Talk:Maajid Nawaz

Why ?

"Nawaz entered the spotlight when as part of a compulsory year abroad as part of his university degree, he travelled to Egypt and was jailed and tortured." - One has to ask if Nawaz was compelled specifically to go to a country where an organization of which he was a leading light was banned - if not, why did he choose to go there ? ? ?

Quilliam Foundation

This article is extremley biased against the quilliam foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.102.112 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Maajid Nawaz and not the Quilliam Foundation - if you feel you can improve it please feel free to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I came here to read about this person after seeing a profile of him on the American TV program 60 Minutes, and am frankly shocked at the very strong POV displayed. I'll have to see if I just caught it in the middle of an edit war.K8 fan (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr Nawaz's family

Is it proper or indeed appropriate to name Mr Nawaz's family? This information appears to be freely available elsewhere, although only one citation is made.

The fact that his ex-wife had been a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and left him when he left the organization is very relevant to Maajid Nawaz's life. There are many things individuals would prefer were not reported in the press or were not on Wikipedia, but the relevance seems very clear.K8 fan (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Maajid has decided to comply with his ex-wife's wish to not be named on this page. If needed, a contribution to the talk page from his own account can be provided. The article page is semi-protected, so the edit cannot be made by myself.

Please remove "Rabia Ahmed" from the spouse section of the quick bio box. Please also replace "At the age of 21, he married Rabia Ahmed, then a fellow Hizb ut-Tahrir activist and a biology student;[8] they have a son named Ammar, named after Muhammad's companion Ammar ibn Yasir.[5][9] On Nawaz's decision to leave Hizb ut-Tahrir, they separated and divorced.[10]" with "At the age of 21, he married a fellow Hizb-ut-Tahrir activist and a biology student; they have a son named Ammaar, named after Muhammad's companion Ammar ibn Yasir.[5][9] Nawaz and his first wife separated then divorced in 2008." In this requested replacement sentence I have also removed the citations; [8] due to concerns on accuracy (but if the citation is still needed for the first wife being a biology student and Hizb activist I imagine that can be left in or discussed further first.) I removed [10] because it is inaccessible without registering one's details first. --LittleBigBlueBox (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)

LittleBigBlueBox, Mr Nawaz's wishes are irrelevant to us! However, his ex-wife, since she is not notable and has separated from both Nawaz and her previous activist life, is entitled to anonymity from us, I have therefore amended the text such that neither she nor their son is named. Incidentally, she is not actually named in any of the sources which I was able to read (some are ££), therefore the info should have been removed anyway as unverified potentially libelous info about a living person. I have not removed sources Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: The extent of the abuse

There is an edit war going on here with a user who has just joined and has only edited this article. The user seems to have an agenda to minimize the extent of Mr. Nawaz's abuse at the hands of the Egyptian security services. The highly respected international human rights organization Amnesty International adopted Maajid Nawaz as a "Prisoner of Conscience". I provided links to Amnesty's press release detailing their summation of the abuse. User: Ksmith009 has insisted on removing links to Amnesty sources and replacing it with a single, incomplete newspaper report that minimizes the abuse. We may have to ask an administrator to look at this situation and possible ask for semi-protection. K8 fan (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

REPLY BY Ksmith009 I have justified the issue completely: I have not minimised the abuse, but rather taken the account of the abuse from the primary source - the victims, and their words when interviewed collectively (see the Guardian article) in which Nawaz explicitly states EXACTLY what happened to him in detail, and then quoted these words on the wiki page. This is more accurate that general press releases by Amnesty International or individual accounts which use vague terms to describe what happens.

K8 should recognise this is a wikipedia page and not a hagiographical account, and should recognise that the use of words such as "claims" and "alleged" are appropriate when they are singular accounts, and that references such as BBC video are valid.

I have no problem with the use of the Amnesty reference, but it should not be used to take precedence over a specific interview with the 3 detainees as the specific interview with details is a more primary source,and the fact it was with 3 of them means it is corroborated and not based upon one persons account alone.

[NOTE - I realised that the actual Amnesty reference had been removed, though the information about Prisoner of Conscience remained on the page. I was halfway through adding the reference to Amnesty for the same point, but page was blocked at that time] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksmith009 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I requested protection. As this is the only page you have edited, you seem to have an agenda to minimize Mr. Nawaz's abuse and to damage his credibility. I am going to request mediation. K8 fan (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the page be reverted to the version that existed on 12:19, 7 June 2011, before the recent spate of edits by Ksmith009 and myself. Thank you. K8 fan (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are going to find it hard to prove I am out to damage his credibility by referencing his direct words, and through the consistent use of the word "claim" when it is an individual account. But thats up to you - its more likely IMO that you have an agenda to lionize him by removing careful language such as "claim", by treating his articles as verified fact and by placing general accounts which suit your agenda ahead of interviews with multiple prisoners collectively. Good luck :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksmith009 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, Amnesty International is one of the most widely respected human rights organizations. Your edits appear to be attempting to claim that he suffered no abuse at all. You also dispute that he talked to his cell mates, the time-line of his conversion from Islamist to anti-Islamist and other isses. You have tried to add links to pictures on a blog, calling it a "news report". K8 fan (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with K8's suggestion as the edits I made have made the article more verifiable, more accurate, and less based upon conjecture and singular accounts. through the use of careful language, and primary source material, I have added to the quality of the page and K8's dispute does not appear to be neutral. They also appear not to realise what consists a reference, and how to outweigh references when they contradict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksmith009 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty wrote some general points which conflicted with SPECIFIC accounts from the ACTUAL PRISONERS! Therefore the primary source takes precedence. As for his claims - I do not dispute them - but they are simply CLAIMS - they are not corroborated by any of the other prisoners and so they should be left as HIS CLAIMS and not fact. I did not remove the details but simply said he CLAIMS x y and z

Amnesty International would not likely stake it's considerable reputation on someone if they did not have evidence that person had suffered abuse. K8 fan (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And as for the pictures - I linked to a news article and you STILL didn't accept it - and so I compromised and left it out.

A blog posting is not a "news report". K8 fan (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

However - you appear to be unreasonable and I believe any moderator will agree with my edits other than the blog post, given I am using primary sources and making sure the reader knows that some of the claims are singularly made and not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksmith009 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was working to add an Infobox to the article, gathering biographical information but I am going to step away from this issue for a day, and will return to evaluate the situation. K8 fan (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Blog Post: The blog post was reported by reputable news organisations - and I mentioned the words "allegedly" - again making it clear it was not fact. In any case I removed it to keep you happy - that was a compromise on my part though I see nothing wrong with referencing a newspaper which references allegations as long as it is made clear they are merely allegations.

Amnesty international: Their report was a general statement - the prisoner's own accounts after they had returned from jail to their home country is obviously the primary source, I don't think you can argue otherwise. You have to take the general secondary source Amnesty statement which by the way does not talk about any specific persons treatment, in light of the primary accounts of the 3 people that details what happened to each specific person.

Use of Words: It is correct to state Nawaz "claims" he was in a cell with a person, since it is purely his claim and has not been verified by any other primary source such as other prisoners. In the same way we use the word alleged for torture since it is alleged until proven in court. And in the same way he "claimed" to be afraid that they were going to punch him. All of this is the correct use of the term rather than trying to state the information as though it is fact.

Resolution: I think the article is fine as is - but that the Amnesty reference should be re-inserted to reference the fact that they were adopted as prisoners of conscience, which I was in the middle of doing. Those Amnesty details which contradict first hand accounts should be left out, and the vague statements which are not clarified should be left out in favor of specific details that Nawaz mentioned in his interview, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksmith009 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi - I'm here because I signed up for the Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service. As a sidenote, you guys could be better about indenting your discussions, particularly Ksmith009. This is only going to help you get your point across. You could also show more diffs in your discussions, since this is a RFC. In the Guardian source, Nawaz explicitly says that "it was torture". This is in contrast to Ksmith009's 21 June edit. Now, I can see Ksmith's point - Nawaz says that they threatened to shock him, but they did not, apparently because he was compliant. He apparently considered the threat of torture and harsh conditions (e.g., sleep deprivation) to be torture. I don't know whether that technically is torture - it seems close, but not the same. So hink describing it a bit more carefully for neutrality would be OK and probably better. Obviously, torture does happen at these places, as the other two were tortured. By the way, Nawaz is interviewed in the Amnesty International ref (Women Without Borders interview) and speaks more ambiguously "They systematically tortured us with electrodes – we went through everything..." - nevertheless, in the Guardian he explicitly says he was not hit with the electrodes, so I think that trumps the ambiguous statement. II | (t - c) 20:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sleep deprivation and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" are considered torturous if used to extreme. An Amnesty spokeswoman said: "At the very least, sleep deprivation is cruel, inhumane and degrading. If used for prolonged periods of time it is torture." I am comfortable with the wording "abused" or "subject to harsh treatment" instead of "torture" if that is an issue. As previously noted, Amnesty International wouldn't have adopted Nawaz as a "Prisoner of Conscience" if they had reason to doubt the validity of his experience. K8 fan (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is he still a Muslim?

