Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Choudary comments in the wake of the 'Lee Rigby' trial

Someone ought to update the (closed) wiki with a sentence or two on Choudary's appearance on BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme on 20 Dec 2013 in the wake of the 'Lee Rigby' trial. 66.225.160.9 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually did try to include some mention of the Lee Rigby trial without embellishing, but my edits were reverted. Working to change that now. Atsme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should this incident be included? His advocacy is included in the article already. He's every move is not in the article. Why should this particularly be in the article?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Lee Rigby incident had so many repercussions in the British society and it makes sense to mention Choudary's views in the article about him. Because Al-Muhajiroun was linked to one of the murderers in the Woolwich attack, Choudary's activities are now being scrutunized by the authorities more closely. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Are there any specific views in that article that you feel should be included that aren't? While the Lee Rigby incident did Choudary's minimal involvement didn't. As are all of any known members or associates of Al-Muhajiroun I would expect however your sources don't point to any specfic scrutiny by law enforcement and publicly he's been scrutinized for a long time.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There may be a case for mentioning Choudary's views and comments about the Lee Rigby murder. Anything more surely belongs in the Al-Muhajiroun article, which, looking at it, could certainly use some attention. Parrot of Doom 15:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I checked, Lee Rigby was mentioned although as his murderers had not then been found guilty, the incident was referred to differently. I've changed it now. Parrot of Doom 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

His views are his General rhetoric that's covered thru out the article it seems. With The Rigby situation itself he hasn't condemned the murder when asked to. Beyond that there's where recently he made the prophetic statement "This will have repercussions in this country and unless we wake up to this fact, there will be other Lee Rigbys." What is included is going to need to be justified. For everything included there's something that will not be. If we mention that won't condemn something and we later find out he won't eat spinach do we mention that to? I however don't oppose the current inclusion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with "refused to do x" type phraseology. He doesn't have to condemn anything he doesn't want to, and frankly, supposedly independent sources like the BBC shouldn't be asking him to do anything like that. Parrot of Doom 16:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't have to condemn anything? Media shouldn't be asking him about something like that? I don't think it would be odd to ask someone with, say, notoriously nationalist views, whether he condemns Holocaust or not. It would really be odd, however, if someone answered that no, he doesn't. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if any notable EDL member answered like that to the question, it would be there in the lede. For some reason, we see different standard applied to people of Islamic supremacist views. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
He wasn't asked about the holocaust. He wasn't even asked if he condemned their actions. He was asked to condemn their actions. When he promotes murder and someone kills there will an issue. This media invented controversey I see no reason to post here. Else where it is posted and should be such as the article about that incident.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it so very difficult for you to stick to the topic, which is what this article should say? Your views on what "would be really odd" or what you're "pretty sure" about what would happen in some hypothetical case not involving this article are super-fascinating, of course, but what do they have to do with the content of this article? Your vague insinuations of conspiracies aren't useful either. Please try to stay focused.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I presented a specific analogy. I stand by my by analogy and consider it completely appropriate. Someone makes obnoxious comments on a terrible event that shook the whole country and had numerous consequences. Media have expressed astonishment that he is still not arrested for his vile comments [1]. Now how come this is not relevant for the article about this person? Of course it is relevant and I am going to deal with this shortcoming in the article as soon as I get time. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
A very effusive anaology. You compare a guy that won't condemn something on demand to a holocaust denier. The Daily mail is still not a reliable source btw.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't even say nothing about it should go in the article. There's a brief mention now. It looks like sources can be found to add some detail if appropriate. You don't have a specific suggestion regarding article content, instead you have a theory about the motivations of the editors here and a question about EDL-related articles. If you have problems with EDL-related articles, go edit them. If you want to put something in here about Rigby, put something in and see if it sticks. If it doesn't, we'll talk about it some more. Alternatively, you can suggest specific wording here. A "specific analogy" about a general point is still off-topic. If your goal is to get the Daily Mail's opinion in here, or probably anywhere, though, you'll have your work cut out for you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
