This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dawood Ibrahim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dawood Ibrahim. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dawood Ibrahim at the Reference desk. |
This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
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
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
User:Freestylefrappe claims this article to be baised. The world knows that Dawood Ibrahim runs the biggest illegal empire in the world. Calling him a Mafia don is not a POV, its a fact. -- IncMan 04:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Osama bin laden, Teleban and Lashkar i taibba are not terrorists or terrorist organizations. they are terrorists only for those who see them as a threat to 'their own personal' interests. unfortunately for the world, they are the ones who control the media and have somewhat successfully brainwashed the public into believing that OBL, teleban and mujahideen are infact violent thugs. but in general, muslims all over the world support jehadi politics if not their tactics. this article is definately biased. OBL and mujahideen were considered heros 20 years back, they r considered terrorists now, who know what they would be after another 20 years? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.96.16 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 July 2005.
according to me and the world being involved or on knowing and hiding a criminal is also considered as a crime and as per indian government and other international security agencies dawood ibrahim is considered a criminal who was involved in killing of so many innocent people and in destruction of childrens'futures by the supplying of drugs dragging them to the hell of crime who is biased? nobody is biased protesting against crimes and criminals is not biasment Ayd003 ( talk) 06:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
dawood ibrahim most dreaded don is under pakistans protection what can united states do about it???.U.S.never been clear about its foreign policy .which ever faith man follows it is wrong if one smuggles drugs, arms ,kills people .definately he will be punished on earth or after death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.130.129 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 March 2006.
Now im not doubting that Dawood Ibrahim is an extemely controversial figure. However, the article needs to be extensively revised. I'm pretty sure someone has done a copy paste job from an Indian newspaper on the latter section of the article. The latter part should be removed until someone who is knowledgble on the matter will write it in an unbiased manner. Sandbreak 04:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
no one has mentioned about dawoods links with MQM
Content removed, probably copyright violation, taken from [1]. See Wikipedia:COPY#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others Bazzargh ( talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"His name has become a byword in political, business and law enforcement circles."
A byword for what? This is meaningless. -- IRONY-POLICE ( talk) 13:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this of interest? mum08
Guess it has to mature more before added as a paragraph, - but might under "current status" kind of review?
Edmundmedmunn ( talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ach, never mind. Read the article without catching it. Do not know how i managed that. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Edmundmedmunn ( talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He isn't important.-- 24.171.1.195 ( talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Bugnot more than doubled the size of this article by adding a bunch of new text, but a huge percentage of it (if not all of it) was taken verbatim from other sources and is as such a copyright violation. I have thus reverted to a much earlier version. This material is not lost (it's there in the edit history), and I imagine much of it can be incorporated, but it needs to be written in our own words, not taken directly from news sources. To Bugnot, please discuss this matter rather than simply re-adding it—violating copyright is a major problem and we cannot have that. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace: Thanks for your comment on the Dawood article. While I understand that some of the new information is portions of news/other articles but please also note that I've mentioned them as quotes from newspapers (which are copied as it is) and have also referenced the source appropriately, in which case, they can't be termed as copyright violations. If you think that there is any copyvio, please correct that portion of the article and/or reword it and/or summarize it but please don't delete information because information regarding Don Dawood's early years and criminal-career is scarce and is very difficult to find. However, I've worked hard and collected information from many, many different sources and referenced them appropriately so that any Wikipedian is able to get any/all info. regarding Dawood very easily. As such, I'm reverting your edit. I hope you will understand. Thanks.