Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive 1

Revert War
The idea that he may have dabbled in alcohol and drugs while at university has been reverted at least 3 times now, even though it's been reliably sourced. Is there a need to semi-protect the page?--MartinUK (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say so. - Quite98 (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Undo any mass content deletion of this by an IP address as Vandalism. The person responsible for the removal of this entire section is one and the same. After he has been warned three times, he switches IP's and starts to vandalize this article from another one. Therefore, i would suggest that even a single act of this section's deletion by an IP should result in a block of the address, especially since we can say with the utmost certainty that all these IP's are operated by the same person. Moreover, in the event of a similar act by another IP, extend the block of the IP originally blocked. That should teach him a lesson. Joyson Noel (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The entire section about his personal life is still being removed occasionally by IP editors, I've just restored it again. While I appreciate that a lot of it is sourced to the more tabloid end of the UK newspaper market and that he's kind of an easy target hate figure for those papers (who relish painting him as a hypocrite as well as a fanatic), nonetheless they broadly count as reliable sources for WP purposes. In addition i) most of the content is in principle surely fairly uncontroversial (eg where he went to college, the fact that he is/was married etc) and ii) that part which is possibly more controversial (eg what he is accused of getting up to at University) is clearly written up as "reported", and his denials are also quoted. I neither know nor care whether those allegations are true or not, and of course that doesn't matter - if something has been reported in a reliable source, generally speaking WP can refer to it. It is not up to editors here to second-guess the reliability of the original reporting. The level of detail has been cut back from a previous version, so there shouldn't be any WP:UNDUE issues. Perhaps his more excitable supporters should simply view having the content here as highlighting yet another example of the iniquities perpetrated by the UK tabloid press - ie that it says more about them than it does about him. --Nickhh (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is still being reverted regularly. It's all sourced and it includes a denial from the man himself, and since the Daily Mail are not pro-LSD or pro-casual-sex there is no conflict of interest in their reporting, so I think we need to protect the page.--MartinUK (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that this is a WP:BLP page, there are of course some legitimate concerns here, as I noted above (since presumably the point of these tabloid articles is to paint Choudary as a hypocrite of some sort). That was why I rewrote it and cut it back some time ago. But if this person has concerns about the material they should of course raise them here, or on the BLP noticeboard rather than simply reverting a pretty big section, most of which is quite bland and straightforward, en masse again and again. I think one IP address was blocked for a while, this one seems to be a slightly different one, but is quite likely the same individual. Let's see what happens in the next few days and then maybe look for a wider block or page protection. --Nickhh (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The vandalism appears to have increased in frequency, so I requested semi-protection. Page is semi-protected for two weeks. Quite98 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, much of this section (including at least one source) has been lost. CAn somebody restore it please?--MartinUK (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the latest removal means subsequent sentences no longer make sense. Choudry gets BLP protection like anyone else, but it is undeniably the case that the Mail and Standard reported these things, and that he responded to the allegations. There's a lengthy piece in the Independent today in which he features - I'll see if I can work something in from that later on today, while also bringing back the Mail stuff. --Nickhh (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that the concensus to keep the information in the article is here and that there is no justification for the neutrality tag. The 2 vocal editors and a number of IP editors and vandals are the only contributors to this article who seem to have any grief.  Their complaints have been answered time and time again, wikipedia considers the Sun a valid source and personal opinions otherwise don't hold much weight.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Terrorist threats"
What exactly is a "terrorist threat" and how does this not violate WP:WTA? KazakhPol 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the word threat is enough, it explains itself, we don't need to feel insecure about him being a terrorist supporter, hence put the word in as many times as possible. It also doesn't make much sense in english. Aaliyah Stevens 12:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions
Does anyone have any idea on how to contact this guy? I have some questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRogers7 (talk • contribs)
 * What kind of questions? &mdash; EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't have rational debates with these people. They believe that everything they do is right and everything we do is wrong. Anyone with views similar to his is completely incompatible with Britain, or most of the West --MartinUK (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My edit...
A paragraph was duplicated, I removed one copy of it. Scholarcs 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Islam is not a religion of peace" quote was made more revolting than it already was. I quoted the article correctly. Though I have to say that it is odd that for as prominent a hate preacher as Anjem, this particular quote was only really picked up by the right-of-center press - nothing from CNN, BBC, FOX, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamharush (talk • contribs) 07:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

POV check tag
I see that an anon-IP editor has placed a POV check tag on the article, but I don't see the required reasoning on this talk page. I'll leave it for a few days to see if that editor returns with a comment, if not then I believe the tag should be removed. Quite98 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it's been over a week, removing the tag. Quite98 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This article
I hope nobody minds, but I'm tidying this one up. I also worked on Nick Griffin, which was in a similar state. This chap seems to be just as entrenched, and is likely to become more notable in future. Parrot of Doom 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's always been a bit of a scrappy mess, unsurprisingly perhaps. I've never managed to do more than tinker with it occasionally - thanks for having a go at it. One thing I would say is that the tabloid stuff about his student days, which you moved down, probably isn't best placed as a "Criticism" section. First I never think that kind of heading helps much, and secondly it's not really criticism as such, more kind of interesting background. Equally there's no need to highlight it too much by having it right at the top of the article, as it used to be, so I'm not sure what the best way to deal with it is. --Nickhh (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Its just a placeholder right now tbh, until I think of a better way to include it in the article body. Griffin's article was fairly easy to sort out, as there are several books on the man, but this I feel will be slightly more difficult.  I have a feeling that he may be in the news a fair bit from now on. Parrot of Doom 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Right well I've knocked it together a bit, so it reads reasonably ok now. I'm struggling to find positive comment about the man.  Does anyone know of any sources that could be used to give the article a little more balance? Parrot of Doom 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles don't have to be balanced they just shouldn't be Biased. Per WP:UNDUE the article should reflect each viewpoint in proportion to it's promenince.  Articles shouldn't give minority viewpoints or fringe viewpoints (e.g. Anjem Choudary is a hero) equal weight as majority viewpoints.  Not to make an unfair comparison but just for clarification it wouldn't be very encyclopedic to give Hitler's article and equally large section on his work as an artist and his contribution to the Holocaust.Nefariousski (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What I was asking for was any reliable sources that mention positive things about him. I don't think its fair to assume from my comment that I wanted 50% of criticism, and 50% of praise.  I've written enough biogs to know the difference. Parrot of Doom 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam for UK or Islam for the UK
Question : is the group Anjem Choudary the leader of called Islam for UK or is it called Islam for the UK ? if you visit the website it would appear to be the latter.

