Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Muslim patrols in east London
The following text, written by myself and another editor, has been removed:
- In 2013, Choudary praised as "commendable" the actions of the convicted members of a Muslim patrol who had harassed and threatened members of the British public for failing to conform to Sharia law. Convicted east London patrol members Jordan Horner and Ricardo MacFarlane, both regular attendees at Choudary's talks, had targeted, amongst others, couples who were holding hands, people drinking in the street and people they perceived to be homosexual.[Ref 1] In February 2014 Homer, McFarlane and one other were given Antisocial Behavioural Orders barring them from from the activities that led to their conviction and from associating with Choudary.[Ref 2]
- Ref 1: David Churchill (9 December 2013). "Anjem Choudary: Muslim vigilantes who terrorised non-believers 'deserve pat on back'". London Evening Standard. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
- Ref 2: Jeory, Ted (February 14, 2014). "Judge BANS Muslim Patrol vigilantes from promoting SHARIA LAW in Britain". Express. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
The only reason given for this removal is "we don't need to mention every thing he says, this conviction has nothing to do with Choudary". According to reliable sources (see above) Choudary knew both convicted persons, and himself said that they both had attended several of his "lectures" (see London Evening Standard); furthermore they have been given ASBOs banning them from associating with Choudary (why should this be done if not because they had associated with him?). So this is not merely about Choudary commenting on an event which has "nothing to do" with him; rather, he has gone out of his way to claim a connection, and to support an activity which - I happen to know - is still going on whether reported by the media or not.
I know this sounds strong, but - not to put a fine point on it - to try to deny space to what *has* been reported seems to me to breach WP:CENSOR. By all means, suggest how the information might be balanced according to reliable sources. Any thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't appeal to WP:CENSOR, the issue over this sort of thing is WP:UNDUE and I dithered until I found the ASBOs. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- In case the Express is considered an insufficiently reliable source re the ASBOs, there's also this from the International Business Times, this from The Guardian, and this from the Huffington Post. Alfietucker (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that we already know what Choudary believes. Including comments on ASBOs given to petty criminals adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the man. The information is relevant to Muslim Patrol incident, but not here. Parrot of Doom 18:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The point is, the issuing of ASBOs forbidding these "petty criminals" from consorting with Choudary is surely evidence confirming that the police accept that there is a link between their activity and Choudary. Furthermore, it is evidence that Choudary is not merely preaching for the implementation of Sharia law, but that he is inspiring young Muslims to literally take the law into their own hands (those convicted young Muslims having, as he admits, regularly attended his "lectures"). Is that practical outcome made clear anywhere else in the article? Alfietucker (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's WP:OR. None of the sources you cite say any of that, so you certainly can't use them to say that in the article. Furthermore if the article were to imply that without expressly saying it, that would not be WP:NPOV. Unless there's a source that claims he incited them, I think it's WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not making this up - try this. Alfietucker (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- And there's ABC News, which explicitly writes: "Several of Choudary’s followers take part in so-called “Sharia Patrols” in the streets of London. YouTube videos of these patrols surfaced online and immediately caused public outcry. They show young Muslims speaking out to enforce Sharia law on the streets — harassing a man they believe to be gay, ordering a man to stop drinking and telling a young woman she is dressed immodestly." Alfietucker (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's WP:OR. None of the sources you cite say any of that, so you certainly can't use them to say that in the article. Furthermore if the article were to imply that without expressly saying it, that would not be WP:NPOV. Unless there's a source that claims he incited them, I think it's WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The point is, the issuing of ASBOs forbidding these "petty criminals" from consorting with Choudary is surely evidence confirming that the police accept that there is a link between their activity and Choudary. Furthermore, it is evidence that Choudary is not merely preaching for the implementation of Sharia law, but that he is inspiring young Muslims to literally take the law into their own hands (those convicted young Muslims having, as he admits, regularly attended his "lectures"). Is that practical outcome made clear anywhere else in the article? Alfietucker (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I revisited the material re the patrols, and the more I looked at various published sources the more Choudary appears to be involved in this. I wrote what I believed to be a section thoroughly supported by reliable sources. Still, DeCausa has reverted this. Could DeCausa explain why it seems to be ok to say that Choudary wants Sharia law to be imposed/implemented in the UK, but not how attempts are being made to do this in practice? Alfietucker (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because none of your sources say he's organising them. Simples. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't follow: an orchestra's chief conductor rarely organises foreign tours himself, but he is nonetheless seen as the orchestra's guide and moulding presence. Any other reason we shouldn't have this section, given that the patrols are clearly related to Choudary? Alfietucker (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- No that's plenty good enough reason. What you've attempted is called synthesis and is forbidden in Wikipedia, and since it's a BLP if you do it again it becoms a serious isue. Get a source that says Choudary is the patrols "conductor" rather than making up your own inferences. DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kindly point to where I have committed synthesis. Alfietucker (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- p.s. In case you haven't time to go through the video documentaries I've given as citations, here are some relevant timings: 1) From ABC News, from 6:34: "Several in his [Choudary’s] network have been imprisoned for their activities on so-called 'Sharia patrols'." 2) From Vice News, from 7:10: "The Muslim patrols are run by a guy called Abdul Mahid, a member of Anjem Choudary’s entourage." and from 14:08: "Since the first time we’d gone out with Abdul [Mahid] and his patrol in east London, the guys responsible for the Muslim patrol viral videos had been arrested and imprisoned for harassment and assault. It turns out the pair who’d been arrested had been members of Anjem Choudary’s group whom we had met in the course of making this film." As I've said before, the connection has already been made. Alfietucker (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- All any of these sources are saying is that he knows those involved in the patrols or they are his supporters. It doesn't justify adding a whole section into his biography about the patrols and implying he's responsible for them. You are drawing a conclusion from his "connection". Your point is is this is how he's trying to enforce Sharia in the UK. Fine get a source that says that - none of your sources do. DeCausa (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- DeCausa, you are now claiming I've made an inference I haven't made: i.e. "this is how he's trying to enforce Sharia in the UK". All I have pointed out is that a connection has been made between Choudary and these activities in the media, and he has certainly claimed both knowledge of the men convicted and has condoned their actions. And yes, the article already extensively cites him as wanting sharia law to be implemented throughout the UK.
- All any of these sources are saying is that he knows those involved in the patrols or they are his supporters. It doesn't justify adding a whole section into his biography about the patrols and implying he's responsible for them. You are drawing a conclusion from his "connection". Your point is is this is how he's trying to enforce Sharia in the UK. Fine get a source that says that - none of your sources do. DeCausa (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- No that's plenty good enough reason. What you've attempted is called synthesis and is forbidden in Wikipedia, and since it's a BLP if you do it again it becoms a serious isue. Get a source that says Choudary is the patrols "conductor" rather than making up your own inferences. DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't follow: an orchestra's chief conductor rarely organises foreign tours himself, but he is nonetheless seen as the orchestra's guide and moulding presence. Any other reason we shouldn't have this section, given that the patrols are clearly related to Choudary? Alfietucker (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you insist, I will see if I can find a reliable source that explicitly suggests he has inspired those patrols - but I would also like to hear what other editors have to say. The material I added, I believe, does not breach WP:SYNTH, and is highly pertinent as it is since Choudary has - at the very least - allowed himself to be involved with the patrol affair (have you seen the documentaries?). Alfietucker (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The London Evening Standard article linked at the top makes it clear he generally approves of Horner and MacFarlane's activities - not responsible perhaps but obviously encouraging them. The fact that a court has barred these men from contact with him isn't irrelevant to his article. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- And justifying a whole new section? (Which is what was added):