-- Bugnot ( talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to still be a pretty big problem. Bugnot must have reverted, yet again, because a massive proportion of the article is comprised of verbatim multi-paragraph quotations. Bugnot, Bigtimepeace is right, your additions are copyright infringement and put Wikipedia at serious legal risk. For quotations to be protected as fair use, must account for the amount and sustainability of the work as a whole. That is to say, a few sentences taken from a book, used in a book review is acceptable, reproducing half of the book is not. Your quotations amount to significant proportions of the news article from which they were taken, and serve as substitutes for original content. Quotations may act to further illustrate points or provide examples, but may not make the entire argument themselves - the quotations cannot be the content, they may only serve to better illustrate the content. Furthermore, by reproducing such large portions of these articles, you have potentially negatively impacted the market potential of the originals - thus violating fair use protections. If large enough portions of a work are quoted to act as an effective market substitute (if people could just read the wikipedia article, instead of the news sources from which you were citing), it is a direct violation of copyright law. I am reverting this page to its previous state. If you wish the page to have the additional material please illustrate the salient points in your own words, and cite your sources properly. Otherwise, do not re-re-re-re-revert the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.54.159 ( talk) 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've blanked the article and am submitting it for copyvio clean up. From the looks of the talk page this doesn't appear to be the first time this problem has come up. I checked about 4-5 references and most of the associated text is either outright copyvio or a close paraphrase. Here are some copyvio sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. — Spaceman Spiff 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.224.238 ( talk) 03:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dawood Ibrahim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dawood Ibrahim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please change Infobox and starting content to this. The edits are appropriate and sourced. Please don't reject IF found a minor error.-- 119.160.101.59 ( talk) 07:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
New edit
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dawood Ibrahim ( Marathi:दाऊद इब्राहीम कासकर, born Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar 26 December 1955) also known as Dawood Bhai or simply Bhai ([Brother, Big brother or Boss] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup ( help)) is a crime lord and terrorist originally from Dongri in Mumbai, India. |
The sources all state that india either insists or claims he resides in Pakistan the information should reflect the sources can neutral users please read this as the ones with pov agenda seem to think its pov to state this is a Indian claim. 82.132.187.115 ( talk) 21:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
alright then, let's discuss each of the "neutral" and "credible" sources you've listed here (i assume you believe them to be so else it would be pointless to share them here). first, even without diving into the book, telling by the fact it is a piece by the RAND corporation, we can deduce that it is not a credible source in the context of Pakistan. not only does this organisation have a history of one-sided analysis on issues relating to Pakistan, they are a think-tank. Think tanks are not, by nature, reliable sources of information regardless of how "independent" they claim to be (see this page for discussions /info/en/?search=Talk:Think_tank). now, onto the book itself. this book was published in 2008. a lot of things can and have changed in 10 years since then so already this book is outdated. Now, the book, in order to justify its claims of Dawood's relocation to Karachi, references the book "Karachi, a terror capital in the making" by Wilson John which was published by rupa and co, an indian publisher based in kolkata in association with the observer and research foundation, an "independent" indian think tank whos notable advisors and fellows include indian ambassadors, media advisors an a former head of the indian Research and Analysis Wing. so not only is the book you mentioned uncredible, but so is the book it references.
/info/en/?search=Observer_Research_Foundation
so that's the first source refuted, now onto the next one. sadly i don't have the book at hand nor can i find an available online copy so i can't dismiss it but neither can it be accepted as a source to support the idea that ibrahim is in pakistan unless evidence can be provided from the book. finally onto the last source. if we take a look at page 69, the only page that even mentions anything about dawood relocating to karachi, we find that it is said that he relocated to karachi and indian claims this to be the case, not that it is a certainty. interestingly on the same page, we find that "In 2000, a campaign was orchestrated by India to link Dawood to Al Qaeda and the global network of terrorists. The main objective was to enlist the support of the United States and other Western countries in finding him."
so that's 2 of the sources refuted and 1 neutralised. if you hadn't just written a "POV version before actually researching the subject", you would have realised the books were not "published by neutral authors and esteemed publishers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
first, i would recommend you read through my first response carefully this time. second, i would appreciate if you were to provide the page numbers in the books that you provide to support your claims if it is possible.
now, think tanks are not automatically WP:RS. even if i were to give you that the RAND corporation is reliable, you cannot deny their explicit bias toward nations and ideas that oppose their agenda. just one indicator of this is their funding which can be seen through this link ( https://www.rand.org/about/clients_grantors.html)
the first source you provided has already been debunked in my first reponse. please read my first reponse more carefully.