Also the info box lists it as a Political party - I can find no ref that it is ?

Codf1977 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Islam4UK redirects here. The group calls itself "Islam for the UK" so I would recommend a move, and leaving it for a few days to see what others think.  Its an organisation not a party, so I've hidden that part of the article. Parrot of Doom 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No a Political Party has a special legal definition Codf1977 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Muslikm view (I think)
Have tired to find some muslim views, or at least people talking about it. We have this [ which claims its between 2 and 20 prcent may support his views. Sadley Nothing on the MCB website, but we have this (not sure how RS it is though) []. I'll see if I can find more latter.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Also this, but its not very forthright [].Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice things
He has said that he intends the Wootton Basset stunt (yes he has called it that) will be peacefull [] and that it will not clash with returning Britsh dead. to counter this though he thinks Christmass is evil []. This is very hard. I might have beter stuff, but to be honest it seems unlikly.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Found a couple of blogs saying how honest and truthfull he is, but they are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if they're offering opinion only, and are notable authors (plenty of blogs on newspaper sites, for instance), then we might be able to use them as commentary? Parrot of Doom 13:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell its just some blog []. Can't find the other again, but its about the same.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not even a blog, just a forum. It won't be too hard to find plenty of comment from slightly higher ranking sources, but I'd be wary of having too much random partisan commentary loaded onto the page, whether pro- or anti-. As it is though, most serious Muslim groups in the UK - even ones that might be described as fairly radical in political terms - tend to have it in for him as far as I can tell. --Nickhh (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Problom is we are trying to find something positive about him (or at least not negative), some one saying hes a good man (like all the charity work he does not seem to do). Essentialy an attmept to make the page more ballanced. Its proving rather hard. I agree (and if you look I never claimed) thqt this forum (or any other) is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If nobody has anything good to say about him, well that'll be reflected in the article. But at least we tried, and nobody could accuse anyone of having an agenda.  One thing it could use, however, is some expert input on his statements about Islam, and if they reflect generally-held views.  I know nothing about religion. Parrot of Doom 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This needs following up[] and this[] (but I am a bit iffy as to this sources usfullness).Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