(Answering the point raised at 17:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)) I apply the same standards to everyone. "Do you abhor this", "will you condemn this", etc, these are loaded questions and should be scorned by anyone asked them. I think Choudary is a pillock but I applaud his refusal to answer such silly questions. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Choudary told CNN that he knew Adebolajo, said he attended demonstrations and a few lectures organized by Al-Muhajiroun. There's an ITN video from April 2007 that shows Adebolajo at a rally standing behind Choudary protesting the arrest of men who allegedly made inflammatory speeches inside a mosque. A few years ago, al-Muhajiroun leaders said Adebolajo left the group. Choudary last saw Adebolajo in 2005 and suspects the break could be related to the Lee Rigby attack in Woolwich. He said "What tends to happen is some of the group's members start to see Al-Muhajiroun as all talk and no action, so they leave the group, and then they do something." Atsme (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
So why should it be listed? He has aquainted with this guy and has last seen him before 2005. 7 years later he did something un related to the group he left many years before. This grasping at straws.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Just apply some of the same arguments for keeping it in that were applied for keeping in the link between Norwegian mass murderer Breivik to Spencer and Geller for their writings being the primary sources for Breivik's 1500+ page manifesto in SIOA 2011. The sources cited as "reliable" to keep the Breivik connection in the article are equally as reliable as the sources being cited here to keep the Adebolajo link to Choudary. Are we seeing a double standard at work here? Atsme (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't the vaguest clue what your talking about. Then applies those arguments. What are they?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Beyond that I never said the sources weren't reliable. I asked why it should be listed? There is a connection but so what. Justify it's inclusion. He knew a guy who he hasn't interacted with since 2005. That guy did something completely unrelated 9 years later.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho, I was simply pointing out a debate that took place at SIOA over a similar issue. In SIOA's case, the controversial event is already in the article, and the editors refuse to remove it. The murderer allegedly was inspired by Geller and Spencer who are co-founders of SIOA (part of the discriminatory Islamophobia series), so they are automatically guilty by association even though they had nothing to do with the mass murders. Mass murderer, Breivik, was included in the SIOA article complete with all the misinformation to make it look like Geller & Spencer are to blame for the murders.
The Rigby debate is about two Islamic extremists who murdered a British soldier. One of the murderers has a connection to Choudary. It is believed (even by Choudary), that the murder was inspired by Choudary's teachings. Choudary refuses to condemn the murder. He is protected from discrimination, unlike SIOA, Geller & Spencer, so the Rigby event is not included. Double standard.
For your convenience, I included Binksternet's justification for allowing Breivik to remain in SIOA article:
Heidi Beirich says that the killer "acted on his own" but that "the ideology that fuelled his shooting spree derived from a number of racist and anti-Islamic sources."
Beirich lists the SIOE and the EDL as important sources for the killer's ideology. But Beirich emphasizes that "the primary sources for the anti-Muslim propaganda that had helped give voice to Breivik's manifesto were American." Beirich describes how Breivik was very deeply into Robert Spencer's writings. Beirich says that "Breivik also drew inspiration from anti-Muslim American blogger and close Spencer ally Pamela Geller." Beirich describes how Geller and Spencer formed SIOA which is "closely allied" with SIOE. Beirich starts the next paragraph by saying "The relationships between Breivik, Spencer, Geller, the EDL, SIOA, etc. reveal a thickening web of connections between individuals and groups on the extreme right in the United States and Europe."
This text from Beirich shows that the ideology of Spencer and Geller helped bring Breivik to his fatal actions by fuelling his hate-filled ideology. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It was the general consensus for allowing the info to remain in the article. As such, that same reason should apply here as well. If not, then as an Admin, can you do anything about removing the Breivik event from SIOA? Atsme (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
For the last time. I am not an Admin. And this is a debate to get a consensus. SIOA and anything that relates to it has nothing to do with this page. It can't beused as an argument to add or remove something here. We editors are not here to better the SOIA page. We would do that on that page. If you see a double standard there is a place to take care of it but I'm not sure where but it certainly isn't here. If you see that as bias editing on SOIA I can't see why you are promoting it here. If the consensus hold this information should be included fine add it but I am asking right here that its inclusion be justified. What is being suggested is that it be mentioned that he wouldn't condemn on command and Someone he last saw 7+ years ago did something bad. Justify it.17:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Serialjoepsycho (talk)
  • My concern here is that some of the information being proposed to bias NPOV here. If there is nothing more than an Association fallacy it shouldn't be included. I don't want to give it undue weight and do not want wikipedia to be the one that makes the case for guilt by association. Who is pushing this guilt by association? Is this a Majority viewpoint? Is this a signifigant minority viewpoint with prominent adherents. Is there anything more than this guilt by association?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • For me, it's quite simple. Newspapers are allowed to label people like Choudary. They can call him whatever they like, it's their responsibility, not ours. Our responsibility is to stick to the facts. He's British; he was a solicitor; he's been involved in several Islamic groups; he speaks regularly on television. These are all facts, different from opinions like "he's an extremist" - Choudary probably does not view himself as an extremist. So we report that the newspapers call him an extremist and, where we can, we include his response to those claims.
