![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You removed;
Sunny Hundal [1], editor of Asians in Media Magazine [2] writes, "The MCB is clearly disappointed that the law will 'criminalise legitimate armed struggles against violent regimes' [3], essentially meaning they'll have to be careful when expressing support for suicide bombers in Israel or terrorists in Kashmir." [4]
This is legitimate analysis. It's an important viewpoint as to why the MCB is against the Bill. The article states the reasons the MCB give. Hundal's analysis just balances that. Hundal is not making wild allegations. There is evidence for his viewpoint. For starters, just see; BBC response to MCB complaints, The MCB and Hizb ut-Tahrir & Sacranie, Yassin and Gandhi.
In the section
The Protest, you changed;
Omar said he had no regrets about his style of dress
to
Omar apologised "wholeheartedly" today to the families of the July 7 bombings and said it had not been his aim to cause offence but said he had no regrets about his style of dress
This is a misrepresentation of the truth. Khayam at first refused to apologise, saying: "I would do it again to make a point. I could have held up banners or something but this made the point better." [5] Omar Khayam's eventual apology came several days later "after pressure from moderate Muslims fearful of a backlash over the protests", only after the initial media outrage. This is why his apology appears later in the article, in the Repercussions section.
For these reasons, I'm reverting your edits. Veej 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, let’s concentrate on the content rather than attacking me for what you perceive as bias. I assume that you’re asking me to explain the relevance of the MCB to this issue? The protest was organised by al Ghurabaa. They announced it in a press release calling "all Muslims to rise”. [6] “The Muslim Council of Britain (www.mcb.org.uk) is the UK's representative Muslim umbrella body with over 400 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools.” [7] From MCB’s press releases, it claims to speak for British muslims.
1) Al Ghurabaa asks for Muslims to protest in Britain & the MCB speaks for Muslims in Britain.
The ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause from the Terrorism Bill is inextricably linked to this protest for reasons given in the article & elsewhere on the talk page. The MCB chose to try to publicly influence parliament regarding it & therefore became involved in this controversy.
2) MCB urge MPs to vote against ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause.
The MCB react to the march by organising another, more mainstream march. ‘Organisers also said it wanted to dissociate the mainstream Muslim community from a "minority of extremists".’ [8] Muslim rally organisers tell extremists to stay away is a reaction to the controversy.
3) The MCB make highly public reactions to the controversy.
I’ve provided 3 solid reasons why the MCB are involved. Tony Blair, David Davis, William Hague, Simon Hughes & Sir Ian Blair were not actually present at the march yet they are relevant to this article. By the same token, though the MCB were not actually at the protest, they are relevant to this article.
I’ve provided in depth answers to all your questions, yet you haven’t answered my question below, from 4 days ago. Veej 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why you removed this sentence; Police try to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest'.
And this link from The Telegraph; Unchallenged, a man poses as a suicide bomber. Police stop press taking pictures Veej 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You changed;
Police try to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest'. [9]
to this;
The Telegraph claims that Police tried to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest', though hundreds of photographs of the man were taken. [10]
Firstly we have no reason to doubt one of Britain's leading broadsheet newspapers's claims, especially when there is no evidence to contradict it. Where are the 'hundreds of photographs' that you speak of? I do wish you'd look at the links though. The Telegraph article shows a picture of a policewoman trying to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar. That's my evidence but where is yours? Veej 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In the section
The Protest, you again changed;
Omar said he had no regrets about his style of dress
to
Though he later apologised, Omar originally said that he had no regrets about his style of dress
Omar Khayam's eventual apology came several days later "after pressure from moderate Muslims fearful of a backlash over the protests", only after the initial media outrage. This is why his apology appears later in the article, in the Repercussions section. The events of the article appear chronologically to aid understanding of the media outrage for the reader. Why repeat this information in a chronologically incorrect position? Veej 19:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've answered all you questions in detail, with evidence. I await detailed replies to my questions. In the meantime I'll revert only the areas discussed. I'm not going to contend the title change from 'The Outrage' to the less descriptive 'Reaction', though I will pluralize it to Reactions for grammar. Nor will I contend your addition of; All the placards were written in the same style and in similar black felt-tip pen ink implying that they were written by one person and then handed out. Veej 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Added video, it says it all.-- CltFn 05:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, I don't want to get involved in a revert war. Is it not better for us to discuss the content rather than unilaterally reverting other editor's work? Veej 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Veej has contacted me to see if I can help you guys resolve a dispute you're having here.