State Benefits
Choudary when asked by reporters on January 12 2010 why he lived on Social security benefits said,"The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it. You don't lie and you don't cheat - that is what the prophet said. I am not doing anything illegal." Mad Moolah, The Sun, January 13th, 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have spent some time looking for the source of the number £25,740 reported by the The Sun here but can't find it - can anyone else help. Codf1977 (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a 'leaked to The Sun' figure, which probably means they made it up. Nobody doubts that he's on benefits but until a more thorough examination of the situation is made I don't think its appropriate to cite from tabloids. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think that you may well be correct about the possibility that they "made it up" or even just calculated what he could be in line for if he claimed everything, and then reported it as fact. I don't have a problem with citing tabloids, just as long it is clear how they arrived at a story or fact - however it is not clear in this case.Codf1977 (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mail & Express (plus others) now reporting it. . Leaky  Caldron  11:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But are they just repeating the The Sun story or do they have a source? Codf1977 (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely that is the same with any so-called wp:rs article? They all tend to follow each other's story lines, so the level of actual indpendent verification is always hard to determine. Leaky  Caldron  11:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That can generally be held to be true, but on specific claims like this you'll note that the broadsheets tend not to report on the specifics. Most likely because they're generally not as reactionary as the tabloids, but also I believe because they have higher journalistic standards.  I don't trust the Daily Mail either, especially after they didn't sack Jan Moir for her comments. Parrot of Doom 12:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I myself watched the ten o'clock itv news last night where Choudrey came on was asked this question and said the quoted reply. Whether you trust the Sun or not is irrelevant. It is totally fine to use the sun alone for this that I have included, we can take it to the reliable source noticeboard, I haven't included any figure or specific really, the comment is really his reply to the simple question and it is in quotation marks and the Sun can be relied upon for this quote, easy. If anyone has an objection to the insertion of this simple cited comment please state your reason here. I am going to add it, it is simple undesputable and cited to a wikipedia reliable source, please provide a good reason if anyone removes it.Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an objection. What encyclopaedic value does this quote have?  How are you going to place it into context?  Does Choudary have any paid employment?  Article-building isn't about adding one-line quotes wherever you may find them, its about creating a narrative that helps the reader understand the subject.  The Sun is most definitely not a neutral, reliable source, and whether I trust it or not is entirely relevant.  Using this quote without a context would be like filling the Nick Griffin article with quotes about Jews, without first setting those quotes into the context in which they were made.  In other words, pointless, and not-neutral. Parrot of Doom 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a simple comment it is not excessive at all, I myself have resisted the Sun strongly for this kind of comment and got no support at all, that is why I know it is ok. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered any of my questions. Please do so, you can start by telling me why his benefits status is of such importance, and what his employment status is, because no reliable source (other than the blatently-biased tabloids) I've ever found has expanded upon this.  If they don't, why should we? Parrot of Doom 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the quote does have some encyclopaedic value, it does lend value to his attitude. I do agree however with your point about working it into context. I think Off2riorob should put something in, providing he can make the context work and then the rest of can work on it. Codf1977 (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have framed this comment in a very neutral, non titillating, neutral way. It is quite an interesting comment, his point of view on benefits and it was on the 10 oclock news yesterday I watched him say it myself, he is a lawyer qualified from university you have this in the lede, but he lives on state benefits. it is so totally relevant to let people know this, if fact under the circumstances it would be censorship to keep it out, it is being widely reported by multiple sources and has an informative value to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have re-worded and moved it so that it follows a par which talks about benefits. I am happy for others to work on it still. Codf1977 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its bullshit. Sorry, but it is.  Read the cited article.  First, it makes no mention of "journalists".  Second, it litters the article with words like "Muslim firebrands let off by a court", "over the street demo which shocked Britain.", "hate-filled layabouts and their families", "bile-spouting leader", "He smirked: "The money belongs to Allah", "Five of Choudary's followers from the now-banned Islam4UK group escaped".  Its a hate-filled sermon of rage designed to do nothing more than incite anger among those stupid enough to buy The Sun.  Just take a look at Verifiability.  The quote, if offered in context, should of course be here.  But it shouldn't be sourced from The Sun, and it currently has no context whatsoever.  This makes this article nothing more than a mouthpiece for the tabloid press, and its wrong. Parrot of Doom 14:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, it makes no mention of "journalists" - come on - this is clearly the case as who else was he talking to yesterday. Are you questioning he made the quote or just the fact that the cite is from The Sun ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm questioning sourcing this article from lazy and prejudiced journalism. Where in that Sun article does it mention that he gave this quote to journalists?  In fact, where was the quote given?  It doesn't say.  How do we know it wasn't an address to his supporters?  Or a comment on the internet?  We don't. Parrot of Doom 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct it does not, however given the style of reporting else ware, and the fact we know he gave a press conference yesterday it would seem so. Taken from The Express  Choudary was speaking hours after Home Secretary Alan Johnson [...] Choudary said: “I am not doing anything illegal. If we were living under the Muslim law there would be free food, clothing and shelter for all Codf1977 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It just gets better. Take a look at the rest of The Express's article - "MUSLIM rabble rouser", "a chilling warning", "spouting hatred".  Even the headline, "£25,000 BENEFITS? IT’S ALLAH’S CASH SAYS PREACHER OF HATE" is designed to incite disgust.  Ask yourself, why are none of the more reliable, and neutral media sources, giving much coverage to Choudary's financial status?  Is it because, perhaps, they don't consider it to be particularly noteworthy?  Or is it that they do not have enough information to place such details into a proper context, thereby removing any chance that they might be accused of bias? Parrot of Doom 14:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But the rest of the The Express's article is not the issue - the issue is did he say it ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is why did he say it, and why is it worth mentioning in the article? I'm astounded that I have to explain this.  His financial status was raised by tabloid newspapers.  Why do you think that is? Parrot of Doom 15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is exactly the comment he made Cod. I watched it myself, the quotes are exactly what he said, I have added only the neutral quote from him, cite it to another source, I don't mind where it is cited to. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From the pink paper, a bit of detail, which is also a wiki RS. He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organisation on a shoestring wage, which allows him to claim income support. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "According to The Sun" - fail. Parrot of Doom 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This does all seem to come from the sun interview, we do really need a few more sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A tag, oh well, This is being widely reported in multiple sources, the comment that I added is actually not from an interview with the Sun as Stephen has added, the comment was spoken himself on the ten oclock news yesterday, I watched it myself, the money comes from Allah and so on, I added it last night immediately after I watched it, there are multiple sources for this detail it has again been on the telly today, what is the problem, there isn't one. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There clearly is a problem, and no matter how many times you say there isn't, it will not go away. You still have not offered any context, or answered my questions, about why this quote is so important. Parrot of Doom 14:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I don't understand what you mean by "The context" the quote IMO goes towards explaining his thinking. Codf1977 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this quote important, or notable? Its very simple.  I'm asking the question, if you can answer it in an encyclopaedic manner then put it into the article.  Its really very simple. Parrot of Doom 15:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It adds further to the interview with the Evening Standard in March 2009, it goes to show his attitude towards state hand outs. He chose to answer the question; he could have refused to answer it. Codf1977 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we all know he said it, but why is it notable? If you can answer that question, then surely you can add that line of reasoning to the article?  This is the crux of the matter - why is it so important to mention? Parrot of Doom 15:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replied, it is reflective of his point of view as regards state benefits. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the source used is the Sun, and its an interview carried out by the Sun.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please indent your replies correctly, your failure to do so makes this discussion difficult to follow.
 * No, you haven't replied. Why is his view on benefits so important to the reader?  What other reason could there be for including it, unless of course you sympathise with the view of the tabloids who are, by and large, the only ones reporting it? Parrot of Doom 15:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to have a lot of resistance to this small, neutrally written, well cited, widely reported and relevant comment, it's not a big issue, he said it himself so there is nothing to be ashamed about. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't neutrally written, because as I have repeatedly stated (which you have repeatedly ignored), its inclusion offers no context. None.  Whatsoever.  Its well cited to a tabloid newspaper, whose neutrality on this issue is very much in doubt.  Its widely reported, but only by those tabloids.  You haven't demonstrated why its relevant.  Including such a comment without mentioning why it is so important is plainly a violation of WP:NPOV, especially so since this is a WP:BLP. Parrot of Doom 15:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I find your objections to this cited comment totally excessive, if you feel there is a big issue here then ask for a request for comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very surprised you're suggesting using The Sun as a source. I strongly suggest you go and read Wikipedia's policy on the use of reliable sources and think about how it squares with the quality of The Sun's journalism and other tabloids. I know for instance that the Daily Mail at least practices lazy "journalism" and lifts facts from Wikipedia. That kind of quality is in no way reliable. Nev1 (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the comment and the quotation that I inserted the Sun is absolutely a reliable source, if you dispute that then please request clarification at the wikipedia reliable sources noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Presenting the information without detail or context is wrong. If The Sun doesn't provide it, it obviously isn't reliable. That's pretty straightforward. Go and find a reliable source instead of trying to push The Sun. Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stay focused on content and not editors, I care less about the Sun, this is being reported at multiple reliable sources and it all reporting a interview Chowdray gave himself to the ITV ten oclock news yesterday, which I watched, the Sun citation has already been removed by someone else. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned nothing about editors. So the interview on the ITV gave details of how much he was receiving and why he was getting it? Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't insert and amounts that he gets, that would be excessive imo. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clearly a subject of some relevance to him and his beliefs. It was also covered in his interview on R5Live yesterday morning (about 08:40 if any wants to hear it). Leaky  Caldron  15:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere. Its of course relevant to him, but we can't just insert a couple of quotes and leave it at that, or we won't have a neutral article.  We have to make clear to the reader why this is so important.  If we can't do that, it shouldn't remain. Parrot of Doom 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What needs making clear to the reader? the reader is not an idiot, it is quite clear, he is a qualified solicitor and he is claiming income support, a blind man could see the relevance, it is clarified with the other comment, he works for a Muslim organization and gets little money and so he claims income support, why don't you think it is relevant to his life is beyond me, the discussion over this is totally excessive, do you want me to request a comment? Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There a plenty of people on income support, many of them qualfified (many on work part time and so get income support). What we need is why it is so notable that he is on hand outs (see bleow).Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
The value of this comment and the reliability of the citations is disputed by some editors, I see the widely reported content as of clear biographical value to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

