This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Finsbury Park Mosque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On January 2016, it was proposed that this article be moved from North London Central Mosque to Finsbury Park Mosque. The result of the discussion was moved. |
homepage doesn't seem to work for me. does anyone know whether the the link is up to date? 77.103.178.162 ( talk) 13:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Err, there's no attempt to contextualise the Mosque post-Hamza here. Will try to update when I get time. 147.188.27.65 9 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe the mosque as comparable with something you would find in instanbul, but I'd like to know who designed it, who commissioned it, who got contracted to build it, etc. This article is rather short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.21.34 ( talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Have found a BBC article which says the mosque opened in 1988 (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4639074.stm). But Time says it was founded in 1990 (
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901030203-411394,00.html). Which to believe?!
-- 131.111.247.135 ( talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How does one define "mainstream"? What constitutes a "mainstream Muslim"? What are their beliefs in comparison to "non mainstream" Muslims? Do their beliefs represent a true interpretation of Islam? The phrase seems subjective; clarification and comment would be welcomed. Foreignshore ( talk) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Foreignshore
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 78.149.203.115 ( talk) 12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
North London Central Mosque. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it the North London Central Mosque or Finsbury Park Mosque? The title of the article is the former, the name in the first line of the article is the latter. It can't be both officially. Cls14 ( talk) 13:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The heavy focus on links to terrorism-related and Islamophobia-related pages seems to provide an anti-Muslim bias to the page. Thoughts?
North London Central Mosque →
Finsbury Park Mosque – This is what it is most commonly called and, when Google last happened by,
this was also what was printed on the sign outside.
Greg
Kaye 16:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
12:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This looks potentially interesting, and I am in two minds whether it should be added or not. The local paper describes it as a "prestigious national award", but if so one might expect it to have been more widely reported, so there is some doubt in my mind whether the "Community Matters" organisation or its awards are really all that well known. Does anyone have a view, and/or can find additional sources? Thanks. -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The Al-Arabiya story seems UNDUE to me at the moment. I did a google search and found only two [1] [2] independent sources on the topic (not including Al-Arabiya, which is obviously not independent). I'm removing it for now, as it seems WP:UNDUE to include this in the article. VR talk 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Vice regent: - should we put this in? It seems to be a recurring invite throughout the presidential campaign and even post election.... December 2016 [3] August 2016 [4], January 2016 [5] December 2015 [6]. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this source contains good information. I'm not really sure of its appropriateness. Normally, I wouldn't use unedited information from WikiLeaks. But this has been published by the Telegraph. I'm going ahead and inserting the information. But if someone objects, we can remove it. VR talk 09:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
All we need in his section is a discussion of his relationship to the mosque and to make it clear about his relationship to terrorism. The bit I deleted was not about the mosque and readers can find it in his main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems there's two different narratives as to why the mosque shutdown in 2003. One is that it was shut down after the terror plot. But the other is that there had been a steady effort by the mosque trustees and the Charity Commission to legally put an end to Abu Hamza's activities. It appears to me that the anti-terror raid was just an opportunity but not the sole cause for the shutdown. Though, I could be wrong. VR talk 14:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Vice regent: (and whomever else it may concern): You might want to look at this one: [8] (Countering Al Qaeda in London, published 2012, by Robert Lambert - pages - 79-155 - so 76 pages, of which a significant portion (chapter) is on reclaiming the mosque). Icewhiz ( talk) 14:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of press coverage about Trump's failure to tweet about this act of terrorism. [10] Doug Weller talk 18:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously page views are spiking now (main WP reference). However - they also spiked markedly after each of the 3 events this year Pageviews Analysis 1/3-18/6 - you can tell there was a terror attack in the UK on a particular date just by looking at the pageviews on the mosque page (and there was no real (AFAIK) terror news this year, until the 19th of June, that related in any way to the mosque) - each of the 3 major British attacks shows up, particularly Westminster in March, but also London Bridge and Manchester. Icewhiz ( talk) 22:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is presently Salafi according to the sources I see (though it definitely may have been under Abu-Hamza). From what I see, it seems to be linked to the UK branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not Salafi, but is Islamist. The Muslim Brotherhood has been declared a terror organization by various, mainly Arab, countries. There have been some claims ([ [11] [12] [13] - and a few more) regarding support for the destruction of Israel and UK responsiblity of ISIL. The Telegraph did print a retraction to some of these - but not all. Kozbar did seem to travel to Gaza or meet with Hamas leaders, [14] [15]. One of the trustees - Muhammad Sawalha - is a former Hamas (which is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) military wing commander, who fled the West Bank as a wanted terrorist fugitive in 1990. In short - I think that placing Salafi as an affiliation would be wrong. Working in the Muslim Brotherhood might be warranted - but it depends just how much this is mosque related in contrast to individuals who are working in the mosque (Kozbar is referred to as the mosque boss / manager. Sawalha might be less significant day to day (beyond being a trustee)). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Come on guys, that's a weasel word and looks terrible with BzLO, let alone the next king of England . Z Doug Weller talk 17:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Prince Charles allegedly supported the project, after touring the shabby neighborhood in the early 1980s. According to the mosque's trustees, it is "widely known" that King Fahd of Saudi Arabia provided over €1 million to fund the construction, the total cost of which was estimated at €2.3 million.".Regarding the amount Fahd sunk in - there are conflicting sources on the cost of the project (as well as the 1988/1994 issue) - e.g. [18] here they say a total cost of 8 million (compared to 2.3 in Time) - different costs/dates may be due to scope of project (main building or whole complex). It is seems clear that Prince Charles was connected to the project beyond just showing up to cut a ribbon (and TIME Magazine is a WP:RS), the question is more of a matter of wording - maybe just say he was involved. Icewhiz ( talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this revert and the edit after that. The history is for more generic things happening at the mosque. Singular incidents do not really affect what's happening in general. It also mistakenly gives the impression like the reformation ended in 2013 and that "incidents" ended in 2016. This, in spite of the fact that we have multiple high quality sources that say the mosque hasn't been involved in extremism dating post-2013.