- Sharia patrols
- Main article: Sharia patrols (London)
- Several young Muslim men, identified as part of a network of followers of Anjem Choudary,[71][72] have patrolled streets in East London since at least early 2013. Early that year, videos of their activities, filmed by members of the patrol, were uploaded on Youtube:[73] these showed hooded members of the patrol confronting passers-by and demanding that they conform to Sharia law, claiming "this is a Muslim area".[74] They targeted prostitutes, people drinking alcohol, couples who were holding hands, women whom they considered to be dressed immodestly, and harassed others whom they perceived as being gay.[75][76][77] Five men were arrested in January 2013 as part of an investigation into the gang,[78][79] and three were given jail sentences on 6 December 2013.[80]
- Choudary himself has condoned the Sharia patrols, spoken in public before several supporters known to take part in these patrols,[71][72] and has praised as "commendable" the actions of the convicted members of the Sharia patrol.[77] In February 2014 the three convicted sharia patrollers, Jordan Homer, Ricardo McFarlane and Royal Barnes, were given Anti-social behaviour orders barring them from from the activities that led to their conviction and from associating with Choudary.[81][82][83]
- Sharia patrols
- I wouldn't have a problem with "Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London" or something similar (as that is all the sources say) but anything more is WP:UNDUE and any attempt to hint that he is responsible is a WP:NPOV failing, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The sources say rather more than simply (to quote your paraphrase) "Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London"; 1) they identify the patrols as constituted and led by his followers or "network" (ABC's description); 2) ASBOs have been issued to the three Sharia patrollers who were convicted for harassing and even being violent with members of the public, forbidding them to have any contact with Choudary.Alfietucker (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- They would be for the article about the patols, not a bio about Choudary. DeCausa (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: "They would be for the article about the patols, not a bio about Choudary." Sorry - it's not at all clear what you mean by this answer, or indeed what it is intended to be answering. Can you try to be a bit clearer, please. Alfietucker (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The material in your last post is relevant for the article on the Patrols, not this article. DeCausa (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clarification. I also take it from this that you are tacitly accepting that I have not been, or at least you are no longer accusing me of being, guilty of WP:SYNTH; you are objecting simply on the grounds of relevance to this article, which you describe as a "bio". But biographies are not, as you imply, merely a summary of what the subject said and what they did - not even on Wikipedia. Check, for instance, Malcolm X (a featured article of a contentious character, for which I can't claim any involvement, so a good example): it is not just a recounting of his actions and sayings, but includes sections such as "Impact on Nation membership", amorphous though the evidence is that that topic is a direct result of anything Malcolm X did. The reason why any decent biography is written is because the subject is rather more than who they literally are: it is also about the impact they have had on the people around them, the difference they have made or are credited for having made. The fact that two RS documentaries are placing Choudary centre stage regarding the patrols is surely worthy of note here. Alfietucker (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is going round in circles per WP:IDHT. You were engaging in WP:SYNTH by claiming a role for Choudary in the patrols that none of the sources asserted. You cobbled together sources that reported links with the individuals concerned and extrapolated from that an alleged "bigger picture". You cannot do that expressly - nor impliedly by inserting a huge chunk of text in the article about the patrols solely on the basis he condoneď them. I have nothing further to say other than you have no consensus to add that ridiculous chunk of text. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- DeCausa, with the best will in the world I'm beginning to think you are not very good at reading carefully - certainly on the basis of what you have been writing here. Nothing I have proposed goes beyond any of the sources I have cited (and have even taken the trouble of indicating the relevant part of each video documentary cited). Yet you persist on claiming, notwithstanding my reply here, that Choudary has done no more than condoned the patrols. And now you refer to WP:IDHT which reads "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." With due respect, I don't think just two people - i.e. you and ParrotofDoom - can be said to represent "the consensus of the community". And where does that leave Dougweller's point about the ASBOs?