'''on January 12, 2010 when asked why he lived on Social security benefits, Choudary said, "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it." He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organisation on a shoestring wage, which allows him to claim income support.


 * Keep first part, he clearly said it. However, anything that starts with [s]he is understood has me questioning it so remove the second part unless it can be confirmed from another source. Codf1977 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. --FormerIP (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to be moved, the context of this is critism that he recives state hand outs and that this is wrong. As such this needs to be in the critismsm section, not personal life (unless its notable that he is on hand outs).Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don’t have a strong view either way, not sure that critism is the right place but can see why people might think that - an argument could be made either way. If it is moved the sentence before should also be moved. Codf1977 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all reference to it whatsoever, until the matter is reported by reliable sources which do not include The Sun, The Mirror, The Express, The Daily Mail, The News of the World, etc. When any of the broadsheets mention it and offer some context, or it is discussed in a book, or even appears on the BBC, then look at it again.  I do not see why an article about this person should be a mouthpiece for hate-filled tabloid journalism designed to inflame, not inform.  Many people here it seems do not understand the concept of neutrality. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now had chance to see a copy of ITV News at Ten from last night, where their reporter Angus Walker (UK editor), asked him “Why if he hates the British State so much, why does he live off state benefits” – to which Anjem Choudary is then shown answering "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it.". I fail to understand how, the reporting of what someone said, word for word, without any spin cannot be neutral. He was asked a question which he chose to answer, the answer is quoted.
 * Surely you have to accept ITN as a reliable source ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, so you include the quote and cite it to ITN. What then?  Does it remain as a quote, which stands out from the prose?  What if a reader sees that, and thinks "hang on, why is that so important?  Why doesn't this article mention anything else about his private life?  Why is he on benefits, maybe he can't work?  Maybe nobody is employing him?  Maybe he's been for job interviews but can't get work in his field?  Why is it even mentioned?  What agenda does Wikipedia have here?"  Those are the questions I'm asking, and which nobody is answering.  All I see are people saying "but he said it, therefore lets put it in".  Bullshit.  Stick it in Wikiquote if its so important, and let people think what they may of it there.  Including a quote like that, without any form of context, can only lead the reader to assume that the article is biased.  Orphaned quotes on a matter which derives entirely from The Sun have no place here, and I'm utterly astounded that nobody can see this. Parrot of Doom 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I fail to understand is how you (Parrot) fail to see how his stated and verifiable quote has no encyclopedic value or is being used as a tool to skew to POV of the article. It is certainly relevant to his beliefs and in of itself puts his ideas of Allah controlling the nature of his life and providing for him what is needed etc... into context.  First you take issue that the quote has no reliable source and support it's inclusion once one is found then once a reliable source is found you take issue with context.  What's next?  Let's assume good faith here considering that the information is reliable quoted directly from the subject of the article himself and not obviously taken out of context in either a negative or positive manner.Nefariousski (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Including a quote like that, without any form of context, can only lead the reader to assume that the article is biased - Rubbish, please give the readers of the article credit, they will take it for what it is a statement that while he wishes to change the government here, he is more than willing to take what he can from it now. Codf1977 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that what it means? Can you provide a source that says that? Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not rocket science, the subject is a qualified lawyer, he states that he wants to overthrow the democratic system that he claims financial handouts from, he said himself that he does not see anything wrong with himself taking this governments financial support, it is so relevant that he claims the money to pay his rent from the democratic government that he seeks to overthrow, also this has nothing to do with the sun, he was interviewed on the ITN ten oclock news yesterday, a respected program watched by millions of people. I am utterly astounded that you don't see the importance of this content and its informative value to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty straightforward that the quote needs context. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What more context does it need - he was at his own press conference, he was asked a question by the UK Editor of the ITN News at Ten and he answered it, the question and answer were reported.Codf1977 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So why focus on this quote, and not also include the entire press conference? What is it about this quote that is so important? Parrot of Doom 19:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So why not WP:BEBOLD and mine the press conference for other facts you so wish to add to the article? Read the comments and you'll see that a pretty clear consensus has been reached as to the inclusion of the quote.  Nefariousski (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not measured by numbers alone, but strength of argument. While there is concern that the quote is presented without context, it should not be included. This is a biography of a living person, and what is written here can have consequences in the real world. As such, editors must be scrupulous in what they write and sourcing, and presenting tidbits out of context is not acceptable. Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the press conference. If I did, I'd have already watched it.  The problem is that despite my repeated requests to settle this matter, people can only say "but he said it, so lets put it in".  That isn't a good enough rationale.  As Nev1 says, quotes out of context are not acceptable. Parrot of Doom 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree wholeheartedly with you if the information was simply "Choudary is on Public Assistance" but the quote itself puts context around why he is on the assistance. He believes it is given to him by Allah etc...  If you feel it is out of context you have to find a transcript of the quote/press conference in order to determine whether your assumption is correct.  You can't just state "I think this was taken out of context and therefore should be removed" without any evidence to support your claim.  Just because the media is prone to take quotes out of context from time to time doesn't justify claims of bias for every instance a person is quoted.  I have a hard time believing that his quote was taken out of context considering similar quotes and rationalizations for taking government assistance stated by Omar Bakri (his teacher).  Most of all you have to assume good faith unless you can prove otherwise.Nefariousski (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its extremely difficult to assume good faith when the editor who inserted the quote made this comment about Nick Griffin. I agree with some of what you say, but its a quote.  Not a single, reliable, unbiased source has yet expanded on The Sun's (a British tabloid newspaper prone to sensationalist reports) claim that Choudary is some kind of "scrounger".  