Talk:Mazher Mahmood

Untitled

 * Please note the above comment is unsigned. The Mazher Mahmood page has a history of illiciting strong opinions and there is a suspicion among some editors of the page (please click on the archive link to see) that Mahmood himself attempts to dispute some of its contents. It is recommended that editors of the page read the archive before proceeding to avoid replication of comments. 193.129.65.37 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Targets vs victims
I think that the use of the word "victim" in this article is highly POV. It is quite strange to speak of people who were sent to jail after being the subject of investigative journalism as "victims". I recommend the use of more neutral language throughout.--Jimbo Wales 15:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "victim" is only applied in the article to those who have been "exposed" for adultery or other non-criminal acts (such as simply meeting with an Arab sheikh - albeit a fake one, in Mahmood's case - which is somehow seen as evidence of corruption even if no money has been exchanged) that Mahmood and his employers in the tabloid press have used to sully the reputation of celebrities.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article refers to "celebrity victims exposed for drugs", presumably illegal, so I don't think your statement is correct. --Michael Snow 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to wikipedia to make that value judgment. Take it out.--Jimbo Wales 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that a suggestion or a demand? There is nothing stopping you from making the changes yourself.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A suggestion. I apologize for my tone, I had to run and did not get to finish my comments.  I should not have saved it that way.--Jimbo Wales 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems. I have no issues with changing the wording.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest the word "targets" instead? That should be more neutral, it doesn't imply a conclusion about whether the subjects of his investigations deserved to be targeted, or whether the investigations were appropriately conducted. --Michael Snow 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds OK to me, although the use of the word "victim" wasn't the target of the recent vandalism attacks on the article - the user carrying out the attacks was mostly keen on removing Mazher Mahmood's photograph and information relating to his attempt to bribe the politician George Galloway.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if it will do anything about vandalism, but that doesn't excuse us from the need to produce an unbiased article. I've made the substitution for all instances I could find. --Michael Snow 17:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the main reason for Mazher Mahmood's notoriety is that he targets people in order to 'victimise' them, in the sense of subjecting them to trickery, ill-treatment and suffering. At the very least, 'victim' might be considered a reasonably balanced term where the subject has been targeted as an end in itself, without any allegation of any illegal act. I haven't altered the text.

does anybody know where i can find a transcipt of the interview with the countess of w? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Autobiog tag
Having brought the articles references up to date, I am concerned that employees of News International are adding/subtracting to the article: some of the IP address trace directly back to their HQ. Hence have added the autobiog tag Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Criminals?
Whilst I do not read the NoW, it now appears that there are more criminals working for it than being investigated. In fact many of the "crimes" committed appear to have been provoked and the perpetrators entrapped, so it is perhaps POV to describe the targets as "criminals". I once reported an "investigative journalist" from the Sun to Crimestoppers whereupon the plod informed me "That's not crime sir. It's journalism." Perhaps that is why the police seem to have been unable to investigate the NoW phone hacking- the suggestion being that they were too "close" to News International or that the NoW had "something" on them. The question to be asked is - to what extent does press freedom for the likes of Mahmood and his colleagues contribute or detract from our liberty? Apprently press freedom is more important than anything else. I think I read that somewhere - a newspaper. Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Posing
It's a minor point, but a couple of times the article says that Mahmood "posed" as the fake sheikh. Surely he IS a fake sheikh and he poses as a real one? Earldelawarr (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS notice: Do not add an image unless you are absolutely sure it depicts the subject
Do NOT add any image of the article subject unless you're 100% certain that it's the correct person. There are several people with the same or similar names who are not associated with the subject! Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. Since court orders have been sent out by Mahmood's solicitors in the past to blogs featuring his photo, ordering them to remove those photos (which are readily available on the net) doesn't that pass the threshold of reliability and verifiability for inclusion of such photos within Wikipedia? How much proof does one need? Does an image literally have to be signed by the man?
 * I also note that all images previously called mazher_mahmood(number).jpg have disappeared from Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia itself running scared of the British press, and its injunctions? I thought Wikipedia operated under Florida law - oops, forgot, America itself operates under Rupert Murdoch law these days.1812ahill (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca television
I have deleted material sourced only to Rebecca Television, as the impression I get is that this is a blog and that Rebecca Television is an individual, who may indeed be the editor who posted this material. If this material has been broadcast, or otherwise published in a source with consequential reputation, such as a newspaper, please give details and reinstate. Bluehotel (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I included the material from Rebecca Television but I have no connection with them. As I don't see what is defamatory, and as Bluehotel (whoever that is) doesn't seem even to have bothered to check Wikipedia itself, I will reinstate and leave it up to other editors to sort out. Testbed (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have indeed checked wikipedia, and it appears that Rebecca Television is a blog, run by a man called Paddy. Presumably, he calls himself Rebecca Television because he thinks this will lead to him being taken more seriously. But it still appears to be a blog by a guy called Paddy. The problem being that anybody can call themselves anything at all, and start a blog.  The question is: is this a reliable source?  The wikipedia entry on Rebecca Television is already marked requesting verification, so could you please provide information on where you got this material - has it been broadcast or has it been published by a media outlet with, say, an office and directors - as I am close to certain that reputational matters cannot reasonably be sourced in the way you have done this. Bluehotel (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This has come up before. If someone can show that Rebecca television is more than one guy and his website, I'd be happier about these statements.  This is not information that has been broadcast, or published by a media organization that one would think had attorneys and editors.  If Rebecca Television is listed on Wikipedia, one would have to ask why.  Anybody can call themselves anything they want, and start a website.  That doesn't make this information reliable.  Bluehotel (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was patrolling section blanking when I reverted this. After looking at this Rebecca Hotel I don't see it as RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the renewed interest in this character ("judge Alistair McCreath said he believed Mahmood had lied in the witness stand") it seems sensible that I post the deleted quote here for the benefit of other editors. So far as I can tell Rebecca TV remains in action, run indeed by someone called Paddy French who worked as a journalist for ITV for ten years:-