  • That's how I've built this article - facts, claims, and where possible, counter-claims. For his proposal for a march through Wooton Bassett, I included his plans and opinions as quotes. I appended that with the reaction from prominent politicians, relevant commentators, etc. Nothing more. Nothing from the Daily Mail (you can imagine what they wrote).
  • What this article's detractors appear to want to do is to remove his British identity, identify him as a muslim first and a human being second, and an extremist muslim at that. Those aren't the actions of people interested in maintaining neutrality. And yes, anyone attempting to change "British" to "British born" or "British Pakistani" is, in my firm opinion, a racist. Parrot of Doom 19:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
″And yes, anyone attempting to change "British" to "British born" is, in my firm opinion, a racist.″ - then consequently the article on Alex Salmon has been written by 'racists' as they refer to him as Scottish in the lede. Or is it the way perhaps that it's 'racist' to refer to Pakistanis as Pakistanis whilst it's not racist to refer to Scotsmen as Scotsmen? Just curious. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
To the issue you raised: ″They can call him whatever they like, it's their responsibility, not ours. Our responsibility is to stick to the facts.″ no, WP doesn't work the way you want it to do. WP is not about 'truth', it's about verifiability, reliability and due weight to majority view. For WP purposes, 'sticking to facts' means reflecting reliable sources. That's it. If reliable sources refer to Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, then he is a terrorist for WP articles' purpose. Azad Ali for example can have different opinions if he wishes but this would in no way invalidate what Western sources say. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Tell you what. You go and write an article about Choudary and base it on claims made in tabloid newspapers. Then invite us to review it. And no, I wouldn't call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist - I'd say that most people called him a terrorist. There's a difference. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It is actually quite refreshing to see that my efforts to get Choudary updated weren't entirely wasted. The article comes closer to qualifying for a GA rating now than it did previously. It just needs a few tweaks here and there. Lokalkosmopolit I agree with you, especially with regards to the lead-in. I think it is wrong for one editor to threaten other editors with a racist label for doing what's expected of them by changing "British" to "British Pakistani" in the lead-in. I see no need for any editor to feel intimidated by it because the inclusion of nationality and ethnicity in the lead is customary and expected. British Pakistani is not a racist term. In fact, in Choudary's case, I'll draw from one of the reliable sources already cited in the article by including the following quote from an acquaintance of Choudary: "He would say he was a Muslim and was proud of his Pakistani heritage…". That reference is available here. There is also a nicely done article about British Pakistanis on WP. Again, the claim of racist is unfounded, and needs to go away ASAP. Editors should avoid attempts to establish different meanings for words already adequately defined by Oxford, and other reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute is over. GAR.

The dispute is over. I still think a Good Article Reassessment is necessary. A community assessment or a personal assessment will suffice. It will ensure that this article still meets that criteria. If it is there might a call to put it up for a higher status. It might be A or FA status. The question is would anyone like to do a personal GAR or do we jump into a community GAR?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, which GA criteria do you believe this article no longer meets? Parrot of Doom 11:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho, excuse me, but in light of the ongoing dispute with regards to the lead-in, I wholeheartedly disagree that the dispute is over. As far as I can tell, there has not been a call for consensus, so please don't be too hasty.
====(ratifying consensus)====
There is growing consensus that the current lead-in is bad form, especially considering that it is customary to lead in with a current vocation, and a synopsis of notability. In Choudary's BLP, his notability happens to be his notoriety as a prominent media figure, and advocate of Islamism and global Sharia, all of which can be validated by countless reliable resources. No one becomes notable by quietly embracing one's faith, failing med school, or being a former solicitor. His schooling, training and past vocations should come later in the article, as should his humanity and acts of kindness. The lead-in should introduce the person based on who that person is today, not who they were, or what one editor thinks he/she should be, the latter of which shouldn't be included at all.
The following editors have all indicated that the lead-in needs improvement: DeCausa, Lokalkosmopolit, Koncorde, Sportfan5000, and Atsme. No one is questioning that the article must maintain a NPOV - that's a given - but omission does not accomplish that goal. Editors can and should validate Choudary's notability by including events that led to his notoriety, and not attempt to suppress the truth under the guise of neutrality.
The lead statement should read closer to the following: Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; British Pakistani, born 1967) principal lecturer at the London School of Shari’ah, and Manager at the Shari’ah Court of the UK. Sharia law has been operating in the U.K. in parallel to the British legal system since 1982. Choudary is a faithful follower of the fundamental tenants of Islam, and has taken a lead role in attempting to make the U.K. an Islamic state based on Sharia Law.
