Talk:Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK

Response (delayed) to SolSol

MPACUK says that their forum is independent as a bit of a guise. True, their forum is run by different people than the central organizers, however it would only take a single instruction from the central organizers to curb the extremism expressed on the forums. But they don't and there's a pretty obvious reason for that. There's a link to where one of the moderators advocated that group members manipulate the Wikipedia page for their site. However, that thread (like many of the other controversial things they talk about) is in the private section of the forums that is not accessible to non-members or internet search engine crawlers.

Like SolSol, I am also a user of the MPACUK forums, but went quiet with my posting after getting sick of the absurd stuff written there. I have also followed the non-forum (IE primary organizing) activities for a while. As I said before, the main organizers coordinated an aggressive boycott and harassment campaign of a little fruit vendor because he stocked Israeli dates. The MPACUK organizers started this via their main website and it was tracked by the forum members, who openly talked about how they went into the store and called them all throughout the day to accuse him of collaborating with the "Kuffar" (their words).

Their general outlook is this: they claim that Jews are controlling UK and US foreign policy with a massive, mutli-tentacled conspiracy. This Zionist conspiracy (and no other reason) is why British Muslims are having troubles in the UK. Thus, the MPACUK solution is the politicize the mosques in the UK and use them to wage "political jihad" (that's MPACUK's term, not mine) and end this Zionist conspiracy. In short, they want to imitate the Zionist conspiracy that they claim is suppressing them.

Like I said, this is a strange group of folks.

-Ware [Feb. 11, 2007]

Criticism by Ware and my view on this entry

Having watched this entry and the discussion page, and then finally reading the accusation above by Ware, i really cannot stay silent any longer.

I am a user on the MPAC forums and the accusations made Ware are false and malicious. Although the MPACUK Forum is hosted by mpacuk, the forum is moderated and used by non-mpacuk members. What we say on the Forum is NOT in any way representative of what the organisation may think. Any fair reader will surely agree with this point. There has been no encouragement to edit the Wikipedia page and even if there was there is nothing to say that people like Ware haven't signed up on the Forum and posted such a request themselves.

With regards to the entry itself, I have never seen a more biased entry in the whole of wikipedia. Quotes are made from blatantly biased sources to paint the organisation in a bad light. I'm so glad that Taz Manchester put a NPOV violation on the article. I had no idea that this was possible else I would have done this much much before.

Please note, I am not a MPAC Member - I Shouldn't have to declare this, but I feel as much as people here will marginalise what I have to say, and also I am not a Muslim (Once again I shouldnt have to declare this either but feel I must). I am a Christian in the UK who thinks that a body like MPAC is and has been needed for a very long time. The pro Israeli lobby has gone unchallenged in my country and in the US and if what they do upsets people like Ware and others of his ilk, then that can only be a good thing.

If you really want to know about MPACUK visit their website or talk to someone on their Forum. This entry is as biased as they come.

--SolSol 22/8/06 1214 (BST - GMT+1)

Election 2010

This page is outdate and should be updated with recent happenings. I am planning to add an Election section for 2010. Here is part of the text I'm planning to put in.

as he was perceived having anti-muslim bias. The campaign resulted in Phil Woolas winning a majority by 103 votes. However, after an eventual court-case resulted in suspension as an MP and ban from holding public office for three years for using false information about Muslims to "frighten white voters" . MPAC have been credited as playing a vital part in this campaign .

References

dead links

some of the content is 5-7 years old and the stories do no seem to source back to a valid location. Unless someone updates the link, the content with the dead links will be removed. (Link Rot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I'll wait 24 hours before updated/editing/removing link rots unless there are objections. As Wiki:RS reliability policy has to be maintained. Asifkhanj (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, don't do that. Wikipedia:Link rot says the exact opposite: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." Which material are you concerned about? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thepcca 2006 report. The paragraph just above the NUS Campus Ban. I tried searching for the link to the report - nothing. I also tried looking for other sources - however it seems those sources took stuff from the wiki page.Asifkhanj (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough to find, it's here now. Please restore the paragraph to its previous form, which actually discussed the reasons why MPACUK is accused of antisemitism, rather than including all sorts of apologetics and off-topic commentary. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm in the process of restoring content based on this information. If you can specify which sentences seem like apologetic and off-topic after my changes, I can try to fix them and have a non-apologetic tone and possibly remove off-topic stuff.Asifkhanj (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed much of that for you. Please review WP:NOR and WP:RS, and please avoid youtube videos. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos that do not violate copyright laws should have no issue in being linked. With you changes, it seems very one-sided and violating neutral point of view. Both sides of the coins should be presented. With each change I've given reason. Whenever mpac was sourced, it was clearly stated that that was their response. wiki is not here to promote a single point of view. Please review WP:NOR and pinpoint exact points to debate. Asifkhanj (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think you copy/pasted old text. It would be better to rewrite it e.g. THe link indicating Lorna is not Jewish shows is be CEO os BICOM and nothing to do with her religion.

Youtube is not a reliable source; please review WP:RS very carefully. The BICOM material had nothing to do with MPACUK; please review WP:NOR very carefully. You agreed to stop whitewashing the article, so please stop removing the specific details of the Lorna Fitzsimmons and No Order Platform incidents. Also, please stop inserting irrelevant defenses of MPACUK's position on the 2006 accusations of antisemitism; against please review WP:NOR very carefully. I think I've been very patient here, but at some point you do have to review and become familiar with the fundamental content policies here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are saying your patience is wearing out? Is that supposed to be a threat? Yes, I am becoming with policies thanks to you. I do not consider my chances purely as white washing as the content being added otherwise is not neutral. I believe the controversy section needs to rewrite from a neutral perspective. Asifkhanj (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean that I asked you to stop editing inappropriately and familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines three weeks ago, yet you still seem to be ignoring that. "Neutral" on Wikipedia means complying with WP:NPOV, and does not mean either a) deleting legitimate reliably sourced criticism (see WP:NPOV), or b) inserting your own personal arguments in defense of MPACUK's actions (see WP:NOR). Also, this article is not intended as an advertisement for MPACUK, so you should avoid inserting material that comes directly from MPACUK, particularly if it's self-serving. Instead, in order to comply with WP:UNDUE, you should be looking for material about MPACUK that has been discussed in reliable secondary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lorna's section

"It did not, however, reject the idea that a candidate's Jewish background should be a valid reason for Muslims to vote against them." - there is nothing to back this statement up. However, it seems that they've campaigned against a Muslim MP in 2010. Asifkhanj (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you conveniently removed the fact that they claimed she was Jewish, sourced everything to apologetics written by the group itself, and added a bunch of irrelevant stuff about her that wasn't even sourced. Please review WP:NOR and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303040348/http://www.mpacuk.org/story/160710/first-muslim-woman-leader-elected-mpacuk.html to http://www.mpacuk.org/story/160710/first-muslim-woman-leader-elected-mpacuk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822190807/http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf to http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011101342/http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=181 to http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=181

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) 13:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)