Jeremy Paxman had the perfect opportunity last night, and passed on it.  If he doesn't think its important, if none of the broadsheets do, then I'm not minded to think its important to mention here, especially when nobody knows his reasons for claiming.  Choudary believes that Allah owns everything, not just the money he is in receipt of. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is possible to conclude that just because someone (even Mr Paxman) does not ask a question means that they conclude it is not important. But using your logic, Angus Walker, ITV News at Ten UK Editor, felt it was important and asked the question. Codf1977 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken, but I would just add that in a press conference, a reporter has only a small window of opportunity to get the answers he wants (I should know, I've filmed enough of them), whereas in a sit-down studio interview there isn't that pressure. I think its rather telling of the differences in journalistic standards that Paxman, who is no soft-touch when it comes to asking important questions, decided not to enquire of the matter. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having now seen the interview (via IPlayer) I don’t think it was one of Mr Paxman's best, not his fault as Anjem Choudary and the other guy (whose name escapes me) were more interested in scoring points of each other, than any meaningful discussion or debate - and really Mr Paxman's role was not much more than a umpire. IMO Jeremy Paxman is at his best in a 1-2-1 style, as in the Michael Howard interview. Codf1977 (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It would take a blind person not to see the clear context. What is the context that he is a qualified lawyer? Why should we mention that as he doesn't work as a lawyer, is it so clear, he wants to overthrow the British government but he claims financial support from them when he is a qualified lawyer, what context do you want? I want to overthrow them but until I do I want them to support me, pleeese. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then I am blind, or not so presumptuous as to assume I know what Choudary's motives and reasons for taking benefit are. It needs to be explained why he is on benefits, supported by a reliable source, otherwise the quote has no place in the article. Nev1 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the inclusion of this content, it is well cited to reliable sources and relevant and informative detail to report to the reader, the quote is being widely reported, this in itself infers notability to the content and the interview has been shown on British national television. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a precedent for including such a reference, here Omar_Bakri_Muhammad Leaky  Caldron  18:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the verifiability and accuracy of the statement is no longer subject of debate and has been replaced with context, fairness etc... I'll be removing the accuracy dispute tag from the article within 24 hours unless anyone has any valid reason why the accuracy (not context) of the quote is still in question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is still in debate, because that section includes "He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organisation on a shoestring wage, which allows him to claim income support", which is sourced from The Sun - and I very much doubt the accuracy of The Sun. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me get this right. Now the verifiability / accuracy issue has shifted from being on public assistance to working for a muslim organization?  You've gotta be kidding me...  So what part of that statement isn't accurate?  That he works for a Muslim organization?  That his wages are at or below the level that qualifies for income support?  That there are any shoestrings involved in the whole process?
 * It's verifiably sourced throughout the article that he works for a muslim organization.
 * He himself already verified that he is on public assistance which implies his reported wages
 * He may be partial to sandals which does leave the word "shoestring" in questionable standing in which case I'd gladly change it to "typical non-profit" or "symbolic" or "velcro" or any other suggestion you may have.Nefariousski (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Implications are not enough. Encyclopaedias deal with facts. Nev1 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok then lets deal with facts and change it to "He claims Council Tax Allowance, Income Support and Child Benefits from the Government of the UK." all of which are pretty much undisputed fact with half a dozen current references including his own quote.Nefariousski (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And once again that still lacks context. Nev1 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then WP:BEBOLD and go and try and find some context and add it into the section. You wanted to remove weasel words and replace with facts which was done, you wanted non "the sun" sources also done, now you jump back to the original complaint of context which is fine by me.  It still doesn't change the fact that all questions of accuracy and verifiability have been answered and thus the tag removed.Nefariousski (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Found a liveleak video of him actually talking about being on assistance and another half dozen sources verifying in addition to the full quote he gave in response to the public assistance question. If you can't consider that due dilligence to remove the tag then it's going to be terribly difficult to assume good faith with your rationale for keeping it and the rest of your continued arguing on this point.Nefariousski (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No they haven't been answered, because the "shoestring" quote is from a newspaper which cites The Sun as its source. And once that's been resolved, there's still the matter of neutrality, which is unresolved, and will be unresolved until someone can demonstrate in simple language why a matter which only the tabloids are interested in, is so relevant to an article sourced almost exclusively from reliable, neutral, sources. Parrot of Doom 01:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The "shoestring" quote has been removed. The only quote in place is Choudary's own words as recorded by a televised interview.  The amount and nature of said assistance was also documented and referenced by a multitude of sources including non-tabloid sources.  Not to mention you can't arbitrarily remove information and sources because of your personal opinion of the newspaper.  The multitude of references for the information you removed clearly meetwp:source which trumps your personal opinions.  There is no issue of neutrality because there can be no bias on facts and figures.  Neutrality isn't broken neither is WP:Undue so I'm having a really hard time understanding why this is such a touchy subject for you and Nev1 while everyone else that is involved and has contributed to the article has no problem at all.  Nefariousski (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the "assistance" figures stem from a single source, which is The Sun. And regarding your point about neutrality, one can very easily argue with figures produced by a tabloid newspaper with a poor journalistic reputation, and one can quite easily argue that including these figures in an article—without any explanation of their presence or their notability—is nothing more than attempting to make the subject look like a twat.  This is exactly what the tabloid press are doing, its morally indefensible.  I'm sorry if you're having a hard time understanding this. Parrot of Doom 10:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to re-start this debate, I do have some issues with the current wording (sorry) - but having re-viewd the ITV News from the 12th - it went :
 * Q :"Why if he hates the British State so much, why does he live off state benefits ?"
 * A :"The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it."