In particular, Policy Exchange's allegations don't really have much to do with mosque's reformations efforts. The think tank admitted they "never sought to suggest that the literature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff." So its not at all clear how this literature has anything to do with the mosque leadership. I'm not sure if you know this, but mosques are open spaces that pretty much anyone from the public can enter. Secondly, while Policy does list controversial quotes from literature found, there's no real discussion on whether this implies extremism. (For example, one may study the views of Mawdudi and Al-Banna without necessarily agreeing with them). Plenty of religious texts contain pretty controversial passages. VR talk 08:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In the ‘2014-2016: Incidents’ section it says the mosque was temporarily closed due to “reported links to terrorism before 2005 as well as purported Muslim Brotherhood links of a current mosque trustee.”
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization and is not banned in Britain. Mentioning the MB in the same line as “links to terrorism” gives the impression that it is a shady outfit that has links to terrorist activities. The referenced Guardian pieces state that after MI5 and MI6 investigated the MB no links to terrorism were found.
Given the widespread misconceptions about Islamic organizations, should this not be mentioned in the article? User2346 ( talk) 22:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Finsbury Park Mosque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On January 2016, it was proposed that this article be moved from North London Central Mosque to Finsbury Park Mosque. The result of the discussion was moved. |
homepage doesn't seem to work for me. does anyone know whether the the link is up to date? 77.103.178.162 ( talk) 13:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Err, there's no attempt to contextualise the Mosque post-Hamza here. Will try to update when I get time. 147.188.27.65 9 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe the mosque as comparable with something you would find in instanbul, but I'd like to know who designed it, who commissioned it, who got contracted to build it, etc. This article is rather short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.21.34 ( talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Have found a BBC article which says the mosque opened in 1988 (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4639074.stm). But Time says it was founded in 1990 (
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901030203-411394,00.html). Which to believe?!
-- 131.111.247.135 ( talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How does one define "mainstream"? What constitutes a "mainstream Muslim"? What are their beliefs in comparison to "non mainstream" Muslims? Do their beliefs represent a true interpretation of Islam? The phrase seems subjective; clarification and comment would be welcomed. Foreignshore ( talk) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Foreignshore
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 78.149.203.115 ( talk) 12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
North London Central Mosque. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it the North London Central Mosque or Finsbury Park Mosque? The title of the article is the former, the name in the first line of the article is the latter. It can't be both officially. Cls14 ( talk) 13:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The heavy focus on links to terrorism-related and Islamophobia-related pages seems to provide an anti-Muslim bias to the page. Thoughts?
North London Central Mosque →
Finsbury Park Mosque – This is what it is most commonly called and, when Google last happened by,
this was also what was printed on the sign outside.