the second source you provided is by stephen tenkel, an american who has closely co-operated with the US department of defense and US policy makers and members of the US intelligence community so the bias in his writing is irrefutable ( https://www.american.edu/sis/faculty/tankel.cfm). also, the page where the author claims that dawood fled to karachi has no citation for this and is outdated since it makes claims that no plan has been adopted by pakistan to clean up karachi but not long after the book was published, pakistani rangers were sent into karachi to eradicate terrorists and terrorist sanctuaries as well as gangs and very significant progress has been achieved. ( https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Iu1wBAAAQBAJ&q=dawood#v=onepage&q=dawood&f=false).
the third source you provided is written by Ryan Clarke who has links to the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (New Delhi) ( https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=765) ( https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4379559.Ryan_Clarke). this overwhelmingly references indian sources, namely news outlets and web portals and exclusively references them with regard to dawood ibrahim. examples include rediff, an Indian news, information, entertainment and shopping web portal, founded in 1996 ( /info/en/?search=Rediff.com), the hindu and the times of india so there is undoubtedly bias.
now that that's cleared up, let me make a few important notes: first, i know that sources don't have to be neutral to be reliable according to wikipedia rules; however, these need to be used in proportion to sources that present the opposing case when cited in a wikipedia article ( WP:NPOV) else they should not be used at all. second, this discussion was not about whether dawood moved to karachi, but about whether he currently resides there. all of these sources that you've provided mention that he moved there but like i said, it's been more than a decade since the claimed date of his relocation to karachi so there is no certainty that he still resides there (if he resided there at all). that's why my edits were perfectly reasonable when the article was changed to read that india "alleges" he lives in karachi because that's the truth. you can even throw in that the US alleges he lives there but they are only allegations. also there is no reason to revert my edits when i added that pakistan refutes these allegations, which it does. i even provided sources.
i hope you read this response and my first response carefully before posting more "sources" to backup your claims. thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I hope this answers all your questions. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 19:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thanks for your response @ Adamgerber80:. Here are my responses: (1) I can accept that RAND is WP:RS though that is only due to their stated high editorial and research standards but they are by no means WP:NPOV. This is not possible due to their funding by government institutions especially when those institutions are related to defence, security and intelligence.
(2) I don't understand how this counters my point about stephen tenkel's bias due to his association with those as stated in my previous response as well as his failure to back up his claim of dawood moving to karachi with with a citation.
(3)Good point though like I've said, these are biased sources. I did, however, find this article which states that the indian media's so called "proofs" were fake: https://www.dawn.com/news/1203319 and this article which states that the addresses that india believed dawood was living at were fake: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1168888/india-embarrassed-dawood-ibrahim/ therefore there is good reason to believe he is not presently in karachi or in pakistan as a whole.
this article quotes an indian official as saying dawood was shifted from karachi to the pak-afghan border and even to central asian countries: https://tribune.com.pk/story/898391/dawood-ibrahim-shifted-to-pak-afghan-border-region-indian-official/ the article originally appeared on the indian express, for the record.
i'm not claiming these sources are neutral but according to WP:NPOV biased sources must be balanced out proportionally to represent both sides.
(4) Yes I will accept this but it is a testimony to how outdated the source is that it was published before major developments in the region it was centred around.
The article should also read that Pakistan denies dawood is in pakistan, like i said in my previous response:
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/379857/dawood-ibrahim-not-here-pakistan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Was he never put on trial for his involvement in terrorist attacks? Or is there no trial in absentia in Indian law? Totally confused here. -- Prüm ( talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The introduction says that Dawood is in Dubai. There is an entire section about the location of Dawood and the various claims of India, Pakistan, etc. What does it even mean "Currently"? Why is no-one disputing it? If it is so confidently known, Dubai police should know it before Wikipedia! Breakfastisready ( talk) 18:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Arjayay: Why you have reverted as unsourced speculation? These things at "In popular culture" require no sources. You can just click on the article of the movie name D-Day (2013 film) and find the details. GenuineArt ( talk) 20:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:MERGEREASON - Short text and context. Also, Dawood Ibrahim isn't too long either, so a merge won't result in the target article becoming to big and can easily become a subsection. DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 08:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The article could even be merged into D-Company DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 08:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
References
change to counterfeit. Otherwise intra-wiki link is correct 94.109.18.101 ( talk) 23:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dawood Ibrahim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dawood Ibrahim. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dawood Ibrahim at the Reference desk. |
This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
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
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
User:Freestylefrappe claims this article to be baised. The world knows that Dawood Ibrahim runs the biggest illegal empire in the world. Calling him a Mafia don is not a POV, its a fact. -- IncMan 04:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Osama bin laden, Teleban and Lashkar i taibba are not terrorists or terrorist organizations. they are terrorists only for those who see them as a threat to 'their own personal' interests. unfortunately for the world, they are the ones who control the media and have somewhat successfully brainwashed the public into believing that OBL, teleban and mujahideen are infact violent thugs. but in general, muslims all over the world support jehadi politics if not their tactics. this article is definately biased. OBL and mujahideen were considered heros 20 years back, they r considered terrorists now, who know what they would be after another 20 years? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.96.16 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 July 2005.
