors of religion that I asked for comments on, last year? They seemed credible, balanced, authorititative. I am disappointed that no one who knows more about Tabligh than I do has made the effort to comment on them.

I, like most of this article's potential readers, knew nothing of Tablighi until I read the US allegations. This is another reason why the article should address the allegations, in a balanced way, citing authoritative, verifiable sources. Because those allegations are going to be the trigger that sends most of the article's readers here. Removing the allegations is a disservice to those readers.

IMO. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again the section disappeared without discussion, and once again it has been restored. --Petercorless 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dewsbury mosque/social impact

The 97% figure is not from a credible source, it is from an anti-mosque article on a Christian's People's Alliance website, which doesnt cite its sources and is clearly not neutral POV. Also note it says "according to local observers". Hardly reliable info, especially when one's religion cannot be determined by observers. Also, the 2001 census states Dewsbury South (the area of Savile Town) is around 30% Muslim. Since this has been tagged as unreferenced since Feb 2007, I shall remove this. The Times article also refers to a reporter commenting on Beeston, an area over 10 miles away from the Savile Town area of the mosque, and which already has a large asian population, much like many parts of east London, Birmingham, etc. Nothing to with Tablighi Jamaat, and so needs to be removed. Please comment here if anyone has any problems with this. Feudonym 01:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times article was indeed irrelevent, and it was inaccurate anyway. I live nearby. It is true that Savile Town is almost exclusively Muslim, but Beeston does not even have a Muslim majority. That article was pure inaccuracy. I have tried to balance it out by saying that it has been claimed that the mosque has been the cause of Savile Town's demographic shift, but that this is far from proven given the range of economic changes that Dewsbury has undergone in recent years.

Also, Dewsbury South is Savile Town, Thornhill Lees, Thornhill Edge and a few other areas. Savile Town is only a very small area, and it would be outnumbered by White areas such as Thornhill Edge. I'm not sure what the official definition of Dewsbury's boundaries is. Epa101 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications of tabligh

An answer to a question with regards to tabligh by Mufti Ebrahim Desai(biography http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/mufti.shtml), Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In'aamiyyah I believe it clarifies alot of the misconceptions and the article should be adjusted to adopt these clarifications

• Unassessed Pakistan articles
• Unknown-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class Bangladesh articles
• Low-importance Bangladesh articles
• WikiProject Bangladesh articles