Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:03, 15 January 2010

Islam Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Islam for UK or Islam for the UK

Question : is the group called Islam for UK or is it called Islam for the UK ? if you visit the website it would appear to be the latter.Codf1977 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article should be moved accordingly. Rothorpe (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Their website seems to refer to it as Islam4UK, as does the BBC. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving to Islam4UK per 12 and their own website. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The website did CLEARLEY state "Islam for the UK" - I hope you are not confusing a domain name with the group's name - if or when the website comes back and the banner is still there then I may well move it back. Codf1977 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The website does say this, in bold text right across the top. Islam4UK is probably named so because its easy to remember. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Islam for the UK" was a slogan on the website, a statement of intent. If you read the "about" page you will see they refer to themseleves as Islam4UK. Here is google's cache of the page. All reliable sources also exclusively refer to them as Islam4UK, and this is what people will look for when trying to find the article, and that is the most important consideration when choosing the article name. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That works for me, thanks for clarifying the matter. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ditto Codf1977 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail

This edit concerns me deeply. The Daily Mail is one of the least reliable and most vehemently racist and anti-Islamic newspapers currently on the market. I wouldn't wipe my arse with its pages. I very much doubt the neutrality of the article being cited here, and want to remove it pronto. It offers all kinds of claims, but doesn't actually state with clarity where Choudary supposedly made these accusations. The tone of the article is more an opinion, rather than a reliable, newsworthy source. Opinions? Parrot of Doom 15:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree as it does not quote the exact words that Choudary used, I am going to remove the ref to stormtroopers. Codf1977 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments in it are being widely reported and it is a major British daily newspaper, why is it ok that you want to remove the Nazi stormtroopers comment but you want to include that he called British troops merciless murderers? Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the paper, it does not repeat the exact quote - I have looked on other sites and can't find it repeated any ware - in the interests of balance, until his exact words are reported, it is best to leave it out. Codf1977 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need a direct worded quote, its enough that it is being reported. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Its being reported by a piece of toilet roll newspaper with a clearly-defined anti-Islam agenda. It has no place in this article, its pure trash. Parrot of Doom 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside Parrot of Doom's comment about the paper, which I do not agree with. Such a comment needs to be verified since as far as I can see only once source is reporting it and are not reporting it word for word; it is prudent to wait until more sources report it. Codf1977 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still not totaly happy with the wording, however it is a lot better. We need to make sure that if other sources come to light that we avoid any WP:CIRCULAR issues and make sure that they are not just repeating what the Mail has said or what is said on the Misplaced Pages page. Codf1977 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the The Sun is also running the line, however it is not clear what the source is so it could be a repeat of the Daily Mail story. Codf1977 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We also have the daily Express ], however I doubt he called them heros, so the daily Express seems to refeltc his words better. Another source ], this one from India. As well as the daily Star ]. So its not exaclty unreported.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I have found the interview that is the source of the story it is from Sun Talk Radio here - the section between about 3:00 and 4:30 min in. Not sure that it totally supports the line the Daily Mail takes, he did not use the word stormtroopers for one - nor did the interviewer. Please can others listen so that we can reach a consensus about this part of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is the interview (and it seems to be) then its the sun (and others) putting words into his mouth. I think we need to balance this and use something like.

"the interviewer asked if Britsh solders were Nazis to which he responded that they had commited war crimes, but he did not use the word Nazi".Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand since he gave countless other interviews that day, what makes that one worthy of coverage. Why not just remove the whole sentence? Codf1977 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, since it clearly isn't from a reliable source, just Quote the man directly? Parrot of Doom 20:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the DM bit and am happy for anything else to be added. Codf1977 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Facebook group "number"

If you feel like updating the number of people in the facebook group - only do so if you can quote a reliable source to backup the number. Codf1977 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

