Talk:Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin

Untitled

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 is neutral

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)

Full Protected

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)

• As I said during the AfD I think having a short bit on the allegations and the withdrawn Guardian article is appropriate. Given how short the current article is I'd say only a sentence or two. Hobit (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think being ancient of a source fails to keep its credibility. If you think the ancient source (The New York Times) and withdrawal of allegation of the Guardian Newspaper together makes the content of this article balanced then I request to remove protection and let editors make appropriate changes. Otherwise I vote for the deletion of this article (which contains merely the career) . NasrinatWiki (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Mueen-Uddin is a trustee of Muslim Aid

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)

That's fine. I'm sorry for reverting your edit, but I wanted to revert back to before Esha795 made these edits, which were clearly defamatory in nature. I accidentally caught your edits in that reversion as well. Silverseren^C 05:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. NasrinatWiki (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Silver seren. Would you please restore Nasrinatwiki's edit, which is npov and updated info of the subject's current role in the organization? --Ragib (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NasrinatWiki has already put the info back in the article. Silverseren^C 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Recent developments"

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)nhsnh79.67.246.12 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Acted as Spiritual Adviser to GMC on Liverpool Care Pathway

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)NHSNH79.67.246.12 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by editor Applesandapples

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)

What cited content has been removed? Applesandapples (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns after November trial

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:

• "The proceedings of the International Crimes Tribunal have come under criticism from several rights groups, including the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which has described the trials as flawed."
• "...human rights groups have criticised the tribunal for being politically motivated and falling short of international standards."

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)

Hi, I am not agree with you. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin was recognized as war criminal, long before the creation of International crimes tribunal. See this Twenty Twenty Television's documentary on Mueenuddin's War Crimes involvement, directed by David Bergman (journalist)‎ and aired on 3 May 1995 The War Crimes File: Dispatches, Channel 4, 1995. Not only that, there are lots of evidences to prove him as a war criminal. All the allegations against International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) mostly circulated from Human Rights watch and other media just echo that. HRW is not a angle type organization, there are many criticizes against them. Their report against ICT is highly biased.[1]. Few more organizations are there, who talk against ICT just for heavy lobbying of Jamaat-e-Islami (Mueen-Uddin was a member of this party). So it is logical to treat him as war criminal. See these sources-[2][3][4] --FreemesM ^(talk) 07:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Freemesm, I respect you disagreeing with me, but I am concerned that you're quoting a 20 year old documentary, a website called 'Genocide Bangladesh', and a Telegraph article which doesn't back up any of the assertions you're making - in fact, it says that the entire court system has serious difficulties and leads one to believe that the court system is fatally biased. You say yourself that he was recognised as a war criminal before he was even tried! I know that Human Rights Watch has its critics - mainly from right-wing Israelis - but it is quite clear that the court has major problems. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin has been found guilty for war crimes committed during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971 by Dhaka based International Crimes Tribunal.. Hence, it would be more appropriate to change "Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (Bengali: চৌধুরী মঈনুদ্দীন; born 27 November 1948), is known as a key character of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war" to "Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (Bengali: চৌধুরী মঈনুদ্দীন; born 27 November 1948), is a convicted war criminal of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war". Introducing this complies with wikipedia policy for BLP of Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability(V), and No original research (NOR)--Kaisernahid (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kaiser, I appreciate what you are saying but it is not OK to refer to someone as a war criminal when they have been found guilty, in absentia, by a court which is recognised as flawed. It does clearly does not pass the BLP test. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think in that case, it would be appropriate to mention the concerns about the court in the wikipedia page for the court, have proper link to that page from this page and mention clearly that he has been convicted as war criminal by that court in absentia.--Kaisernahid (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How about "convicted in absentia of war crimes by a court described as flawed by Human Rights Watch"? Would that be acceptable? I am no fan of Islamic extremists but we really need to mention the shortcomings of the court. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What extremists are you a fan of? YousufMiah (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I quite like extreme ironing but I'm not very good at it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Touche, :-). I prefer extreme sports. YousufMiah (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very good at them either! I've left a question on your talk page for either you or Tanbircdq to answer when you get a spare moment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

HRW has been criticized by its founder Robert L. Bernstein who was its active chairman for 20 years and at present founding chairman emeritus. There are other organizations and people in the critiques list. So, if you want to mention the shortcomings of a court pointed by HRW in the current article, then I think you should also mention the shortcomings/criticism for bias of HRW.--Kaisernahid (talk) 22:48, 5 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)

I dont know why you are concern about this article, where a lots of proper source is provided. If someone escape from a country after committing war crimes and court sentenced him. We have nothing to do with it. It has lots of media coverage, so I think this article doesn't violet WP:BLP rule.--FreemesM ^(talk) 06:50, 5 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)