Greg
Kaye 16:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
12:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This looks potentially interesting, and I am in two minds whether it should be added or not. The local paper describes it as a "prestigious national award", but if so one might expect it to have been more widely reported, so there is some doubt in my mind whether the "Community Matters" organisation or its awards are really all that well known. Does anyone have a view, and/or can find additional sources? Thanks. -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The Al-Arabiya story seems UNDUE to me at the moment. I did a google search and found only two [1] [2] independent sources on the topic (not including Al-Arabiya, which is obviously not independent). I'm removing it for now, as it seems WP:UNDUE to include this in the article. VR talk 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Vice regent: - should we put this in? It seems to be a recurring invite throughout the presidential campaign and even post election.... December 2016 [3] August 2016 [4], January 2016 [5] December 2015 [6]. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this source contains good information. I'm not really sure of its appropriateness. Normally, I wouldn't use unedited information from WikiLeaks. But this has been published by the Telegraph. I'm going ahead and inserting the information. But if someone objects, we can remove it. VR talk 09:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
All we need in his section is a discussion of his relationship to the mosque and to make it clear about his relationship to terrorism. The bit I deleted was not about the mosque and readers can find it in his main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems there's two different narratives as to why the mosque shutdown in 2003. One is that it was shut down after the terror plot. But the other is that there had been a steady effort by the mosque trustees and the Charity Commission to legally put an end to Abu Hamza's activities. It appears to me that the anti-terror raid was just an opportunity but not the sole cause for the shutdown. Though, I could be wrong. VR talk 14:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Vice regent: (and whomever else it may concern): You might want to look at this one: [8] (Countering Al Qaeda in London, published 2012, by Robert Lambert - pages - 79-155 - so 76 pages, of which a significant portion (chapter) is on reclaiming the mosque). Icewhiz ( talk) 14:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of press coverage about Trump's failure to tweet about this act of terrorism. [10] Doug Weller talk 18:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously page views are spiking now (main WP reference). However - they also spiked markedly after each of the 3 events this year Pageviews Analysis 1/3-18/6 - you can tell there was a terror attack in the UK on a particular date just by looking at the pageviews on the mosque page (and there was no real (AFAIK) terror news this year, until the 19th of June, that related in any way to the mosque) - each of the 3 major British attacks shows up, particularly Westminster in March, but also London Bridge and Manchester. Icewhiz ( talk) 22:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is presently Salafi according to the sources I see (though it definitely may have been under Abu-Hamza). From what I see, it seems to be linked to the UK branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not Salafi, but is Islamist. The Muslim Brotherhood has been declared a terror organization by various, mainly Arab, countries. There have been some claims ([ [11] [12] [13] - and a few more) regarding support for the destruction of Israel and UK responsiblity of ISIL. The Telegraph did print a retraction to some of these - but not all. Kozbar did seem to travel to Gaza or meet with Hamas leaders, [14] [15]. One of the trustees - Muhammad Sawalha - is a former Hamas (which is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) military wing commander, who fled the West Bank as a wanted terrorist fugitive in 1990. In short - I think that placing Salafi as an affiliation would be wrong. Working in the Muslim Brotherhood might be warranted - but it depends just how much this is mosque related in contrast to individuals who are working in the mosque (Kozbar is referred to as the mosque boss / manager. Sawalha might be less significant day to day (beyond being a trustee)). Icewhiz ( talk) 07:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Come on guys, that's a weasel word and looks terrible with BzLO, let alone the next king of England . Z Doug Weller talk 17:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Prince Charles allegedly supported the project, after touring the shabby neighborhood in the early 1980s. According to the mosque's trustees, it is "widely known" that King Fahd of Saudi Arabia provided over €1 million to fund the construction, the total cost of which was estimated at €2.3 million.".Regarding the amount Fahd sunk in - there are conflicting sources on the cost of the project (as well as the 1988/1994 issue) - e.g. [18] here they say a total cost of 8 million (compared to 2.3 in Time) - different costs/dates may be due to scope of project (main building or whole complex). It is seems clear that Prince Charles was connected to the project beyond just showing up to cut a ribbon (and TIME Magazine is a WP:RS), the question is more of a matter of wording - maybe just say he was involved. Icewhiz ( talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this revert and the edit after that. The history is for more generic things happening at the mosque. Singular incidents do not really affect what's happening in general. It also mistakenly gives the impression like the reformation ended in 2013 and that "incidents" ended in 2016. This, in spite of the fact that we have multiple high quality sources that say the mosque hasn't been involved in extremism dating post-2013.
In particular, Policy Exchange's allegations don't really have much to do with mosque's reformations efforts. The think tank admitted they "never sought to suggest that the literature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff." So its not at all clear how this literature has anything to do with the mosque leadership. I'm not sure if you know this, but mosques are open spaces that pretty much anyone from the public can enter. Secondly, while Policy does list controversial quotes from literature found, there's no real discussion on whether this implies extremism. (For example, one may study the views of Mawdudi and Al-Banna without necessarily agreeing with them). Plenty of religious texts contain pretty controversial passages. VR talk 08:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In the ‘2014-2016: Incidents’ section it says the mosque was temporarily closed due to “reported links to terrorism before 2005 as well as purported Muslim Brotherhood links of a current mosque trustee.”
The Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization and is not banned in Britain. Mentioning the MB in the same line as “links to terrorism” gives the impression that it is a shady outfit that has links to terrorist activities. The referenced Guardian pieces state that after MI5 and MI6 investigated the MB no links to terrorism were found.
Given the widespread misconceptions about Islamic organizations, should this not be mentioned in the article? User2346 ( talk) 22:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)