![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been written by people intent on smearing this individual. In a matter-of-fact, citing poorly researched and biased newspaper sources, the wiki article states that the person has been found guilty and tried of war crimes. He has only been accused in certain newspapers, and in others, they were made to apologise because the person felt it was not true. If this article was the least bit neutral, it would be written in a more neutral way, mention his other work, as a previous version did, and suggest that he has been accused, and also mention that he has denied these accusations. Previous attempts to netralise this article has been vandalised by what clearly seems to be a lobby group in favour of the current government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristartelm ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 June 2010
This article states what the leading newspapers from home and abroad says and clearly is not intended to vilify anyone. And also, this article is not biased by government or any of opposition parties. Enough references, authentic references have been provided to support the contents of this article. I request to go through the references, specially reference no. 5, 6 and 7 which refer 'The New York Times' report published in 1972, just after the liberation war of Bangladesh. Now, tell me, is 'The New York Times' poorly researched and biased newspaper? 'The New York Times' had any problem with Mr. Mueen-Uddin in 1972 so that this newspaper published a report against Mr. Mueen-Uddin? Think about it. If the answer is a 'NO' (which is obvious), then please don't doubt about neutrality of this article. Please go through reference no. 11 which says that Prof Farida Banu, sister of martyred intellectual Giasuddin, filed a case against Mr. Mueen-Uddin with Ramna Police Station on September 24, 1997. So, Mr. Mueen-Uddin has not been accused by anyone as you stated is not true. If you do not believe in the report of this top and the most read and neutral newspaper, then you can go to Ramna Thana and check whether the case was filed or not to clear your confusion. If you have any confusion about the reputation of The Daily Star, please go through it's website. The newspapers (Bangladeshi) I have mentioned are: New Age (Bangladesh) and The Daily Star which are well known and reputed newspapers in Bangladesh. I request to go through the websites of these newspapers. Again, the newspapers from abroad I have mentioned are: The New York Times and Guardian and Front Page Magazine. I request to read about the newspapers to be sure about reputation and neutrality of these newspapers.
I again claim that this article is neutral because I have mentioned (in section 'Controversies')that a newspaper(Guardian) had withdrawn the complaints against Mr. Mueen-Uddin and provided the reference too. I included his current association and activities also (in career section) and provided a link to his company's website. If I were not neutral in writing this article I could have not mentioned these facts.
Think carefully, only one newspaper (guardian) 'withdrawn' complaint against Mr. Mueenuddin (and I have mentioned it) and this incident (complaint and withdrwal) occured in 2009, long after the liberation war. On the other hand, other newspapers namely 'The Daily Star', 'New Age', 'The New York Times', 'Front Page Magazine' reported about the activities (which are against the liberation of Bangladesh) of Mr. MueenUddin. Again, look, the report on 'The New York Times' was published just after the Liberation war(1971) which is important. I have gathered all the information from all these Newspapers. I did not skipped or exaggerated anything which you can check by going through the references. This proves the neutrality of this article.
I request to go through the online archive (Ref. no 1) to check if the archive is authentic or not.
Previous version of this article which completely removed all the information I provided did not included any reference except the link to the website of Multi-Faith Group for Healthcare Chaplaincy (Ref. no 2 in current article) in which Mr. Mueen-Uddin is the Vice-Chairman and did not mention any of the references (reports from 'The Daily Star', 'New Age', 'The New York Times', 'Front Page Magazine') which are very much available on net. Thats why, I should say that, the previous version which contained only the biodata of Mr. Mueen-Uddin was totally biased and completely not neutral.
A law court has already been formed in Bangladesh for the trial of war criminals. According to law minister, a notice will be issued, as per law, to the alleged war criminals like Mr. Mueen-Uddin to come to Bangladesh and face the trial. If they don't come Government of Bangladesh will negotiate with the Governments of other country to bring them back. (See Ref. No. 10). So, the claim that Mr.Mueen-Uddin is not convicted is not true. This article is not intended to defame anyone. This article organizes relavant information published in leading newspapers in Bangladesh from 1972 to 2010.
