Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Anjem Choudary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Images of Choudary
Anjem Choudary and Partying
The edits of mine that have been removed by Parrt of Doom repeatedly are appropriate in that they are mentioned by a reputable source AND confirmed by a non-reputable one through Pictures and Testimony. I feel that elaboration on the 'excessive partying' with just adding a short sentence of specifics(alcohol, drugs and womanising) is appropriate in keeping with WP:NPOV. Omission of that statement does not give adequate weight to the history of Anjem Choudary, as the person he is today. In an effort to refrain from edit warring I invite all editors to share their thoughts and help us reach consensus. I also request that Parrot of Doom keep his comments civil and refrain from being accusatory or name-calling.Myopia123 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Changes to discuss
Hi all, I'm User:Anupmehra. I've just undid changes made by an IP, that said,
The Daily Mail confirmed through photographs and testimony from classmates that Anjem Choudary drank alcohol, smoked marijuana and committed adultery in his time at Southampton University[1]
Thought, it'd be better to discuss it here on article's talk page, before we put it in the article, as it is a biography of a living person. Regular or interested editors are invited to put forward their views on it. Thank you, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
References
- DailyMail (5 January 2010), Swilling beer and smoking dope... the secret past of hate preacher Anjem Choudary, dailymail.co.uk, retrieved 21 August 2014
- I'm the user who made that change, I forgot to log in. I feel that it fits well in that section. It is an important and undeniable fact(verified by witnesses and pictures) that has come out about him recently and without including this verifiable link, readers would miss the entire picture when trying to learn about this man, especially considering the extreme punishments he mandates for those who indulge in the very same activities. Especially since he is such a huge influence in the muslim youth community of the UK. Also, it was just a simple statement of fact. No inflammatory language or judgments were passed in my edit. It is left to the reader to reach a conclusion Myopia123 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- That mention does not include details nor does it mention the punishments that he demands of people who do exactly what he did in his youth, things which he considers crimes under sharia. This is a very important detail about someone who portrays himself an authority on Islam and was responsible for the radicalizing for the people who committed the Murder of Lee Rigby. Myopia123 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Combining this "No inflammatory language or judgments were passed in my edit. It is left to the reader to reach a conclusion" with this "portrays himself an authority on Islam and was responsible for the radicalizing for the people who committed the Murder of Lee Rigby" indicates that it is clear what the intent of your editorialising was. Koncorde (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- So then would it be acceptable, at minimum, if at the single mention of excessive partying in the article, an additional reference was included(the one above), without any of the (very relevant) edits which you seem completely opposed to.Myopia123 (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not if it involves the Daily Mail or any other tabloid. Parrot of Doom 19:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fine I give up. No respectable/reliable journalist is going to waste their time with a man like Anjem Choudary. The Dailymail article has pictures and testimony from former classmates. Let the radicalization of the youth continue. Since the specific fact that he indulged in those activities is not mentioned, I believe this is not a neutral article.Myopia123 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lots of journalists have written about Choudary, you'll find the links in the article. But since you clearly have an agenda, perhaps this isn't the best place for you. Parrot of Doom 06:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, my agenda is removing bias from this article. And please refrain from personal attacks.Myopia123 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- You might want to pay more attention to the fact that this article is a biography of a living person, before you add links to publications like the Daily Mail. Else some here might think that your reaction to my comment is somewhat hypocritical. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have included a more detailed explanation, taken from the Telegraph article, about the 'excessive partying'. And I am going to ask you one more time to refrain from name calling.Myopia123 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- And I have reverted it, because when a reputable publisher is willing only to write "it has been claimed" with no other qualification, you know the claim is tenuous. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Since I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not know how to initiate a Request for Mediation. This is a fact that has been reported through testimony and pictures and is also mentioned in Reputable and verifiable journals. As it is 'partying' is not a very factual term to use and should be explained with more details. I want to initiate a Request for Mediation.Myopia123 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- And I have reverted it, because when a reputable publisher is willing only to write "it has been claimed" with no other qualification, you know the claim is tenuous. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have included a more detailed explanation, taken from the Telegraph article, about the 'excessive partying'. And I am going to ask you one more time to refrain from name calling.Myopia123 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- You might want to pay more attention to the fact that this article is a biography of a living person, before you add links to publications like the Daily Mail. Else some here might think that your reaction to my comment is somewhat hypocritical. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, my agenda is removing bias from this article. And please refrain from personal attacks.Myopia123 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lots of journalists have written about Choudary, you'll find the links in the article. But since you clearly have an agenda, perhaps this isn't the best place for you. Parrot of Doom 06:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fine I give up. No respectable/reliable journalist is going to waste their time with a man like Anjem Choudary. The Dailymail article has pictures and testimony from former classmates. Let the radicalization of the youth continue. Since the specific fact that he indulged in those activities is not mentioned, I believe this is not a neutral article.Myopia123 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not if it involves the Daily Mail or any other tabloid. Parrot of Doom 19:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- So then would it be acceptable, at minimum, if at the single mention of excessive partying in the article, an additional reference was included(the one above), without any of the (very relevant) edits which you seem completely opposed to.Myopia123 (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Combining this "No inflammatory language or judgments were passed in my edit. It is left to the reader to reach a conclusion" with this "portrays himself an authority on Islam and was responsible for the radicalizing for the people who committed the Murder of Lee Rigby" indicates that it is clear what the intent of your editorialising was. Koncorde (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- That mention does not include details nor does it mention the punishments that he demands of people who do exactly what he did in his youth, things which he considers crimes under sharia. This is a very important detail about someone who portrays himself an authority on Islam and was responsible for the radicalizing for the people who committed the Murder of Lee Rigby. Myopia123 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems like the fact he's been nicked for suspected membership of a prescribed organisation might be worth mentioning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29358758 Flagpolewiki (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- When more is known, then we should edit the article. Until then, people who want to read the news should go to news websites. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker. Parrot of Doom 12:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you say so. But that he has been arrested under the terrorism acts 2000 and 2006 is certainly going to make it in eventually. No matter how hard you try to keep it out. Flagpolewiki (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Considering I've written most of this article, which is heavily critical of Choudary, I find your comment that I wish to keep things out hilarious. Parrot of Doom 14:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Your hard work and opinions aside, I agree that at this time, this content should be there. If you keep deleting it until there is consensus otherwise, then that is bad editing on your part.Myopia123 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a policy that because an even is unfolding it can not be included? if there is then a lot of pages are going to need revision. How long ago must something have happened before you will allow it to be included on Wikipedia? like a month or something? Flagpolewiki (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- we can wait until we actually know what's happened, if he's been charged, etc. Otherwise we're just reflecting what the news writes, and that isn't our job. Parrot of Doom 17:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- As per PoD, being arrested is not by any definition "notable". Prosecution, or being held for an extended time under investigation is a little more plausible. Otherwise we're just repeating prurient information. If there is a significant reveal of what the arrest is for etc and that itself is notable then again that would be more plausible. Koncorde (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is notable in this particular case. He was arrested by the UK Counterterrorist police AND he was arrested on suspicion of being part of a terrorist organisation and I believe he is being charged with violating specific sections of the Terrorism Act of 2000 and Terrorism Act of 2006. Given his background, this is a very significant developement.Myopia123 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Notability comes into question for whether a subject merits an article of its own, the threshold for information inside an article is much lower than the WP:GNG. As far as I know all information inside an article has to be verifiable and as we have to verifiable sources (BBC and the other one) this is easily well reported in mainstream media. I see little reason to delete it for anything other than consensus reasons. My opinion is that we keep it. AadaamS (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not denying that, merely saying any inclusion should be within context and appropriate. We also have to consider the fact that he is innocent and we should not be inferring any "charges" are being lay upon him until such point as they are, and throwing around "Terrorism Act" is not evidence of terrorism. His "background" is exactly why our BLP stance should be particularly vigorous. Koncorde (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Being charged with a crime is not the same thing as being convicted of a crime. The speaker/writer implies, the listener/reader infers. Being charged with the a crime under the Terrorism Act is a significant event by itself. Unless it's something that happens everyday in the UK.Myopia123 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also putting words in "quotes" does not make a point more profound, if I may throw that around...Myopia123 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the article already mentions instances where he was investigated and not charged(such as Pope Benedict comments). Therefore, precedent has already been set in this artice.Myopia123 (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- The "quotes" are what they are, they are quoting the word you used to make it clear as to what I was referring. But just to be even more clear:
- a - being arrested is not the same as being charged. You claimed quite explicitly that you "believe he is being charged with violating specific sections of the Terrorism Act of 2000 and Terrorism Act of 2006." That is an obvious BLP breach as it is wholly unsubstantiated opinion - BLP applies to talk pages.
- b - as / when he is or isn't charged the actual significance of his arrest is what exactly?
- c - the "precedence" of him being investigated but not being charged for unsubstantiated claims actually suggests that the lede is incorrect to have that in there as it is undue weight, and completely pointless.
- d - the significance would be the crime, whatever that may well be as and when or if it ever happens.
