Jump to content

Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Edit War

Simple request to Parrot to not continue to edit war.--Hemshaw (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Living on state benefits

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)

Separated?

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)

It would be better I think to see where he started from and how he ended up the public face of those organisations. I think it would be better so see his personal background at the start, showing events that led him to being radicle. If he split from his wife is that cause and effect? The other issue with this article is the info box, it is at present for office holder, however this article is about a person who holds no office. I cannot agree with the GA rating, it should be lower as the article stands --Hemshaw (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

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)

Let's set aside for one moment the incredibly poor grammar you used to construct the sentences you inserted. What makes floridapundit.com a reliable source? What makes salafimanhaj.com, and the pdf file linked, reliable sources? Who wrote the pdf at salafimanhaj.com? What makes tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail a reliable source on such a contentious issue?
And finally, with regard to your claim that "He stated on CNN in a live broadcast on 29 October 2010 that he was in communication with terrorists using the internet and encouraging them to commit acts of terror. [30]", according to the very source you offered, what he actually said was:

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…

Those are not at all the same things, and that's why I reverted your edits. Parrot of Doom 23:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
'He was known as Andy and proud of his Pakistani origin' comes from This Is London and the Daily Mail. Both are accepted as reliable sources. His comments on CNN are well documented. The edits you have reverted are close to Censorship. There are no reasons for removing the information.--Hemshaw (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a rag not even suitable for use as toilet paper, its pages are so fouled by the stench of bigotry and sexism. I wouldn't accept it as a reliable source on anything, the website doesn't even bother to print the names of its writers. You have not answered my questions. Until you provide good justification for your edits, I will continue to revert them as blatant violations of WP:BLP. This isn't censorship, it's common sense. Parrot of Doom 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Your Wikipedia:POV, your edits to Nick Griffin quote the Daily Mail. I am not interested in Wikipedia:Edit warring, you have already exceeded the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --Hemshaw (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, according to "This is London", Choudary denied claims that he was ever known as "Andy". Why on earth would you write that he was, without also including his denial? The answer is that you're either ignorant of the denial, or trying to introduce a WP:POV. Parrot of Doom 00:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
That he was reportedly called Andy, and the bit about The Satanic Verses already appears in the personal life section. In any case, the writing introduced by Hemshaw wasn't excellent. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
To thank the last editor Christopher Connor who noted where the information is in the article, my mistake. I expected to read about Anjem Choudary at the start of the article.--Hemshaw (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Consensus

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)

Why? Significance?

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)

"Official" Website

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/

Done. I removed the link. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"He receives little support from mainstream UK Muslims"

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)

It is substantiated by this. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 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)

Pakistani ethnicity

(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)