Irfan Al-Alawi wrote an informative article about Choudary's advocacy attempts to impose Islamic law and radical Muslim dominance in India which is not unlike his activities in the U.K. That article is available for review here. For those unfamiliar with Irfan Al Alawi, he is executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, and the international director of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism and PhD lecturer in Islamic theology and Tasawwuf, so he is a reliable source per Wiki standards. Oh, and his article reads "Anjem Choudary, the British-born, London-based extremist known for his outlandish claims, and his partner, Omar Bakri Muhammad, who now lives in Lebanon." Surely, he couldn't be considered racist.
Choudary must be portrayed for who he is without any attempts to make him look like someone he is not, and that includes embellishment of his extremism, or any attempts to make him appear learned and passive without citing reliable sources, and that includes deceiving readers by downplaying or omitting facts, or presenting them in such a manner that overstates them. The goal of WP is not to have editors neutralize a notable character, rather it is to have editors present the facts in a neutral manner. Big difference.
The following comment by one editor is clearly POV, and attempts to neutralize rather than maintain neutrality: I think it's wise to inform the reader from the outset that despite some of his more peculiar outbursts, he is actually educated to a good standard. Again, it is not an editor's job to neutralize a notable person. Right off the bat, "peculiar outbursts" are an understatement, and do not represent the whole picture. Boxing promoter, Don King, has "peculiar outbursts". A passive former solicitor who failed his first year exams in medical school and later embraced Islam with "peculiar outbursts" do not meet the minimum standards of notability required for inclusion in a WP:BLP. It was Choudary's extremism, his connections to terrorist organizations that were banned, and his relentless advocacy to turn the U.K. into a state of Islam under Sharia law that gained him media attention and notability. His outbursts may be peculiar, but they are also extreme because they threaten democracy, give martyrdom to terrorists, and are an attempt to impose an entirely different way of life on citizens of the U.K. It is an act of deception to downplay such facts, and clearly POV. There are plenty of reliable resources to reference Choudary's extremism, and advocacy for global Sharia. Any attempts to neutralize notoriety and radicalism is WP:POV, and does not fall within the requirements for neutrality. Atsme (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You've mentioned me above as though I am supportive of what you are proposing. I suggested a small tweak to the opening sentence. I don't wish to be associated with the badly written POV rubbish you are proposing.DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So far as I can see, there is no indication, on WP or anywhere else, that the "London School of Shari’ah" or the "Shari’ah Court of the UK" are notable organisations. I don't see how they contribute in any way to his notability, and therefore they should not be mentioned in the opening sentence. It's clearly also highly debatable to suggest that "Choudary is a faithful follower of the fundamental tenants of Islam". Assuming you mean "tenets" rather than "tenants", many would disagree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So the dispute has not ended. Parrot of Doom, I think it meets Criteria 1) Well written, 3)Broad in Coverage, and 6)Illustrated. I don't think 5)Stable would apply to a GA removal. That Leaves 2) and 4) to check.Serialjoepsycho (talk)
If you think there are instances of it's not meeting (2) and/or (4) perhaps it would be useful if you could identify them and we could discuss them? Only after the failure of such a process as that would I think that a GAR would be appropriate. As far as I can see only one user thinks this article violates either, although I'd hesitate to assert even that because their points are not easy to extract from their communications.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: Let's avoid a bloated conversation. Start another topic and write what you want written then break it in numbered points. For example: Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; British Pakistani, born 1967) principal lecturer at the London School of Shari’ah, and Manager at the Shari’ah Court of the UK. Sharia law has been operating in the U.K. in parallel to the British legal system since 1982. Choudary is a faithful follower of the fundamental tenants of Islam, and has taken a lead role in attempting to make the U.K. an Islamic state based on Sharia Law.

1) He is british Pakastani and that should be in the lead because...... 2) ect ect ect

Please be clear and stay on topic.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be associated with that abortion of an introduction Atsme has suggested. Koncorde (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't either, although I suppose Atsme didn't list me as a supporter. Even if it weren't utter rubbish, and badly written rubbish at that, the fact that it's so full of inline citations shows the proposer isn't cognizant of WP:LEAD and (seemingly) isn't willing to take the time to work the material into the body of the article via normal editorial processes so that it might be reflected in the lead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It demonstrates just how ignorant its author is of English law. Sharia law does not operate in this country, not anywhere except the minds of those willing to accept it. What operates are informal Sharia courts, just like the Jewish Beth Din courts. They have absolutely no legal authority whatsoever. Parrot of Doom 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
For clarity: Sharia law has not been operating in the U.K. in parallel to the British legal system since 1982.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the GA status, I think it hits all criteria apart from that first sentence which is not clearly written, and is in fact pretty awful. One thing I would say is that I do agree with Atsme when he points out

The following comment by one editor is clearly POV, and attempts to neutralize rather than maintain neutrality: I think it's wise to inform the reader from the outset that despite some of his more peculiar outbursts, he is actually educated to a good standard.