Again, I claim the neutrality of this article because this article contains information reported in leading newspapers in home and abroad. No imaginary or false or baseless information exists in this article. This article is not intended to vilify any individual. This article is intended only to record and make everyone known about the incidents; related, relevant information about the Liberation War of Bangladesh. And each line of this article is authentic supported by the reports in leading newspapers in home and abroad. Thanks.
NasrinatWiki (
talk) 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I am going to remove the message from this article. Appropriate references have been provided to resolve the dispute.
NasrinatWiki (
talk) 06:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the POV tag. The article now contains appropriate references.
NasrinatWiki (
talk) 11:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Having closed the AFD as keep I see that the BLP vios have crept in with ancient sources and no effort to balance the allegation with the result of the tribunal and withdrawal of the grauniad article. I have therefore removed and full protected to allow time to reach a consensus on what should be put up. If this happens before 2 weeks let me know and I'll unprotect. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected an information on this article which is now removed. At present Mr. Mueen-Uddin is not the chairman of Muslim Aid. He is one of the trustees. You can check the fact following these links.
http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/about-us/governance http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/media-centre/495-response-to-pakistan-floods-
This article refers to BBC news (dated 2003) which refers Mr. Mueen-Uddin as the chairman. But the website of Muslim Aid and media news (dated 2010) say that the chairman of Muslim AId is Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Not Mr. Mueen-Uddin. I am going to add this information. PLease let me know any problem regarding this issue. NasrinatWiki ( talk) 05:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The sources cited make no mention of Mueen-Uddin being extradited to Bangladesh, or "currently awaiting trial in Bangladesh". The articles, in fact, mention that there is no extradition treaty between Bangladesh and the UK and that extradition is unlikely. I removed the section, because the information given seems to have been conjured out of thin air. Applesandapples ( talk) 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems not to be the case according to the Telegraph of 02/05/2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bangladesh/10032961/British-Muslim-leader-Chowdhury-Mueen-Uddin-indicted-for-genocide-and-crimes-against-humanity.html - this says "Bangladesh will be required to establish that there is a prima facie case against Mr Mueen-Uddin," said lawyer Toby Cadman in a statement to AFP. "They will also be required to give an undertaking that Mr Mueen-Uddin will not receive the death penalty." Perhaps the foreign office have had reassurances - I think Theresa May would simply accept them? 79.67.246.12 ( talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)nhsnh 79.67.246.12 ( talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems rather odd the group he chaired should have been advising on this, as its been termed the 'Death Pathway' by a volume of bereaved relatives who's loved one's were not even terminally ill: see Reference section at: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/end_of_life_wishes_and_needs_of_the_bereaved.asp 79.67.246.12 ( talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)NHSNH 79.67.246.12 ( talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Applesandapples is deliberately removing cited contents from the article. Please raise your points in this section and ask for a consensus of the editors. Please do not consistently revert the edits. Vortex Shedding ( talk) 07:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I note that the article has since been updated to describe Mr Mueen-Uddin as a 'war criminal', but the international press has reported that the court who convicted him is flawed:
His defence were apparently unable to call any witnesses for their side (or at least, only one or two), and his barrister has said that "The trials are hugely politicised, involving instances of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct bordering on a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice." As a result, I don't think it's appropriate to put so much weight on the 'war criminal' description as we do in the article at the moment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( Message me) 13:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
In short, I am concerned that a man's reputation is being damaged unduly here, by people who are too close to the issue to decide properly. I will read a bit more into the ICT and the BLP policy and try and come up with a solution. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( Message me) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
No reason to use suspect in the lead. He was found guilty in many investigation such as the Butterfield report of New York Times in 1972. NY times finds bengali journalist link to intellectuals massacre - Rahat | Message 08:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
References
Please keep this in mind:
A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.
