Talk:Islam in London

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam in London article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article could seriously use some sources, but the topic is suitably encyclopaedic and the basis of a good article is there. I cleaned it up by separating it into sections, wikifying the links, and adding a 'see also' section. If you can add some references, please do! Terraxos 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely rubbish. Most of the facts are completely fictitious. I'm doing a research in London about this theme and Muslims are one of the worst integrated Religions in London. Also they are not succesful, the most of the Muslims are working in low-skilled jobs and got the highest rate of economic inactivity and the highest unemployment rate in hole Britain, especially woman. If you want to proof this facts or if you want to find out more about it, have a look on this link: National Statistics UK Unfortunately I got actually no time to improve the article, maybe later, but the actual article is simply wrong.--62.49.237.145 10:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I agree. I would especially dispute the claim that London has the most integrated Muslim population in the Western world. What about the tensions in the East Ham/Barking area? The B.N.P.'s main heartland is now Barking and Dagenham rather than Burnley and Dewsbury. What about the tensions between Muslims and Sikhs in West London? If we just take Britain - let alone the Western world - are Muslims any less integrated in Leicester or Manchester? I have literally never heard of any significant tensions in either of those two. I expect that the article was written by a hardcore London patriot. We would not tolerate such things from Cornish or Welsh nationalists, so I do not think that London should get let off Epa101 (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a badly written article which needs a lot of citations - really needs someone who knows the area to clean up. --Cybergibbons (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Do1927.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims in London

Regarding estimates - the 2001 census data gives 607,083 - see. I'm quite happy to see a better estimate - but, it must be justified. Any comments before it's changed? Kbthompson (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Generally speaking, if you are going to use a number then finish with a number. In this case they start with a number and finish with a percentage which makes a perspective almost impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.237.20 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islam 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, 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam 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, 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Hello All,

Does anyone have an idea on how to productively mention what the government could do, under the islamophobia section?

Cheers, do1927 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do1927 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]