That really is terrible logic from Parrot to enforce ex-solicitor into the opening sentence, and resist changes to the lead. Choudary's level of education is not relevant. Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, that opening sentence appears to have evolved from "British solicitor and spokesman for Islam4UK" to "Former solcitor and former spokesman" over a few months in 2010, culminating in this change by Parrot.[[2]] The opening sentence should have been returned to since that date really. A lot has happened in 4 years for an article to be using a haphazardly bastardised sentence to open. Koncorde (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, not a lot has happened in those four years, which is why not many changes have been made to the article. Choudary still pops up here and there spouting the same old rhetoric, but that's about it. Parrot of Doom 09:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that is true. The simple fact that he is still popping up actually means that he is in fact currently doing something - and that should be reflected in the lead. Muck raking or not, his continued spouting or rhetoric and filling of newspaper columns is more notable and recent than him being an ex-solicitor. Koncorde (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Koncorde: If you wouldn't mind propose a change to the lead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Proposal. As I said early, I do think readers would find the immediate listing of former positions odd as an opener. He currently goes on the Today programme as a radical rent-a-quote so I think that's what should be reflected I.e. a more g eneric opening. I propose: "Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; born 1967) is a British Muslim activist who has been associated with a number of Islamist organisations. A former solicitor, he was, before it was proscribed, spokesman for the Islamist group Islam4UK." DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
All the berating comments are simply reflections of the people who made them. Meaningless. And for those of you who think I'm ignorant of English law, you should have chosen your words more carefully because you're about to be eating them. Read about Sharia in the U.K. in state government documents. You can also read about it in the Telegraph. And while you're discovering you're not quite as smart as you thought you were, you can find out what Choudary does for a living on the "About Me" page at his website. Maybe then you'll fix that crappy lead-in you think is so great. Atsme (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Why would I read a document on a US website to read about UK law? Sharia courts have no legal authority in the UK. None. Get it? A Sharia court cannot compel anyone in this country to do anything without them first agreeing to its decision. That is not the same as a UK court, which has powers derived from Parliament.
Honestly, I don't know why I'm bothering to write this. It's like trying to explain the alphabet to a cat. Parrot of Doom 10:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@User:Atsme, you're talking garbage. No legal system can operate in the UK "in parallel" to the law of the UK, it is always subservient. Sharia effectively operates in the same way as any other private arbitration process e.g. in the building industry they utilise the Joint Contracts Tribunal. Parties can, within limits, resolve a dispute or issue in whatever way they like. They can even agree that when it is resolved in a predetermined manner, then the losing party cannot appeal to the regular courts, and the courts will uphold that subject to certain limitations eg as set out in the Arbitration Act 1996. Sharia "courts" just fit into that, and, in fact, there is generally less scope to exclude the jurisdiction of the regular courts thàn in "normal" arbitral processes because of the areas covered and because of the procedures used. In many ways Sharia "court" decisions are even more subservient to "UK law" than arbitrations usually are. (Of course the foregoing is in relation to civil law. For criminal matters, there is of course no lawful alternative to the state criminal justice system.) But there is nothing new in any oof this, or something that is inconsistent with the English and Scottish legal systems. It's just a tabloid wet dream. Now, could I have some feedback on my proposal please. DeCausa (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Atsme: did you even read the state document you linked to?
"Sharia (Islamic law) is managed by Sharia councils that have operated parallel to the national legal system since 1982. The councils deal only with civil cases, have no legal powers', and 'may only rule in areas such as dispute mediation, marriage, and finance in ways that do not contradict the law and with the consent of both parties."
The use of parallel is confusing because he should have stated first that he was referring to "civil cases" only (rather than only bringing it up subsequently) which can be mediated by pretty much any organisation or group but are only enforceable upon the agreement of both parties, and that when they say "parallel" what they actually mean, in the weakest possible sense, is "analogous" in limited cases and situations.
I'd much prefer an official government statement[3]
"Sharia 'law' has no jurisdiction in England and Wales and the Government has no intention to change this position.
Sharia principles are the code of personal religious law governing the conduct of Muslims. They can extend into all aspects of people's lives, but provided an activity prescribed by Sharia principles does not contravene the law of England and Wales, there is nothing that prevents people living by Sharia principles.