The lead is chronological. First he was a suspect. Then he was convicted. He was presumed innocent before conviction. The NY Times does not find people guilty. Additionally, the NY Times said, "Mr. Mueenuddin has been identified as the head of a secret, commando-like organization...." That is not the same thing as "Mr. Mueenuddin was the head of a secret, commando-like organization...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant, thanks for your contribution on this article. Let me clarify the whole thing. You told that you want to rearrange the lead chronologically. But that doesn't portray his true identity. See this Twenty Twenty Television's documentary on Mueenuddin's War Crimes involvement, directed by David Bergman (journalist)‎ and aired on 3 May 1995 The War Crimes File: Dispatches, Channel 4, 1995. It is proven that he escape from Bangladesh to avoid the punishment for committing war crimes. He didn't face the court, nether any court declared that he is not guilty. So why should we avoid Bangladeshi court's verdict?--FreemesM ^(talk) 10:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the Bangladeshi court seems to be a kangaroo court... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 13:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Any reference for this claim from neutral parties?--Kaisernahid (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry you are taking side at the beginning, rather than making this article neutral. You must keep in mind that Mueen-Uddin was in wanted list for committing war crimes, long before creation of International crimes tribunal (Bangladesh)[5]. Moreover deference party always try to present the court as flawed. That doesn't mean that convicted person is innocent. Mueen-Uddin's political party Jamaat-e-islam invested lots of money to stop this trial process.[6][7] I am requesting you, please don't try to present Mueen Uddin as innocent.--FreemesM ^(talk) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kaisernahid, could you please join this discussion?--FreemesM ^(talk) 11:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia policy

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 disagree. Denial/absence of extradition does not contradict conviction. A person may not be extradited if two countries do not have extradition treaties. In addition to that, have a look at this case as an example, where UK did not agree to extradite a sex offender accused in US court in 2012. It does not mean that the UK court is saying that the person is not sex offender. On the contrary, it means that the UK court believes that he is a sex offender and thus denied extradition because of the strict punishment of sex offenders in US.--Kaisernahid (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What if the UK denied extradition, but for other reasons in addition to strict punishment of sex offenders in the US, such as lack of fair trial in the US? Wouldn't that clearly contradict conviction?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that "what-if" requires a separate debate, which is clearly not the case for current article at this point and hence no contradiction. --Kaisernahid (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Britain is concerned not only about the death penalty but also fairness of the trial: "Britain may still agree to send him to Bangladesh but only with assurances he would receive a fair trial and that he would not be executed if found guilty."[8]Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

International crimes tribunal (Bangladesh) is a domestic tribunal, to punish those who commit international crimes. Court has got sufficient evidence against him even government employ lawyer for him. UK govt's request doesn't proof that CM is not guilty. It is a trick to question the system to save the defense team. According to all the media coverage surely CM is a convicted war criminal, until any other court declare that he is not guilty.--FreemesM ^(talk) 08:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we're just trying to be careful and trying to follow policy. If the UK extradites him to face punishment, then I'll be the first to urge that "convicted criminal" be written all over this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. I don't understand why CM's war criminal conviction depends on UK's decision, where Bangladesh is a sovereign country?

"A person is accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law."' Exactly so. And Mueen has been convicted by a court of law. BLPCRIME doesn't specify that a conviction in a court of law is only valid if it is a UK court of law, nor that the conviction is approved and enacted by courts of law in countries other than the one that made the conviction. The article can certainly record (reliably sourced) dissent from the conviction elsewhere in the world, and it can record (reliably sourced) criticism of the standards of the convicting court. But the article cannot declare the conviction itself somehow in doubt, as if the fact of it is uncertain or legally reliant on UK approval before it has the status of a factual happening. Euryalus (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Euryalus, what do you think of this? Shall we feature this in the leads of the people convicted? I strongly object to any first paragraph of this article that fails to mention the refusal of Great Britain to extradite, and/or Britain's choice ( thus far) to not prosecute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think its a "report" by an outlet with a self-declared role as an advocate, and therefore falls within the definition of biased or opinionated sources. It may be reliable in a specific context, but I'd hesitate to depend upon "Common Dreams" for any significant point. I'd also suggest that even if more reliable sources were found, this "symbolic" Malaysian finding is not what Bush or Cheney are best known for. You might mention this finding in the article body if properly sourced and contextualised (and having regard for undue weight). But not in the lead as that should be a summary only of the most significant matters, and this Malaysian finding is not as significant as other things Bush or Cheney are known for. On the UK failure to extradite, if you think this should belong in the Mueen article lead, then by all means insert it. It is certainly relevant to Mueen's biography, and arguably has significance as the reason the sentence has not been carried out. Euryalus (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe best if we centralize discussion at BLPN for now. I've edited this article many times and been reverted , so I'd rather play a supporting role here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing the word "Mastermind"

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)

Source from NYT

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)

Where does it mention Mueen? Also, it seems to pre-date his trial.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't mention him, but it mentions the court itself and the problems which surround it. I also found a document at http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN06318 which is a UK Government briefing on the situation and historical background. I think it's very difficult to be neutral about the trial of the man without understanding the history of the court. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but watch out for WP:SYNTH. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How on earth is this a neutral source, when the author explicitly states that he has been on the legal team of one of the accused (and now convicted)?--31.205.56.85 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The NYTimes piece is an interesting article, and already referenced in the text. But it is an opinion piece, not a journalistic report. And it is by a lawyer for one of the accused. Opinion pieces like this are specifically covered in the guideline on reliable sources - it is a reliable source for the opinions of its author and perhaps their client, but not a reliable source for general statements in the article. Euryalus (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

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)

Extradite because of unfairness or death penalty?

