This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
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
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in, have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days
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.
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request this page to be edited, because the introductory article portrays "Anjem Choudary" as an "activist". But should be considered an "Extremist". Vishok27 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ...
Is this really relevant? Most of the UK is/was a critic of those wars. Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He promotes the implementation of Sharia throughout the UK, Poland and India.[1][2][3][4]
So UK, Poland and India, ... but not Ireland, Germany or China??? If you'll pardon the expression, give me a break!
--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is now a mess of editorialising and singular quotes. It's a very strange way of writing about a person. The body of the article is better placed for much of any of this to be retained. Koncorde (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New section on views is appalling. I have no idea why we are giving credence to this? At this point so many changes have been made that unpicking individual ones seems impossible. While I appreciate BOLD edits, these seem incompatible with a well structured NPOV biography. Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you call editorialising are quotes from WP:RS. The new section is about his explanation of why he believes what he believes, or why he says he does. It is based on an interview by a reputable journalist. That's why I "give credence" to this. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting quotes as you have done is editorialising, both by the source, and yourself by proxy of using the sources as you have done. This is particularly grievous in the very first sentence of the lede. There are some reasonable small changes to sentence structure elsewhere but everything else is appalling. Both WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE have been jeopardised here. Koncorde (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes are used to avoid copyright infringement and so no one is in doubt to the exact statement of the person quoted. As for the substance o f the quotes in the very first sentence of the lede -- "the face of British militant Islamism", "the most famous Islamic State supporter in Britain" and having a "genius for publicity" -- are you seriously suggesting these are not true? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright infringement is an irrelevance. If the POV is sufficiently supported by enough sources we put it into our own words. If we are reliant on the quotes of singular sources to attribute opinion about a person then that is not an NPOV for the lede as it is giving too much weight to one sources opinion. The use of 3 quotes is extreme, and unnecessary if it truly reflects the weight of coverage in reliable sources. However I doubt there has ever been a public contest on "British militant Islamism" - but if there was Abu Hamza al-Masri likely cornered that market a long time ago, "most famous IS supporter in Britain" is an irrelevance to actually being a paid up member and supporter of every other organisation for which he was jailed, and the "genius for publicity" seems remarkably niche claim out of context of calling him a buffoon when it comes to his knowledge of Islam. Koncorde (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have rewritten the lede. Hope everybody likes it. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significantly better, however "the face" still remains pointless. There's any number of ways of describing him as most prominent - but the clearest statement comes from the Prosecutors describing him as the "most influential Islamist extremists in Europe" which is easily attributable and backed up by subsequent actions taken by the US State Dept and UN etc. Koncorde (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't disagree with "most influential Islamist extremists in Europe", but If he has been in the media relentlessly (before his incarceration) why is being "the face" of militant Islamism "pointless"?? It would seem to be rather relevant. -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointless because being "the face" doesn't carry any clear meaning or convey anything of particular significance (it's also an opinion I would expect to see attributed). It's like saying that they are the figurehead - yet someone like Choudary is clearly much more than that by all records and coverage of the rest of the sources and the article. His coverage isn't because he is "the face" but because of all the stuff he has done. Koncorde (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i think we can safely say the phrase "the face of militant Islamism" refers to that person who most often comes up when the general public is asked "who do you think of when you hear the phrase 'militant Islamism'?" .--Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can say it's pointless and clear editorial opinion that should be attributed if used - particularly in quotations, and the addition of "best known" within quotation marks is appalling. Using a single quotation from one source to describe someone in the lede, and then trying to SYNTH an idea afterwards is unnecessary when adequate words already exist. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 