Britain has a proud tradition of religious tolerance, within the law. We expect individuals and groups to exercise their religious beliefs in a courteous and considerate manner and to respect the rights of others. Freedom of expression is the hallmark of a healthy society; however, mutual concern and respect for our fellow citizens is essential if we want our neighbourhoods to be places where everyone can play their part and feel that they belong.
There are a number of Sharia councils in England and Wales which help Muslim communities resolve civil and family disputes, by making recommendations, which they hope the parties will abide by. They are not part of the court system in this country and have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of the decisions or recommendations they make are contrary to national law (including the Equality Act 2010)then national law prevails. This is no different to any other council or tribunal - whether or not based on Sharia principles.
There can never be reliance on the fact that an act that is permitted under Sharia principles is a justification for committing what is, under the law of this country, a criminal act or indeed a breach of civil law such as the Equality Act 2010. Muslim women, for example, can find legal recourse in the legislation that has already been enacted, for example forced marriage issues, regardless of what is stated within Sharia principles."
You are not well informed. Koncorde (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I don't think that would poison the well. He is a british Muslim activist.That seems both accurate and relevnt. However there still is a question of the Relevence of him being a former solictor that is still in question. Though I think his knowledge of the law might assist him in his activism. Was he just a spokesman for Islam4uk or was he also a spokesman for the number of other groups he was involved in?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a borderline call. I half agree with PoD that it does give a context to his radicalism: being a solicitor is a big part of his biography but not necessarily a notable part. It's akin to place of birth, date of birth etc: the essential biographical backdrop to what then makes him notable. But I wouldn't lose any sleep if it comes out. DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as other groups are concerned, I would have though al-Muhajiroun was worthy of mention at the same time as Islam4Uk. But I was trying to keep changes to a minimum to facilitate agreement: the main thing is not to have a list of former positions as the first sentence, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
My opinion on the changed intro line is similar to that of DeCausa, and as I roughly outlined in the previous section:
"Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; born 1967) is a British Muslim social and political commentator and an advocate for Sharia. Previously he was a solicitor and the spokesman for the proscribed Islamist group Islam4UK.
As a solicitor he was chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers. With Omar Bakri Muhammad, he helped form an Islamist organisation, al-Muhajiroun. The group organised several anti-Western demonstrations, including a banned protest march in London for which Choudary was summonsed to appear in court. Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded following the UK government's decision to ban it. Choudary was present at the launch of its intended successor, Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, and later helped form Al Ghurabaa, which was also banned. He then became the spokesman for Islam4UK.
He is a critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he praised the terrorists involved in the 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 attacks. He believes in the implementation of Sharia law throughout the UK and marched in protest at the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, following which he was prosecuted for organising an unlawful demonstration. He was also investigated, but not charged, for his comments in 2006 regarding Pope Benedict XVI. He receives little support from mainstream UK Muslims and has been largely criticised in the country's media. The French Interior Ministry has permanently banned him from entering France."
It at least rightfully states what he currently is - a talking head. Koncorde (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's along the lines I was thinking. Couple of points of detail: "commentator" sounds a little too inactive, as though he's a Guardian columnist. I think activist or campaigner or similar would be better. Also, the focus on sharia is rather too narrow and the broader Islamist should figure as the main dèsriptive in my view. DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It's an improvement. Y'all could have been a little nicer with your criticisms toward my suggested changes. It's just good manners. Wiki guidelines expect collaboration among editors, and respect for one another. There was no reason for the personal attacks against me, or for the condescension toward me. The article has come a long way, not in spite of, but because of the disputes. Too bad it couldn't have been a more pleasant experience. Atsme 08:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)
The article has come a long way? Here is exactly how far it has come. Dozens of KB of you arguing with everyone in sight about nothing that makes any sense on the talk page, complaining about how everyone's mean to you and harasses you and condescends to you, and now you say at least the process has improved the article? Not a single one of the changes you proposed has been adopted. The article has barely changed at all after four weeks of this. If you want a more pleasant experience and collaboration and respect, try practicing them yourself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You must be confused Atsme. There are very good reasons for people making personal attacks and condescending remarks, to you. What's sad is that you don't understand why they're valid. Parrot of Doom 15:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For everyones consideration. Perhaps we can agree to reset relations here. We can agree to focus on the content and policy in our conversation moving forth.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; born 1967) is a British Muslim activist who has been associated with a number of Islamist organisations. Previously he was a solicitor and the spokesman for the proscribed Islamist group Islam4UK. Suggestion for the first part of the lead.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on suggestions then:
"Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; born 1967) is a British Muslim social and political activist and an advocate for Sharia. Previously he was a solicitor and the spokesman for the proscribed Islamist group Islam4UK.
