![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Simple request to Parrot to not continue to edit war.-- Hemshaw ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Again according to the Standard article, that was the case in 2006. This might be a worthy addition to his personal life section if it can be verified and it was not a brief occurrence. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 03:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
According to the Evening Standard article he was separated from his wife in 2006. This should be cross-checked with more reputable source and for current relevance. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 03:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Some information has been blocked by another editor from this article, being:
Why is this information excluded? Why has this individual entry using office holder infobox instead of infobox person?
Why WP:CENSOR here? -- Hemshaw ( talk) 22:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, are you communicating with individuals in the United States and encouraging them to participate in attacks of this sort? CHOUDARY: Of course I am. You know, I am participating in communication with people all around the world. As you know, the Internet makes the world a very small place. You know, we have a lot of support, in fact, (inaudible) from people as far afield as Indonesia, from India…
Actually, in this case the basis of those tabloid reports (in the Mail and the Standard) are more or less acknowledged by Choudary himself if we believe Johann Hari and the Independent. (Amusingly, Hari was involved in a scandal because he changed quotes attributed to his interviewees, although he claims he's always done it in the interest of clarity, and not for the " greater truth"). I've clarified the paragraph a bit. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 04:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The consensus at RS/N [1] was that the sources in question (two tabloids and an interview) are not reliable. The interview in particular is not reliable because the journalist reporting it is known to misquote people he interviews. Not only that, but the accuracy of quotes in the very article cited here has been called in question by another interviewee. All this was covered at RS/N. Consensus can change, but until you reopen the RS/N discussion, and obtain a new consensus favorable to inclusion of that material, the current consensus is against it. Note that there is no RR limit for removing BLP violations, so I'm removing it again. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 01:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The wikipedia page for Anjem Choudary says "He became chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, but was removed from the roll of solicitors (the official register of legal practitioners) in 2002"
Why was Anjem Choudary removed from the register? What are the consequences of being removed from the register?
74.101.128.155 ( talk) 10:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The external link to the given to his official website contains no relevant content. It is a generic advertising holding page with no information specific to Anjem Choudary.
archive.org's most recent relevant snapshot can be found that the following URL.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120805075821/http://www.anjemchoudary.com/
This seems somewhat non-NPOV (what is "mainstream?") and is also not substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.141.172 ( talk) 20:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia had a policy on using media articles to substantiate information? The article offered no proof...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.8 ( talk) 00:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(There has been some discussion of this issue through edit summaries [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], and on my talk page, [8]. Continuing from there.)
I do not see any vaguity in the existing ref Choudary is of Pakistani descent and was born in the UK and whilst a qualified solicitor was struck off the rolls in 2002 and now lives on benefits. I had already provided the quote in the ref. Secondly, I was not using the source to support an opinion. So, I do not think the source being an op-ed is a valid issue. Anyway, in view of your objections, I will try to find non-op-ed sources and add them in the article body and lead. OK? Thanks. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 05:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I remain utterly unconvinced by the arguments give to remove his ethnicity from the lead. Besides, his ethnicity is currently being mentioned in the "Al-Muhajiroun" section. I think it should be in the "Early life and education" section. If we can agree to move it in the "Early life and education", I think that should do for now. OK?
@Koncorde. I agree that the first sentence looks wonky. If you think it (or anything else) can be improved, we have WP:BOLD. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 13:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I am baffled by oramgesryellow and his childish arguments he was born in UK amd never professes any other nationality seems more like a smear campaign by the user looking at his edit history he seems to be consumed with an anti pakistani agenda ridiculous that everyone opposes your blatant POV and yet you still try and blabber on with rubbish arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.227.188 ( talk) 17:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not source information of this sort from tabloid newspapers. I have protected the page from editing from anonymous and new editors to prevent further breaches of the Wikipedia policy for articles about living people. That's enough of this discussion. Bencherlite Talk 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Should they go before or after the mentioning of his Pakistani ethnicity? IMHO, right under criticism... with a reference to today's bruhaha on reddit http://redd.it/1g7hn0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.165.66 ( talk) 21:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thus reeks of censorship. I wouldn’t be surprised if Parrot of Doom was in the cult of Islam. The Sun and Daily Mail are reliable sources for these pictures. They are the only ones who are willing to take the chance exposing Islam for the cult it is. And exposing the radical faction of that cult that wants to establish Sharia all over Europe. Seems like Parrot of Doom is in their corner because this is a legitimate article exposing a fraud who inspires terrorist Jihad. Seems strange that Parrot of Doom is protecting him. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 03:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
So you approve lashing or hard labor for someone who has a few pints. I honestly feel sorry for brainwashed cult members who can’t think for themselves. I have a good friend who I helped get out of Scientology. It wasn’t pretty. Also. You can censor and I will repost all day long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 20:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC) As an Islamist you don’t "find it shocking to see someone drinking”. Drinking what? Alcohol? Gasoline? Piss? Can you have a great conversation with someone who is intoxicated. In vino veritas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Waiting for a grown up non-cult member to stop you from censoring my post to protect your other cult member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) It’s interesting to see who is a supporter of Anjem Choudary on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 08:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Choudary has said that anyone becoming intoxicated by alcohol should be given 40 lashes in public. He claimed alcohol was "the root of all evil” and that "Islam additionally imposes 40 lashes in public for deliberate intoxication, followed by 80 lashes in public if repeated for a second time.” [1]
LAwestsideguy ( talk) 09:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Simple request to Parrot to not continue to edit war.-- Hemshaw ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Again according to the Standard article, that was the case in 2006. This might be a worthy addition to his personal life section if it can be verified and it was not a brief occurrence. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 03:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
According to the Evening Standard article he was separated from his wife in 2006. This should be cross-checked with more reputable source and for current relevance. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 03:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Some information has been blocked by another editor from this article, being:
Why is this information excluded? Why has this individual entry using office holder infobox instead of infobox person?