My initial thoughts are that we should go with number 1 for dispute 1 and number 2 for dispute 2. The source (Telegraph) actually says "Police hinder photographers as they try to get further pictures of the protester in the 'bomb vest'", it does not quote that they "tried" to stop photographers.
Perhaps an appropriate compromise might be
Regarding the second dispute, if we can find a source for that "cite" then by all means we should include it within the second paragraph. I don't have anything to gain or lose from this so take my suggestions anyway you like. :) - FrancisTyers 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the second point, I guess we have to decide if it is relevant to the article. Part of that will be deciding if the demonstration had a causal effect in getting the Bill passed. Did it? Do any notable journalists say it did? I mean this new bill is kind of irrelevant since they (the protestors) were probably eligible for being arrested under the Public Order Act anyway. If you'd like to include it, what would you suggest the article title be changed to? - FrancisTyers 01:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom’s points;
The wikipedia page on the terrorism bill is massive with 26 subtitles under the main title. The Bill itself is massive though & the whole thing hasn’t gone though Parliament yet. ‘’There are 3 schedules and 39 clauses’’. To start adding big chunks of text to that is nonsensical. We are only dealing with one clause here, though it should be linked to that page & vice versa. The non-notable issue has been dealt with. I’ve provided proof that Sunny is notable & you’ve simply alleged that he isn’t. Regarding, “MAB have proved that they have significantly more support from Muslims”, again where is this proof you speak of? The Pope & Dublin riots analogy doesn’t work. The MCB publicly chose to try to influence parliament regarding the “glorification of terrorism” clause. The MCB reacted to the protest with a counter protest. Has the Pope involved himself in the Dublin riots in a similar way? How is inclusion Hundal’s analysis a POV attack? The article states the reasons the MCB give & Hundal's analysis just balances that. I’m disappointed that so far all you’ve wanted to do is censor the article rather than contribute to it.
Franc’s points; I don’t understand the need to thin the article. It doesn’t seem too long to me. Battle of Badr from the front page is significantly longer. I do understand your point on proportion though. But I have found more relevant information that will make “The Protest” section about 1/3 longer. I’ll make a start on that soon. I also see your point about the inclusion of Hundal. I have some problems with your wording though. Tony Blair did use the protest as reason for the “glorification of terrorism” clause in Parliament at Prime Minister’s Question time. This is really important. I also prefer the accuracy of direct quotes as their use can help avoid squabbles about wording. I haven’t read any reports about “other religious and civil liberties groups to oppose it”, but they can easily be added when & if they’re found. I read somewhere that the Church of England was all for it. When organisations/individuals are anti something or pro something we should allow them to give reasons why. I also found your proposal far too short. There’s just not enough information there for the reader to understand the events that occurred. That is surely the point of the article rather than any wikipedia policies or conventions.
I’ve come up with a modified bare minimum information version in hope that we can agree on this and continue writing an encyclopaedia:
Journalists report that the demonstration played a part in increasing the support for the "glorification of terrorism" clause of the Terrorism Bill [21]. The Bill was eventually passed 315 votes to 277 despite calls to MPs from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the civil liberties group Liberty to oppose it. [22] The MCB say the Bill is perceived as "unfairly targeting Muslims and stifling legitimate debate" [23] & will “criminalise legitimate armed struggles against violent regimes” [24]. William Hague said at Prime Minister's Questions that the inclusion of "glorification" in the Bill was mere spin, an attempt to give the impression that tough action was being taken. Blair insisted that an offence of glorifying terror was the only way to prosecute demonstrators who carry banners praising the 7/7 bombers. He said that existing laws only allowed prosecutions for preaching hate by word of mouth, but not by the written word or through placards. [25] Veej 08:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
ok tom, so what do you recommend? what is your proposal? Veej 12:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I spotted two errors in this article, but I'm not going to change them due to the fact that there is an content dispute going on. Personally I don't want to get in the middle of it. Here are the errors:
Error#1: Under the reaction section, the word shadow is incorrectly linked to a diffrent meaning and instead should go to Shadow_government.