Six citations for one word? Are you serious? Parrot of Doom 08:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The six citations were added because you claimed that the earlier, one citation was vague. If you did not want to have six refs there, you could have deleted the unnecessary one and let the material stay. First you objected by saying something about "census". Then you said it could not be in the lead because it was not incorporated in the article body and because the ref was vague and an op-ed. I had incorporated the content in the article body, and provided multiple non-op-ed refs to allay your concerns. But you have still deleted it from the lead and moved it to an inappropriate looking place down in the article body. It is obvious we have a WP:IDLI case here. His Pakistani ethnicity is a basic fact about him, as much as his birthday and his UK citizenship. It needs to be in the lead. It is just one word. Don't try to WP:CENSOR it. Accept it in the lead. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The six citations were more likely added because you don't have a good understanding of what's required to properly cite an article like this. And I see no reason why the very first thing that must be mentioned is Choudary's ancestry, unless you read the Daily Mail that is. He's British, where his parents came from is secondary. Parrot of Doom 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Parrot of Doom, this is about Choudhary not his parents, what you did was unnecessary. J3Mrs (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
@ Parrot of Doom. As I have already said, I had added six refs to get over your objection that the first ref was "vague", even when it was crystal clear. Six refs for the point leave no room for you to put up the "vague" objection. I do not see why you are talking about Daily Mail here. I haven't even used it here, and have not mentioned it even??? Why are you saying irrelevant, absurd things?
@ Parrot of Doom & J3Mrs. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive and it is usual to give info about ethnicity in the lead. It is a basic fact about him and should be in the lead. We need not censor his ethnicity because he has managed to become somewhat infamous in UK. And the information about his ethnicity is about him, rather than his parents. I did not write anything about his parents' ethnicity, did I?OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
That is your opinion not mine. The article is fine as it is. People shouldn't be defined by their ethnicity. J3Mrs (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Your argument is as illogical as saying that we should not mention his nationality and birthday in the lead because they do not define him. You are putting up all illogical arguments. First you said on my talk page that this info should not be in the lead because it was not present in the article body. I have included it in the article body now. But you are still objecting. You are moving goalposts. It is unfair. And of course I know my opinion is mine and not yours. Saying that much does not seem to have any point to it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did say that but what I should have added is that even if a mention was included elsewhere, it needn't be in the lead. It isn't the most important thing about him. J3Mrs (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my view J3Mrs. If Choudary decides that his ethnicity defines who he is, then perhaps we should give it more prominence. But until then, I don't see the point in mentioning it right at the top of the article. In fact, given the very contentious nature of this subject, to place it there might give some the opinion that it's the most important thing to say about him. Parrot of Doom 15:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This. He is notable for being Anjem Choudary and a former member and spokesman of a proscribed group (and contentious mouthpiece still). His ethnic heritage is not particularly important. I don't think the lead is particularly good as it stands. First sentence seems somewhat disjointed / disconnected from the subsequent discussion of his various roles. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 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)

His ethnicity is mentioned in the lead. I don't understand why you want it to be in the first sentence. Parrot of Doom 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that I think his purported ethnicity (personally I've never seen him acknowledge it, or read it officially stated other than in general media), if mentioned somewhere, should be mentioned when speaking of his father. It is odd in its current location in the body of text of the next section. Koncorde (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it's best where it is if it has to be in the article, I'd rather it wasn't mentioned at all. J3Mrs (talk) 21:08, 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)

I agree there two mentions of his ethnicity which is undue therefore I removed it from the lead. OrangesRyellow please bring your flawed arguments here. Manofwar0 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos

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. BencherliteTalk 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)

You can't cite a Reddit link for credibility. So a community talked about alleged pictures of him partying. Where is the proof that this is him? Where is there proof that he has made comments on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.227.134 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
These are the only links I could find:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4962080/Young-Anjem-Choudary-exposed-as-drunken-womanising-buffoon.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4963618/Hate-preacher-Anjem-Choudary-slammed-over-fake-boozing-pics-claim.html
94.212.64.224 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Added section with these as sources and Choudary's denial of them. Can we use his twitter as an extra source for his denial? It would be best to have a sort paragraph covering this rather than have redditors spamming the page with photos.
Another source, if you want more non-Sun sources - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161909/Swilling-beer-smoking-dope-leering-porn-hate-preacher-Andy-Choudary.html and http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/alcohol-smoking-dope-and-preaching-hate-a-day-in-the-life-of-anjem-choudary/ Saiyanora (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Look, it's quite simple. The only publications who've shown these photographs are The Sun and The Daily Mail - both wholly unreliable tabloid rags with a rabid fear of Islam. Choudary has never acknowledged that the images are of him. Until a more reputable publication discusses these images and attempts to place them into a meaningful context, perhaps a biography of Choudary, they have no place here. I'm removing reference to them (again). Parrot of Doom 09:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You may feel that this is simple but it isn't. You can't simply dismiss The Sun and The Mail, unpleasant as they are, as sources just because you don't like their ideological bent. They are two of the most widely read publications in the *world*. They are also subject to British libel laws, among the most draconian around. If they weren't pictures of him he would have sued them. And, regardless of this, The Sun and The Mail are perfectly fine sources and no additional sources are required for this material to be included. If inclusion in a biography of a subject or the presence of 'a meaningful context' were the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia then Wikipedia would be very small. Nor is there a requirement for the subject to acknowledge the material in question as true. For example, there are many people on Wikipedia who are described as murderers who deny that description, yet this does not affect how Wikipedia describes them. The paragraph you have removed is not only suitable for inclusion, it *should* be included and I can see no reason to support its removal. I assume that, given how many times you have removed these references, if I reinsert them you will remove it again? Robinr22 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it's somewhat important that if you know of a wikipedia article describing someone as a murderer who isn't in fact a murderer (by legal definition or otherwise) then wikipedia should be affected. In this case however we are talking about the ongoing recycling of images / paragraphs and accusations. The first paragraph under "early life" deals with the accusation of partying etc. But in any case, we are not here to judge if Choudary will or will not sue - and to suggest that we should (in the absence of him suing the Sun of Daily Mail) re-post claims from tabloids is clearly not the right answer.
Posting every news article about a person is not required. It adds nothing to the actual article. The pictures themselves are not particularly notable, and given that they have been available for a few years now pre-dating the news articles that initially reported on them [9] highlights that the new articles are little other than regurgitation of tired accusations / claims.
Is it notable to discuss every alleged image of a person that is published in the media or report on those allegations? Koncorde (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I can easily dismiss The Sun and Mail, not because they're unpleasant, but because they make it up as they go. And please, don't talk about libel laws. Do you know how expensive libel cases are, and how unrecoverable those costs are?
There are several possible reasons the more reliable publishers haven't bothered with these images - one is that they're simply unproveable, but the other, more likely reason, is that such publishers recognise that there's nothing particularly newsworthy about them, representing, as they do, nothing more than a personal attack by tabloid newspapers. Parrot of Doom 20:51, 14 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)