The subject of this article was not extradited, so we have a contradiction between the UK and Bangladesh, and they do not override each other. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the word "mastermind", which was BLP and undid user: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's edit. Because he removed a lots of sourced contents. Thanks-- FreemesM (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I found a source from the NYT about the problems with the court. It's written by one of the best barristers in the world, who has participated in actual international tribunals at the Hague. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/opinion/in-bangladesh-reconciliation-or-revenge.html?_r=2&. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( Message me) 22:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence says the UK has not agreed to extradite him. I believe one should add the reason for this, and according to the British High Commission in Dhaka, it is because of EU law which prohibits extradition to countries with the death penalty. The British government is however keen to stress "its support for Bangladesh’s efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed in 1971". [9] [10] -- 31.205.56.85 ( talk) 02:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
When asked, Warren Daley, spokesperson of the British high commission in Dhaka, said: “The UK has made clear its support for Bangladesh’s efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed in 1971. Along with our EU partners, we are however opposed to the application of the death penalty in all circumstances. “We will consider any extradition request received from Bangladesh within the terms of the Extradition Act of 2003. But in line with this Act, the government will not order a person’s extradition to Bangladesh if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence.”
The above excerpt is taken from Daily Star. This is by far the most recent reference on the topic. I agree with 31.205.56.85's edit request and edited it accordingly. Anythingyouwant has reverted it back, based on a speculation that UK may think the trial is unfair. Can you please put the reference of a spokesperson instead of a speculation?-- Kaisernahid ( talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed your bit about the UK "declining" to prosecute him, because the British government has never spoken about matters pertaining directly to Mueen-Uddin, far from even considering to prosecute him. You will have to credibly substantiate that statement.-- Bazaan ( talk) 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that the ICT is entirely under the authority of the government of Bangladesh, rather than being under the authority of any treaty or international organization. An international court typically means a court formed by treaties between nations, or under the authority of an international organization such as the United Nations. We therefore need to make clear up front that this is not such a court. The court may have reached a correct verdict, but its decision is not binding internationally, as far as I know, except to the extent that Bangladesh has extradition treaties. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to explain again about the infobox. The template "Infobox person" has a variety of parameters, and three of them are explicitly for information about criminality. It is redundant to also include such information under other parameters like "known for". There is no reason to put "1971 killings" under the parameter "known for" when it is already in the Infobox using a criminality parameter. If you look at the
Ted Bundy or
Charles Manson articles, we don't use the "known for" parameter to repeat information that's already in the Infobox under another parameter.
Additionally, this article about Mueen falls under
WP:BLPCRIME, and it's very similar to the example discussed in BLPCRIME regarding OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of murder but still held liable for wrongful death in a civil case. Similarly, Mueen was found guilty in absentia of murder by a Bangladeshi court, but Britain has thus far declined to extradite him, due to concerns about getting a fair trial and about the death penalty; Britain has also thus far declined to prosecute. So we need to treat this like the OJ Simpson example in BLPCRIME, by using an explanatory tone rather than sweeping labels.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 05:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits have made the firstr sentence of this article a little hard to follow. Can I suggest the following as an alternative:
This restores the usual identifier of the person by occupation seen in most biographical articles. It also notes the subjects' principal point of notability, being the war crimes conviction. It notes that the qualifiers raised elsewhere on this page and at WP:BLPN that the conviction was in absentia and by a Bangladesh court (instead of say, the International Court of Justice). And it contains only matters that are verified by reliable sources elsewhere in the article body.