I have little doubt about the full quote, but The Express ref removed in good faith by Parrot of Doom with this edit should be restored (which I will do).

Now for the big one, as I said right at the start of this with this edit, I would like to know the original source of the amount of benefit he is claiming. Codf1977 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Its from The Sun. Its their story, which has been reprinted by most of the other tabloids.  Its either an estimated figure (in other words, made-up), or they've chucked someone at the DHSS a few quid to tell all.  Given the tabloid newspapers disregard for the truth, my money is on the former.  Nobody else has investigated this, presumably because only the tabloid press is particularly interested in demonising this man. Parrot of Doom 10:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of compromise can we find a braod sheet source for this, or at least take thgis to the RS board?Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Try this [].Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag
Given that the only addition to the page in the 44 Edits from 8 am yesterday until Parrot of Doom tagged the whole article with (see here) was the following

Returning to the subject, in the wake of the announcement of the banning of Islam4UK, on January 12, 2010 when asked why he lived on Social security benefits, Choudary said, "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it. You don't lie and you don't cheat—that is what the prophet said. " 

The last part of which and the Express cite have now been removed.

Do we have consensus to remove the, and if not what still needs to change. Codf1977 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The POV tag relates to the parroting of claims printed by a tabloid newspaper designed only to inflame, and not inform. Until some viable justification is inserted into the article which explains why questions which relate to The Sun's "research" is more important than any other part of that news conference, I will continue to view this article as biased against Choudary. Parrot of Doom 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reference at all to The Sun's "research" - that has all been removed. Given that it was a I4UK conference, not that surprising if there were only a few maybe only one question relating to Anjem Choudary personally, if more come to light, and are reported, I am sure they will be added. Codf1977 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question asked by the reporter in the press conference is a clear reference to The Sun's story about Choudary living on benefits, but that is not the point. The point is, what justification is there for mentioning Choudary's reply on this matter, above all other comments in that press conference?  I've asked this question many times, and not a single person has been able to offer anything other than "because he said it".  That isn't good enough. Parrot of Doom 14:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question asked by the reporter in the press conference is a clear reference to The Sun's story about Choudary living on benefits - I disagree that it is a clear reference, it could as easily refer to this Evening Standard report from March 2009.
 * You point about reporting one answer and not others could be made about every press conference quote listed on the whole of wikipedia and is not valid. The point that maybe valid is "Why is this quote important in reference to Anjem Choudary ?" - and that question has been answered, by me and others - it goes to show his attitude towards state hand outs he receives - on the one hand he want to overthrow the state, but he is happy to take the states money to let him do it. Codf1977 (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I say its in the wrong section. This is n ot about his personal life, its about his views on money (and more indirectly critism of an alledged double standerd, perhpas directly (given the question asked)). I however think we may neded to take this to the RS board (or/an d) the BLP board.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd put money on the question being related to the tabloids all raising the matter in the last fortnight, and not an Evening Standard report from way back last year. If your opinion of his attitude is correct, then write that in the article.  Don't forget to include a citation though. Parrot of Doom 15:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So have I got this correct, a quote cannot be used unless it accompanied by an independent interpretation, and it is not left to the reader to interpret ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The simple question is, for the umpteenth millionth time, why is this quote so important? If you can answer that, and write it into the article with a reliable source, fine.  If not, get rid of it, and stick it in Wikiquotes. Parrot of Doom 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, has he actualy ever said he wants to otehrthrow the British government?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "a pure Islamic state with Sharia law in Britain" taken from this Evening Standard report from March 2009. Codf1977 (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry this does not say he wants to otherthrow the Britsh governemnt, he wants to change our laws, something many groups want to do without bewing accused of wanting to otherthrow the state.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the changes do we now have consensus to remove the, and if not what still needs to change. Codf1977 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sun reliable source
Are there still any objections to including this quote ? Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the Sun and the quote to the RS noticeboard today here and got the same answer as I got the previous time I took it there for a similar quote, it is reliable for such soundbites. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, so you've found context for the quote? Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This quote, it speaks for itself as the context, other editors here have also suggested they feel it is very relevant to showing Choudary's position and personal beliefs as regards his stated reference that he claims benefits, he has said himself he is on benefits, this comment clearly explains his position as regards the benefits, it is totally relevant, even more so when the benefits are claimed from a government that he has said he wants to overthrow.

when asked why he lived on Social security benefits, Choudary said, "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it. You don't lie and you don't cheat - that is what the prophet said. I am not doing anything illegal."http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2805768/Mad-Moolah.html