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)

This is a secondary source, rather than a direct quote from a government official. I could look for a primary source, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. See WP:Primary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your 'secondary source' says: "Britain may still agree to send him to Bangladesh but only with assurances he would receive a fair trial and that he would not be executed if found guilty." Is this all you have? This is (1) pre-trial, (2) has 'may', (3) doesn't say who Britain is and (4) does not disambiguate between the two underlying reasons. Have you read Warren Daley's statement? --Kaisernahid (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If Bangladesh agrees to cancel the death penalty for Mueen, but insists on no retrial, do you think the UK would extradite? That would mean Mueen would get life in prison without ever having had his day in court.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential prosecution in Britain

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)

It's already substantiated in the Wikipedia article: "Although Scotland Yard said in the 1990s that Bangladesh had primary jurisdiction for prosecuting Mueen for the 1971 killings,[1] Britain could reconsider its decision to not prosecute".[2]

[1] Bergman, David. "Bangladesh: Tracking down the killers", New Age, via South Asia Citizens Web (November 8, 2013).

[2] Bright, Martin. "Convicted in Bangladesh - what it means in the UK", The Jewish Chronicle (November 7, 2013).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about how Britain can actually deal with suspects of genocide other than deporting them to the UN or where they're wanted. As far as I understand, the British government has never even considered the matter seriously. And in the 1990s, even the Bangladeshi government at the time was not considering pursuing this case. The Jewish Chronicle btw, is a really random source for a Bangladesh story.--Bazaan (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The government of the UK decided that Augusto Pinochet could only be prosecuted for crimes committed after 1988, the date during which the United Kingdom implemented legislation for the United Nations Convention Against Torture in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Since 1971 was before 1988, there could be a problem prosecuting Mueen in the UK for torture, but maybe not for murder. In any event, the two cited sources are reliable, and the authors are well-known.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Mueen-Uddin has been charged and convicted of crimes against humanity. His is not an everyday murder trial, he is accused of attempting to eliminate the Bengali intelligentsia through selective genocide. As for your sources, I do not dispute them or find them unreliable, (david bergman is probably the best source there is on the issue), but the UK has never officially stated that it is considering his prosecution.--Bazaan (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Status of court

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)

No one said that it is an international court. But you're probably not aware of the fact that under the Bangladeshi constitution, the ICT is a special court within the domestic legal system dealing with international criminal offences, specified under several UN treaties and conventions.[11] war crimes are not domestic affairs, and the only laws against genocide are those of the UN. Hence the name International Crimes Tribunal.

Whether the ICT is actually living up to international standards is a different matter. The point I made is that Britain cannot even prosecute Mueen-Uddin because it doesn't even have a war crimes tribunal.--Bazaan (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the article should not imply that the ICT is a supranational body, like the International Crimional Court in The Hague. That doesn't invalidate its verdict, but is an important point to clarify. Is there a specific edit or addtion that you think needs adding to make this clearer in the text? Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox and BLPCRIME

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)

Article lead

Recent edits have made the firstr sentence of this article a little hard to follow. Can I suggest the following as an alternative:

"Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (Bengali: চৌধুরী মঈনুদ্দীন; born 27 November 1948), is a former journalist and community activist in Bangladesh and the United Kingdom, who was convicted in absentia by a Bangladesh court in 2013, arising from the 1971 killing of Bengali intellectuals at the time of Bangladesh liberation war."

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2014

Please change the link for Abul Kalam Azad to Abul Kalam Azad Letsknowthetruth (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2015

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)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907000904/http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-12/19/article04.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-12/19/article04.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_03-05-2013_ICT-issues-arrest-order-against-Mueen%2C-Ashrafuzzaman_485_1_2_1_0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105044442/http://theindependentbd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166846%3Aict-2-to-pass-order-on-chy-mueen-ashraf-on-may-2&catid=172%3Amiscellaneous&Itemid=202 to http://theindependentbd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166846%3Aict-2-to-pass-order-on-chy-mueen-ashraf-on-may-2&catid=172%3Amiscellaneous&Itemid=202
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606041640/http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/about-us/governance to http://www.muslimaid.org/index.php/about-us/governance

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)