| Revision as of 19:27, 2 March 2014 editParrot of Doom (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,489 edits →Anjem Choudary: fool← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:52, 2 March 2014 edit undoAlf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers28,976 edits →Anjem Choudary: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::::I am offended by the condescending remarks to discredit me, but again, I'll take the high road and consider the source. This is a case of WP:OWN. Parrot of Doom has a history of bullying, and disenfranchising good editors, like ] who was kind enough to respond to my call for help in the beginning. A reassessment was long overdo, and I thank ] for stepping up to the plate. Anjem Choudary may very well have been a GA if Choudary was actually the person portrayed in the article, but that isn't the case. It is a skewed representation as a result of omission, and I am not the only editor who has recognized POV issues. Anjem Choudary is negatively neutral and overly diffused to the point it comes across as a propagandized defense of a very controversial figure who has either co-founded or led radical Islamist organizations linked to terrorism. The sources I've presented are reliable sources, except to those who disagree with the information, or have something to hide. ] (]) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | ::::I am offended by the condescending remarks to discredit me, but again, I'll take the high road and consider the source. This is a case of WP:OWN. Parrot of Doom has a history of bullying, and disenfranchising good editors, like ] who was kind enough to respond to my call for help in the beginning. A reassessment was long overdo, and I thank ] for stepping up to the plate. Anjem Choudary may very well have been a GA if Choudary was actually the person portrayed in the article, but that isn't the case. It is a skewed representation as a result of omission, and I am not the only editor who has recognized POV issues. Anjem Choudary is negatively neutral and overly diffused to the point it comes across as a propagandized defense of a very controversial figure who has either co-founded or led radical Islamist organizations linked to terrorism. The sources I've presented are reliable sources, except to those who disagree with the information, or have something to hide. ] (]) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::If you believe that the Daily Mail is a reliable source then I can only suggest that you are a fool. A racist fool. A racist fool who, like many others, doesn't understand the difference between stewardship and ownership. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | :::::If you believe that the Daily Mail is a reliable source then I can only suggest that you are a fool. A racist fool. A racist fool who, like many others, doesn't understand the difference between stewardship and ownership. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::{{ping|Atsme}}: Given that your ''only'' edits to article space since 2012 have been edit-warring nonsense back into this article 4 times, and that the vast majority of the balance of your 53 total article space edits have been edit-warring spam links into articles about obscure fish using edit summaries written in ALL CAPS, I don't see why anyone should take your opinions on good article criteria or wikipedia policy seriously in any way.— ] (]) 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:52, 2 March 2014
Anjem Choudary
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
With the controversey on the talk page I think there is a legitimate question of whether or not this page still meets GA criteria. It's also currently up for review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anjem_Choudary Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Let's be clear. The "controversy" is from one rather inactive self-proclaimed "professional" writer who made changes to this article that verge on racism. He added an outrageous claim from the Daily Mail, quite possibly one of the least reliable sources available anywhere on the internet, and introduced material to the lede which does not exist elsewhere in the article. And as if that wasn't bad enough, he then went on a long, rather boring rant about liberal views polluting Misplaced Pages and how unfair it all is. I'll call a spade a spade - the person who initiated this argument is a closet racist seeking to label this article's subject as an extremist nutjob. There's no bias in this article, just a reporting of facts and views. Readers are free to form their own conclusions, without being made to read badly-written rubbish like "British born" and "extremist".
- But if excluding pejorative terminology like "British born" and "extremist" means this cannot be a good article then go right ahead and delist it. Parrot of Doom 09:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think those are reasons to delist this. I did not put this here as a way to settle that dispute.Regardless of what happens in that situation I don't feel that would effect the GA status. This was listed 4 years ago. It has been thru a number of changes since. Numerous changes as well as revisions. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is no controversy. Parrot has tried to keep Anjems article clean and adhering as tightly to the letter of Misplaced Pages biographical rules in order to avoid clear breaches of guidelines that would make it controversial.
- Whether it is a GA or not is irrelevant. De list it by all means, but at least deal with the real issue - the attempt to make a current GA a terrible article that relies upon tabloid hysteria by one specific editor. Koncorde (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am offended by the condescending remarks to discredit me, but again, I'll take the high road and consider the source. This is a case of WP:OWN. Parrot of Doom has a history of bullying, and disenfranchising good editors, like Coretheapple who was kind enough to respond to my call for help in the beginning. A reassessment was long overdo, and I thank Serialjoepsycho for stepping up to the plate. Anjem Choudary may very well have been a GA if Choudary was actually the person portrayed in the article, but that isn't the case. It is a skewed representation as a result of omission, and I am not the only editor who has recognized POV issues. Anjem Choudary is negatively neutral and overly diffused to the point it comes across as a propagandized defense of a very controversial figure who has either co-founded or led radical Islamist organizations linked to terrorism. The sources I've presented are reliable sources, except to those who disagree with the information, or have something to hide. Atsme (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you believe that the Daily Mail is a reliable source then I can only suggest that you are a fool. A racist fool. A racist fool who, like many others, doesn't understand the difference between stewardship and ownership. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am offended by the condescending remarks to discredit me, but again, I'll take the high road and consider the source. This is a case of WP:OWN. Parrot of Doom has a history of bullying, and disenfranchising good editors, like Coretheapple who was kind enough to respond to my call for help in the beginning. A reassessment was long overdo, and I thank Serialjoepsycho for stepping up to the plate. Anjem Choudary may very well have been a GA if Choudary was actually the person portrayed in the article, but that isn't the case. It is a skewed representation as a result of omission, and I am not the only editor who has recognized POV issues. Anjem Choudary is negatively neutral and overly diffused to the point it comes across as a propagandized defense of a very controversial figure who has either co-founded or led radical Islamist organizations linked to terrorism. The sources I've presented are reliable sources, except to those who disagree with the information, or have something to hide. Atsme (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think those are reasons to delist this. I did not put this here as a way to settle that dispute.Regardless of what happens in that situation I don't feel that would effect the GA status. This was listed 4 years ago. It has been thru a number of changes since. Numerous changes as well as revisions. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Atsme:: Given that your only edits to article space since 2012 have been edit-warring this nonsense back into this article 4 times, and that the vast majority of the balance of your 53 total article space edits have been edit-warring spam links into articles about obscure fish using edit summaries written in ALL CAPS, I don't see why anyone should take your opinions on good article criteria or wikipedia policy seriously in any way.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)