- That said, I did notice you conceded this to Doug: "I wouldn't have a problem with 'Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London' or something similar". How about, as a gesture that I'm not in the business of WP:IDHT, I just go ahead and implement this suggestion of yours?Alfietucker (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is going round in circles per WP:IDHT. You were engaging in WP:SYNTH by claiming a role for Choudary in the patrols that none of the sources asserted. You cobbled together sources that reported links with the individuals concerned and extrapolated from that an alleged "bigger picture". You cannot do that expressly - nor impliedly by inserting a huge chunk of text in the article about the patrols solely on the basis he condoneď them. I have nothing further to say other than you have no consensus to add that ridiculous chunk of text. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clarification. I also take it from this that you are tacitly accepting that I have not been, or at least you are no longer accusing me of being, guilty of WP:SYNTH; you are objecting simply on the grounds of relevance to this article, which you describe as a "bio". But biographies are not, as you imply, merely a summary of what the subject said and what they did - not even on Wikipedia. Check, for instance, Malcolm X (a featured article of a contentious character, for which I can't claim any involvement, so a good example): it is not just a recounting of his actions and sayings, but includes sections such as "Impact on Nation membership", amorphous though the evidence is that that topic is a direct result of anything Malcolm X did. The reason why any decent biography is written is because the subject is rather more than who they literally are: it is also about the impact they have had on the people around them, the difference they have made or are credited for having made. The fact that two RS documentaries are placing Choudary centre stage regarding the patrols is surely worthy of note here. Alfietucker (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The material in your last post is relevant for the article on the Patrols, not this article. DeCausa (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: "They would be for the article about the patols, not a bio about Choudary." Sorry - it's not at all clear what you mean by this answer, or indeed what it is intended to be answering. Can you try to be a bit clearer, please. Alfietucker (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- They would be for the article about the patols, not a bio about Choudary. DeCausa (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The sources say rather more than simply (to quote your paraphrase) "Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London"; 1) they identify the patrols as constituted and led by his followers or "network" (ABC's description); 2) ASBOs have been issued to the three Sharia patrollers who were convicted for harassing and even being violent with members of the public, forbidding them to have any contact with Choudary.Alfietucker (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have a problem with "Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London" or something similar (as that is all the sources say) but anything more is WP:UNDUE and any attempt to hint that he is responsible is a WP:NPOV failing, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, but others would need to comment. On consensus, it's not a question of me and PoD representing the "consensus of the community". It's represented by the current version of the article. If you want to change the article you need to show there is consensus supporting your change. DeCausa (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Judging from the volume of traffic we've had for this discussion, we might wait forever for further comment. I'll give it another 24 hours. Alfietucker (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore, here is what Choudary had to say more recently when directly asked about the purpose of the on-going patrols in the Vice News documentary published this April (starting from 16:54): "As we look within society today we find that some of the biggest issues are things like alcohol, drugs and prostitution. So basically the youth who are affiliated with us have been going out and really addressing these issues; we have a right to come out and address this – maybe the style needs to be different, but nevertheless I think these guys are doing this service to society." Alfietucker (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead since there's been no further response, and added some text about the sharia patrols, regarding Choudary condoning them; also that all those arrested were identified as being among his network of followers, and Choudary interviewed after their conviction said the patrols are by "youth who are affiliated with us" who are "doing this service to society". It's all fully backed up by citations. Alfietucker (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Young radicalised Muslim patrols are enforcing Shariah law in the capital" - from your Vice article. What a load of rubbish - only the authorities have power to enforce the law, not a bunch of young bored idiots. Not even The Guardian's article on their sentencing mentions Choudary - you'd have thought that any half decent journalist would have made such a connection if it existed. You've added a large paragraph which, for the most part, has nothing to do with Choudary or his supposed "network of followers". If you continue down this road, the natural conclusion will be that every time a muslim does something slightly objectionable, and every time Choudary is asked about it, you'll want to add a paragraph to support it. That's known as trivia, and that's why I am removing this section. If Choudary goes out on a "muslim patrol" then fine, put it here. Until