 * But I think what is being asked is what is there in this quote that indicates that his claimg of benifits is more notable then anyone elses?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I: think he is asking, why is it important that he is on benefits? Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (to Steven) Yes, that is exactly what is being asked. If it can be answered here, then it can be written into the article.  For that, however, it'll need backing up by a reliable source, and that doesn't include what The Sun, or any other tabloid newspaper, thinks about Choudary (just look at the headlines and stories they've printed about him, filled with pure hatred).  Nobody has yet presented such a source, which leaves the quotes about his financial status dangling in the air - and that, does not make for an unbiased article. Parrot of Doom 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it is notable, because, others, not any one here, have continued to ask him questions on the matter and importantly he has responded by answering them - IF he had continually refused to answer all questions about his financial status then I could accept your point, he has made it a part of the story. Codf1977 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who, and why? Parrot of Doom 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This one [], it also contains the £25,000 claim. but it makes it clear the context is critsimSlatersteven (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that's more like it. I have more faith in Andrew Neil than I do in any number of tabloid journalists, and a programme like that is going to have fairly strict editorial guidelines.  Its good because it contains fairly solid reasoning from Neil, and also something more relevant than "I don't think its an issue" from Choudary.  Much much better, let me have a couple of viewings of it and I'm sure now we can put the matter to bed. Parrot of Doom 16:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are they asking him, what makes his recept of state benifits notable, not that some one regards it as notable but why?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Neil asks the question a couple of times "why should we pay for you, when you want to destroy our society" (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Its a robust discussion and offers much more insight into the matter than has previously been seen. Parrot of Doom 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an excelnt source for a number of his views (or unwillingness to expre4ss them).Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a better source than anything that has been found, it repeats all the content from all the other disputed sources, so a detailed comment should be included. The quote from the Sun has also passed the RS noticeboard and should also be included. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Right, I've rewritten much of this contentious material and put it all into the criticism section. I can easily provide sources for "much of the criticism has been vitriolic" if required, and I also need to find out who in the ITN press conference asked the question, and on what date The Politics Show interview was filmed/aired. The key thing for me is that Neil justified his questioning with the line "relevant to our viewers". I trust a BBC politics programme much more than I do a tabloid. Comments please. Parrot of Doom 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Angus Walker was the ITN reporter and it was today's Daily Politics Codf1977 (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Today's, as in "Thursday", today? Parrot of Doom 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was on at lunchtime today. (disgraceful interview by Andrew Neil - pov) Leaky  Caldron  19:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you trust then or not, there are plenty of tabloid sources that are wikipedia reliable and are allowed to be cited. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from uninvolved editor from the Reliable Source Noticeboard: The Sun is a reliable source on news and news-bites here in wikipedia.--LexCorp (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a sweeping generalisation and simply not true. The Sun is a heavily biased sales-driven alarmist publication.  In my opinion its just as extremist as Choudary. Parrot of Doom 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong I know that The Sun is a Tabloid but as a news reporting it is deem a reliable source in wikipedia. Which means that it can be used for reported facts. Another matter is reported opinion or analysis of those facts. I made a clarification in the RS noticeboard as follows: The leading clarification "when asked why he lived on Social security benefits," is not supported by the article. The most that can be said is something like "reacting to the handouts scandal, Choudary recently stated that "bla bla".--LexCorp (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The new content
This content appears to want to portray the situation as a tabloid attack, this is simply not true, I have removed this as opinionated and it has been replaced, is this opinion or cited? Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tabloid criticism of Islam4UK and Choudary since news of the proposed march first became public has, generally, been vitriolic.


 * "Simply not true"? What on earth are you reading?  You can't be reading the Oxford English Dictionary, because vitriolic does not mean "attack".  The Sun -, , .  The Daily Star - , , .  The Daily Mail - , , .  The Daily Express - , , .  Need I go on?  Compare the reporting in those newspapers, with the reporting in the sources used in this article.


 * I can't take you at all seriously, especially after your comment about Nick Griffin on my talk page. That you view the above sources as not being scathingly critical, negative, and biased completely against this man, just beggars belief. Parrot of Doom 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit iffy about some of the wordig too. I can't exactly (at this time) put my finger on it but it reads a little POV.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
Now that I4UK is banned / proscribed, should Anjem be referred to as the "former" leader and "former" spokesman ? Codf1977 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair enough, after all IIRC in the interview with Andrew Neil he did suggest that Islam4UK is effectively dead. A better phrase, however, might be "spokesman for the proscribed Islamist group Islam4UK, since he's still giving interviews in that capacity. Parrot of Doom 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The The Daily Politics did on screen caption him as Former Leader of Islam4UK Codf1977 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture
Does anyone have a picture of Anjem Choudary that can be used on the article ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Rfc
Regarding the Rfc posted Jan 13, and also the question posed by Slatersteven on 14 Jan: I think that the fact that the subject is getting income support is notable and worth including. The subject of this BLP is notable because he is an outspoken Muslim organizer, and has garnered much news coverage in this role because he has frequently been in conflict with the government—both the law, and also top political leaders. Mr Choudary has even in recent days drawn the ire of the Prime Minster. So it’s interesting that the subject’s relationship with the government has this additional dimension, that he is receiving significant income support from it. And his comment that the money actually belongs to Allah gives us a significant insight into the nature of his religious beliefs, which is also relevant to understanding his notability. A second point: it is natural in any full and balanced biography to address how the subject makes a living. It helps us understand who the person is and what his capabilities are. Generally one’s livelihood requires a great deal of time and attention, and so substantially shapes a personality. But if a subject gets a major portion of his income from grants, public or private, this also reveals an important dimension of his personality and his relationship with society. How one makes a living may only be worth a brief mention, but some mention is relevant in painting a complete picture of a person.--Early morning person (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Muslim support
We really need a source that says that he does not represent the main stream muslim community.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead summarises the article, and in the article we have sourced quotes for example from the Muslim Council of Britain - probably the main representative Muslim body in the UK - and Salma Yaqoob, both condemning him. These two sites give some flavour of what other Muslim groups, one "mainstream", one quite radical itself think of him - British Muslims for Secular Democracy, Muslim Public Affairs Committee. The comments that are being removed also refer to media criticism of course, which is also documented and sourced in the main part of the article. I guess because both are quite strong claims they maybe do need stronger backing, maybe a tertiary source that makes the points explicitly itself. I mean it's hard to argue that neither of them are true - especially the point about the media being overwhelmingly critical of him - but this is a Wikipedia BLP.--Nickhh (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually this article - which is already cited for the "Criticism" section - makes the broad point about him not representing majority, mainstream opinion. I think reverting would be justified here, but maybe the removing editor could respond here, rather than us all having an edit war over it? --Nickhh (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Opps - should have read here before undoing the edit - I have posted my own version of the last point to the users talk page here - I will also post a link there back to this. Codf1977 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Problom is that is there a definative spokes body for Islam in the UK, I don't thiink there is. As such I feel it would be better if we worded it that clear. I doubt the Daily Telegraph is, it their opinion.
 * "according to some muslim gruops and pundits Choudary has received little support from the mainstream UK Muslim population, and has been largely criticised in the media."
 * Anything else (untill we can clearly defins who speaks for the UK's Muslim population) is POV.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see the claim as contentious. The sky is up there - we don't need a source for that.  All that's required to refute the fact that Choudary has received little public support is to find any evidence of support.  Good luck. Parrot of Doom 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Descent
Anjem Choudary is a Bengali name (ie from Bangladesh or West Bengal ) name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_people