Other views welcome. Euryalus ( talk) 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the link for Abul Kalam Azad to Abul Kalam Azad Letsknowthetruth ( talk) 08:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin was a former chairman and trustee of Muslim Aid. He resigned from Muslim Aid in May 2013. Amalimad ( talk) 14:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been written by people intent on smearing this individual. In a matter-of-fact, citing poorly researched and biased newspaper sources, the wiki article states that the person has been found guilty and tried of war crimes. He has only been accused in certain newspapers, and in others, they were made to apologise because the person felt it was not true. If this article was the least bit neutral, it would be written in a more neutral way, mention his other work, as a previous version did, and suggest that he has been accused, and also mention that he has denied these accusations. Previous attempts to netralise this article has been vandalised by what clearly seems to be a lobby group in favour of the current government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristartelm ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 June 2010
This article states what the leading newspapers from home and abroad says and clearly is not intended to vilify anyone. And also, this article is not biased by government or any of opposition parties. Enough references, authentic references have been provided to support the contents of this article. I request to go through the references, specially reference no. 5, 6 and 7 which refer 'The New York Times' report published in 1972, just after the liberation war of Bangladesh. Now, tell me, is 'The New York Times' poorly researched and biased newspaper? 'The New York Times' had any problem with Mr. Mueen-Uddin in 1972 so that this newspaper published a report against Mr. Mueen-Uddin? Think about it. If the answer is a 'NO' (which is obvious), then please don't doubt about neutrality of this article. Please go through reference no. 11 which says that Prof Farida Banu, sister of martyred intellectual Giasuddin, filed a case against Mr. Mueen-Uddin with Ramna Police Station on September 24, 1997. So, Mr. Mueen-Uddin has not been accused by anyone as you stated is not true. If you do not believe in the report of this top and the most read and neutral newspaper, then you can go to Ramna Thana and check whether the case was filed or not to clear your confusion. If you have any confusion about the reputation of The Daily Star, please go through it's website. The newspapers (Bangladeshi) I have mentioned are: New Age (Bangladesh) and The Daily Star which are well known and reputed newspapers in Bangladesh. I request to go through the websites of these newspapers. Again, the newspapers from abroad I have mentioned are: The New York Times and Guardian and Front Page Magazine. I request to read about the newspapers to be sure about reputation and neutrality of these newspapers.
I again claim that this article is neutral because I have mentioned (in section 'Controversies')that a newspaper(Guardian) had withdrawn the complaints against Mr. Mueen-Uddin and provided the reference too. I included his current association and activities also (in career section) and provided a link to his company's website. If I were not neutral in writing this article I could have not mentioned these facts.
Think carefully, only one newspaper (guardian) 'withdrawn' complaint against Mr. Mueenuddin (and I have mentioned it) and this incident (complaint and withdrwal) occured in 2009, long after the liberation war. On the other hand, other newspapers namely 'The Daily Star', 'New Age', 'The New York Times', 'Front Page Magazine' reported about the activities (which are against the liberation of Bangladesh) of Mr. MueenUddin. Again, look, the report on 'The New York Times' was published just after the Liberation war(1971) which is important. I have gathered all the information from all these Newspapers. I did not skipped or exaggerated anything which you can check by going through the references. This proves the neutrality of this article.
I request to go through the online archive (Ref. no 1) to check if the archive is authentic or not.
Previous version of this article which completely removed all the information I provided did not included any reference except the link to the website of Multi-Faith Group for Healthcare Chaplaincy (Ref. no 2 in current article) in which Mr. Mueen-Uddin is the Vice-Chairman and did not mention any of the references (reports from 'The Daily Star', 'New Age', 'The New York Times', 'Front Page Magazine') which are very much available on net. Thats why, I should say that, the previous version which contained only the biodata of Mr. Mueen-Uddin was totally biased and completely not neutral.
A law court has already been formed in Bangladesh for the trial of war criminals. According to law minister, a notice will be issued, as per law, to the alleged war criminals like Mr. Mueen-Uddin to come to Bangladesh and face the trial. If they don't come Government of Bangladesh will negotiate with the Governments of other country to bring them back. (See Ref. No. 10). So, the claim that Mr.Mueen-Uddin is not convicted is not true. This article is not intended to defame anyone. This article organizes relavant information published in leading newspapers in Bangladesh from 1972 to 2010.
