Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive 7

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

Anjem Choudary's comments on Charlie Hebdo massacre

Hi @DeCausa: I think your stated reason, notability, is not a sufficient one for reverting the sourced material. The notability guideline WP:GNG only concerns itself with whether the subject is notable enough to be a standalone article. No such notability guideline exists for article content. Content only has to be WP:V verifiable, not necessarily notable. As the views in the editorial by AC were by his own pen, clearly those views are verified and as such can be quoted into the article. AadaamS (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's stating the all-too-obvious that a biographical article should contain the noteworthy aspects (if using that term assists in not getting confused with GNG) of the subject's life and leave out the non-noteworthy. Otherwise it becomes just an archive of newspaper clippings, which this article could easily drift into. Are we going to mention everything he ever goes into print on even if everyone else ignores him? Let's see if this USA Today article attracts any coment before deciding whether it should be mentioned. DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The enduring notability of a piece of information or event should be considered to assess the merits of inclusion into this article as per WP:NOTNEWS. There are also other reasons as stated by the post above this one. Therefore I am inclined to agree with DeCausa. Mbcap (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It's called editorial common sense. Do his views on what's happened in France surprise anyone? No. Parrot of Doom 10:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not British

Sources in the article say that Choudary does not see himself as British. Saying he is British is as offensive to him as saying to Leelah Alcorn that she was a boy called Josh just because it said so on a piece of paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kebab removal service (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

See British nationality law. He is a British citizen, whether he wants to be or not, and it's important to mention that fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Choudary doesn't get to magically change where he was born and we don't write articles to conform to a subject's pet views. Your analogy is complete nonsense. Last time I checked, you didn't have to carry papers declaring your sexuality to travel to other countries. What passport did Choudary use to travel? --NeilN talk to me 21:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing Alcohol Beer section?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240691/Swilling-beer-smoking-dope--secret-past-hate-preacher-Anjem-Choudary.html Why was this removed from the page? He has denied it, but there is much evidence supporting it. Even himself asking for it to be removed from the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.197.240 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a junk source for BLPs. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the article before you comment. Parrot of Doom 13:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mail is a mid-market paper, not a tabloid. It's a perfectly good source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.79.181 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is; but there are tabloids, and there are tabloids. I don't know why certain editors (who probably mostly read the Guardian privately) continue to push this silly private "hate campaign" to ban the DM from Wikipedia! The present article e.g. mostly uses sources from BBC News (suspected centre-left and left-wing bias), the Guardian (a mixture of left and centre-left; self-styled (from an obscure source) centre-left) and the Independent (radical centre-left; self-styled "radical centrist"), which is not exactly balanced in terms of tone, is it?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
"It's a perfectly good source" - no, it isn't. It's a wholly unreliable rag well known for publishing lies. It should never be used here. Parrot of Doom 13:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism Act 2000

in this edit a user removed contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a comment, that - the charges are not contrary to anything, - however this detail is in the link provided and in the BBC link. I wold like to know why this was removed? I have posted to the users talkpage. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The charges are in line with the legislation - they are not contrary to the legislation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently it's common legal parlance to say "contrary to etc", so that mistake is on me. There's more detail in the reply on my talk page. Parrot of Doom 14:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ow ok, the Guardian link has Sue Hemming, head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) quoted,“Following an investigation by the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism command, we have today authorised charges against Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Mizanur Rahman.

“We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman for inviting support for Isil, a proscribed terrorist organisation, between 29 June 2014 and 6 March this year. Each man is charged with one offence contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's excessive detail to add the act that he is charged under and I feel it is actually important detail that should be replaced. contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 Govindaharihari (talk)

Well he's due to appear in court in a day or so, by which time much more detailed articles will be available. Would you be happy if we could wait for those articles, and add more detail then? Reporters will be present in court so we'll know exactly what he's supposed to have done. Parrot of Doom 15:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
He is in court today, I imagine the six o'clock news will be covering it. I don't see any reason not to include the detail now. Sure, it will need updating but I thought the wikipedia should report simple notable verified facts, what good reason is the not to state the act he is charged under is beyond me? See , from the Mail, The 48-year-old from Ilford, north east London, is being held in police custody and is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court at 2pm this afternoon. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Because we're an encyclopaedia, not a news website. There's no rush to add information like this. Parrot of Doom 16:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, he has had his bail revoked and is in custody untill the 28th of August, this and the the reasons for this need reporting here is his biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