according to me and the world being involved or on knowing and hiding a criminal is also considered as a crime and as per indian government and other international security agencies dawood ibrahim is considered a criminal who was involved in killing of so many innocent people and in destruction of childrens'futures by the supplying of drugs dragging them to the hell of crime who is biased? nobody is biased protesting against crimes and criminals is not biasment Ayd003 ( talk) 06:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
dawood ibrahim most dreaded don is under pakistans protection what can united states do about it???.U.S.never been clear about its foreign policy .which ever faith man follows it is wrong if one smuggles drugs, arms ,kills people .definately he will be punished on earth or after death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.130.129 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 March 2006.
Now im not doubting that Dawood Ibrahim is an extemely controversial figure. However, the article needs to be extensively revised. I'm pretty sure someone has done a copy paste job from an Indian newspaper on the latter section of the article. The latter part should be removed until someone who is knowledgble on the matter will write it in an unbiased manner. Sandbreak 04:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
no one has mentioned about dawoods links with MQM
Content removed, probably copyright violation, taken from [1]. See Wikipedia:COPY#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others Bazzargh ( talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"His name has become a byword in political, business and law enforcement circles."
A byword for what? This is meaningless. -- IRONY-POLICE ( talk) 13:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this of interest? mum08
Guess it has to mature more before added as a paragraph, - but might under "current status" kind of review?
Edmundmedmunn ( talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ach, never mind. Read the article without catching it. Do not know how i managed that. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Edmundmedmunn ( talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He isn't important.-- 24.171.1.195 ( talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Bugnot more than doubled the size of this article by adding a bunch of new text, but a huge percentage of it (if not all of it) was taken verbatim from other sources and is as such a copyright violation. I have thus reverted to a much earlier version. This material is not lost (it's there in the edit history), and I imagine much of it can be incorporated, but it needs to be written in our own words, not taken directly from news sources. To Bugnot, please discuss this matter rather than simply re-adding it—violating copyright is a major problem and we cannot have that. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace: Thanks for your comment on the Dawood article. While I understand that some of the new information is portions of news/other articles but please also note that I've mentioned them as quotes from newspapers (which are copied as it is) and have also referenced the source appropriately, in which case, they can't be termed as copyright violations. If you think that there is any copyvio, please correct that portion of the article and/or reword it and/or summarize it but please don't delete information because information regarding Don Dawood's early years and criminal-career is scarce and is very difficult to find. However, I've worked hard and collected information from many, many different sources and referenced them appropriately so that any Wikipedian is able to get any/all info. regarding Dawood very easily. As such, I'm reverting your edit. I hope you will understand. Thanks.-- Bugnot ( talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to still be a pretty big problem. Bugnot must have reverted, yet again, because a massive proportion of the article is comprised of verbatim multi-paragraph quotations. Bugnot, Bigtimepeace is right, your additions are copyright infringement and put Wikipedia at serious legal risk. For quotations to be protected as fair use, must account for the amount and sustainability of the work as a whole. That is to say, a few sentences taken from a book, used in a book review is acceptable, reproducing half of the book is not. Your quotations amount to significant proportions of the news article from which they were taken, and serve as substitutes for original content. Quotations may act to further illustrate points or provide examples, but may not make the entire argument themselves - the quotations cannot be the content, they may only serve to better illustrate the content. Furthermore, by reproducing such large portions of these articles, you have potentially negatively impacted the market potential of the originals - thus violating fair use protections. If large enough portions of a work are quoted to act as an effective market substitute (if people could just read the wikipedia article, instead of the news sources