Again, I claim the neutrality of this article because this article contains information reported in leading newspapers in home and abroad. No imaginary or false or baseless information exists in this article. This article is not intended to vilify any individual. This article is intended only to record and make everyone known about the incidents; related, relevant information about the Liberation War of Bangladesh. And each line of this article is authentic supported by the reports in leading newspapers in home and abroad. Thanks.
NasrinatWiki (
talk) 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I am going to remove the message from this article. Appropriate references have been provided to resolve the dispute.
NasrinatWiki (
talk) 06:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the POV tag. The article now contains appropriate references.
NasrinatWiki (
talk) 11:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Having closed the AFD as keep I see that the BLP vios have crept in with ancient sources and no effort to balance the allegation with the result of the tribunal and withdrawal of the grauniad article. I have therefore removed and full protected to allow time to reach a consensus on what should be put up. If this happens before 2 weeks let me know and I'll unprotect. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected an information on this article which is now removed. At present Mr. Mueen-Uddin is not the chairman of Muslim Aid. He is one of the trustees. You can check the fact following these links.
http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/about-us/governance http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/media-centre/495-response-to-pakistan-floods-
This article refers to BBC news (dated 2003) which refers Mr. Mueen-Uddin as the chairman. But the website of Muslim Aid and media news (dated 2010) say that the chairman of Muslim AId is Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Not Mr. Mueen-Uddin. I am going to add this information. PLease let me know any problem regarding this issue. NasrinatWiki ( talk) 05:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The sources cited make no mention of Mueen-Uddin being extradited to Bangladesh, or "currently awaiting trial in Bangladesh". The articles, in fact, mention that there is no extradition treaty between Bangladesh and the UK and that extradition is unlikely. I removed the section, because the information given seems to have been conjured out of thin air. Applesandapples ( talk) 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems not to be the case according to the Telegraph of 02/05/2013: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bangladesh/10032961/British-Muslim-leader-Chowdhury-Mueen-Uddin-indicted-for-genocide-and-crimes-against-humanity.html - this says "Bangladesh will be required to establish that there is a prima facie case against Mr Mueen-Uddin," said lawyer Toby Cadman in a statement to AFP. "They will also be required to give an undertaking that Mr Mueen-Uddin will not receive the death penalty." Perhaps the foreign office have had reassurances - I think Theresa May would simply accept them? 79.67.246.12 ( talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)nhsnh 79.67.246.12 ( talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems rather odd the group he chaired should have been advising on this, as its been termed the 'Death Pathway' by a volume of bereaved relatives who's loved one's were not even terminally ill: see Reference section at: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/end_of_life_wishes_and_needs_of_the_bereaved.asp 79.67.246.12 ( talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)NHSNH 79.67.246.12 ( talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Applesandapples is deliberately removing cited contents from the article. Please raise your points in this section and ask for a consensus of the editors. Please do not consistently revert the edits. Vortex Shedding ( talk) 07:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I note that the article has since been updated to describe Mr Mueen-Uddin as a 'war criminal', but the international press has reported that the court who convicted him is flawed:
His defence were apparently unable to call any witnesses for their side (or at least, only one or two), and his barrister has said that "The trials are hugely politicised, involving instances of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct bordering on a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice." As a result, I don't think it's appropriate to put so much weight on the 'war criminal' description as we do in the article at the moment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( Message me) 13:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
In short, I am concerned that a man's reputation is being damaged unduly here, by people who are too close to the issue to decide properly. I will read a bit more into the ICT and the BLP policy and try and come up with a solution. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( Message me) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
No reason to use suspect in the lead. He was found guilty in many investigation such as the Butterfield report of New York Times in 1972. NY times finds bengali journalist link to intellectuals massacre - Rahat | Message 08:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
References
Please keep this in mind:
A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.