The contents of the Criticism section should be incorporated in the existing sections, chiefly the Activism, views and marches section. Having a separate section for criticism that includes all the "negative" aspects of a person is both poor encyclopedic writing and problematic POV (WP:STRUCTURE). Bearing in mind that this is a Good Article and NPOV is part of the GA criteria, this is especially important. Given that the criticisms are about his activism, views and marches there is no reason not to include them in the section Activism, views and marches. Sections are supposed to be organized thematically and not by competing points of view. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, so will you be doing this then? Or will you just insert a tag and leave it for others to fix? Parrot of Doom 17:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Just rename it "Public reception" then. And page received GA in 2010 with a largely identical criticism section. Koncorde (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, renaming it "Public reception" is a good solution. This section, after all, is about how others have reacted to his activities and views. In this light, it makes sense to keep the section separate from the Activism, views and marches section. I have renamed Criticism Public reception. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

extremist in the opening description

I reverted a pending edit for reasons of requiring discussion. diff The edit added ..extremist.. to the opening description.. please discuss.I note that a internet search results in a lot of results for islamic extremist against his name, such as http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/islamic-extremist-anjem-choudary-charged-supporting-isis-article-1.2316327 - is extremist a more referenced and apt decriptor than activist? Govindaharihari (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Extremist is a very weighted, subjective and POV term. We can use extremist when using someones opinions, or public record such as when talking about Islam4UK, or in the Public Reception section - but not even Osama Bin Laden was called an "extremist" in the lede. When using such terms in a biography it always best to do so within context. In contrast he is clearly an activist and it's a neutral term of his activities. Koncorde (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Lead

I find this bias so incredibly mind-boggling. A person who has been on record supporting 9/11, being anti-free speech, death penalty to apostates and a worldwide caliphate ruled by sharia law, is described as a "social and political activist"? Why is Wikipedia bending over backwards to be both overtly politically correct by not stating his extremist tag (which has been stated by the media as well) while simultaneously labelling all anti-Islam speakers as "radical right-wing Islamophobes"? I mean, when sources cite Choudhary as an extremist (and his views are very consistent with one) why is Wikipedia not putting that in the lead? Am I missing something? Is there some sort of policy that mandates this kind of stuff? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ankitbhatt: Are there actually any wikipedia articles which describe their subject as a "radical right-wing Islamophobes"? If so please link me to them and I'll remove these claims immediately. If this isn't actually the case, please don't make faulty comparisons like this. Brustopher (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Extremist is a pejorative word. It's that simple. Parrot of Doom 22:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I made almost the exact point directly above this section only a week ago with a detailed (if brief) explanation. Koncorde (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

in jail for six months

User:Parrot of Doom removed mention of the fact that he is in jail for six months from the header with the comment , way way over the top .....

As I said His being in jail for six months is a major issue in his life and requires a mention in the header - Parrot doesn't like it and has deleted it - but it is imo worthy of a mention completely in the header - is it a secret to be hidden in some distant section? and why? Please explain Parrot? Govindaharihari (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • If you read the last similar issue - Parrot removed and didn't even want mention of his arrest and incarceration , reason being, newsy ... and now he is attempting to remove the facts of his 6 month incarceration from the header Govindaharihari (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


what is way way over the top of this comment in the header -

He is currently being held on remand at HM Prison Belmarsh charged with one offence under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for inviting support of a proscribed organisation, namely Islamic State, between June 2014 and March 2015.[1][2] and is to be tried in 2016.[3] Govindaharihari (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

this is what Parrot left - a real rubbish edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anjem_Choudary&diff=prev&oldid=678423493 Govindaharihari (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You should calm down. Your edit was over the top because that part of the article is a lead section, a summary of the article's content. Your edit added about as much information to the lede as currently exists in the article. Parrot of Doom 10:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Parrot. There is due weight in the article, and then there is how some of that should be summarised. Also, please understand that being on remand / denied bail is not the same legal status as "being in jail for 6 months" - that just happens to be when his trial date it set. If they were to set his trial date for tomorrow instead then would that be less significant? Koncorde (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
And today my point is made, bail granted. Koncorde (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Tabloid sources