- There's a reason the article has a largely conservative approach to this stuff, and should continue to be conservative in its approach to BLP matters. Koncorde (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- It says in the articles that he is being charged under those acts of 2000 and 2006. Please click on them and go through them in detail. After that, we can go through your points in detail, if you like.Myopia123 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- One thing I don't like is the preceding passage Choudary dismissed the claims as "fanciful", that if they were true, UK security services would have arrested him. preceding the sentence about the arrest, coupled with the following sentence where he were in fact arrested, a reader could misinterpret this as glee on the part of the editor. I think the previous sentence should be changed to simply Choudary dismissed their claims as having no substance. or something equally simple. Also the quote mispresents Choudary as an expert on the tactics of the UK security services, which is not the subject of the article. Any thoughts on this? AadaamS (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- It says in the articles that he is being charged under those acts of 2000 and 2006. Please click on them and go through them in detail. After that, we can go through your points in detail, if you like.Myopia123 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The "quotes" are what they are, they are quoting the word you used to make it clear as to what I was referring. But just to be even more clear:
- Also, the article already mentions instances where he was investigated and not charged(such as Pope Benedict comments). Therefore, precedent has already been set in this artice.Myopia123 (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also putting words in "quotes" does not make a point more profound, if I may throw that around...Myopia123 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Being charged with a crime is not the same thing as being convicted of a crime. The speaker/writer implies, the listener/reader infers. Being charged with the a crime under the Terrorism Act is a significant event by itself. Unless it's something that happens everyday in the UK.Myopia123 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not denying that, merely saying any inclusion should be within context and appropriate. We also have to consider the fact that he is innocent and we should not be inferring any "charges" are being lay upon him until such point as they are, and throwing around "Terrorism Act" is not evidence of terrorism. His "background" is exactly why our BLP stance should be particularly vigorous. Koncorde (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Notability comes into question for whether a subject merits an article of its own, the threshold for information inside an article is much lower than the WP:GNG. As far as I know all information inside an article has to be verifiable and as we have to verifiable sources (BBC and the other one) this is easily well reported in mainstream media. I see little reason to delete it for anything other than consensus reasons. My opinion is that we keep it. AadaamS (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is notable in this particular case. He was arrested by the UK Counterterrorist police AND he was arrested on suspicion of being part of a terrorist organisation and I believe he is being charged with violating specific sections of the Terrorism Act of 2000 and Terrorism Act of 2006. Given his background, this is a very significant developement.Myopia123 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- As per PoD, being arrested is not by any definition "notable". Prosecution, or being held for an extended time under investigation is a little more plausible. Otherwise we're just repeating prurient information. If there is a significant reveal of what the arrest is for etc and that itself is notable then again that would be more plausible. Koncorde (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- we can wait until we actually know what's happened, if he's been charged, etc. Otherwise we're just reflecting what the news writes, and that isn't our job. Parrot of Doom 17:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a policy that because an even is unfolding it can not be included? if there is then a lot of pages are going to need revision. How long ago must something have happened before you will allow it to be included on Wikipedia? like a month or something? Flagpolewiki (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Your hard work and opinions aside, I agree that at this time, this content should be there. If you keep deleting it until there is consensus otherwise, then that is bad editing on your part.Myopia123 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Considering I've written most of this article, which is heavily critical of Choudary, I find your comment that I wish to keep things out hilarious. Parrot of Doom 14:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you say so. But that he has been arrested under the terrorism acts 2000 and 2006 is certainly going to make it in eventually. No matter how hard you try to keep it out. Flagpolewiki (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Myopia, I see no mention of any such charges being laid. In fact the Independent specificially quotes a group called CAGE who reinforce that fact. Being charged is a very specific and formal process. If you have other references then please let me know, otherwise please cease throwing around inaccurate BLP violations.
- AadaamS, The whole section will likely require a clarifying rewrite as it looks like a few sections need tidying up.
- Interesting point AadaamS. I think if the comment about being arrested was worthy of being included before arrest, irony not withstanding, it still merits it's place now. Flagpolewiki (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well I don't think that was ever worthy of inclusion - C is not an established expert on UK security services, he was putting a causality link between his non-arrest and his innocence. Only an expert could make such a claim with enough veracity for us to include it imho. I don't have any more counter arguments to its inclusion now. I will not delete the claim myself as I don't want to start (another) edit war which inadvertently did with my last edit. AadaamS (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The info about his arrest is from a properly referenced source and there is no reason to delete it. There are other pages which are constantly being updated as events unfold and another user has clarified that there is no need to seek 'notability' about info to include it only that it is from a verifiable source. Also, this is the talk page. I understand you do not like what is being discussed but that does not mean I have violated shit. Either stop accusing me of violating BLP or actually do something about it. Myopia123 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't asked for it to be removed, my original comment was quite clear. I have no "dislike" of his arrest, or any discussion of it - go at it. Just don't make false claims.
- An arrest in and of itself is not notable, charges and prosecution are obviously. As per previous experience with people being arrested and pilloried and have subsequently sought out legal cases, wikipedia must be very clear not to cross any lines. WP:NOTNEWS policy is quite clear that we're not a mirror for the media.
- The talk bage of a BLP is no less subject to the same BLP standards.
- I have spoken courteously to you at all times despite your attempts to antagonise. I am trying to help you, a user, ho stated that you were not au fait with wikipedia not too long ago within this same section.