In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9PUDoYc8s8 he clearly states that under Sharia Law, as an apostate, he would suffer execution. Is it therefore correct to have him described on this page to be a British Muslim? JAC Esquire (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC) "It was 1995 and I was president of the Student Union at Newham College in East Ham. The union was nothing but a front for HT. We siphoned off money to our cause, giving lectures and preaching anywhere and everywhere - the street, the yard and the canteen, where I would stand on the tables and spout hate." Daily Telegraph 29 May2013. Bit contradictory this lad. Admits his organisation was a front. So should anyone fully accept wahat he says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.235.24 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like he's variably an atheist and a Muslim depending which is more convenient to his arguments. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think he meant he's too moderate a Muslim, he probably wouldn't be considered religious enough to be a proper Muslim under Sharia law. Also, he supports gay rights and the rights of blasphemers. That would probably make him worthy of death in Saudi Arabia. --Webbie1234 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC) lol. and you bveliev him when he says it? lol, yur funny. go lern what taqqiya is please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.126.43 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 June 2013

Suggested changes for biography section of article that better reflect other sources found online (hyperlinks included): 'Maajid Nawaz is co-founder and Chairman of the Quilliam Foundation- a London based think tank focused on the issues of Integration, Citizenship & Identity, Religious Freedom, Extremism, and Immigration. He is also the founder of Khudi, a social movement based in Pakistan that campaigns to create a democratic culture among the youth there. Maajid is a British- Pakistani born in Essex. In his youth, he became heavily involved in a global Islamist group, for which he primarily did work for in the UK , Pakistan, and Egypt. Maajid was arrested in 2002 and spent four years in an Egyptian prison, becoming an Amnesty International “prisoner of conscience.” After his release, he gradually abandoned his Islamist views and resigned from his group in 2007, turning to embrace liberal democratic values. Maajid has become one of the foremost critics of his former Islamist ideology, yet remains a Muslim in faith. His former involvement in the Islamist movement inspired his focus on human rights and individual liberties and in 2008, he co- launched the Quilliam Foundation to promote those values. He works specifically to encourage Western Muslims to find an inclusive identity in their citizenship, while promoting respect for human rights and the protection of civil liberties and fighting extremism. Maajid has spread his message through writing, debating, and acting as a public commentator, as well as speaking on many platforms internationally, from speaking in universities across Pakistan to addressing the U.S. Senate and presenting at a TED conference in Edinburgh. His work has been published in many newspapers including: The London Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, India Times, Dawn Pakistan, and The Guardian, among many others. He has also been profiled by CBS 60 Minutes, Larry King Live, and BBC Newsnight. Maajid’s autobiography ‘RADICAL’ has been released in the UK. Maajid studied Arabic and Law at SOAS and holds an MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics. His personal interests are in Arabic grammar and morphology, Muslim Medieval jurisprudence, scholastics and poetry, and emerging political trends. He speaks English, Arabic, and Urdu. Maajid is a proud father to his young son.'

Request has been posted on COI board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIN#Maajid_Nawaz MaajidN (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Proposed text violates WP:NPOV through inclusion of weasel words and is likely written by the subject. I have no objection to the content of this proposal being included on the article, just not in the manner in which it is presently written. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the Quilliam Foundation asking for sources of biographical information more than a year ago, and they never responded to my request. If someone can take responsibility, I would be happy to work with them to improve this article. K8 fan (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Which words/ phrases constitute as 'weasel words' in the text? How would you suggest they be changed? MaajidN (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In my reply, I'm going to assume that you are indeed the author Maajid Nawaz.

The phrase "foremost critics" would require cites. The phrase "inspired his focus" is OK for a website biography, but does not really suit an encyclopedia entry.

The TED conference entry would be very useful as a reference, assuming a text transcript is available.

The sentence "His work has been published in many newspapers including: The London Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, India Times, Dawn Pakistan, and The Guardian, among many others" reads as fluff - actually linking to each of these will establish it sufficiently.

"Maajid’s autobiography ‘RADICAL’ has been released in the UK" should be listed in a publications section, as well as using quotes from it in the biography section.

"Maajid studied Arabic and Law at SOAS and holds an MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics" we try to avoid using unexpanded acronyms like SOAS without making them explicit earlier in the article.

"His personal interests are in Arabic grammar and morphology, Muslim Medieval jurisprudence, scholastics and poetry, and emerging political trends" reads as fluff. For instance, I work on the page for the musician and composer Wendy Carlos who is an amateur solar eclipse photographer. In her case, NASA has linked to her photos, establishing the seriousness of her interest.

"Maajid is a proud father to his young son" - See above for the discussion of including your ex-wife. A better reference discussing the split would be very welcom - is it included in "RADICAL"? I would be happy to read the book for inclusion.

And lastly, in general, the subject of an article is not a good choice to contribute to the article. Usually, they want to cut and paste the boiler-plate bio from their web site, or massage it to make themselves look better. I'm not saying you would, but as a general rule, Wikipedia has chosen to not allow subjects to do so.K8 fan (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Foremost critic reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/24/majid-nawaz-pakistan-death-threats (see paragraph 4)

TED transcript available here: http://www.ted.com/talks/maajid_nawaz_a_global_culture_to_fight_extremism.html

Links for articles: London Times: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1265368.ece

The Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1f2ac0c8-14fe-11e1-a2a6-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F1f2ac0c8-14fe-11e1-a2a6-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3Dmaajid%2Bnawaz

The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657104576142631400043722.html

Dawn Pakistan: http://dawn.com/2011/06/26/how-to-fight-back/

Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/01/drone-killing-anwar-al-awlaki?INTCMP=SRCH

Familial information is included in 'RADICAL'

Interest in grammar and jurisprudence: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2008/quilliam_foundation.html (Maajid Nawaz section, paragraph 2)

SOAS: University of London (School of Oriental and African Studies)MaajidN (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: No suggestions on what to change to resolve the WP:NPOV issues. Mdann52 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the information has been included, and the article in in much better shape.K8 fan (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Hampstead and Kilburn

It may be worth having a separate sub-section for Maajid's selection as the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, as this has already received significant media coverage. Since then Maajid has already been included in The Telegraph's Top 50 Most Influential Liberal Democrats (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10312680/Top-50-most-influential-Liberal-Democrats-26-50.html). Particular attention will likely be given to the campaign, due to it being the most marginal seat in England, with current MP Glenda Jackson winning in 2010 with a majority of 41 votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampstead_and_Kilburn_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Other recent media coverage arose from Maajid's leadership, through Quilliam, in persuading the founders of the English Defence League to resign from the leadership and publicly renounce the violent methods of the organisation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10363174/EDL-Leaders-quit-over-concern-about-far-right-extremism.html). This however, would probably fit best in the section on Maajid's work with Qulliam Foundation, rather than Maajid's campaign for the parliamentary seat of Hampstead and Kilburn.

For information, I am not a member of the Liberal Demcorat party, but am a supporter of Maajid's campaign.

Many thanks,

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.253.34 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work on this article

I've been away from WP for a while, and went through the changes since I last worked on it. I wanted to compliment Alfietucker especially on the excellent work. K8 fan (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - very cheering to have one's work appreciated (though I'm sure some more tidying could be done - RL work has got in the way!). Alfietucker (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

I would like the photo removed as I own it and it was placed in the Commons without my permission. Thanks, Chris.

Chriscambridgeshire (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Already done - it has both been deleted from Commons and removed from the article. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:British Islamists

Does this category remain even though he is now a vocal critic of Islamism? Áccénté Áígúé (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it does, so I've taken the liberty of removing it. Alfietucker (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

Please delete references to Khudi, because Maajid Nawaz is not currently working with Khudi. Source: maajidnawaz.com

There are three mentions of Khudi that should be deleted:

1) In the first paragraph, this sentence: He is also co-founder of Khudi, a counter-extremism social movement working towards the promotion of social democratic change in Pakistan.