The subject of this article was not extradited, so we have a contradiction between the UK and Bangladesh, and they do not override each other. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the word "mastermind", which was BLP and undid user: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's edit. Because he removed a lots of sourced contents. Thanks-- FreemesM (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I found a source from the NYT about the problems with the court. It's written by one of the best barristers in the world, who has participated in actual international tribunals at the Hague. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/opinion/in-bangladesh-reconciliation-or-revenge.html?_r=2&. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( Message me) 22:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence says the UK has not agreed to extradite him. I believe one should add the reason for this, and according to the British High Commission in Dhaka, it is because of EU law which prohibits extradition to countries with the death penalty. The British government is however keen to stress "its support for Bangladesh’s efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed in 1971". [9] [10] -- 31.205.56.85 ( talk) 02:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
When asked, Warren Daley, spokesperson of the British high commission in Dhaka, said: “The UK has made clear its support for Bangladesh’s efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed in 1971. Along with our EU partners, we are however opposed to the application of the death penalty in all circumstances. “We will consider any extradition request received from Bangladesh within the terms of the Extradition Act of 2003. But in line with this Act, the government will not order a person’s extradition to Bangladesh if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence.”
The above excerpt is taken from Daily Star. This is by far the most recent reference on the topic. I agree with 31.205.56.85's edit request and edited it accordingly. Anythingyouwant has reverted it back, based on a speculation that UK may think the trial is unfair. Can you please put the reference of a spokesperson instead of a speculation?-- Kaisernahid ( talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed your bit about the UK "declining" to prosecute him, because the British government has never spoken about matters pertaining directly to Mueen-Uddin, far from even considering to prosecute him. You will have to credibly substantiate that statement.-- Bazaan ( talk) 20:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that the ICT is entirely under the authority of the government of Bangladesh, rather than being under the authority of any treaty or international organization. An international court typically means a court formed by treaties between nations, or under the authority of an international organization such as the United Nations. We therefore need to make clear up front that this is not such a court. The court may have reached a correct verdict, but its decision is not binding internationally, as far as I know, except to the extent that Bangladesh has extradition treaties. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to explain again about the infobox. The template "Infobox person" has a variety of parameters, and three of them are explicitly for information about criminality. It is redundant to also include such information under other parameters like "known for". There is no reason to put "1971 killings" under the parameter "known for" when it is already in the Infobox using a criminality parameter. If you look at the
Ted Bundy or
Charles Manson articles, we don't use the "known for" parameter to repeat information that's already in the Infobox under another parameter.
Additionally, this article about Mueen falls under
WP:BLPCRIME, and it's very similar to the example discussed in BLPCRIME regarding OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of murder but still held liable for wrongful death in a civil case. Similarly, Mueen was found guilty in absentia of murder by a Bangladeshi court, but Britain has thus far declined to extradite him, due to concerns about getting a fair trial and about the death penalty; Britain has also thus far declined to prosecute. So we need to treat this like the OJ Simpson example in BLPCRIME, by using an explanatory tone rather than sweeping labels.
Anythingyouwant (
talk) 05:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits have made the firstr sentence of this article a little hard to follow. Can I suggest the following as an alternative:
This restores the usual identifier of the person by occupation seen in most biographical articles. It also notes the subjects' principal point of notability, being the war crimes conviction. It notes that the qualifiers raised elsewhere on this page and at WP:BLPN that the conviction was in absentia and by a Bangladesh court (instead of say, the International Court of Justice). And it contains only matters that are verified by reliable sources elsewhere in the article body.
Other views welcome. Euryalus ( talk) 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the link for Abul Kalam Azad to Abul Kalam Azad Letsknowthetruth ( talk) 08:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin was a former chairman and trustee of Muslim Aid. He resigned from Muslim Aid in May 2013. Amalimad ( talk) 14:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)