Error#2: Under reprocussions the words read, "bailed to appear" I think it should read be, "failed to appear." (see below)
Abdul Rahman Saleem, 31, of Mellish Street in east London, charged with using words likely to stir up racial hatred and bailed to appear at West London Magistrates' Court on 31 March.
Omar Zaheer, of Derwent Road, Southall, west London, charged with racially aggravated disorderly behaviour and disorderly behaviour and bailed to appear at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 31 March.
Anjem Choudary, 38, rented flat in Redbridge, east London, bailed to return to a police station on 19 April "pending investigations into material recovered in searches". He is a prominent figure in al Ghurabaa and the "right-hand man of radical Muslim cleric, Omar Bakri Mohammed" who is banned from the UK.
Abdul Muhid, 22, Waltham Forest, bailed to return to a police station on 19 April "pending investigations into material recovered in searches". He is a prominent member of The Saviour Sect and was arrested in 2005 on suspicion of preaching hatred against British troops in Iraq.
I hope one of you can go ahead and make those changes. Davidpdx 12:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence (at the top of the article) is grammatically incorrect:
...staged a controversial what from London? I'm not changing it myself, simply because I don't know what it's meant to say. I assume it means to say a controversial protest, but someone involved in the article should please fix this. Torgo 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Chaps, please don't let the dispute between Tom & I stop you from correcting errors or contributing in any way. Please! That's been going on forever & it's fairly mindless anyway. This is an ongoing story that I don't get too much time to contribute to. The changes made so far have been intelligent & progressive. I really welcome them. Go for it! Veej 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added back this category because the arrest and trial of the protestors are still ongoing and hence relevant additions to the article will be made in the future. AndrewRT 18:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The word Islamist is a slur. It's akin to me calling the LA riots the 1991 Nigger riots in Los Angeles. BlueGoose 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom, i'm a little confused. You've been discussing the intricacies of this page with me for nearly four weeks now. I'm baffled as to why you've never objected to the title before now?
Veej
02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
(moved here from below)
POV tag not added by me, it should stay till it can be verified that
Tom. Actually, now I'm really confused. so you do object to the title? Veej 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Islamist is a redirect, not an actual page. BlueGoose 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What about using the word Muslim? BlueGoose 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
(I have no problem with the word Islamist, but "prophet" is POV.) - 65.95.241.86
I see your point about "prophet" being a POV term and it is an intelligent and relevant point. However, no other pages at wikipedia put quotation marks around the word prophet. If you look at
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and
Muhammad for example, there are no quotation marks around prophet. Though I haven't found a policy page related to this, it seems that wikipedia has already decided on a convention for this. the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for instance, which has had loads of attention, surely might be a good example for us to follow?
Veej
01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Tom. I got the wrong end of the stick. Both "Muslim prophet Muhammad" and "Prophet of Islam, Muhammad" seem perfectly reasonable to me. Though the former is more brief so that probably wins it for me. Veej 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
But then the dictionary gives this definition;
Hmmmm. I'm not sure. Veej 04:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) Esquizombi 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The title of this article is too general as "UK Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy". I propose the title be changed to "Islamist Demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London" to more specifically reflect the events documented in this article. Netscott 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Yeah, that seems like a sensible idea. Veej 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
|
Why is it, that having reading a reasonably long article dedicated solely to one single protest march in one city, I have no idea how many people were involved? -- Irishpunktom\ talk 12:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Where did all these images come from? Did the photographer release copyrights on them? Bless sins ( talk) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 18:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/PressRelease/ArrestAngryMuslims.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You removed;
Sunny Hundal [1], editor of Asians in Media Magazine [2] writes, "The MCB is clearly disappointed that the law will 'criminalise legitimate armed struggles against violent regimes' [3], essentially meaning they'll have to be careful when expressing support for suicide bombers in Israel or terrorists in Kashmir." [4]
This is legitimate analysis. It's an important viewpoint as to why the MCB is against the Bill. The article states the reasons the MCB give. Hundal's analysis just balances that. Hundal is not making wild allegations. There is evidence for his viewpoint. For starters, just see; BBC response to MCB complaints, The MCB and Hizb ut-Tahrir & Sacranie, Yassin and Gandhi.