from which you were citing), it is a direct violation of copyright law. I am reverting this page to its previous state. If you wish the page to have the additional material please illustrate the salient points in your own words, and cite your sources properly. Otherwise, do not re-re-re-re-revert the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.54.159 ( talk) 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've blanked the article and am submitting it for copyvio clean up. From the looks of the talk page this doesn't appear to be the first time this problem has come up. I checked about 4-5 references and most of the associated text is either outright copyvio or a close paraphrase. Here are some copyvio sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. — Spaceman Spiff 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.224.238 ( talk) 03:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dawood Ibrahim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dawood Ibrahim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please change Infobox and starting content to this. The edits are appropriate and sourced. Please don't reject IF found a minor error.-- 119.160.101.59 ( talk) 07:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
New edit
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dawood Ibrahim ( Marathi:दाऊद इब्राहीम कासकर, born Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar 26 December 1955) also known as Dawood Bhai or simply Bhai ([Brother, Big brother or Boss] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup ( help)) is a crime lord and terrorist originally from Dongri in Mumbai, India. |
The sources all state that india either insists or claims he resides in Pakistan the information should reflect the sources can neutral users please read this as the ones with pov agenda seem to think its pov to state this is a Indian claim. 82.132.187.115 ( talk) 21:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
alright then, let's discuss each of the "neutral" and "credible" sources you've listed here (i assume you believe them to be so else it would be pointless to share them here). first, even without diving into the book, telling by the fact it is a piece by the RAND corporation, we can deduce that it is not a credible source in the context of Pakistan. not only does this organisation have a history of one-sided analysis on issues relating to Pakistan, they are a think-tank. Think tanks are not, by nature, reliable sources of information regardless of how "independent" they claim to be (see this page for discussions /info/en/?search=Talk:Think_tank). now, onto the book itself. this book was published in 2008. a lot of things can and have changed in 10 years since then so already this book is outdated. Now, the book, in order to justify its claims of Dawood's relocation to Karachi, references the book "Karachi, a terror capital in the making" by Wilson John which was published by rupa and co, an indian publisher based in kolkata in association with the observer and research foundation, an "independent" indian think tank whos notable advisors and fellows include indian ambassadors, media advisors an a former head of the indian Research and Analysis Wing. so not only is the book you mentioned uncredible, but so is the book it references.
/info/en/?search=Observer_Research_Foundation
so that's the first source refuted, now onto the next one. sadly i don't have the book at hand nor can i find an available online copy so i can't dismiss it but neither can it be accepted as a source to support the idea that ibrahim is in pakistan unless evidence can be provided from the book. finally onto the last source. if we take a look at page 69, the only page that even mentions anything about dawood relocating to karachi, we find that it is said that he relocated to karachi and indian claims this to be the case, not that it is a certainty. interestingly on the same page, we find that "In 2000, a campaign was orchestrated by India to link Dawood to Al Qaeda and the global network of terrorists. The main objective was to enlist the support of the United States and other Western countries in finding him."
so that's 2 of the sources refuted and 1 neutralised. if you hadn't just written a "POV version before actually researching the subject", you would have realised the books were not "published by neutral authors and esteemed publishers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
first, i would recommend you read through my first response carefully this time. second, i would appreciate if you were to provide the page numbers in the books that you provide to support your claims if it is possible.
now, think tanks are not automatically WP:RS. even if i were to give you that the RAND corporation is reliable, you cannot deny their explicit bias toward nations and ideas that oppose their agenda. just one indicator of this is their funding which can be seen through this link ( https://www.rand.org/about/clients_grantors.html)
the first source you provided has already been debunked in my first reponse. please read my first reponse more carefully.