I have taken out some quotations in the article that were cited to The Sun, and some other sources generally considered unsuitable for a BLP, replacing the content with a more general overview of the tabloids' opinions of Choudary from a book. I will happily admit up-front that I have been gradually working through BLPs attempting to remove citations to The Sun while preserving content wherever possible, and this one of the last and most difficult ones to crack. I realise I may be treading similar ground to a conversation we had in Nick Griffin's article some time ago, but hopefully we can come to a consensus that we should strive for higher-quality sourcing in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

16 December changes

I've reverted these (again) for a couple of reasons. The first is that the edits were made to the article's lede section. The information added there isn't in the article's main body and therefore has no place in the lede. I'm also uncomfortable with the addition of a citation that requires a login to read. Normally that wouldn't be an issue, but on a contentious article like this I think it's appropriate to ask someone to provide a copy of the material cited so that it can be checked to see that bias isn't being added to the article. And then there are the numerous formatting errors and the addition of lots of empty fields to the infobox, but they're not as important as the previous point. Parrot of Doom 14:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the content you reverted should not be included in the lead. No issue there. However, like you touched on, we don't dismiss references that require a login as per WP:PAYWALL. It would definitely be helpful if we could find a copy of the text elsewhere to verify. Meatsgains (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The first source is the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/british-prosecutors-charging-islamic-preacher-anjem-choudary-with-supporting-terrorism-1438784612) which says that Mr. Choudary supports the fundamentalist strain of Islamic teaching known as Salafism and believes that Muslims can only attain a state of purity by living in a nation that is based on religious law, known as Shariah.

the second one is the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/07/anjem-choudary-islamic-state-isis) which says that Although that was an event that radicalised a generation of Muslim activists, the former friend suggests it might have been Choudary's failure to land a job with a big legal firm upon graduating that set him off on his path to Salafi righteousness.

I've found another one in the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0805/Islamic-preacher-charged-with-promoting-ISIS-in-UK) which says Choudary follows a fundamentalist Muslim doctrine called Salafism and is an ardent believer in Sharia, Islamic religious law.

Whats the problem with these? It's obvious he is a Salafi.

The problem is I can't read the first source. The Guardian's article doesn't claim he follows Salafi, it claims something set him off in that direction. The third source seems fair enough although I note it seems to be something typed up in less than an hour, with information taken only from other news sources. It doesn't seem to contain anything that isn't reported elsewhere, which is always a bit suspect IMO. Parrot of Doom 15:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty lame. The evidence is clear. Just sounds as though you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.106.202.61 (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll ignore anything else you have to say. Parrot of Doom 16:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you put the actual quote in a google search: "Mr. Choudary supports the fundamentalist strain of Islamic teaching known as Salafism and believes that Muslims can only attain a state of purity by living in a nation that is based on religious law, known as Shariah." and it will come upPatapsco913 (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, why not use the infobox for Muslim scholar; he only held the office cited for a little over a year and all the inputs used for Muslim scholars are more relevant (creed, movement, influences...etc) than either the infobox for office holder or person. By using the box, we are not stating he is a scholar, we are just using the infobox.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, by using the box, we would be stating that. Mezigue (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"Why don't you put the actual quote in a google search:" - I just did and an article came up that says "Mr. Choudary supports the fundamentalist strain of Islamic teaching known as Salafism...". If we're to use that then I'd rather we use the quote to express what the Wall Street Journal says about his views. The alternative, to use the quote as a label, is not ideal.
So what are you saying...He founds a Salafi-Jihadi organization, the Wall Street Journal says he supports the Salafi strain of Islamic teaching, the Guardian says he set off on path to Salafi righteousness, the Christian Science Monitor states he "follows a fundamentalist Muslim doctrine called Salafism"...but he is not a Salafi. Under the standard you seem to want to apply, nobody could be designated as anything but for the immediate moment after they affirm it.Patapsco913 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying any of those things. I just don't like labelling people in biographies. If he calls himself salafi then by all means lets do the same, but otherwise - let other people label him. Parrot of Doom 23:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"Also, why not use the infobox for Muslim scholar" - calling him a scholar is pretty contentious when he's so widely criticised by other muslims. To my mind, a scholar is someone who's highly educated, a specialist. Is he? Parrot of Doom 18:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
We would not be calling him a scholar since it would not appear on the page. We would just be using the infobox to impart additional valuable information.Patapsco913 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If he isn't a scholar then a scholar infobox is inappropriate. I don't understand the love for infoboxes anyway, they're an excuse for people who can't write. Parrot of Doom 23:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a quote from a Cambridge University Press book: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=65EZBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=anjem+choudary+salafism&source=bl&ots=4tW36CCPwR&sig=LRLkH-qIY4wB7CQzyH_3MfS6C7o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-jLKY4uPJAhXCTBQKHYLyCCE4KBDoAQgtMAI#v=onepage&q=anjem%20choudary%20salafism&f=false