As a solicitor he was chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers. With Omar Bakri Muhammad, he helped form an Islamist organisation, al-Muhajiroun. The group organised several anti-Western demonstrations, including a banned protest march in London for which Choudary was summonsed to appear in court. Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded following the UK government's decision to ban it. Choudary was present at the launch of its intended successor, Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, and later helped form Al Ghurabaa, which was also banned. He then became the spokesman for Islam4UK.
He is a critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he praised the terrorists involved in the 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 attacks. He believes in the implementation of Sharia law throughout the UK and marched in protest at the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, following which he was prosecuted for organising an unlawful demonstration. He was also investigated, but not charged, for his comments in 2006 regarding Pope Benedict XVI. He receives little support from mainstream UK Muslims and has been largely criticised in the country's media. The French Interior Ministry has permanently banned him from entering France."
Islamist is mentioned in the next 2 immediate sentences following on, so Sharia would seem a better fit in the first sentence. Koncorde (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I do have to urge caution with the word Islamist. But I don't have any major gripes. Pending further comment from everyone else I say put it in.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Can the second and third sentences be conflated so as to avoid using "solicitor" twice? I would remove "a solicitor and.." from the second sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
"Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; born 1967) is a British Muslim social and political activist. An ex-solicitor, he was, until it was proscribed, a spokesman for Islam4UK. is better. Parrot of Doom 10:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with that change, although I dislike the "ex" solicitor as it just gives me flashbacks of Monty Python sketches. Was he barred? Or did he voluntarily pass up his license? Suggested (with Ghmyrtle's feedback) (should "Chairman" be capitalised if it was a role?):
"Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; born 1967) is a British Muslim social and political activist. He was previously a solicitor serving as the chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, and, until it was proscribed, a spokesman for Islam4UK.
With Omar Bakri Muhammad, he helped form an Islamist organisation, al-Muhajiroun. The group organised several anti-Western demonstrations, including a banned protest march in London for which Choudary was summonsed to appear in court. Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded following the UK government's decision to ban it. Choudary was present at the launch of its intended successor, Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, and later helped form Al Ghurabaa, which was also banned. He then became the spokesman for Islam4UK.
He is a critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he praised the terrorists involved in the 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 attacks. He believes in the implementation of Sharia law throughout the UK and marched in protest at the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, following which he was prosecuted for organising an unlawful demonstration. He was also investigated, but not charged, for his comments in 2006 regarding Pope Benedict XVI. He receives little support from mainstream UK Muslims and has been largely criticised in the country's media. The French Interior Ministry has permanently banned him from entering France."
Rest seems quite succinct'ish. Koncorde (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So anyway I feel like it meets GA criteria. Does anyone disagree?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy in Choudary

Moved here from my talk page— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Why did you revert the edit? It is terrible form to include the same information twice in the article. Worse yet, by saying, "Choudary is of Pakistani descent. He is a critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," makes it seem that his Pakistani descent was the reason he was a critic of the UK's involvement in the wars. Is that the message the article is sending? Then it's repeated again under Al-Muhajiroun, and states, "A British national, Choudary is of Pakistani descent. He embraced Islamism and, with the Islamist militant leader …." which implies that the reason he embraced Islamism with a militant leader is because he is a British national of Pakistani descent. Is that also the message that it being sent? Further, there is nothing I read in WP:LEAD, or WP:MINOR that affects, or applies to the edit. Be more specific, and explain why you did the revert. Atsme ☯ talk 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Therefore the lead is meant to be repetitive. It should not cover material that's not covered in the body.
From WP:LEAD: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. The statement that Choudary is of Pakistani descent is not controversial. There is no need for a citation for it in the lead. There are currently no citations in the lead, nor is there a need for any because, per WP:LEAD, everything in there is cited to sources in the body.
From WP:MINOR: A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. Since the edit removed content it was clearly not minor, and marking it so was a misrepresentation.
You say: Worse yet, by saying, "Choudary is of Pakistani descent. He is a critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," makes it seem that his Pakistani descent was the reason he was a critic of the UK's involvement in the wars. I don't see how you're drawing that conclusion. It seems to me that there's no such implication here.
You say: Then it's repeated again under Al-Muhajiroun, and states, "A British national, Choudary is of Pakistani descent. He embraced Islamism and, with the Islamist militant leader …." which implies that the reason he embraced Islamism with a militant leader is because he is a British national of Pakistani descent. How in the world do you think it implies that? Please explain. I can't see any reason for thinking that it does.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You've clearly overlooked the kind of information that belongs in the context of a BLP, the body of the lead, and body of the article.