In the section
The Protest, you changed;
Omar said he had no regrets about his style of dress
to
Omar apologised "wholeheartedly" today to the families of the July 7 bombings and said it had not been his aim to cause offence but said he had no regrets about his style of dress
This is a misrepresentation of the truth. Khayam at first refused to apologise, saying: "I would do it again to make a point. I could have held up banners or something but this made the point better." [5] Omar Khayam's eventual apology came several days later "after pressure from moderate Muslims fearful of a backlash over the protests", only after the initial media outrage. This is why his apology appears later in the article, in the Repercussions section.
For these reasons, I'm reverting your edits. Veej 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, let’s concentrate on the content rather than attacking me for what you perceive as bias. I assume that you’re asking me to explain the relevance of the MCB to this issue? The protest was organised by al Ghurabaa. They announced it in a press release calling "all Muslims to rise”. [6] “The Muslim Council of Britain (www.mcb.org.uk) is the UK's representative Muslim umbrella body with over 400 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools.” [7] From MCB’s press releases, it claims to speak for British muslims.
1) Al Ghurabaa asks for Muslims to protest in Britain & the MCB speaks for Muslims in Britain.
The ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause from the Terrorism Bill is inextricably linked to this protest for reasons given in the article & elsewhere on the talk page. The MCB chose to try to publicly influence parliament regarding it & therefore became involved in this controversy.
2) MCB urge MPs to vote against ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause.
The MCB react to the march by organising another, more mainstream march. ‘Organisers also said it wanted to dissociate the mainstream Muslim community from a "minority of extremists".’ [8] Muslim rally organisers tell extremists to stay away is a reaction to the controversy.
3) The MCB make highly public reactions to the controversy.
I’ve provided 3 solid reasons why the MCB are involved. Tony Blair, David Davis, William Hague, Simon Hughes & Sir Ian Blair were not actually present at the march yet they are relevant to this article. By the same token, though the MCB were not actually at the protest, they are relevant to this article.
I’ve provided in depth answers to all your questions, yet you haven’t answered my question below, from 4 days ago. Veej 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why you removed this sentence; Police try to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest'.
And this link from The Telegraph; Unchallenged, a man poses as a suicide bomber. Police stop press taking pictures Veej 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You changed;
Police try to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest'. [9]
to this;
The Telegraph claims that Police tried to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest', though hundreds of photographs of the man were taken. [10]
Firstly we have no reason to doubt one of Britain's leading broadsheet newspapers's claims, especially when there is no evidence to contradict it. Where are the 'hundreds of photographs' that you speak of? I do wish you'd look at the links though. The Telegraph article shows a picture of a policewoman trying to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar. That's my evidence but where is yours? Veej 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In the section
The Protest, you again changed;
Omar said he had no regrets about his style of dress
to
Though he later apologised, Omar originally said that he had no regrets about his style of dress
Omar Khayam's eventual apology came several days later "after pressure from moderate Muslims fearful of a backlash over the protests", only after the initial media outrage. This is why his apology appears later in the article, in the Repercussions section. The events of the article appear chronologically to aid understanding of the media outrage for the reader. Why repeat this information in a chronologically incorrect position? Veej 19:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've answered all you questions in detail, with evidence. I await detailed replies to my questions. In the meantime I'll revert only the areas discussed. I'm not going to contend the title change from 'The Outrage' to the less descriptive 'Reaction', though I will pluralize it to Reactions for grammar. Nor will I contend your addition of; All the placards were written in the same style and in similar black felt-tip pen ink implying that they were written by one person and then handed out. Veej 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Added video, it says it all.-- CltFn 05:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, I don't want to get involved in a revert war. Is it not better for us to discuss the content rather than unilaterally reverting other editor's work? Veej 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Veej has contacted me to see if I can help you guys resolve a dispute you're having here.
