Talk:Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MPAC DO NOT REPRESENT ME
I am a British Bengali Muslim living in Ilford (MPAC have a major presence here)....and these people do not represent me. They bang on about Israel, Palestine and 'Islamophobia' without addressing core issues that effect our communities like housing, employment and inner-city regeneration (guess these aren't 'glamorous' issues). They always look for the headline news....they are out to make a splash. THey are not taken seriously outside their own circle as they criticise Muslims who do not agree with their confrontational political attitudes.
In Ilford they tried to stop Mike Gapes MP (Lab) but succeeded only in making a fool of themselves when Muslims and Hindus in our area (mainly from Gujrat in India) voted for him in their droves. Afterwards MPAC had the gall to call their campaign a 'victory' because Mr. Gapes majority had been cut!
Also the group is full of Pakistanis and generally follows the Pakistani activist agenda.
Im not surprised that this rabble will do anything to court publicity (even if it leads to creating bad publicity for us Asians and Muslims)....including getting their members to change the wiki entry....how pathetic!!!
ps...(before the accusations start)...yes my MPAC 'brothers,' I am in the pay of Mossad and the Zionists. lol
...Habz...
Why cannot it just be a normal accurate account instead of vilification of this organisation on here? All the views expressed are in the public domain, what makes this so special?
--- Ninjamagic UK -------
==A note: people on the MPACUK forums (including moderators) have actively encouraged their members to edit the Wikipedia page to reflect well upon the group. Coupled with the posting of pictures from neo-Nazi websites and the accusation that anyone who opposes them is a "Zionist"...well, these folks are nuts. They once organized the harassment of a fruit vendor because he had Israeli dates (it's one of their cover stories from a few months ago).
Be careful around these guys, everyone.
--Ware -- ==
Contents |
[edit] 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]
[edit] 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)
[edit] Biased Editing by Pro Israeli Web Extremist
Yellowmellow45 is constantly reversing changes to this page. He should not be allowed to do this as a simple google search shows his pro-Israeli bias. He is a constant poster in the pro-Israeli forum http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com/
I wonder when Wikipedia will put a stop to such bias
--
Perhaps you could add a signature to this? It's certainly isn't Yellowmellow45 who, for example, has been performing wholesale deletions of the entire Criticism section. And it's not just unreferenced material being deleted either.
--Paul Moloney 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly not a web extremist and have nothing whatsoever to do with that site. I will go on to say this contravenes WP:No personal attacks and that the criticisms section does not represent the view of the editor, it is the view of others, and, seeing that it is a contraversial topic, it needs to display both sides and I'm sure you'll agree that one-sidedness is not encyclopedic material, so I therefore come to the conclusion that it is you who is pushing for a systematic bias. Dave 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
--
Oh and Now Paul Moloney is in on it too. Again your bias is patent as you yourself admit to being a fan of Harry's which is an Anti-MPAC blog. The point here is not that someone is deleting the criticism section, that can be undeleted, its the fact that Wikipedia editors with a PRO-ZIONIST, ISLAMOPHOBIC and rabidly Anti-MPAC stance are constanly making changes to this page that are factually incorrect.
For example, In the criticism section it says that articles taken from a Neo-Nazi newspaper were published on the site (the link is surpise surprise from harrys, nice one Paulmoloney). This same article appears in aljazeerah.info, mathaba.net, rense.com. How come YellowMellow, and PaulMoloney don't have a problem with that.
I'm not pushing for any bias, just a removal of biased editing to maintain the integrity of wikipedia. You both are on hera to push your agenda, and I urge you to go elsewhere for that.
-
- OK, Mr annonymous, who cares so much about the integrity of wikipedia, what would you propose the criticisms section include. As I say, they ARE criticisms which have been made by people, and so including them in the article is not part of an agenda, as they have to be mentioned in order to cover a contraversial topic in an unbiased fashion. Heck, most of the article is pro MPACUK. You cannot just insert propaganda.
-
- As you berate us for a persieved "bias" we have, you ignore the fact that you are the one who is personally attacking us, and although you wont admit it, pushing for a whitewash. As it happens, I am neither "Pro" or "Anti" Zionist, but you seem to be using pro-zionist as an insult here, which further disproves your claim to neutrality. And the accuation of Islamaphobia - well, if you knew me, you'd know that definately isn't the case, Dave 08:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge MPACUK into Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK
This makes sense to me. Two articles on the same topic are not both necessary. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 21:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Heavy Bias and Violation of NPOV
This Article is being hijacked by users who obviously have an agenda which does not go with Wikipedias policies of unbiased articles.
Even in the intro to the article it states "Whine writes that the group is Islamist." Whine being Michael Whine of the Jewish and Pro Israeli "the Community Security Trust."
I would also point out the user "Paulmoloney" has various links to "Harrys place" on his personal blog which a link to is given on his User Page, Harrys Place being one of MPACUK's most vicious and Islamophobic critics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmoloney
Link To His Blog:
http://oceanclub.blogspot.com/
Can we please have a article without the violation of NPOV and villification.There is no place for people on Wikipedia who are here to abuse this noble project for their own ends.
--Taz Manchester 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Taz Manchester
[edit] NPOV
Can users not remove the POV check till one has been conducted. I personally find this entry to be heavily biased, with heavy reliance on citations to sources that would naturally have an opposed view to the view of the organisation.
Lets be fair, remember what Wikipedia is about and don't let your personal interests get in the way.
--IbnWiki 12:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PaulMoloney's Reply
Interesting use of the term, "rabid", which means "Extremely zealous or enthusiastic".
Let's compare my list of contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paulmoloney
with yours:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Taz_Manchester
There only appears to be one of us obsessed with a single topic. And it's not me.
You point out that I openly admit I'm a fan of a particular blog. Can you tell me where this is against the Wikipedia rules? Or that someone skeptical of an organisation shouldn't be allowed to contribute to an article about it?
(At least I have a user page where I give facts about myself; you give no details of yourself whatsoever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taz_Manchester) yet criticise me for my openness!)
I emphasise contribute, as I have only performed the following three edits on this page:
1) Reversed an unannounced unexplained deletion of material by yourself (perhaps this is the source of your ire)
2) Changed the link for "Jenin massacre" to "Battle of Jenin", which is the actual title of the corresponding Wikipedia article, since that page itself states:
"Later inquiries by human rights groups and the UN commission did not find evidence of massacres by Israeli forces in Jenin."
So you're right about allegations of an "agenda" on this page, but wrong about the source of it - that is, me.
3) Added the section about MPACUK republishing articles from a neo-Nazi newspaper. This is fact. Your allegation that this was done accidentally is not proven, and you have not substantiated it in any way.
An objective reader is invited to give their own opinion on how someone would "accidentally" republish neo-Nazi material. It's possible this is true; however, it's up to you to substantiate it rather than simply whine about "agendas".
P. --Paul Moloney 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad Grammar
"MPACUK has repeatedly been criticized for publishing anti-Semitic material based on its criticism of Israeli forign policy."
Is that even a proper sentence? I have no idea what it means. Can the original writer try and rephrase it?
P. --Paul Moloney 10:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