2)In the side information panel: Organisation: Khudi Pakistan should be deleted, leaving only Quilliam Foundation

3) In the section 'Return to UK and founding Quilliam': The sentence 'He has also started an activist group in Pakistan, Khudi,[26] using his knowledge of recruitment tactics in order to combat extremism' should be deleted Timstockman (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very odd edit request. First, Nawaz undoubtedly co-founded Khudi (it even says so at maajidnawaz.com), whether he is working with the organization today or not: so 1) and 3) should most certainly *not* be deleted in any case. As for 2), until there's a reliable source to indicate that Nawaz is no longer working with Khudi, then I don't see good reason to make that deletion. Alfietucker (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - fully agree that the request appears to be trying to re-write history. Proposer has been given well over 2 weeks to respond. Arjayay (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I did not make the request very clear last time, will try again. Here is a link which makes absolutely clear that Maajid Nawaz is no longer working for Khudi: http://www.khudipakistan.com/central-executive-committee/

So of the three points above, I think number (2) about the information in the side panel should definitely be changed. I accept it does not really make sense to change the other two. Timstockman (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the link and explanation - I have added a small explanation in the article as well as removing it from the infobox. Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

wiki link for 'hit ut tair"

it would be nice if someone linked to the wiki for "hit ut tair" (or whatever) in the biography section where it is first acronymised , thanks much66.225.160.9 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done - although multiple links in the body-text are not allowed, we can have the same link in the lead, infobox and article. Arjayay (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As Maajid Nawaz is no longer working with Khudi (see link http://www.khudipakistan.com/central-executive-committee/), I think that it does not make sense to refer to Khudi in the introductory paragraph of this article, because at the moment, the introduction gives the wrong impression that he is still working with Khudi. Therefore the sentence 'He is also co-founder of Khudi Pakistan, a counter-extremism social movement working towards the promotion of social democratic change in Pakistan.' should be moved to the biography section of the article, and incorporated into the other mention of Khudi in the section 'Return to UK and founding Quilliam'.

The sentence 'He has also started an activist group in Pakistan, Khudi' which is in the biography in the section 'Return to UK and founding Quilliam' is also misleading, because it should be in the past tense to make clear that he no longer works with Khudi - ie. 'He started an activist group in Pakistan'. Timstockman (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: Reworded to put the link with Khudi in the past, did not, however, move the Khudi reference from the lede, would want further discussion regarding that first Cannolis (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

The Arabic term for the Egyptian State Security is Amn al-Dawlah or Amn ad-Dawlah and not Aman al-Dawlah as stated. Binnaeus (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

In the 'External Links' section, please add the link to Maajid Nawaz's political website standupforliberty.co.uk This is officially substantiated in that a link is provided to it from his twitter account: https://twitter.com/MaajidLibDem

Skinnermichael32 (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

There is some material in the paper alleging controversial aspects of his life (google news search for "Maajid Nawaz"). It seems to have rs's ...could a more experienced editor suggest if this should be included? Springnuts (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

My previous edit was removed, but no convincing reason was given beyond empty accusations. I have re-added my edit. I am worried that perhaps some cheerleaders for nawaz may try to use any tactics to polish his image.Novinar (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail not an RS

I've reverted an addition that I believe violates RS for BLP purposes.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper that does not meet the standards of reliability. WP:BLPSOURCES states

Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

WP:SOURCE states

best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states

One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE explicitly states

If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

My take: Abdul Malik, a Muslim strip club owner who doesn't like the Quilliam foundation, leaked a tape of Maajid at a strip club to the Daily Mail during an election cycle, alleging that this was in the public interest, and alleged that Maajid was "drunk" and touched a woman. Some News literacy questions:

1. Does the fact that Abdul Malik doesn't like the Quilliam Foundation affect his decision to take this tape to the tabloid press?
2. Why would Abdul Malik owner wait until an election cycle to publish his tape? Was it to maximise the political impact?
3. Would Abdul Malik materially benefit from politicians being unwilling to criticise him or groups he supports? Does the public shaming of one politician create a chilling effect where other politicians will be unwilling to criticise him or groups he supports?
4. The only claims that Maajid was "drunk" come from Abdul Malik, his employees, and camera footage his employees edited down. Does the Daily Mail make any attempt to independently verify that Maajid was "drunk", other than viewing a film given to them by Abdul Malik? Does the woman who works at this strip club have financial independence to speak out against her employer's claims? Did the Daily Mail publish the fact that she could lose her job if she speaks out against her employer - as basic proof that they are interested in fact-checking their stories? Does the Daily Mail have a financial interest in leaving out counterbalancing or nuanced information to create the biggest "scandal" possible?
5. Does the Daily Mail have a widespread reputation for poorer fact checking and lower journalistic ethics than other newspapers in the UK? Does the Daily Mail have a reputation for publishing sex scandals that more respected newspapers won't publish? Would the reputation for low journalistic ethics in the Daily Mail have affected Abdul Malik's decision to take the story to them, and not a more reputable outlet? Would this suggest that Abdul Malik's story would not be published in more reputable outlets?
6. Given that The Independent has reported that Muslim majority countries allow alcohol sales (also NPR and the Economist) - would this alleged "scandal" be of much interest to readers of The Independent? Is it possible that newspapers like The Independent are less interested in running this story, compared to the Daily Mail which targets less well-read audiences?
7. Given that another News Corp tabloid is widely considered sexist for it's Page 3 feature, would the Daily Mail generally be considered an outlet that cares about feminism in a considered, thoughtful, principled and consistent way? Or do they often use the term opportunistically in a pejorative fashion to brow-beat and ridicule politicians they don't like for perceived inconsistency?

All of this sounds like tabloid journalism that doesn't meet the BLP guidelines for allegations of "scandals" of public figures, because they aren't published in "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident" and the BLP guideline is clearly on the side of "leave it out" -- Aronzak (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so i added an extra source. I read your previous comment and i agree with your multiple sources point, however, i dont see why you have raised so many questions and conjecture about the intentions etc of the people involved in the event. I think this discussion should just focus on facts.Novinar (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"i dont see why you have raised so many questions" Because they are pertinent to whether the Daily Mail is a tabloid source. The HamHigh source simply copies and pastes claims that were made in the Daily Mail source with no attempt to independently verify any of the claims made - they are still all the same claims, from a single source - a strip club boss. BLPSOURCES clearly states to remove when "the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" and PUBLICFIGURE states that "multiple reliable third-party sources" are required. The questions I ask, taken together, show that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and sources that copy and paste from it without fact checking are similarly not reliable.

If you believe the Daily Mail is a reliable source, worthy for inclusion on a WP:BLP article, especially for controversial issues that running politicians are subject to, then answer the questions. -- Aronzak (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your suspicions and conjecture raised in your questions are not relevant here. What is relevant is that multiple rs are used. Ibt is used, as is h&h. There is no proof that the h&h article was lifted from dm. Do you have any objections to the articles other than the dm? If not then i dont see there is any other issue. Besides, more likely than not your fighting a loosing cause because this is a recent event that was only really revealed during the weekend. Just wait till every other media outlet runs it during the coming week. Then there will be zero issue of rs—i guarantee you.Novinar (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"There is no proof that the h&h article was lifted from dm" the H&H article states "The footage, published by the Daily Mail" - no indication that they have seen any unpublished footage, which could show exculpatory or counterbalancing information. The H&H article makes no claims that the Daily Mail article hasn't - and every sentence is a summary of what the Daily Mail reported, with no independent fact checking. As above WP:SOURCE states

best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

Wikipedia relies on media outlets that have the capability to fact check their sources. This still reduces to a single claim by a single source - the strip club's owner, who tries to discredit the candidate. Sources with higher standards that the Daily Mail may challenge the sententious narrative that touching a woman is a major moral violation. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Usual silly knee-jerk reaction to the Mail here, which has led to an absolute mess on the citing. That he visited is not in dispute - he's confirmed it - so the only question is one of notability. Normally, not particularly notable. In an election race, probably notable. Bromley86 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the questions I wrote - it's not just the DM, it's that there is only a single source making the accusation - a strip club owner and their employees. The DM is reporting allegations from a single source as truth, when that source has a pre-existing interest in that person being discredited. Other outlets simply repeat the claims made by the DM - they haven't independently evaluated the full video, or spoken to any of the people claimed to be present. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, given that Maajid has tweeted that it's true (difficult to avoid, even if he was that way inclined, given that there's CCTV evidence), I think we can dispense with the suggestion that it's an accusation and accept it as fact. Not that I disagree with your assessment of the other sources.