- i have no intention of doing "something about it" as I believe you are actually capable of googling the BLP rules which should negate the need for such. Koncorde (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- The info about his arrest is from a properly referenced source and there is no reason to delete it. There are other pages which are constantly being updated as events unfold and another user has clarified that there is no need to seek 'notability' about info to include it only that it is from a verifiable source. Also, this is the talk page. I understand you do not like what is being discussed but that does not mean I have violated shit. Either stop accusing me of violating BLP or actually do something about it. Myopia123 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well I don't think that was ever worthy of inclusion - C is not an established expert on UK security services, he was putting a causality link between his non-arrest and his innocence. Only an expert could make such a claim with enough veracity for us to include it imho. I don't have any more counter arguments to its inclusion now. I will not delete the claim myself as I don't want to start (another) edit war which inadvertently did with my last edit. AadaamS (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting point AadaamS. I think if the comment about being arrested was worthy of being included before arrest, irony not withstanding, it still merits it's place now. Flagpolewiki (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014
 | This edit request to Anjem Choudary has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting to add the following news update regarding Anjem Choudary:
ARREST
On September 25, 2014 Anjem Choudary along with eight other men were arrested on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organization in London, England.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/25/nine-arrested-london-anti-terrorism
Wilkypoo (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done would be repetitive - Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Anjem Choudary and Partying
A resounding NO. The sourcing, as is explained in the section above as well, is highly suspect, and even if better sourcing is found its relevance is questioned by multiple editors, given the, ahem, BLP. In general, such material should never be sourced to a paper like the one used here. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Anjem Choudary's partying be elaborated upon, for the reasons mentioned in above section? Myopia123 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. It should be, there's literally pictures of him drinking, posing next to PRN etc. However, the article is being closely guarded by a devout follower of his, keen on removing any mention of terrorism/ radical views (for instance, his support of ISIS and the Syrian Al Qaeda). Good luck. Gugvista (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Read WP:BLPGOSSIP. You must have high quality sources (not the Daily Mail junk) positively assert (not speculate) the actions you want to add have a significant impact on his life. --NeilN talk to me 09:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've raised this at WP:BLPN. You can't override BLP policy locally. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not without reliable sources. There's no way it could happen, as Dougweller says, we can't have a a local consensus that overrides BLP (or for that matter )WP:V and reliable sources policy . KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, but this is a COMBINATION of pictures(i.e. concrete proof) that only a not-reliable source would publish and speculation in a reliable one(which is I guess as far as the Telegraph would want to push it).Myopia123 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. No to the unreliable source and no to speculation. Yes to you reading WP:BLP about five more times. --NeilN talk to me 18:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, but this is a COMBINATION of pictures(i.e. concrete proof) that only a not-reliable source would publish and speculation in a reliable one(which is I guess as far as the Telegraph would want to push it).Myopia123 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Support: Clear evidence in multiple, reliable sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are you qualified to state with certainty that the pictures are of him? Only tabloid sources claim they are, and Choudary has denied the story. And for the last time, neither the Daily Mail nor the Sun are in any way "reliable sources". Parrot of Doom 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: These additions don't pass WP:BLP. Even if the assertions are true, which isn't proved by the sources, it's not really relevant. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Strongly opposed The primary source is The Daily Mail which is at best a scandal rag and is not a legitimate, serious source for references and citations. There is also the Wikipedia dictate which requires excluding actionable content concerning living persons. Damotclese (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, to everyone who is opposed, then what about the entire paragraph dedicated to 'Tabloid Criticism' in the 'Criticism' Section of the article?Myopia123 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- What about it? Parrot of Doom 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm thinking something along the lines of "The Daily Mail accused Anjem Choudary of drinking, womanising, etc. etc." It is tabloid criticism after all and would fit perfectly in a section dedicated to Tabloid Criticism. Otherwise, intentionally leaving something out is not NPOVMyopia123 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Even if reliable sources were provided, this topic lacks notability. How many BLP's note individuals participating in drinking and partying? My guess is very very few, if not none. Meatsgains (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose again The 'boy called me back again for some reason. So far there is a lot of good reasons to oppose the scandal-rag reference and photos and no good reason to include them. So far it looks like opposed is most editor's opinion on this. Again, Wikipedia has guidelines concerning living persons and the quality of references must be high to be legitimatly included. Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy with the way it is phrased for the time being. In my opinion, with the sudden change in climate in Britain, more information is going to come out in reliable journals regarding this matter. Also, I am not sure if I followed the proper procedure to close the RfC. Apologies if I removed the wrong template.Myopia123 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Myopia123: It is not your responsibility to close the RfC. You must wait until discussion has slowed significantly and I suggest we wait and let an admin close this RfC. No template should be removed yet. Meatsgains (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.