the second source you provided is by stephen tenkel, an american who has closely co-operated with the US department of defense and US policy makers and members of the US intelligence community so the bias in his writing is irrefutable ( https://www.american.edu/sis/faculty/tankel.cfm). also, the page where the author claims that dawood fled to karachi has no citation for this and is outdated since it makes claims that no plan has been adopted by pakistan to clean up karachi but not long after the book was published, pakistani rangers were sent into karachi to eradicate terrorists and terrorist sanctuaries as well as gangs and very significant progress has been achieved. ( https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Iu1wBAAAQBAJ&q=dawood#v=onepage&q=dawood&f=false).
the third source you provided is written by Ryan Clarke who has links to the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (New Delhi) ( https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=765) ( https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4379559.Ryan_Clarke). this overwhelmingly references indian sources, namely news outlets and web portals and exclusively references them with regard to dawood ibrahim. examples include rediff, an Indian news, information, entertainment and shopping web portal, founded in 1996 ( /info/en/?search=Rediff.com), the hindu and the times of india so there is undoubtedly bias.
now that that's cleared up, let me make a few important notes: first, i know that sources don't have to be neutral to be reliable according to wikipedia rules; however, these need to be used in proportion to sources that present the opposing case when cited in a wikipedia article ( WP:NPOV) else they should not be used at all. second, this discussion was not about whether dawood moved to karachi, but about whether he currently resides there. all of these sources that you've provided mention that he moved there but like i said, it's been more than a decade since the claimed date of his relocation to karachi so there is no certainty that he still resides there (if he resided there at all). that's why my edits were perfectly reasonable when the article was changed to read that india "alleges" he lives in karachi because that's the truth. you can even throw in that the US alleges he lives there but they are only allegations. also there is no reason to revert my edits when i added that pakistan refutes these allegations, which it does. i even provided sources.
i hope you read this response and my first response carefully before posting more "sources" to backup your claims. thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I hope this answers all your questions. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 19:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thanks for your response @ Adamgerber80:. Here are my responses: (1) I can accept that RAND is WP:RS though that is only due to their stated high editorial and research standards but they are by no means WP:NPOV. This is not possible due to their funding by government institutions especially when those institutions are related to defence, security and intelligence.
(2) I don't understand how this counters my point about stephen tenkel's bias due to his association with those as stated in my previous response as well as his failure to back up his claim of dawood moving to karachi with with a citation.
(3)Good point though like I've said, these are biased sources. I did, however, find this article which states that the indian media's so called "proofs" were fake: https://www.dawn.com/news/1203319 and this article which states that the addresses that india believed dawood was living at were fake: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1168888/india-embarrassed-dawood-ibrahim/ therefore there is good reason to believe he is not presently in karachi or in pakistan as a whole.
this article quotes an indian official as saying dawood was shifted from karachi to the pak-afghan border and even to central asian countries: https://tribune.com.pk/story/898391/dawood-ibrahim-shifted-to-pak-afghan-border-region-indian-official/ the article originally appeared on the indian express, for the record.
i'm not claiming these sources are neutral but according to WP:NPOV biased sources must be balanced out proportionally to represent both sides.
(4) Yes I will accept this but it is a testimony to how outdated the source is that it was published before major developments in the region it was centred around.
The article should also read that Pakistan denies dawood is in pakistan, like i said in my previous response:
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/379857/dawood-ibrahim-not-here-pakistan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Was he never put on trial for his involvement in terrorist attacks? Or is there no trial in absentia in Indian law? Totally confused here. -- Prüm ( talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
The introduction says that Dawood is in Dubai. There is an entire section about the location of Dawood and the various claims of India, Pakistan, etc. What does it even mean "Currently"? Why is no-one disputing it? If it is so confidently known, Dubai police should know it before Wikipedia! Breakfastisready ( talk) 18:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Arjayay: Why you have reverted as unsourced speculation? These things at "In popular culture" require no sources. You can just click on the article of the movie name D-Day (2013 film) and find the details. GenuineArt ( talk) 20:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:MERGEREASON - Short text and context. Also, Dawood Ibrahim isn't too long either, so a merge won't result in the target article becoming to big and can easily become a subsection. DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 08:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The article could even be merged into D-Company DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 08:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
References
change to counterfeit. Otherwise intra-wiki link is correct 94.109.18.101 ( talk) 23:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)