 * Investigative company Rebecca Television published the following about his relations with his family:


 * ''Waseem Mahmood is Mazher’s brother. He was a successful BBC producer in Birmingham in the 1980s — until his brother wrote an exposé of moonlighting at the Pebble Mill studios based on gossip around the Mahmood family dinner table. “With only ‘an unnamed BBC insider' identified as the source for the revelations, I tendered my resignation the day after the article appeared, and when my mother refused to admonish my brother, claiming that it was a good story and that ‘he was only doing his job’, I packed up my wife and family and children and left the family home, never to return.”
 * Waseem was forced to go abroad to rebuild his shattered career but succeeded — he was awarded an OBE in the 2005 News Years Honours List for his media work in countries affected by war.''

Testbed (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

CPS investigation
Editors might want to be wary of unfairly extemporising on what they think the present position means. For example, the CPS has not said that it is investigating Mahmood with a view to perjury charges, as a recent edit said. The courts are in a position to find his evidence unsafe and revisit convictions without going the next, and much more difficult, step of imputing motives. Bluehotel (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BBC Article referencing "Mazher Mahmood"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29985604

Not adding it to the article because of some WP:RS concerns.

Perhaps someone more familiar with the subject matter could comment? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mazher Mahmood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060411003343/http://www.respectcoalition.org:80/%3Fite%3D1027 to http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1027

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed photo - how to add?
The article lacks a photograph of the subject in the usual place. Several media sources have published Mazher Mahmood's police custody photograph making it 100% clear it's the man this article's about.

E.g.,

Press Gazette Mazher Mahmood's cover is blown as custody picture released and his image widely used by media

Mail Online British reporter 'Fake Sheikh' jailed for 15 months

BBC News Mazher Mahmood: 'Fake Sheikh' jailed over Tulisa case

The Irish News 'Fake Sheikh' Mazher Mahmood facing jail after guilty verdict in Tulisa case

The Guardian Mazher Mahmood: a timeline of the 'Fake Sheikh's rise and fall

BuzzFeed “Fake Sheikh” Journalist Mazher Mahmood Jailed For Evidence Tampering

I don't know the proper procedure for causing one of these confirmed photos to appear on the article page. Could someone either give me advice on what to do or take the appropriate steps themselves?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"unseen footage"
"The programme also included unseen footage..."

How can a televison program include unseen footage.

Did the writer mean previously unseen? Or perhaps the footage was not shown but only described? it is not clear.

If the footage was shown, it can't be "unseen" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:777C:C750:B556:C29A:F8AE:4847 (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)