MCB

Statement on the march here Parrot of Doom 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken the liberty of adding it, and one other muslim response, there are a few more.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article could really use work on its wording, so that it conveys the facts without any slant either way. At the moment, it reads very anti-Islam4UK, especially given the article is opened with words such as "extremist", a loaded and subjective word which instantly skews the article's neutrality. Now, I don't like what this group stands for, but Misplaced Pages's articles aren't a platform for opinions or taking sides: we don't, for instance, say that Hitler was the evilest man on the planet. Instead, we merely present the facts without bias and let the reader decide themselves rather than use wording that "guides" the reader's view. That really needs to be applied to this article before it gets bad. -- 86.169.228.192 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You could try removing 'extremist'. 'Islamist' is clear enough for me! Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is the press including the Times for example have called them extremist, even the BBC (source) have used the word hardline to describe them. Maybe that would be better terminology than 'extremist' though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I added the source to extremist, so if people want to use hardline or another similar word that's fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Report the facts from the sources, not their biases. Of course the British media is going to describe them as extremists, hardline, but that is not a fact, it's an opinion, one that won't be universally shared. The British media would go into a flurry of "treason", "traitors", etc for the Cambridge Five, the Russian media isn't. Probably the best comparison is with Al-Qaeda, where we don't use the word terrorist, extremist, or anything else with such a perjorative slant. We shouldn't be using these words as though definitive fact. Use them elsewhere in the article when attributed to scholarly sources examining the organisation, when its made clear it is an opinion, but not in the intro in this fashion. -- 86.169.228.192 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit as it broke the ref list Codf1977 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

if you read extremist it says is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society - spot on for this case Codf1977 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It also says "The term is invariably, or almost invariably, used pejoratively.", which lessens it's suitability here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I had exactly the same arguments on Nick Griffin. Regardless of the political views of the subject, let the reader judge, not the encyclopaedia. Terms like 'extremist' are a bit of a grey area. That's why I've left out such terms on Anjem Choudary. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I ha ve to agree. But we could word these statemnts by attrubuting them. Such as "he has been widley called an extreamist in the Briitsh media". By the way has he deniedbeing an extramist?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how I'd put it. One has to be careful to ensure that it isn't all criticism, especially if support is available, but "X is considered by many media outlets to be Y, and has been accused of doing Z", etc. Parrot of Doom 15:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've altered the text again since I was reverted, the use is now more consistent with the demands of WP:NPOV and WP:EXTREMIST (there's a guideline that explicitly argues against use of these sorts of words in the exact way it was used). It now attributes the view to the British media, with the Telegraph reference (but this reference alone is not enough, it needs a few more from other mainstream papers), the Muslim Council of Britain and the British government. That is neutral presentation: it is no longer presented as fact, but as the opinion it is. -- 86.169.228.192 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have more or less agreed that if ww make it clear that this is an opinion then we can have this in the artciel? What policy says "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears." Well we have provided muliple (independant) sources. It also makes it clear that they are represented as extramist, not that they are.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Look out the window, they are extremist, they are the BNP of the muslim world, to describe them as partisan is ridiculous. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well find another word then, extremist and terrorist are listed as words to avoid. --Snowded 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They are about to be proscribed under UK terrorist legislation so if it is sourced I cannot see an issue with extremist. Leaky Caldron 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

if used in RS it can be used as long as it is properly attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, get real. Open your eyes.. a partisan banned illegal organization under the terror laws, give over. I don't think partisan describes them at all, its irrelevant, call them fluffy do good bunnies for all I care but they are extremists, you do the public a disservice by attempting to portray them as normal run of the mill partisan muslims. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Try not to be trivial. Happy for you to get rid of partisan, the banning is enough to make it clear what they are. I'm not attempting to portray them as anything, just applying wikipedia policy not to use extremist/terrorist etc.--Snowded 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Such a proscription order is no guideline to their political stance. Rather than label a group in the lead, simply describe who they are, and what they've done. If they are, as people say, extremist, then most people will be in no doubt after they've read the article. I prefer to leave such judgements to the reader, and not those editors with an opinion. Parrot of Doom 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good point --Snowded 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way I find it rather telling that people would rather argue over a label, than work on expanding what is a woefully inadequate article. Parrot of Doom 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Words to avoid, yes right, after thursday they are an outlawed group under the terror laws, they are extremists they have no politcal position of any worth at all, ha ha. Attempting to portray these muslims as not extremists is simply playing into the hands of people who are anti muslim...yes these are normal run of the mill muslims, they are all like that, ridiculous. Fluffy bunny muslims they are. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Cool it, I am making no attempt that I can see to portray them as run of the mill anything. For good reason Misplaced Pages suggests that certain words are avoided and we need to respect that. Try dealing with the content and policy rather than making up stories about the motivations of other editors based on little or no understanding on your part. --Snowded 17:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The constructive editors here are not attempting to portray anybody as anything—that isn't the position of Misplaced Pages. People can believe in whatever imaginary invisible mystical sky fairy they like, whether its Allah, or Jesus, whatever. Here we copy verifiable fact as such, and mention verifiable opinion if notable. The range of opinions on this page alone demonstrate that "extremism", as a description of this group, is very much open to debate. I believe that such terms are pejorative, and do not have a place here.