Also, and this is where your Daily Mail-Tabloid-BLP argument will get traction, I don't think is relevant to his bio in Personal life. Loads of people look at porn, go to strip clubs, etc. and we wouldn't expect to see it in their bio. I personally think it does belong in the Lib Dem candidate section, as it will be relevant to his election hopes, even if it's not reported in non-tabloid sources. (Struck for the moment) Bromley86 (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of which, removing the entry now. If/when it's picked up by others (rather than the churnalism we've had so far (an aside; whatever one thinks of the Mail, it didn't fall for the fake stories mentioned in that article)), then we can revisit. Bromley86 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Confused follow up in the Daily Mail

The Mail has published another article that discusses a strip club in an article about terrorism. It reads

An extremist Islamist group with a 'big UK support base' has joined forces with al-Qaeda in Syria, according to reports.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) has reportedly attacked civil activists in Aleppo alongside local al-Qaeda franchise Nusra Front, the Times has revealed.

Several British men linked to ISIS, including Mohammed 'Jihadi John' Emwazi, are known to have been in contact with the group while studying at UK universities.

Maajid Nawaz, the Liberal Democrats' Parliamentary candidate which the Daily Mail revealed to have been trying to touch a naked lap dancer at an East London strip club, was a member of HT for 13 years and jailed in Egypt for his commitment to the group.

A spokesman for Nawaz said he denied touching the dancer ‘inappropriately’ and that the visit to the strip club was part of his stag night.

One week ago, around 100 HT members, one armed with a sword, attacked activists in eastern Aleppo during an anti-regime demonstration, The Times reports.

A photograph from the demonstration seen by the newspaper allegedly shows 'HT members confronting activists, while balaclava-wearing fighters from the Nusra Front stand guard'.

A spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK denied any involvement with the Nusra Front and al-Qaeda in Syria.

Hizb ut-Tahrir (Arabic for Party of Liberation) is an international Muslim organisation which, like ISIS, advocates a single Islamic state, or caliphate, in the Middle East under Islamic law.

Sentence one is about Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK.

Sentence two is about al-Qaeda and al-Nusra in Syria.

Sentence three is about Jihadi John and ISIS.

Sentence four is about Maajid Nawaz. What does a strip club have to do with Jihadi John and ISIS?

Sentence five is about Maajid, and sentence six is about Hizb ut-Tahrir in Syria, sentence seven is about al-Nusra in Syria. What does a strip club have to do with machetes in Syria?

The report goes on

Waheed Ahmed, 21 – the son of Rochdale Labour councillor Shakil Ahmed who was arrested in Turkey last month trying to cross into Syria with eight other Brits - is said to be a member after being recruited as a student at Manchester University.

Lib Dem candidate Nawaz, prospective MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, spent 13 years inside Hizb ut-Tahrir and was jailed in Egypt in 2005 for his role in radical Islamist group.

On his return to England in 2006, the 37-year-old renounced his views and set up 'counter-extremism think-tank' the Quilliam Foundation.

This follows revelations by the Daily Mail this morning that the would-be MP was filmed trying to touch an exotic dancer during several private sessions at a strip club in Whitechapel, east London.

Again, there is a sentence on a possible terrorist/extremist - then the topic shifts to Maajid Nawaz in the next sentence, then two sentences later insinuates a link between terrorism and a strip club.

In my opinion, this reporting is, at best, confused by linking a strip club to Syria and at worst, insinuating that Maajid has links to terrorism, or that all British Muslims have links to terrorism and murderers.

If the second article is confused, then the first article does not constitute a Reliable Source.

Note that vilification of Muslims as a whole occurs in the comment section on Breitbart.

I'm removing this again from the article per BLPREMOVE and PUBLICFIGURE which states "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The second report shows it is obviously a tabloid, and all other reports make no independent fact checking of their account. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

you are only skirting the real issue here with far-fetched conjecture. The issue is there are multiple sources, they relate to an issue that controversially contradicts what this man claims to represent ie. The islamic faith. As an analogy: if a christian campaigner was caught in a similar scenario, wouldnt it be worthy and notable of inclusion? I think so. If that person was say russell brand would it be noteworthy? Probably not.Novinar (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"if a christian campaigner was caught in a similar scenario, wouldnt it be worthy and notable of inclusion?" No, becuase all Biographical articles have higher standards of neutrality and source quality. The Biographical article guidelines state "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." It doesn't matter what religion the person is, biographical article have higher standards expected on the source quality.

I state that the Daily Mail does not meet the standards of neutrality and [WP:Identifying reliable sources|source quality]] needed in a Biographical article. Bromley86 says that the other sources are churnalism - that is, they echo the Daily Mail's reporting - without fact-checking any of the claims - and I agree.

Bromley86 says that churnalism in other outlets does not justify inclusion. The policies for public figures mean that material published in tabloids, as well as churnalism based on tabloids alone, is not worthy for inclusion in biographical articles, that have higher standards for neutrality and [WP:Identifying reliable sources|source quality]].

An election year hatchet job of a running politician is not immediately worthy for inclusion, if it is only documented in tabloids and churnalism of that tabloid, no matter the candidate's religion.

BLP policy allows for the immediate removal of material without discussion from biographical articles - if the story is noteworthy it will be picked up by an independent reputable outlet that will do their own fact-checking within 24 hours. Please don't edit war, and don't re-add material without justifying how the report is independent of the Daily Mail's reporting. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's odd to be on this side of the inclusion/exclusion argument, but what Aronzak says. If there's evidence of it having an effect on his campaign or further reporting in non-Mail or red tops, then we can reconsider. Regarding the "Muslim spokesman" point in the edit summary: the source makes no comment on that other than to give the opinions of a strip club owner & its manager. Is the opinion of such people on someone's religious beliefs/actions worthy of inclusion in a bio? (In case the answer is not obvious, it's clearly "no").

BTW, in case you're tempted to edit war on this, you should know that you will lose. I've used that Mail article to support the fact that he's now married to Rachel, and added in his son with Rabia. There's every chance someone will remove that support for the basic bio details, but on something that's negative/contentious, you don't have a chance. Just a heads-up based on my previous experience; if you don't believe me, head off to the WP:RSN and search for Daily Mail and BLP. Bromley86 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

See, I told you! @Aronzak. The Mail cite is far better for his wedding than Twitter (which I generally have no problem with as a source) in this case, as it supports the text; the Twitter post supports him marrying sometime 2015 or sooner. The second twitter ref is unnecessary (and confusing with the link to her website). As to the supposed security reasons for not disseminating the date, that would be OR and doesn't really make sense anyway. Bromley86 (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Added this - I didn't want to add the H&H without clarifying the difference between churnalism and fact-checked independent reporting. This covers both claims about divorce, child custody and remarriage in a seemly fact-checked, non-inflammatory way (Not an excuse to re-add hatchet job churnalism). -- Aronzak (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sidenote,

The couple live together in Camden but Mr Nawaz is unable to specify where exactly because of ongoing threats to his life from extremists.

- the comment I made in an edit summary is indeed substantiated in the press.-- Aronzak (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sidenote first. That his life is at threat from extremists is in no way affected by the knowledge that he was married in October 2014, given that we know from him that (a) he is married, (b) who she is and (c) what she does (i.e. the date of the marriage is immaterial to people who want to harm him or those he loves).

The H&H article is fine, but it does not confirm when he was married nor her surname. The text that needs confirming contains 3 points: (a) marriage, (b) year & (c) wife's pre-marriage name; I'd suggest that's as bare-bones as it should be. The Twitter cite confirms (a) & (c), H&H only (a). The Mail confirms all 3. A lot of hoops to jump through just to exlude the Mail as a source and, at the end of it, the statement isn't even correctly supported. At a push, in the absence of any other sources, one could use that second Twitter source and change the date to a range (sometime between 2013-2015), but that's just plainly unnecessary.

Incidentally, churnalism refers to the reprinting of stories by other papers (e.g. the recent H&H article on Nawaz's night out), so the Mail article wasn't churnalism as it was the first. The suggestion that basic fact checking at H&H is any better than at the Mail is an odd one, given that. Bromley86 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

FFS, here it is - 19 Oct 2014.