then, don't. Parrot of Doom 09:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Parrot of Doom: This is, I'm afraid, disingenuous of you. Of course those young patrollers don't have any legal authority to "impose" or "enforce Shariah law in the capital": but even if one assumes that the text introducing the video (the documentary here is the essence of this link) is a fair reflection of its substance, rather than a hastily written precis by a sub-editor, a) that is not to deny that the convicted patrollers were attempting precisely to "enforce Shariah law in the capital"; b) your hair-splitting on that point does not demolish the substance set out both in the Vice News documentary and the ABC documentary, on neither of which I note you have said anything they say either regarding Choudary's connection, or the fact he was explicitly interviewed about the patrols in the Vice News doc. I give you (and any other editors who care to comment) 24 hours to explain why two independent documentaries (as opposed to any introductory text) should be discounted as evidence, such as I have carefully laid out above. Alfietucker (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- You could give me 24 years. Until you demonstrate why these so-called "sharia patrols" are relevant to this article, I will remove any such additions. They are trivial nonsense. Parrot of Doom 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- But I have demonstrated the relevance, which has been recognised by at least one editor, Dougweller: that makes two out of the four involved in this discussion - or should I say three out of four? Even DeCausa has conceded given the citations "I wouldn't have a problem with 'Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London' or something similar". All except you have had the courtesy to address the issues raised. For you to not even explain how the evidence of the actual documentaries can be dismissed and claim that the matter is "trivial nonsense" suggests a wilful blindness. How do you explain why exactly the three convicted patrollers have been served - in an unprecedented move - with ASBOs forbidding them from making contact with Choudary? Alfietucker (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Since you pinged me, I have to say I am disappointed that you took my "I wouldn't have a problem with 'Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London' or something similar' " as agreement to the overblown section you added. I agree with PoD's removal. You don't seem to get that you can't extrapolate significance for this incident for Choudary's bio unless reliable sources attribute the incident to him. They don't and reading significance into it because they are his supporters or he thinks they are a good idea etc results in SYNTH, OR etc. I'm really tired of explaining this to you. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @DeCausa, I apologise if I've given the impression that I was claiming you condoned the latest version I submitted which was removed by PoD. I admit, I took the liberty not simply because of what you replied then but because on revisiting the documentaries I felt the evidence (including Choudary's own statements) was strong enough. (You may also note that my latest submission - just four sentences, the third leading into a two-sentence quotation from Choudary - was half the length of my previous submission.) But all I meant by referring to you and Doug in replying to PoD is that you have both at least conceded that *something* about this legitimately belongs in this article, and you both had at least taken some trouble to look at the evidence, whereas PoD has - it seems to me - latched conveniently on the merest straw to preclude actually considering the substance of the citations I've given. Alfietucker (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why were you adding an edit to the article that you knew didn't have consensus support from an ongoing talk page discussion? Don't do that. Just to be clear, and so there is no misunderstanding, if you attempt to add anything again on this topic which does not have consensus support you would be edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but I don't need to be lectured about edit warring, least of all by someone who cannot present the policy correctly, or at least seems unaware of the difference between reverting and adding "anything...which does not have consensus". If we truly followed the latter policy we'd never get any articles written, let alone improved. Alfietucker (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Put it in again without consensus support and you'll end up at WP:AN3. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- And exactly for whose benefit are you writing this? Read my previous message. I'm done arguing with you. Alfietucker (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Put it in again without consensus support and you'll end up at WP:AN3. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but I don't need to be lectured about edit warring, least of all by someone who cannot present the policy correctly, or at least seems unaware of the difference between reverting and adding "anything...which does not have consensus". If we truly followed the latter policy we'd never get any articles written, let alone improved. Alfietucker (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why were you adding an edit to the article that you knew didn't have consensus support from an ongoing talk page discussion? Don't do that. Just to be clear, and so there is no misunderstanding, if you attempt to add anything again on this topic which does not have consensus support you would be edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @DeCausa, I apologise if I've given the impression that I was claiming you condoned the latest version I submitted which was removed by PoD. I admit, I took the liberty not simply because of what you replied