I suggest you take a step back from your keyboard, and think carefully before you write anything else, because your arguments appear to be descending into nonsense, and your tone into insults. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Partisan is nonsense, radical is better - extemist seems to fit but I would prefer to leave it to reliable sources rather than those editors who have a particular opinion, one way or the other. Leaky Caldron 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We leave that laed out of the lead, and mention that the British medai and MCB have labled (called, accused whatever) then as extreamist.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

David Cameron said on the radio yesterday that he wants to radically change the country. That doesn't make him a radical in the same sense as you suggest this group is. Parrot of Doom 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave the lable out of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just put there that they are normal everyday partisan muslims and that they are representative of middle of the road muslims. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that its not true it would be very silly for anyone to suggest it even you. Please try and stay civil and read what people are saying--Snowded 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, give over, its not my edit war, I know what they are and so does the public and the reliable citations in the papers and everywhere, as I said if you want to attempt to portray them as partisans then imo this is silly in the extreme and poorly represents the facts for ordinary people that just come here to find out about this group, to represent this group as anything other than extremist radicals is an insult to peoples intelligence. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of sitting in here and whinging about the article, why don't you actually try and improve it? Or is that too difficult?

  Seriously, I suggest you take a break. Your posts are becoming increasingly laughable. Parrot of Doom 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At this time Off2riorob is sailing a bit close to 3RR. He can't make his preferd edit without breaching it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We really don't need 'partisan' or 'extremist'. Clicking islamist gets you: 'a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.' I think that says it all. Rothorpe (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Except they want rather more then that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

'Unite politically' = 'take over the world'. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are hundreds of thousands (perhaps more) of moderate British Muslims that reject these extremists and that are right now totally ashamed of this group. Off2riorob (talk)

I would say it means what it says, unite politically, it does not read introduce sheria law into the UK for example. But (as I have said) leave the accusation out of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned terror organisation

They have been banned under the terror 2000 law..

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a group can be banned if it "commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism". Groups can also be outlawed if they "unlawfully glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism". Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps its all a mistake and they are just a very silly group which is taking an attention seeking position? Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not stricly accurate, it has been announced they are to be banned.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can wait until Thurdsay when the lead can be changed to "...is a proscribed British Islamist organisation....."

That the are currently extremist is in little obvious doubt, but the proscription with a suitable link to the Terrorism Act 2000 should be enough to put them in context. Leaky Caldron 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Extremist