Nice find, but that's (a) and (b) only. So still not a better source than that Mail article, which we now demonstrably know is accurate on all points related to his marriage. Bromley86 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"(a) marriage, (b) year & (c) wife's pre-marriage name" WP:CITEBUNDLE lets multiple refs be put together. If you have a problem with the current sourcing please state it as "change X to Y" -- Aronzak (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Done that. Why jump through all those hoops to exclude the Mail, especially as, whatever wikilawyering you choose to use, the current citing you've used is unnecessarily complex? I.e, change to the Mail, as you already knew. That way, someone wanting to confirm doesn't have to review 3 documents and drag different bits of data from each of them.

Anyway, there's no need for me to request the change when I can just put it through and see what your justification for removing a demonstrably reliable, in this context, source is. Bromley86 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just leave it as is - there is not just RS as an issue but POV as well. The fact that the source you want to add is RS for the claim made does not mean that it's not a deeply POV hatchet job. Just as BLPN looks down on the Mail for RS, they also look down on it for POV. There is no benefit for the claims made for adding it over Twitter as a source. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of benefit, as I've repeatedly explained to you. Oh well, not worth fighting over. I'll fix your improperly-bundled sourcing so that it's actually useful. Ham & High doesn't add anything that the two tweets didn't cover, so removed. Bromley86 (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lap dancer story

I have removed the edits concerning this as they do not appear to adequately either summarise the issues, nor to demonstrate that they are truly of concern regarding Nawaz's career rather than some shit stirring in a disreputable tabloid. Unless there is demonstrably some major fall-out from this would-be publicity (which would therefore be covered in reputable papers) then I don't see it has any business in an encyclopaedic article. Alfietucker (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, it looks like there are some repercussions (not least the death threats); but we must ensure that significant details pertinent to the story - e.g. the timing of the CCTV 'leak', where it first appeared, etc. - are included for the sake of NPOV. Alfietucker (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The stripper saga definitely has notability to the article: it severely affected his electability and was big enough news. Novinar~enwiki (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That hasn't been demonstrated. (And what does "notability to the article" mean?) Please see the previous discussion, and keep in mind that unlike the Daily Mail, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The most notable event of his campaign was the stripper scandal. You can't will it away. Plenty of news sources of varying reliability reported on it. Novinar~enwiki (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what "you can't will it away" means. Perhaps that would be a good starting point for this discussion about your proposed addition. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, i think a good starting point would be explaining why you reject my edit based upon its current sources and wording. You cannot base your rejection upon past edits and sources that were used and discussed on the talk page long ago. Please scrutinize my current edit and tell me why it doesn't belong. Novinar~enwiki (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not run by the Hadith. This lap dance story is only relevant if you are an Islamist or fundamentalist. Maajid Nawaz is not a devout Muslim. It is no problem even if he drinks alcohol and eats pork. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not run by the Hadith"! What a stupidly irrelevant thing to say. Who says my edit has anything to do with the hadith? "This lap dance story is only relevant if you are an Islamist or fundamentalist"! So all those news articles were written by Islamists? Your comments are embarrassing. "It is no problem even if he drinks alcohol and eats pork." Nobody said it's a problem, but if many reliable sorces then reported that he ate pork then i see no problem if it were added to the article. Novinar~enwiki (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I read all the sources. I learned that the club is owned and run by a Muslim. I learned that Nawaz was at the stag party with his fiancé's permission (and insistence). I learned that his political aspirations were not "tarnished" by the event, and that supporters and political opponents alike consider it an attempt at playing "dirty politics" with a non-story. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. That is why it doesn't belong. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"I read all the sources. I learned that the club is owned and run by a Muslim. I learned that Nawaz was at the stag party with his fiancé's permission (and insistence)." These have no relevance to whether the edit should be included or removed. "I learned that his political aspirations were not "tarnished" by the event". Not true: it is generally believed that his political career has been severely dented owing to the footage. "supporters and political opponents alike consider it an attempt at playing "dirty politics" with a non-story." Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the story has no right to exist on Wiki, and not all supporters and political opponents agree: Conservative politicians have already called for him to step down. So, with your disproven arguments, you have not excused yourself for opposing the edit. You need to prove that NPOV, Verifiability and NOR are lacking to remove the edit. So please tell me if my sources are unreliable, if the strip club incident wasn't widely reported, or if the wording is misleading or subjective.Novinar~enwiki (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I count 3 to 1 opposition. And you are a WP:SPA.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, are you in the habit of embarrassing yourself. Please stop making inaccurate and unrelated remarks that only portray you as an immature Maajid Nawaz fangirl who is hurt that her idol has something possibly embarrassing added about him on Wiki. I am clearly not a SPA account; any moron looking at my edit history can figure that out. There is a difference between a SPA and an editor who repeatedly returns to an article to defend his edit against others who improperly remove his additions. You and Xenophrenic should respond to my points with relevant, accurate arguments (which youse have failed to do) if you seek to have my edit removed; otherwise, your 2 to 1 advantage is meaningless. You can't oppose reliably cited content just because you have a crush on Nawaz.Novinar~enwiki (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't resort to sexist and patronizing comments. Also follow consensus. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Victoria and Xenophrenic. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and the segment seems to be misleading considering the contents of the sources. David A (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Coming to this fresh at the start of 2018, and I find it incredible that the lap-dancing story does not merit inclusion on this page. If this story had appeared attached to any other notable UK parliamentary candidate, I'd expect it to appear, even if only as a brief note, on their Wikipedia entry. If you think the motivations of the club owner in releasing the video are suspect, then by all means include THAT in the note, or otherwise note Maajid's defense or response. But having no mention at all of this incident has the appearance of lacking in neutrality. The incident was covered in The Daily Mail, The Metro, The Mirror and discussed in an opinion piece in The New Statesman , and was commented on by his party leader and members of opposing parties in the run up to an election in which he was a candidate. Djlivi (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I second this. The event itself might not be noteworthy, but its political impact and consequences are substantive and serious enough to warrant inclusion. This follows existing precedent, such as in the BLP of Bill Clinton, whose sexual behavior with his intern Monica Lewinsky, while in the White House, warrant inclusion in his BLP. The inclusion of the details of that event are not a reflection of "the Hadith", but, among other things, of the serious political implications on Clinton's career. Likewise for Jim McGreevey, and several others. —Approaching (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Link to this article?

I found an article written by Nawaz on Index on Censorship:

• "Maajid Nawaz: On blasphemy" (Archive). 28 January 2015.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maajid Nawaz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this article has had to wait far too long to be reviewed. I'll give it a look. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There are quite a few problems here that would need to be fixed before this article could pass as a GA:

• The prose requires correct formatting. For instance, all newspaper names should be in italics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• The citations need to be correctly formatted, i.e. there cannot just be a title and a url. There needs to be an author, date, name of publication, and (ideally) an archived version of the page too; see for instance the formatting style at the GA-rated Brian Williamson article, which similarly relies heavily on press websites. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• The use of quotations is a little unstandardized and haphazard. This needs to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• "As Director of Quilliam, Nawaz regularly attends events and conferences organised by government and security departments, think tanks, media houses, non-governmental organisations and academia" lacks any supporting citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia eschews "Controversies" sections; this should be merged and incorporated into other sections of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

These issues are not insurmountable, but acting upon them would significantly improve the quality of this article and would enable it to be rated GA. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's been almost a month now and there's been no sign that any of my points have been acted upon, so I'm afraid that I'm going to have to fail this GAN. However, hopefully the guidance that I have provided will enable the article to be improved in quality, to the state where it could indeed be awarded GA status. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maajid Nawaz. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/9437550/An-insiders-expose-of-Islamist-extremism.html

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bloat

I've trimmed the "Quilliam Foundation" section quite a bit. Especially here, since this is about the person and not the think tank, secondary sources should be used for appearances to prevent this from degrading into indiscriminate examples. By listing many appearances without differentiating between major and minor conferences, the article was suggesting that every appearance listed was of encyclopedic significance, but this should be supported by sources. Event listings and press-releases are very poor for this kind of thing. Being a prolific public speaker is not, by itself, a valid justification for such a lengthy article. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia user more than editor, this article seems very bloated - and also overly reliant on Maajid Nawaz's own account of his life story, whether directly or as retold from his biography in subsequent articles. I'm not sure why the article covers Maajid's beliefs in such fine detail - it does seem excessive. Some aspects of his life story have been contested - but this is not alluded to in the slightest. I suspect that this Alternet article by itself is not a reputable source for Wikipedia, but some of the claims are repeated in an article in New Republic . In particular the timing of his renouncing radical Islam and relation of this to his time spent in prison is contested, as is whether leaving Hizb ut-Tahrir was a key factor in his divorce. Some of this was discussed by Maajid Nawaz himself in an interview where he defended himself but did not outright deny some of the claims Given the contested nature of elements of his biography, surely the article should reflect this? While I would not wish to see a tabloid style hatchet job, I fear that the current article tends towards the hagiography somewhat. Djlivi (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Born in 77 not 78

I have altered Nawaz's birthday to 1977 based on a tax return document I got from the critical Nathan lean article of Nawaz in the New Republic. I know some may be not like it that I got it from an article by a known critic of Nawaz, but I see no reason to question it as no one has claimed that the document is fake.