My initial thoughts are that we should go with number 1 for dispute 1 and number 2 for dispute 2. The source (Telegraph) actually says "Police hinder photographers as they try to get further pictures of the protester in the 'bomb vest'", it does not quote that they "tried" to stop photographers.
Perhaps an appropriate compromise might be
Regarding the second dispute, if we can find a source for that "cite" then by all means we should include it within the second paragraph. I don't have anything to gain or lose from this so take my suggestions anyway you like. :) - FrancisTyers 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the second point, I guess we have to decide if it is relevant to the article. Part of that will be deciding if the demonstration had a causal effect in getting the Bill passed. Did it? Do any notable journalists say it did? I mean this new bill is kind of irrelevant since they (the protestors) were probably eligible for being arrested under the Public Order Act anyway. If you'd like to include it, what would you suggest the article title be changed to? - FrancisTyers 01:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom’s points;
The wikipedia page on the terrorism bill is massive with 26 subtitles under the main title. The Bill itself is massive though & the whole thing hasn’t gone though Parliament yet. ‘’There are 3 schedules and 39 clauses’’. To start adding big chunks of text to that is nonsensical. We are only dealing with one clause here, though it should be linked to that page & vice versa. The non-notable issue has been dealt with. I’ve provided proof that Sunny is notable & you’ve simply alleged that he isn’t. Regarding, “MAB have proved that they have significantly more support from Muslims”, again where is this proof you speak of? The Pope & Dublin riots analogy doesn’t work. The MCB publicly chose to try to influence parliament regarding the “glorification of terrorism” clause. The MCB reacted to the protest with a counter protest. Has the Pope involved himself in the Dublin riots in a similar way? How is inclusion Hundal’s analysis a POV attack? The article states the reasons the MCB give & Hundal's analysis just balances that. I’m disappointed that so far all you’ve wanted to do is censor the article rather than contribute to it.
Franc’s points; I don’t understand the need to thin the article. It doesn’t seem too long to me. Battle of Badr from the front page is significantly longer. I do understand your point on proportion though. But I have found more relevant information that will make “The Protest” section about 1/3 longer. I’ll make a start on that soon. I also see your point about the inclusion of Hundal. I have some problems with your wording though. Tony Blair did use the protest as reason for the “glorification of terrorism” clause in Parliament at Prime Minister’s Question time. This is really important. I also prefer the accuracy of direct quotes as their use can help avoid squabbles about wording. I haven’t read any reports about “other religious and civil liberties groups to oppose it”, but they can easily be added when & if they’re found. I read somewhere that the Church of England was all for it. When organisations/individuals are anti something or pro something we should allow them to give reasons why. I also found your proposal far too short. There’s just not enough information there for the reader to understand the events that occurred. That is surely the point of the article rather than any wikipedia policies or conventions.
I’ve come up with a modified bare minimum information version in hope that we can agree on this and continue writing an encyclopaedia:
Journalists report that the demonstration played a part in increasing the support for the "glorification of terrorism" clause of the Terrorism Bill [21]. The Bill was eventually passed 315 votes to 277 despite calls to MPs from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the civil liberties group Liberty to oppose it. [22] The MCB say the Bill is perceived as "unfairly targeting Muslims and stifling legitimate debate" [23] & will “criminalise legitimate armed struggles against violent regimes” [24]. William Hague said at Prime Minister's Questions that the inclusion of "glorification" in the Bill was mere spin, an attempt to give the impression that tough action was being taken. Blair insisted that an offence of glorifying terror was the only way to prosecute demonstrators who carry banners praising the 7/7 bombers. He said that existing laws only allowed prosecutions for preaching hate by word of mouth, but not by the written word or through placards. [25] Veej 08:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
ok tom, so what do you recommend? what is your proposal? Veej 12:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I spotted two errors in this article, but I'm not going to change them due to the fact that there is an content dispute going on. Personally I don't want to get in the middle of it. Here are the errors:
Error#1: Under the reaction section, the word shadow is incorrectly linked to a diffrent meaning and instead should go to Shadow_government.