From WP:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies: Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
(1) In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
Choudary being of Pakistani descent belongs as Context which is why I included it in the initial info text several reverts ago. I was following WP policy. If the intent was to not make his nationality or ethnicity an important aspect of the article, then the sentence "Choudary is of Pakistani descent" should not immediately precede his criticism of UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It can be construed as a racist statement. At least my edit gave balance to his criticism when I added British national, rather than isolating his Pakistani descent.
Then under the section Al-Muhajiroun, which is irrelevant to Choudary's nationality and ethnicity, the paragraph leads-in with his being a British national of Pakistani descent. Redundancy, and out of place according to WP:MoS/Biographies. His nationality and ethnicity is irrelevant to his embrace of Islamism and co-founding of Al-Muhajiroun. It appears even more racist than the way his ethnicity was presented initially.
You can revert my edits, and cite irrelevant policy all you want, but it doesn't alter the fact that mention of his nationality and ethnicity is redundant, and if you count the statement "born in the U.K.", his nationality is actually mentioned three times. The reader will understand he is a British national of Pakistani descent if you'll simply follow WP style for BLP, and include it in the Context.
Your claim that I "misrepresented" a minor edit is ludicrous at best. I stated the edit was made because of redundancy, and briefly described what I had done. I never considered it to be anything but a presentational change which is a minor edit. It did not modify the article's content in that he is still a British national of Pakistani descent, but if you're now saying his nationality and ethnicity are relevant to his notability, which includes his embrace of Islamism, his criticism of the U.K.'s involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his praise of the terrorists involved in the 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 attacks then maybe it does belong where it is. I just never thought of it that way, and it appears others didn't, either. Atsme ☯ talk 14:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
A simple suggestion - why not move the words "Choudary is of Pakistani descent" to the start of the second paragraph, rather than the start of the third paragraph? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
That's fine with me; you're talking about in the lead, yes?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I'll try that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Atsme, the stuff you quote from the MOS about biographies applies to the first paragraph, not the lead section. The material we have is completely consistent with that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
As usual, Atsme's changes were poorly-formatted and lacked any understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines. That's why they were reverted. Perhaps, instead of filling article talk pages with junk, you should redirect your efforts to writing articles. Try creating something new, from scratch. You might learn something. Parrot of Doom 16:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
That is actually a very sound piece of advice that should be said more often. It's a step-change tutorial in WP basics to create an article when compared to tinkering at the edges of existing ones. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@DeCausa: - considering you're a London lawyer, I was hoping you could shed some light on the Society of Muslim Lawyers. I can't find anything about them on the internet except what has been reported rather vaguely by a few 2nd/3rd sources. Is it a legally recognized organization for British solicitors and barristers, or is it a Sharia law organization? I haven't been able to find anything of substance about it except for the one sentence that ties Choudary to it as chairman. I also read that Choudary was removed from the list of legal solicitors in 2002. What was the reason for Choudary's removal from the list? A little corroboration on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Atsme ☯ talk 05:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There are over 100,000 solicitors in the UK - we don't all know each other or the organisations they belong to! I know the sources refer to the Society of Muslim Lawyers, but the only body I know of is the Association Of Muslim Lawyers - and I don't know much about that either, other than it's a solicitors/barristers pressure group. I don't know whether it changed its name or the sources got the name wrong or it's a case of the Judean People's Front v. the People's Front of Judea.
As far as him ceasing to be a solicitor is concerned, I don't know why that was. The cited source in the article says he was "removed from the roll in 2002", but that doesn't necessarily mean he was "struck off" because if you voluntarily want to cease being a solicitor (because you're not practising and don't want to pay the SRA's extortionate annual fees) you apply to be "removed from the roll" - although if you are "struck off" (i.e. disciplinary remedy) you are also said to be "removed from the roll". I would have thought, however, that newspapers (i.e. source in article) however would be more likely to use it in the latter sense. That wouldn't be enough per BLP to say he was "struck off" however. I had a quick look round for other sources, and this Huff Post article does use the phrase "struck off" without further explanation. DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@DeCausa:Thank you. I've seen blogs that claim the Society of Muslim Lawyers was an AM organization, and I did read the Huff article a while back - unreliable. The Choudary article looks really good. I actually do appreciate all the time and effort that went into it by Parrot, and other editors. It deserves better than just a GA rating. Atsme ☯ talk 14:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anjem_Choudary/Archive_4&oldid=1136521340"