then but because on revisiting the documentaries I felt the evidence (including Choudary's own statements) was strong enough. (You may also note that my latest submission - just four sentences, the third leading into a two-sentence quotation from Choudary - was half the length of my previous submission.) But all I meant by referring to you and Doug in replying to PoD is that you have both at least conceded that *something* about this legitimately belongs in this article, and you both had at least taken some trouble to look at the evidence, whereas PoD has - it seems to me - latched conveniently on the merest straw to preclude actually considering the substance of the citations I've given. Alfietucker (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Since you pinged me, I have to say I am disappointed that you took my "I wouldn't have a problem with 'Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London' or something similar' " as agreement to the overblown section you added. I agree with PoD's removal. You don't seem to get that you can't extrapolate significance for this incident for Choudary's bio unless reliable sources attribute the incident to him. They don't and reading significance into it because they are his supporters or he thinks they are a good idea etc results in SYNTH, OR etc. I'm really tired of explaining this to you. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- But I have demonstrated the relevance, which has been recognised by at least one editor, Dougweller: that makes two out of the four involved in this discussion - or should I say three out of four? Even DeCausa has conceded given the citations "I wouldn't have a problem with 'Choudary has condoned Sharia patrols in London' or something similar". All except you have had the courtesy to address the issues raised. For you to not even explain how the evidence of the actual documentaries can be dismissed and claim that the matter is "trivial nonsense" suggests a wilful blindness. How do you explain why exactly the three convicted patrollers have been served - in an unprecedented move - with ASBOs forbidding them from making contact with Choudary? Alfietucker (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- You could give me 24 years. Until you demonstrate why these so-called "sharia patrols" are relevant to this article, I will remove any such additions. They are trivial nonsense. Parrot of Doom 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Parrot of Doom: This is, I'm afraid, disingenuous of you. Of course those young patrollers don't have any legal authority to "impose" or "enforce Shariah law in the capital": but even if one assumes that the text introducing the video (the documentary here is the essence of this link) is a fair reflection of its substance, rather than a hastily written precis by a sub-editor, a) that is not to deny that the convicted patrollers were attempting precisely to "enforce Shariah law in the capital"; b) your hair-splitting on that point does not demolish the substance set out both in the Vice News documentary and the ABC documentary, on neither of which I note you have said anything they say either regarding Choudary's connection, or the fact he was explicitly interviewed about the patrols in the Vice News doc. I give you (and any other editors who care to comment) 24 hours to explain why two independent documentaries (as opposed to any introductory text) should be discounted as evidence, such as I have carefully laid out above. Alfietucker (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've been watching this for the last few days. So my two penneth worth:
- 1. It reads like an attempt to associate the acts of the group with Choudary.
- 2. The convictions of the members of the group are not identified as actually necessarily being part of their relationship with Choudary.
- 3. Choudary's opinions on the group is largely supportive.
- As such, at the most the article would warrant a "When asked for his opinion on sharia patrols Choudary said..." type of comment. Koncorde (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- On a related note, the Sharia Patrols article has the same issues of synthesis as it shares in the opening line the same references to link Choudary as Alfie is also editing that to tie the two together. Koncorde (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Koncorde, I will have another look at the Sharia patrols article, which I haven't looked at within the past couple of days to see where you might think there might be synthesis and deal with this if appropriate - thought it's late now (here in the UK) so I'll leave this till tomorrow. But just to say for now it is not "an attempt to associate the acts of the group with Choudary" - simply a reflection of what is shown in the ABC and Vice News documentaries. Please take the time to at least look at what I have referenced from these, but better still watch them entire: they're each about half an hour long: I would be more inclined to take seriously arguments from editors who evidently have actually watched these, rather than jumping to conclusions from brief precis, etc. And the idea that the patrollers have been convicted for "their relationship with Choudary" (if I understand your point 2 correctly) is a red herring: they have been convicted for affray and threatening behaviour. The point is that they have since been identified (by those documentaries) as being closely associated/followers of Choudary, as he himself has admitted (see Evening Standard and Vice News (from 16:54) citations). Anyway, hope to come back to this with a clear head tomorrow. Alfietucker (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- On a related note, the Sharia Patrols article has the same issues of synthesis as it shares in the opening line the same references to link Choudary as Alfie is also editing that to tie the two together. Koncorde (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)