Why WP:CENSOR here? -- Hemshaw ( talk) 22:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, are you communicating with individuals in the United States and encouraging them to participate in attacks of this sort? CHOUDARY: Of course I am. You know, I am participating in communication with people all around the world. As you know, the Internet makes the world a very small place. You know, we have a lot of support, in fact, (inaudible) from people as far afield as Indonesia, from India…
Actually, in this case the basis of those tabloid reports (in the Mail and the Standard) are more or less acknowledged by Choudary himself if we believe Johann Hari and the Independent. (Amusingly, Hari was involved in a scandal because he changed quotes attributed to his interviewees, although he claims he's always done it in the interest of clarity, and not for the " greater truth"). I've clarified the paragraph a bit. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 04:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The consensus at RS/N [1] was that the sources in question (two tabloids and an interview) are not reliable. The interview in particular is not reliable because the journalist reporting it is known to misquote people he interviews. Not only that, but the accuracy of quotes in the very article cited here has been called in question by another interviewee. All this was covered at RS/N. Consensus can change, but until you reopen the RS/N discussion, and obtain a new consensus favorable to inclusion of that material, the current consensus is against it. Note that there is no RR limit for removing BLP violations, so I'm removing it again. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 01:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The wikipedia page for Anjem Choudary says "He became chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, but was removed from the roll of solicitors (the official register of legal practitioners) in 2002"
Why was Anjem Choudary removed from the register? What are the consequences of being removed from the register?
74.101.128.155 ( talk) 10:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The external link to the given to his official website contains no relevant content. It is a generic advertising holding page with no information specific to Anjem Choudary.
archive.org's most recent relevant snapshot can be found that the following URL.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120805075821/http://www.anjemchoudary.com/
This seems somewhat non-NPOV (what is "mainstream?") and is also not substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.141.172 ( talk) 20:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia had a policy on using media articles to substantiate information? The article offered no proof...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.8 ( talk) 00:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
(There has been some discussion of this issue through edit summaries [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], and on my talk page, [8]. Continuing from there.)
I do not see any vaguity in the existing ref Choudary is of Pakistani descent and was born in the UK and whilst a qualified solicitor was struck off the rolls in 2002 and now lives on benefits. I had already provided the quote in the ref. Secondly, I was not using the source to support an opinion. So, I do not think the source being an op-ed is a valid issue. Anyway, in view of your objections, I will try to find non-op-ed sources and add them in the article body and lead. OK? Thanks. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 05:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I remain utterly unconvinced by the arguments give to remove his ethnicity from the lead. Besides, his ethnicity is currently being mentioned in the "Al-Muhajiroun" section. I think it should be in the "Early life and education" section. If we can agree to move it in the "Early life and education", I think that should do for now. OK?
@Koncorde. I agree that the first sentence looks wonky. If you think it (or anything else) can be improved, we have WP:BOLD. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 13:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I am baffled by oramgesryellow and his childish arguments he was born in UK amd never professes any other nationality seems more like a smear campaign by the user looking at his edit history he seems to be consumed with an anti pakistani agenda ridiculous that everyone opposes your blatant POV and yet you still try and blabber on with rubbish arguments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.227.188 ( talk) 17:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not source information of this sort from tabloid newspapers. I have protected the page from editing from anonymous and new editors to prevent further breaches of the Wikipedia policy for articles about living people. That's enough of this discussion. Bencherlite Talk 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Should they go before or after the mentioning of his Pakistani ethnicity? IMHO, right under criticism... with a reference to today's bruhaha on reddit http://redd.it/1g7hn0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.165.66 ( talk) 21:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thus reeks of censorship. I wouldn’t be surprised if Parrot of Doom was in the cult of Islam. The Sun and Daily Mail are reliable sources for these pictures. They are the only ones who are willing to take the chance exposing Islam for the cult it is. And exposing the radical faction of that cult that wants to establish Sharia all over Europe. Seems like Parrot of Doom is in their corner because this is a legitimate article exposing a fraud who inspires terrorist Jihad. Seems strange that Parrot of Doom is protecting him. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 03:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
So you approve lashing or hard labor for someone who has a few pints. I honestly feel sorry for brainwashed cult members who can’t think for themselves. I have a good friend who I helped get out of Scientology. It wasn’t pretty. Also. You can censor and I will repost all day long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 20:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC) As an Islamist you don’t "find it shocking to see someone drinking”. Drinking what? Alcohol? Gasoline? Piss? Can you have a great conversation with someone who is intoxicated. In vino veritas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Waiting for a grown up non-cult member to stop you from censoring my post to protect your other cult member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) It’s interesting to see who is a supporter of Anjem Choudary on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 ( talk) 08:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Choudary has said that anyone becoming intoxicated by alcohol should be given 40 lashes in public. He claimed alcohol was "the root of all evil” and that "Islam additionally imposes 40 lashes in public for deliberate intoxication, followed by 80 lashes in public if repeated for a second time.” [1]
LAwestsideguy ( talk) 09:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)