Do let us know how your manufactured Reddit rage works out for us all. The initial responses look truly supportive of your argument. Also do not threaten or attempt to intimidate wikipedia users, it isn't nice. In addition - the article is full of accurately cited details regarding Mr Choudary without resorting to largely unreferenced pictures of indeterminate age and veracity - PoD has worked hard to maintain this contentious subject in the face of what would be clear violations of wikipedias core biographic tenets. Populate RationalWiki or Uncyclopedia with this sort of stuff. Koncorde (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
"Choudary has never acknowledged that the images are of him” and this is a factor because....
Reddit rage? That’s funny.
Accurately cited details? The photos are accurately cited enough.
You are an apologist for Islam.
Do you wash your brain five times a day like all the other brainwashed cult members who defend this terrible person’s reputation??
You can’t argue with brainwashed people.
You can’t argue with Scientologists.
You can’t argue with Islamists.
The cult programs people in how to respond to the logical arguments against them.
The point is moot anyway. Google Choudary and these photos come up. They don’t need to be here although they should because they are relevant to his claims of piety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
If someone denies a picture of him, then who is to say that they are actually pictures of him? Do we have a named source? Or just repeated nameless sources? Are papers never hoaxed? [10] Koncorde (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I added this well cited quote to his page "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.”
Thanks to The Streisand Effect everyone will know what a hypocrite he is even without the drunken party pics posted here. He seemed so happy back then. Such a shame. God Bless Drummer Lee!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Shock, horror, Islamic man opposes alcohol and drugs. I'm guessing he must have a unique viewpoint differing from the Islamic mainstream, and Sharia beliefs, right? [11] [12] [13] [14] or not [15] [16] axe to grind? Also announcing your actions on reddit in an attempt to gerrymander more activity is not appreciated (please see header at the top of this section). Koncorde (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn’t it time for you to brainwash yourself for the second time today? It IS shocking when you see pictures of him having such a great time getting hammered. I know you don’t like the fact that those pictures have gone viral. Even though you are in a cult you can’t deny facts. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you claiming that every Islamist want me flogged with forty lashes every time I have a couple of pints? It that your claim Koncorde? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't personally find it shocking to see someone drinking. I'm also not surprised that he may now toe a different party line - peoples opinions change. Choudary's changing influences are well documented. I'm also suggesting that "lashing" is not a particularly special belief. No more than say hard labour in the US. If you are a hard line follower of Sharia and Islamic law then you will believe in the lashing. That's how these belief structures work - and why Choudary's opinion is really not particularly notable. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 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)

Edit request on 17 June 2013

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)

  1. ^ [17].
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anjem_Choudary/Archive_2&oldid=649690900"