It says that Some radical Salafist thinkers, such as Anjem Choudary, the former deputy leader of Al-Muhajiroon So the FACT is that Anjem is a salafi. You have given no valid reason for rejecting this FACT other than the claim that they spent only an hour writing the article. Well that's not a good enough reason (in addition to not being true). I will add the salafi label if a better reason isn't given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.183 (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

If your not going to give a valid reason not to add reliable info then I will add it. Your claim that CSMonitor was typed out in less than an hour is garbage. Where is your proof? What about the other sources? What reason do you have to reject them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I will reinsert the fact that Anjem is a Salafi to the article. To date the following evidences have been given:

  1. Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/british-prosecutors-charging-islamic-preacher-anjem-choudary-with-supporting-terrorism-1438784612) which says that Mr. Choudary supports the fundamentalist strain of Islamic teaching known as Salafism and believes that Muslims can only attain a state of purity by living in a nation that is based on religious law, known as Shariah.
  3. The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0805/Islamic-preacher-charged-with-promoting-ISIS-in-UK) which says Choudary follows a fundamentalist Muslim doctrine called Salafism and is an ardent believer in Sharia, Islamic religious law.
  4. Eurojihad: Patterns of Islamist Radicalization and Terrorism in Europe, Cambridge University Press, p 35 (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=65EZBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=anjem+choudary+salafism&source=bl&ots=4tW36CCPwR&sig=LRLkH-qIY4wB7CQzyH_3MfS6C7o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-jLKY4uPJAhXCTBQKHYLyCCE4KBDoAQgtMAI#v=onepage&q=anjem%20choudary%20salafism&f=false) This books states that: Some radical Salafist thinkers, such as Anjem Choudary, the former deputy leader of Al-Muhajiroon...
  6. The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/07/anjem-choudary-islamic-state-isis) which says that Although that was an event that radicalised a generation of Muslim activists, the former friend suggests it might have been Choudary's failure to land a job with a big legal firm upon graduating that set him off on his path to Salafi righteousness.

The above evidences make it very clear that Anjem is a Salafi. The reasons for not including the label so far have been:

  1. "I can't read the first source" - this is an invalid reason as has already been explained above per WP:PAYWALL which states that "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access."
  2. "it seems to be something typed up in less than an hour" - This is an invalid reason. There is no proof that for this at all and even if it were true so what?. The Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source.
  3. "I just don't like labelling people in biographies." - This is invalid per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

No valid reason has been provided to remove the fact that Anjem is a Salafi. I will therefore restore this cited information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

More than a few facts have been presented, you just don't like them. You'd rather label someone and have done with it. I don't think labelling anyone is constructive unless it's factual. Is he male? Yes, he's a man. Does he follow Islam? Yes, he's a Muslim. Was he born in the UK? Yes, he's British. Is he a salafi? It depends on who you ask. So no, I don't think labelling him in this manner is at all appropriate, regardless of the dodgy sources you've presented, so I will yet again revert. If you have a problem with this then you're welcome to invite further comment. Parrot of Doom 13:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How exactly are the sources dodgy? I have presented 4 reliable sources that prove he is a Salafi as per WP:RS. You have provided no valid reason to remove these sources. Which reliable source states that he isn't a salafi? This is a clear example of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you the IP who above, said "That's pretty lame. The evidence is clear. Just sounds as though you don't like it"? Parrot of Doom 14:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to write somewhere in the article that Choudary has been described as salafi, then do so in that manner. Copy a quote, write words to the effect of "Choudary has been described as..." In other words, let other people label him while Wikipedia sticks to the unbiased facts. Parrot of Doom 14:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We go by facts - facts are determined by reliable sources such as Cambridge University Press, Guardian Newspaper, Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Journal. If all these sources have labelled him Salafi then he is a Salafi whether you like it or not. Read WP:RS. According to this all the sources above are reliable and not "dodgy" as you claim. Also, you haven't provided a single source to show that Anjem is not a Salafi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 14:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. You can either follow my advice or not, I'm done speaking to you. Parrot of Doom 20:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't provide any evidence that the sources I provided are "dodgy". You couldn't provided any evidence that anyone disagrees with the Salafi label. I have provided clear proof from both academic sources and mainstream media that he has been described as Salafi. As per WP:RS I will be reinstating the sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anjem Choudary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anjem Choudary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anjem Choudary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anjem Choudary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Legal prose

The hidden note, "SUMMONSED is the correct legal term. Do not change it to SUMMONED", added with this diff, is incorrect. "Summons" is, in legal use, a noun. The correct verb is "summoned"; although "summonsed" is used occasionally, it is considered archaic by most and incorrect by many. See for example A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2001) which calls it a "needless variant": "The horrible expression 'summonsed for an offence' (turning the noun 'summons' into a verb) has now become accepted usage, but 'summoned' remains not only allowable but preferable." Keri (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading the full entry of the dictionary you are quoting gives an entirely different context to the criticism of the phrase, cited only to the singular opinion of a US judge (however notable his opinion may be). The actual source quoted accurately describes the use of summonsed. Koncorde (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how you can misconstrue: "When used in sense (1), as by saying that a person is summonsed, the verb appears to be a NEEDLESS VARIANT of summon" [original emphasis]. Keri (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
LawProse, which also refers to Garner's, says: "The verb summon has always been much more common. Searches of Google Books, Lexis, and Westlaw show that 21st-century legal writers rarely use summonsed. For example, summoned is the only form used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions. And a Westlaw search of writings since 1999 returns only 804 hits for summonsed; in many of these, the term appeared in a quotation." Keri (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I am reading the full entry from the beginning which describes "summonsed" as the correct past tense if "summons". Law Prose meanwhile meanwhile makes the exact same inference from the exact same source as you are (quoting almost verbatim). Also British Law, and British practice, is not the same as US Law, practice and/or the opinion of US Judges. Koncorde (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
(There's no such thing as "British" law - it is either English law, Northern Ireland law or Scots law.) The correct usage in the English language is: "The judge issued a summons and summoned the miscreant to court." The use of the "needless variant" 'summonsed' is largely perpetuated by lazy provincial reporting and people who think it sounds more important. The fact that its use in this article had to carry a hidden instruction not to alter it might indicate that the more common usage is "summoned". Keri (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
And LawProse clearly states: "Although summonsed isn't downright wrong, in modern legal usage it's much preferable to say that someone was summoned to appear in court...Let's summon up the courage to call summons, as a verb, a needless variant of summon." Keri (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
So it's not wrong then. Just someone in a book doesn't like it? Potato, tomato? Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
As stated at the outset, "The correct verb is "summoned"; although "summonsed" is used occasionally, it is considered archaic by most and incorrect by many." As stated above, "'summoned' remains not only allowable but preferable." And "21st-century legal writers rarely use summonsed"..."it's much preferable to say that someone was summoned." You say, "Just someone in a book doesn't like it?" Well, to be blunt chum, I prefer the opinion of a "leading authority on good legal writing" over that of someone who uses the phrase "British Law". Suck it up, and move on. Keri (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
So, you're wrong, right? I mean you're using a US Book about US usage, by a writer whose entire lead is about the US basis for the term, then getting hung up because is said "British" for the sake of shorthand? Then you get snarky, condescending and dismissive with me? Nice. Koncorde (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anjem Choudary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anjem Choudary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism

Lets be clear, he was not charged or prosecuted for terrorism, he was charged and prosecuted for "inviting support for a proscribed organisation".Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anjem Choudary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Legal cheek claim

Despite Legal Cheek being relatively well known and established, it is unclear from the provided source who is making the claim, but it is clear that it is being couched as 'a source claimed'. The source is also unclear as to the time frame referred to, both referring to the 2002 removal from the rolls, and also the 'never worked' aspect. Regarding the subject matter and it's relevance to the article, I am unclear as to what it is saying, or intending to say but it seems largely irrelevant. For inclusion would like to see a better source, more clarity, and actual reason for inclusion as currently it seems somewhat odd for the 'spokesman' to anonymously comment about another person in this way. Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anjem_Choudary/Archive_7&oldid=1206385940"