I have added a NPOV tag to this article as the overuse of extremist in this article is well beyond what is acceptable. We don't need numerous references to what this group would call detractors calling them extremist. BigDunc 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There are four uses of the word, three from the MCB, two in realtion to hte wooton Basset march. One realting to hte British press.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And how is it NPOV that only the views of opponents are getting preference? BigDunc 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not. There are plenty of quotes stating thier views (by the way both myself and Doom have tried to find possitive material). Now if you can finid possitive material please do.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd be doing this article a service by finding groups who support Islam4UK. We've tried, and failed. That says to me that they have no support. Parrot of Doom 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with the NPOV tag - plenty of coverage of their views, positive media coverage cannot be invented. Codf1977 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming they are not extremist (e.g. 1 2) I tried to find a statement from Islam4UK itself refuting claims they are extremist but couldn't find one. As the only uses of the word are in the context of the claims others make, and we have already discussed about and removed the word as a description from the intro, I'm removing the NPOV tag.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the NPOV tag which was incorrectly removed by another editor: Removal of a legitimately inserted tag which is accompanied by an ongoing talk page discussion is a violation of the editing process. Meowy 17:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even a glance at the article shows the extent of the neutrality issues, from the very first sentence. "Islam4UK is a banned offshoot of the banned British Islamist group Al-Muhajiroun" - does any editor seriously think they can get away with that wording in an encyclopaedic article? Is there any such wording in, for example, the article about the Provisional IRA, also a "banned" organisation. Nor is the word "banned" appropriate - the IRA article uses the word "proscribed" and says where it is proscribed. Nor does it mention "proscribed" in the first sentence. since being "proscribed" has nothing directly to do with the core aims and identity of the IRA. it would be the same for Islam4UK. I suggest editors go back to December versions of the article, before things got heated, and build on that. Meowy 18:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the lead is currently over the top. Rothorpe (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have again reinserted the NPOV tag. The issues are mostly still there. Please don't remove this tag until the article becomes stable. There is no point in one editor removing the tag after removing much of the POV wording if the very next edit by another editor puts the pov wording back. Meowy 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing from you here saying what you consider to be NPOV. The only reason stated above has now been handled. --Snowded 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My purpose here was just to restore a wrongly removed POV tag. There is no requirement for me to say what in the content requires the tag to be there. The tag was originally legitimately inserted and legitimate points were made to accompany its insertion, so it should not have been removed. Read the message on the tag - "please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". The point of removal is not when you think the issue is resolved, but when a consensus is reached that the problem has been solved. Such a consensus has not been reached. However, I already had pointed out the unsatisfactory nature of the lead. Yes it was rewritten to make it better, but most of the old problems immediately returned. It is not acceptable to have the pov and vague word "banned" in the lead sentence. And the problems with the article are not restricted to just the lead sentence. Meowy 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not wrongly removed, the objection (the number of times extremist was used) specified had been handled in an edit. That is what tags are meant to trigger changes. Neither is it acceptable to make general assertions, you need to be specific otherwise the tag goes. At the moment the only specific objection is to "banned"--Snowded 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes made by Snowded

I notice that Snowded has made a number of changes that have removed significant elements of the text, including a number of quotes and information (see here). I am not entirely happy with the changes, however wish to see if there is a consensus feeling. Codf1977 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a tidy up, some of the material was duplicated, others like Cameron asking for a ban had been overtaken by events. I don't think I removed anything substantial, but I thought we should get on with improving the article so I'd start the process. --Snowded 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to remove cameron calling for a ban, many people have called for a ban, it would be better to include a non political notable person but it is also as snowed says overtaken by events, they are banned. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine - was just checking - I do think the Cameron quote is useful as some of the criticism of the ban revolves around the timing of the ban - may be if I get some time I will but a para together about that. Codf1977 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And some of the lack of criticism involves Opposition MPs feeling unable to criticise the decision because of Cameron opening his mouth before thinking and thus making it a sort of party policy issue. So it probably is worth mentioning. Meowy 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The reasons given for the original tag were addressed. The tag has been placed on the article but no reasons given here, can we please have them otherwise I will remove the tag. --Snowded 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

re-order of lead

I think the order of the lead is improved if we started by describing what it is, i.e. a proscribed organisation. This is not dissimilar to when we describe someone as a convicted criminal right up front, for example Rose West & Peter Sutcliffe. So, per WP:BOLD, I have re-ordered it. Leaky Caldron 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. West & Sutcliffe are famous for their murders; I4UK isn't famous for being proscribed. And the paragraphing is over the top. WP is not a tabloid. Rothorpe (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - rather than using a quote to allow the group to describe itself in the lead, you might be better off summarising the group from the sources used within the article. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't agree either - it is now messy and fragmented and have reverted it. Codf1977 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your's frankly is a mess and I think you might have waited for other editors to a considered my changes. Leaky Caldron 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)agreed PoD, but I would personally prefer to leave the original content until the dust settles on the other issues elsewhere. Leaky Caldron 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The paragraphing is over the top? There was 1 monolithic para. and now there is a short, definitive, unambiguous opening. Either way, it's clearer and states what they are now rather that stumbling over what they were. Leaky Caldron 21:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But what there were is why they were proscribed Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What they are is more contemporary than what they once were. Leaky Caldron 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

to Leaky Cauldron - sensible, but these things do tend to work themselves out once the lead is expanded beyond a few sentences. After all the bollocks with the Choudary article I'm not getting involved with this (I told myself not to bother doing another biog after building Nick Griffin and then being accused of being a racist bigot but hey ho), but if you rewrite the lead from scratch I think you'll see this minor problem vanish immediately. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pod. It's the lack of collegiality and jumping on other's bandwagons that gets me at times. Leaky Caldron 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unassessed Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles