Talk:Abdullah el-Faisal/Archive 1

Neutrality and cleanup tags
This article is in serious need of NPOV-vetting and cleanup. The cleanup is simply so that it will adhere to Wikipedia's quality standards. The NPOV is so that the article doesn't appear to attack the man - while he is most contemptible, and quite guilty of hate crimes, there are a number of uncited assertions in the article and Wikipedia isn't the consul for the prosecution. I've cleaned it a bit, but someone who is more familiar with the matter really should check it out. Michaelbusch 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but now it sounds like a promo piece --Missoptics (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC) and we don't need to rebroadcast so much of his rants. The court testimony can and should be summarized.Missoptics (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is. Have you read the court documents?  This is a summary -- his rants are far longer.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Image
I removed Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg, because there is no source saying that he said the words ascribed to him in the image. Unless we come up with a reliable source that attributes to him those words, the image should not be in the article, nor on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a snapshot from the Undercover Mosque documentary. Unless you are accusing the BBC of deliberate mistranslation (which would not be accepted, as no one accused them as such), this is adequately sourced and should remain. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From the article, the source cited is google video.This is the link that has been provided. It leads to google video, not BBC. Find a link to BBC that says this.Bless sins (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * regardless of the source, my concern is more the neutrality of the presentation. we would only be using a non-free image in the first place if it wasn't replacable with a licensed image of el-Faisal (is it?), and if that was the case then a neutral depiction should be favoured over a loaded or controversial one. while many will rightly find some of his views unpalatable, it doesn't mean he shouldn't have a neutrally presented/written article. also, the material from the wordpress blog is also obviously not warranted.  ITAQALLAH   20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Itaqallah, I agree that the lead image would be better served by a neutral picture, with this picture under controversies. If anyone can supply a more neutral picture for the infobox, that would be great. However, this picture is extremely relevant to the controversies section, and should be placed there. -- Avi (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Avi, what about the (reliable) source for the image? I keep asking you this and you keep not answering this question. I know you said that BBC was a source, but you provided only a google video link on the article. Last time I checked, BBC is not google video. Bless sins (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So what is your accusation; that Google is misrepresenting the BBC? Seriously, Bless Sins, this is the BBC documentary hosted on Google video. No one is denying that, so please stop with the semantics and focus on real issues. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said it is a BBC documentary? You? I'm sorry but I don't consider you a reliable source. Nor do I consider google video, where anyone (including me and you) can instantly upload a video, to be a reliable source. I've asked you repeatedly to come up with a reliable source.
 * This is an article about a living person. Nothing is more serious on wikipedia than poorly sourced (and highly contentious) content on an article about a living person.Bless sins (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bless sins, the video is from the Channel 4 Dispatches programme (not sure where BBC has come into this). Other sources corroborate on some of the statements attributed to individuals in the documentary, including this quote. So there is little doubt that El-Faisel's words here have been attributed to him by reliable sources, some of which can be seen in the Undercover Mosque article. Despite it being a screenshot from a google video, I don't think anyone disputes that the video itself is an upload of the documentary. Hope that clears any confusion.  ITAQALLAH   20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Itaqallah, I confused the BBC with Channel 4. Please ascribe that to my being a hick American [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I believe my objection is more fundamental than you guys think. Google video is this site, right? According to the website, anyone (including me) can upload videos onto the site. Do you agree so far?
 * Ok then, if I can simply upload a video, I can also call it "Dispatches - Undercover mosque". Correct? Now how do we know that whoever uploaded that video and called it "Dispatches - Undercover mosque", uploaded the real video, and not a fake or modified one?
 * It appears that users are being offended at the fact I'm asking a question. This is completely unnecessary. I don't want to offend anyone, but only want them to answer my questions.Bless sins (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose one could cross-check with the other uploads provided by different users, on that website, as well as other websites.  ITAQALLAH   14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful. But this brings up a new question: If we have several unreliable sources, can they, together be a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Biography section
I re-wrote the biography section bringing reliable sources for whatever I could. The Controversy section needs serious work, including possible renaming. -- Avi (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference
Don't have time right now, but here is a good reference for anyone choosing to work on this article: Kenya Prepares to Deport Islamic Preacher Supertouch (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional reference from an African paper: Supertouch (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No Cleric in Islam
The WP:Lead is in error for calling this man a muslim Cleric. There is no clergy in Islam. This is a misunderstanding arising out of viewing Islam from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint where a clergy does exist. In Islam an Imam is a mere custodian of a mosque or a personed well-versed in religion. There is no priesthood. Therefore I am removing the term from WP:Lead. Rlinfinity (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC ref describes him as a cleric, so I've restored it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cut
I have cut the following passage as it is plainly wrong.


 * El-Faisal was the first person in more than a century to be convicted under Britain's 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.

Firstly, annual convictions for all offences under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 have been very high ever since the thing was passed, as it still contains the main offences of non-fatal violence. For statistics, for example, see report number 218 of the Law Commission which was published in 1992, and consultation paper number 122 (gives the number of cases under ss 18, 20 and 47 tried on indictment in 1988 as 17,167), both available as a pdfs from BAILII.

Secondly, if this claim is supossed, despite its literal meaning, to refer specifically to convictions under section 4 of that Act (the offence of soliciting to murder), there was a conviction in R v Shephard [1919] 2 KB 125, 14 Cr App R 26, CCA, and that is only 84 years, not more than a century. That case is mentioned in the 1999 edition of Archold. I don't have time to go on a trawl through statistics but the suggestion that there have been no convictions under section 4 for long periods of time is not believable.

A claim like this should be sourced from statistics from the Home Office, published in a command paper, or perhaps Hansard, not the Jamaica Observer or a book that is only marginally related to the subject, as they are not reliable sources. [I forgot to sign this post. James500 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)]

I have had a look at the official statistics for 1999 and 2000. When I looked at the "small print" at the end on page 256 of the PDF, I found that unfortunately they are not collecting separate statistics for section 4, but are instead grouping soliciting to murder together with conspiracy to murder (Criminal Law Act 1977, s 1), making threats to kill (section 16 of the 1861 Act) and certain cases of assisting an offender (Criminal Law Act 1967, s 4) under the misleading heading of "threat or conspiracy to murder", which makes it impossible to determine how many people were convicted under section 4 and might be the reason why these claims are being made. James500 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And see this conviction reported by the BBC on 21 December 2001. That is over a year earlier and the article does not suggest that this is an unusual occurrance. James500 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring for a moment the OR issue, I would suggest that something be considered along the lines of "El-Faisal was the first person in more than a century decades to be convicted under the applicable provision of Britain's 1861 Offences Against the Person Act."--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the page soliciting to murder, you will find four reported cases resulting in convictions decided between 1983 and 1996. Those are only the ones that got to the appellate courts. That said, the two of those reports that I have looked at refer to soliciting to murder, but don't explicitly refer to section 4. Do the sources that were formerly in the article offer an explanation of where they are supposedly getting this information from? Google Books will not let me look at the applicable page of the book cited. Unless there is a convincing explanation (i.e. they say which statistics or other source they have looked at, so that those can be checked) I would not regard them as reliable. James500 (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look if/when I find a moment. But in any event, I fear that this is likely bringing us into WP:OR territory.  In addition, RSs report information all the time, which is reflected on wp, without the RS in turn sourcing its information to the public in the article or book in which it presents it.  The nature of an RS is that we view it as trustworthy, and reflect the information that it reflects.  We don't in turn require it to "source" the information in the same way that wp does, through refs indicating from whence it was derived.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Abdullah el-Faisal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604155348/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1112524.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000 to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1112524.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Abdullah el-Faisal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070724131143/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2352/regina-v-el-faisal.htm to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2352/regina-v-el-faisal.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Abdullah el-Faisal. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115070914/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hz-OelrZoUyB7sGGB98ms6m32M_g to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hz-OelrZoUyB7sGGB98ms6m32M_g

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Abdullah el-Faisal. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828204008/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070606/news/news1.html to http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070606/news/news1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/race/story/0%2C11374%2C902009%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2007%2F05%2F25%2Fnpreach125.xml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224161143/http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070722/int/int3.html to http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070722/int/int3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109034152/http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060821/lead/lead1.html to http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060821/lead/lead1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109033345/http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/%2A%2Aauthentic-tawheed%2A%2A-sheikh-faisal-hafizahullah-will-live-36430/ to http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/%2A%2Aauthentic-tawheed%2A%2A-sheikh-faisal-hafizahullah-will-live-36430/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)