Further it is supported by other articles. This New York Times article [[1]] from September 12 2007 lists Nawaz age as 29 which is before his November 2 birthday. Also this Sunday Times article [[2]] from September 2014 lists his age as 36, also before his November 2 birthday.

In looking at the history of this article I think what happened was that whoever created this article listed his birth year as 1978 and then later when his November 2 birthday was discovered, people just assumed that was correct. I don't think he himself ever said he was born in 78 and people just assumed because nobody asked him directly.

I know that the Guardian interview article list's him as being born in 78, but the person interviewing him could have simply been basing it off the Wikipedia article. Given the evidence I've gathered, The New York Times, The Sunday Times and the tax return document, I believe I've made a convincing case that November 2, 1977 is the right birthdate. annoynmous 19:04, 31 December 2106 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maajid Nawaz. 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://archive.is/20151120051618/http://www.liv.ac.uk/events/2020/maajid-nawaz.php to http://www.liv.ac.uk/events/2020/maajid-nawaz.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410071944/http://www.khudipakistan.com/central-executive-committee/ to http://www.khudipakistan.com/central-executive-committee/

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) 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of an active lawsuit against the SPLC?

I couldn't find any. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography / Portrayals section

I think the 'Bibliography' section should be best reserved for publications, to which Nawaz made a significant contribution as a writer, (possibly with the exception of full-blown biographies by third parties), and propose that the works listed in the 'Portrayals' section under this should either be moved elsewhere in the article, or be removed entirely. Perhaps the works could be considered "Further reading", but at least one book only mentions Nawaz on one page ... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't "Bibliography" about books that relate to the subject, not that were written by the subject? This article is very heavy on references, but none are books. Should you just throw away the name "Bibliography", rename (and fix) the section, and put it up higher? Sammy D III (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Compare THIS previous edit — I think "Sources" and "Works" or "Publications" should be clearly distinguished. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I missed something. You changed the name from "Sources" to "Bibliography"? Is either one correct? I think you are using the word "Bibliography" wrong. I think it is usually a section title below the "References" (or "Notes") section and is about the book refs. When there are no book refs it is not used. I think you are using the word as a body section title. This is an unusual (confusing to me) use of the title. Sammy D III (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

COI SOURCES question

COI SOURCES policy (at Verifiability § Questionable sources) says not to use COI sources for contentious claims about other parties. These sources include "material ... released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, before, during, or after the litigation".

So, should this source stay or go?

The U.S. Southern Poverty Law Center accused Nawaz of being an "anti-Muslim extremist".

References

A related discussion is underway at RSN:Southern Poverty Law Center.

Also, could Nawaz be used as a source for contentious claims about SPLC per WP:IAR policy? (Would this "improve the encyclopedia"?) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 04:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's like saying that citing the website of Yad Vashem would be unreliable because it seeks to prosecute Nazis, or is part/accessory to such prosecution. Or that people/institutions who litigated against David Irving should not be quoted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Any of them can be used as a source to support a claim that isn't contentious. None of them can be used to support a contentious claim about a counterparty. COI SOURCES policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

First, what you cite is a footnote to policy. Second, the policy does not say what you claim that it would say. It's like saying that public prosecutors have a COI against thieves, and therefore are unreliable sources about thieves. I suggest that you WP:DROPTHESTICK before you find yourself in hot water. I mean: it is not even stated as objective fact, it is stated as a claim (with attribution). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Cultural relativism section - London Borough of Brent - FGM

This whole paragraph is sourced to Nawaz himself, yet much of it is in WPVOICE:-

In the same essay which he wrote for CentreForum, Nawaz criticised cultural relativism for entrenching unhealthy taboos in U.K. just to appease the community heads. He cites a 1993 attempt in the London Borough of Brent to make female genital mutilation (FGM) legal among African communities, just because it was "their tradition".[43] Although a local councillor, Ann John, was able to oppose this motion, the subsequent torrent of abuse and threats she received created an atmosphere of fear.[43]

Anyone who understands UK politics would know that the LB of Brent can no more make FGM legal than the Washington Board of Education could decide to increase its spending on nuclear weapons or declare war on China.

I lived in the LB of Brent at that time and dimly remember an individual, or small number of individuals (I don't recall whether European or African, nor whether they were members of the public or elected councillors) articulating the view that FGM should be allowed. I am also unable to find better refs to the incident itself - but as LB of Brent was one of the favourite Loony left boroughs of the English tabloids - any idea that this could have even been proposed by them without it being widely reported at the time is barely credible.

There are several recent (post 2014) interviews with Ann John in which she makes similar claims to Nawaz E. Standard and Kilburn Times.

Incidentally, the LB of Brent administration at the time was Conservative: "Ms John was vilified in 1993 for opposing the then Conservative-run council from legalising the practice." I also knew some LB of Brent councillors, and believe me, the reasons for allowing a discussion to be heard (not attempting to make legal), probably had very little to do with 'cultural relativism' and a great deal more to do with grubby local power-brokering. I don't for one moment of course suggest that my memories are RS for anything at all, but the lack of independent RS to characterise the incident, should make us very sceptical about how Nawaz describes it.

I don't quite see how to edit this appropriately, the only available sources are self-sourced, which is legitimate perhaps for their beliefs, but not legitimate for any inference that the event happened as they describe it. Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Further source, it does nothing to answer how to edit this article, but does establish the 'back story'. Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to look into this further, but the Google Books link you provided doesn't appear to be working properly for me. Could you confirm for me the title & author of the source to which you refer? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, apologies, I've been off-Wiki for 2 wks. Book is "Modernity, Medicine and Health" edited by Paul Higgs and Graham Scambler, page 119. The (brief) content doesn't relate directly to Nawaz, but to the incident he describes. The individual Brent Conservative councillor (not LB of Brent itself) was herself FGM'd and I believe was Somali. There is quite a big difference between individual councillors expressing 'potty' ideas and Councils actually seeking to implement those ideas. Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz is not a politician

The opening line claims Maajid is a politician. Should this not read "former politician" as he only achieved 5.6% of the vote in 2015 and has since had no involvement in this field? I'd also argue having his role at LBC feature more prominently as this, alongside Quilliam, are what most people know him for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffsmith01 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for this "bump" edit but after not signing the original message wasn't sure if this had been registered (still new!). Once again to reiterate the original I believe the opening line should be changed to "former politician" which reflects the current facts at hand. Jeffsmith01 (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe he qualifies as a politician AT ALL - being once a Lib-Dem candidate in a 'no-hope' constituency doesn't make someona a politician. I was once asked to put myself forward as a candidate, for the then liberals, and I wasn't even a party member. It is apt that his candidacy is mentioned, but that is enough. Do sources actually describe him as a politician? Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2018

SimpleTruth12 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Majid Nawaz, self proclaimed academic, so called 'scholar' and revered leader of Islam hell bent on effecting a wave of liberal change into Islam, undermining centuries of teachings, traditions and deeply entrenched practices. His parochial, ignorant outlook often causes him to make offensive, derogatory statements some of which offending the very religion he supposedly practices. The truth is he's not a leader or a voice, he does not represent Muslims, he does not intend to effect positive change, all he is doing is eroding the nature of Islam and catalysing hate in the hopes of gaining attention and to feed his ever growing ego.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Instigating military coups and recruiting army officers at Hizb ut-Tahrir

In a speech Maajid Nawaz gave at the Oxford Union in 2013, the video on YouTube is titled Maajid Nawaz | Dream The American Dream, link here (time stamp 1:11) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWCKHGcvFVk , he says "I worked diligently to overthrow governments, to recruit army officers and to instigate military coups against American allies across the world. I recruited army officers a far as field as Pakistan, I went to Egypt to agitate against Hosni Mubarak". It would seem this information needs to be included in the section Association with Hizb ut-Tahrir to fully highlight the violent, possibly even terrorist, nature of what he was doing at that organisation as opposed to claims it was merely "political". Jeffsmith01 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to support the inclusion of any such material based purely on a primary source on WP:YOUTUBE which may be open to cherry-picking for non-neutral reasons. MPS1992 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Large chunks of this article are based off of primary sources, wherever it says "He also blamed misguided multicultural policies of the 90s for creating "monocultural ghettos". According to him...", "According to Nawaz, nationalism hinders...", "In an article for the Daily Mail, Nawaz claims...", "In an essay for the Wall Street Journal, Nawaz stated...", these are primary sources, right? They all depend on what he says himself rather than a secondary source commenting on him.

If he's speaking at the Oxford Union, who I imagine are deemed a respectable establishment how is that any different to him writing in a publication about "Instigating military coups and recruiting army officers"? I'd also argue it seems odd for him to lie about this as it surely paints him in a negative light, why would he lie to damage his own reputation?

I don't understand "cherry-picking", this isn't a random publication making these claims it's coming from Nawaz himself, did you watch the video? Jeffsmith01 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Are there any decent sources commenting on this? If so, they'd be usable. If not it would be undue/original research to use this material. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed and/or struck comments of blocked sockpuppet. No, the Oxford Union Society is not a reliable source, nor, normally, a "respectable establishment". MPS1992 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Should be called "English", not "British"

It's more precise, and it's done in other articles. --84.189.95.128 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

We usually only describe somebody as English (or Scottish, Welsh or Irish), when they themselves, and the majority of sources describe them thus. This can create anomalous results, Billy Connolly is described as a Scot, but Gordon Brown isn't!Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

Please could the Views section be updated to include reference to Nawaz's support for Q-Anon-adjacent conspiracy theories surrounding Trump's election loss, and his support lockdown skepticism: see for example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/01/07/trump-qanon-stop-the-steal-japan/ and https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/from-eurosceptics-to-covid-sceptics-6883042NotGordon (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have access to the Washington Post, but the New European source does not support the statement made above. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that is not the best source. His lockdown skepticism is well-documented by LBC: https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/economic-implications-of-coronavirus-lockdown/; https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/uk-cant-return-to-regressive-lockdown-measures/; https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/maajid-nawaz-hits-out-at-plans-for-second-national-lockdown/NotGordon (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just checked the 3 sources you gave in your latest post. None of them supports your original comment. If you want to add something to the article, please draft a statement for inclusion in the article, and specify what words by Mr Nawaz it is based on, and direct me to the place in the source where they appear. I am not convinced that any of the comments in these sources provides anything significant about Mr Nawaz’s views. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: WAPO says "In Britain, Maajid Nawaz, a radio presenter at LBC Radio, has repeatedly spoken in defense of the Trump campaign’s legal cases after the election. Nawaz, a former Islamist who was jailed in Egypt before becoming a well- known anti-extremism campaigner, has written on Twitter that his concerns were “civilizational not local.”" Doug Weller talk 15:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for providing the WAPO quote. I’ve just done a simple search for ‘maajid nawaz trump’ and I came up with this:https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/rise-in-support-for-trump-black-and-latino/ The views expressed in this article are completely different from what the WAPO quote says. Also, I’ve no idea what ‘civilisational not local’ means.

On the comments on the legal cases, I found this:https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/chaos-us-election-pennsylvania-democracy/ The headline summary of the article is: 'Maajid Nawaz highlighted a lack of coverage around the Trump campaign's legal action in the US Election is damaging to our democratic values.' This also contradicts what the WAPO quote says.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: but that was posted the day after the election, the WAPO source is the 7th of this month. Re "not local", that tweet is at [3] but we can't use him directly. His tweets certainly seem to include conspiracy theories, but again, can't use them or other people tweeting about him. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I’m sorry, Mr Weller, but I’m getting confused. If two people say contradictory things, then they contradict each other, regardless of the order of the statements. And I can’t work out exactly what the WAPO quote means. Presumably when it says ‘has repeatedly spoken in defense of the Trump campaign’s legal cases after the election’ it does not mean that Mr Nawaz was acting as Mr Trump’s lawyer, although that is the obvious interpretation. I think this quote is too vague to be used, even discounting its apparent disagreement with the views Mr Nawaz has expressed on his own account.

And thank you for the link to the tweet, but I can only make a guess at its meaning – perhaps that if democracy is under threat in the USA, this should concern us all?

What is your view on adding something about the ‘Chinese’ letter in the source below? Is this a satisfactory source?

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I was going to say, his tweets on this matter (and lockdowns) are a lot clearer, but obviously Twitter is not WP:RS. On lockdown skepticism, Nawaz has also signed this letter suggesting lockdowns are a "global fraud": https://ccpgloballockdownfraud.medium.com/the-chinese-communist-partys-global-lockdown-fraud-88e1a7286c2b (it is clear he personally signed it: https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1348377433934880770?s=20).NotGordon (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@NotGordon: What wording are you proposing to the article regarding this letter? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Nawaz signed an open letter to the FBI alleging COVID-19 lockdowns were a "global fraud" organized by the Chinese Communist Party.<cite letter here>"NotGordon (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ve only read the beginning and the end of this. The final sentence is: ‘Given the gravity of the decisions being made, we cannot ignore the possibility that the entire “science” of COVID-19 lockdowns has been a fraud of unprecedented proportion, deliberately promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party and its collaborators to impoverish the nations who implemented it.’

So I think that saying that the letter alleges that the lockdowns are a global fraud is too definite. I suggest: ‘In January 2021 Nawaz signed an open letter to the FBI suggesting the possibility that COVID-19 lockdowns may be a "global fraud" organized by the Chinese Communist Party. ‘ Do you agree with this wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I think that would be fine. NotGordon (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest ‘In January 2021 Nawaz signed an open letter to the FBI and other Western Intelligence agencies asking them to investigate the possibility that COVID-19 lockdowns were a "global fraud" promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party intended to impoverish the nations that implemented them." It's a bit more complete and 'stiffer'.Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy with Pincrete’s version. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am happy with this version as well NotGordon (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added the agreed statement in a new subsection on Covid-19 lockdowns. I hope this is satisfactory to everyone. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

Under "Views" > "Political Commentary", change "He has argued argued that" to "He has argued that". Alyosha.the.thot (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

Remove the word innocuous from the the text about Jesus and Mo cartoon.

"Nawaz decided to tweet the cartoon after a BBC programme censored two audience members' shirts displaying innocuous cartoons of the prophet Muhammed" 77.98.164.244 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Seems to be how it's described in the source. I beg you to keep the innocuous nature of the cartoon at the front of your mind as we descend into a modern Bedlam. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Personal life section

"In February 2019, Nawaz was reportedly assaulted in a racially-motivated attack by a white man".

Nothing "reportedly" about it - he was assaulted in a racially motivated attack. The BBC News item used to attribute it even confirms it. I can't edit it because it's been locked. Someone please amend. FGMC1870 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The BBC report does not state as a fact that Mr Nawaz was assaulted – it says that he says he was assaulted. The wording in the article is correct. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The wording may be correct, but it is not "reportedly" an assault; it was an assault. This, according to The Guardian here, which states the following: "Nawaz was hit from behind outside the Soho theatre on Monday after 7pm by a white man who the presenter described as “a racist coward”, posting a photo of the cut to his forehead caused by a punch with what could have been 'a signet ring'." FGMC1870 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I take your point that the Guardian actually says he was hit. But in view of the extreme caginess of the BBC report, I would prefer to leave the wording as it is, because the current wording is correct, and non-committal. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Views in need of overhaul

As previous, his departure from LBC is only tangentially mentioned, and the cause is in a different section (namely his strong COVID conspiracy-theory views). He has spoken out against the departure of Matt Le Tissier as ambassador to Southampton FC (which was noted on his article to be immediately caused by conspiracies about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with underlying factors relating to extensive COVID misinformation about footballers and vaccination.)

Nawaz's increasing recent fascination with conspiracy theories more generally has been noted.

A quick look at his Twitter profile, or his self-published Substack articles, shows he has now moved on to spreading pro-Kremlin conspiracy theories about atrocities in Ukraine and thinks the entire war was started by the West.

These are perhaps not the ideal sources for this, and more digging is definitely required by a more experienced editor than myself to find good quality sources. However, I think the "Personal views" section of this article could be rewritten overall to capture: his initial reaction to the pandemic; courting controversy at LBC; eventual dismissal and a broader sense of his post-2020 descent into other (non-pandemic) fringe and poorly supported views as well as the reaction from the rest of UK society. 82.108.2.131 (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that aside from COVID misinformation, none of that even gets mentioned in this article makes the bio a complete whitewash of Nawaz's current views. — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

More about Nawaz's turn towards conspiracy theorism (which he continues on his Substack account) including COVID denialism, the US 2020 elections, and Jan 6:

• Maajid Nawaz got Covid-19 facts wrong on the Joe Rogan podcast
• What happened to Maajid Nawaz? Where the ex-LBC host went next
• LBC presenter Maajid Nawaz says ‘I refuse to go quietly’ after station announces his departure
• Maajid Nawaz will no longer present LBC show, station announces
• LBC Radio Host Maajid Nawaz BANKROLLED BY US REPUBLICAN DARK MONEY
• Trump’s ‘stop the steal’ message finds an international audience among conspiracy theorists and suspected cults
• Covid: Posts claiming only 17,000 died of virus 'factually incorrect'

Deepred6502 (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I have had a look at the various sources listed above, and I do not see anything which could usefully be added to this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

In any case, it's obvious that Nawaz has joined a club that includes Alex Jones and David Icke, and that needs factoring in somehow. Deepred6502 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not obvious that such a club exists, let alone that Nawaz has joined it. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks obvious enough.

Maajid Nawaz (2023-01-03). "Behind The Scenes Questions With David Icke: A Radical Media New Year Special". Radical Media - by Maajid Nawaz. Deepred6502 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Mistrust, misinformation, or both?

Concerning this edit - I didn't see the first source, which does support "mistrust" . But the second source supports misinformation, and neither of the editors removing that term has addressed this point in their summaries - both seem to have interpreted the term as unsourced when the source was already clearly present. Is there a reason we can't work in what both sources say? Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the CNN article does not justify the inclusion of this statement either because it leaves out two key details - (1) the misinformation is about government mandates for the vaccine, rather than the vaccine itself, (2) this only refers to one false article rather than repeated misinformation. An accurate summary of the source as it relates to Maajid Nawaz would be "In September 2021, he retweeted a false story about vaccine mandates for the American military", but this does not seem relevant enough for inclusion in my opinion. TWM03 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Except that makes it sound like an isolated incident, which isn't what the RS tell us.[4] [5] Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above by TWMO3, and I support the revert by Lard Almighty. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly articles like these that discuss his conspiracy theories and sharing of misinformation more generally, but neither of those articles mentions the COVID vaccine. Whatever statement we want to add, we need to find a source that states it explicitly. TWM03 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we mention both his distrust of the vaccines and his spreading of Covid misinformation more generally? We have at least three sources discussing the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

As I see it, the BBC and CNN articles are primarily debunks of specific false information that mention Nawaz in passing. If we use a lot of articles to reach a conclusion that would not be justified from any one of them then we risk violating WP:SYNTH. The information from the Guardian article is mostly already included in other sections, and I don't think it backs up the "covid misinformation" claim. Were these the three sources you were referring to? TWM03 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That said, I think it would actually be worth adding something about the "myth of a killer coronavirus" Twitter thread, but we should include his statement that he has "no opinion" of the claim as the Guardian article felt it relevant to point out. TWM03 (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why, exactly, are sources talking about his "mistrust"? Sources are not talking about this because it is just another one of his opinions. He has many, many opinions, most of which are not encyclopedically significant. He's trained as an economist and is discussed by sources as a political activist, not as a doctor or other kind of expert. So the reason sources are talking about his "mistrust" of vaccines is because this is misinformation. He is sharing and promoting the claim that boosters are untrustworthy. This is part of a larger pattern of behavior. This is a WP:FRINGE medical claim. Wikipedia absolutely should not present such claims as credible, and presenting this as merely an opinion would be ignoring the context provided by sources. That context is that this is misinformation, regardless of his personal level of "trust". Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that this statement is an inference you have made from the information in the sources, not what the sources actually say. This is a WP:BLP article, and WP:V is not superseded by the WP:FRINGE policy. If you feel that the sources are unduly lenient or biased towards his views then this would be an argument not to include their statements, but if we want to introduce a new claim (in this case that he promoted misinformation) then we need a source that actually says it. TWM03 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't think its covered by this source: These included Maajid Nawaz, a British broadcaster who has embraced and promoted various conspiracies related to COVID-19 and voter fraud in recent years (emphasis added)? Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No because it doesn't mention the vaccines in connection to Nawaz. TWM03 (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are misreading me accidentally or on purpose; I am suggesting adding text on "promoting Covid-19 misinformation", in addition to the text about vaccines, which could remain. Newimpartial (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I may have misread you. I was assuming that you were arguing that the phrasing "misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines" should be reinstated. If you want to talk about COVID-19 related misinformation more broadly then the source would back that up, although I would suggest the phrasing "conspiracy theories" rather than "misinformation" as this is how most of the sources seem to describe it. TWM03 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" is fine, too, but it is also misinformation. Multiple sources are describing this in different ways, but the gist is the same. By my reading, the specific flavor of that misinformation is not emphasized by sources; sources are just providing examples to show, rather than tell. Our job, though, is to summarize sources, which includes summarizing those examples. Misinformation seems more direct, and more neutral, than "mistrust". That word works in the source because it's in a specific context. Both the context and tone of this Wikipedia article are different, of course, so mentioning his level of 'trust' by itself seems euphemistic here. Very few people actually care how much he personally trusts boosters, and that's not really why sources are talking about it. Arguably that's not even why Nawaz is tweeting about it, either. Mentioning his personal opinion in isolation is subtly misrepresenting sources, because it is presenting this opinion outside of that context. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What context in the sources makes it clear that when they say "mistrust" of the vaccines they really mean "misinformation"? To me this seems like an inference that could constitute WP:OR. Regarding the phrasing I only see two sources that use the word "misinformation" and neither uses it in a part of the source that is talking about Nawaz. But there are at least two articles that directly state he has promoted conspiracy theories (about COVID in general, not specifically the vaccines). I do not see anything in the WP:TONE policy to support any phrasing over another. TWM03 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The sources are the context, that was my point. Our goal for the article should be to summarize those sources in whole, not in part. This is misinformation per an overwhelming number of sources. This is why I've brought up WP:PROFRINGE. We should be very careful not to accidentally give credence to these conspiracy theories by casting them as doubt or other kinds of false skepticism. Sources are not expected to point-out exactly why comments like this are misinformation in each and every single article on the pandemic, for a lot of obvious reasons. If there are BLP concerns with using simple language, let's discuss those concerns directly, not vaguely.

Per one source: That tweet, however, was only one of a long list of statements he has made recently disputing the efficacy of vaccination over “natural immunity”. Another tweet last month, for example, ...[6]

Note that this source directly says these are examples. They are examples of misinformation, which includes conspiracy theories. That misinformation also includes "mistrust", but including that by itself seems disproportionate, at best. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Whatever he has said that the sources characterise as conspiracy theories, let them be described as conspiracy theories here too. But I do not see where this source or any other has characterised his views about vaccines as misinformation or a conspiracy theory. The reason I brought up that this is a WP:BLP article is that every statement we make is not only about the scientific consensus on vaccines, but also about Nawaz himself. Therefore, even if we believe that his views constitute misinformation, we cannot add it without a source that connects this descriptor (or a similar one) to him. TWM03 (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

TWM03 is correct. And the above posts by Grayfell constitute a long-winded way of saying that Wikipedia should go by Grayfell’s opinions, instead of what reliable sources report. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

In light of his public output since 2020, Maajid should be identified in the first line as a "British conspiracy theorist, activist..." . 2601:643:8B80:1A00:44E6:DF1A:D26A:D333 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 11:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead (introduction) of a Wikipedia article is a summary of the body of the article. There is nothing in the body of the article which describes him as a conspiracy theorist. And in order to have him described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead, this would have to be the principal thing for which he was notable; this is not the case. If you wish to add some material to the article referring to him as a conspiracy theorist, you will need to provide references from reliable sources describing him as such. See WP:RS Sweet6970 (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

This entry states that "Since 2020, Nawaz has promoted false claims related to COVID-19" which is totally false. All of Maajid's claims about Covid and the vaccine have turned out to be totally true so whiever wrote this is the one making false claims. Please remove if you want Wikipedia to have any credibility! 86.140.166.75 (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done

Please provide reliable sources indicating the truth of his statements. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

In the infobox, change {{marriage|''Fellow activist''|1999|2008}} to {{marriage|''Fellow activist''|1999|2008|end=divorce}}; the article body states that Nawaz's first marriage ended in divorce. LethologicalLinguophile (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

Birtish = British 2603:8000:D300:3650:A404:83BC:E40B:F3E7 (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)