Error#2: Under reprocussions the words read, "bailed to appear" I think it should read be, "failed to appear." (see below)
Abdul Rahman Saleem, 31, of Mellish Street in east London, charged with using words likely to stir up racial hatred and bailed to appear at West London Magistrates' Court on 31 March.
Omar Zaheer, of Derwent Road, Southall, west London, charged with racially aggravated disorderly behaviour and disorderly behaviour and bailed to appear at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 31 March.
Anjem Choudary, 38, rented flat in Redbridge, east London, bailed to return to a police station on 19 April "pending investigations into material recovered in searches". He is a prominent figure in al Ghurabaa and the "right-hand man of radical Muslim cleric, Omar Bakri Mohammed" who is banned from the UK.
Abdul Muhid, 22, Waltham Forest, bailed to return to a police station on 19 April "pending investigations into material recovered in searches". He is a prominent member of The Saviour Sect and was arrested in 2005 on suspicion of preaching hatred against British troops in Iraq.
I hope one of you can go ahead and make those changes. Davidpdx 12:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence (at the top of the article) is grammatically incorrect:
...staged a controversial what from London? I'm not changing it myself, simply because I don't know what it's meant to say. I assume it means to say a controversial protest, but someone involved in the article should please fix this. Torgo 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Chaps, please don't let the dispute between Tom & I stop you from correcting errors or contributing in any way. Please! That's been going on forever & it's fairly mindless anyway. This is an ongoing story that I don't get too much time to contribute to. The changes made so far have been intelligent & progressive. I really welcome them. Go for it! Veej 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added back this category because the arrest and trial of the protestors are still ongoing and hence relevant additions to the article will be made in the future. AndrewRT 18:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The word Islamist is a slur. It's akin to me calling the LA riots the 1991 Nigger riots in Los Angeles. BlueGoose 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom, i'm a little confused. You've been discussing the intricacies of this page with me for nearly four weeks now. I'm baffled as to why you've never objected to the title before now?
Veej
02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
(moved here from below)
POV tag not added by me, it should stay till it can be verified that
Tom. Actually, now I'm really confused. so you do object to the title? Veej 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Islamist is a redirect, not an actual page. BlueGoose 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What about using the word Muslim? BlueGoose 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
(I have no problem with the word Islamist, but "prophet" is POV.) - 65.95.241.86
I see your point about "prophet" being a POV term and it is an intelligent and relevant point. However, no other pages at wikipedia put quotation marks around the word prophet. If you look at
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and
Muhammad for example, there are no quotation marks around prophet. Though I haven't found a policy page related to this, it seems that wikipedia has already decided on a convention for this. the
Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for instance, which has had loads of attention, surely might be a good example for us to follow?
Veej
01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Tom. I got the wrong end of the stick. Both "Muslim prophet Muhammad" and "Prophet of Islam, Muhammad" seem perfectly reasonable to me. Though the former is more brief so that probably wins it for me. Veej 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
But then the dictionary gives this definition;
Hmmmm. I'm not sure. Veej 04:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) Esquizombi 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The title of this article is too general as "UK Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy". I propose the title be changed to "Islamist Demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London" to more specifically reflect the events documented in this article. Netscott 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
Yeah, that seems like a sensible idea. Veej 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
|
Why is it, that having reading a reasonably long article dedicated solely to one single protest march in one city, I have no idea how many people were involved? -- Irishpunktom\ talk 12:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Where did all these images come from? Did the photographer release copyrights on them? Bless sins ( talk) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 18:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/PressRelease/ArrestAngryMuslims.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)