So why is he said here to be of Pakistani descent? I suppose his parents migrated to Britain before Bangladesh attained independence from Pakistan in 1971 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.108.123 (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's described as Pakistani descent because that's what the source used claims. Parrot of Doom 08:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What does he do now
Speech in Indonesia 18 March 2010. British Islamist backs al-Qaida on Indonesia visit, Taiwan news Off2riorob (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"pro-Islam" demonstrations
I understand why this kind of contentious topic would be carefully edited, but at present parts of this article actually read as though they are propaganda for Choudary. When a demonstration is described as "pro-Islam", this is actually more POV than describing it as extreme Islamist. This is because Islamist is a definable term and what Choudary is calling for matches that definition. The addition of "extreme" connotes that what he is calling for is more radical than most other Islamists. This is also definable because Choudary is calling for Shariah in the UK whereas other Islamist groups (Hizb ut-Tahrir, Muslim Brotherhood etc) only want it is Muslim majority countries.

I have noticed that there appear to be fans of various Islamist preachers updating their profiles to make them look as though they are mainstream Muslims, whereas they are definably not. This obviously needs to be carefully addressed and apolgoies if my edits were clumsy, but this is a serious problem with this page and a few others.

Q1445 (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, if you're not already aware of this page, that you should familiarise yourself with WP:LEAD. Parrot of Doom 10:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP is at its best in my view when it presents basic information about a subject, based on what they have said and done, as well as on a broad and proportionate survey of third party reaction to their words and actions, properly attributed; rather than adding commentary in the neutral voice, through for example the use of such words as "extremist" or "terrorist", or, conversely, "heroic" or whatever (see WP:PEA and WP:WTA or whatever they're called these days, as well as WP:NPOV). The reader can then draw their own conclusions about whether the subject is mad, evil or a genius or anything else, if they wish to. As it happens, as far as I can tell, this article has in fact not been mostly edited by Choudary's fanclub. I've contributed occasionally, and I'm certainly not a member. A lot of work was done recently by another editor to improve the page, and as a result it was approved for Good Article status - not that it can't be made better still of course.
 * The problem with your edit was that it was, as you admit, somewhat "clumsy", in that you added repetitive information about his calls for the introduction of Sharia law into the UK, as well as a massive box, into the lead section. The detail of which organisations he has run and which of them have been proscribed is also probably too much for the lead. It also fell somewhat foul of the observations I've made above, eg by saying "The group organised several extremist demonstrations calling for extreme Islamist goals".  N-HH   talk / edits  10:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

s r valentine
A recent edit placed material in the references that wad misplaced, but I also have concerns that the author may be adding his own sources to this article. That they're offline makes it difficult to know, so I've reverted the edit for now. I'm on a smartphone so I can't discuss this at length. Parrot of Doom 11:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Evasive Language and Euphemisms
The entry is full of evasive language and euphemisms. Just for a start: "He was also investigated, but not charged, for his 2006 comments regarding Pope Benedict XVI." What did those "2006 comments" say? If they aren't worth being quoted, the sentence is unnecessary, if they are, well, then they ought to be quoted. The entire entry is one big effort to make that man look as harmless as possible. It would need somebody without a day job to specify every detail. Shame on Wikipedia.

--Skowronek The Lark (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And shame on you, for not bothering to read the article body, where you'll find the Pope's comments and Choudary's response given quite detailed coverage. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Radical" Islam
Anjem Choudary follows a radicalized form of Islam, hence the addition in the religion section of the page. He appears to be very proud of his radical views, as evidenced by interviews and preachings. Why are we avoiding the truth instead of simply stating it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.78.244 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it will be used by some as a label, and is, in my opinion, pejorative. Parrot of Doom 09:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well of course its pejorative, but that's who he is! I'm glad we can sugarcoat a crazy man on Wikipedia, though. This is exactly why many people don't believe Wikipedia is reliable; "unbiased" entries are only usable if they don't ignore the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.78.244 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer to present the information in a neutral as possible manner, and let people form their own opinions. Perhaps you should consider that generally, people are intelligent enough to realise that Choudary does not represent most Muslims. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and ideology...very nice. I hate to break it to you, but most people are NOT intelligent enough to realize that Choudary does not represent most Muslims. Do you pay attention to the news at all? Most people believe that Islam is a hateful religion that is representative of the skewed beliefs of people like Anjem Choudary. Opinion is one thing, but in this case we are dealing with fact: Anjem Choudary is a proud, self-proclaimed Radical Muslim. What you "prefer" to do is irrelevant; Wikipedia, while it maintains a standard of neutrality, also maintains a standard of factual information. Misrepresenting people like Choudary is a shame and a disgrace to peace-loving Muslims. The naivatë of some people is simply incredible... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.78.244 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such religion as "radical Islam". Choudary is a Muslim whose politics are radical, as the article makes clear. Mezigue (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your claim that most people think Islam is a "hateful religion" is patent Daily Mail nonsense. Most stupid people might think that, but only a minority of people are that stupid.  If you feel this article misrepresents anything about Choudary, please feel free to demonstrate exactly where. Parrot of Doom 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is futile to argue with idiots. Just remember this next time some radical like Choudary tries to blow something up in a "heroic" act of terrorism. Such an idiot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.78.244 (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is indeed futile to argue with idiots. Parrot of Doom 17:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section
There have actually been a good number of reporters, etc who have dismissed this man as basically a media whore who poses no real threat to anything, has no real supporters or backers, and only exists as a crazy man willing to go on tv and play the part of the evil muslim who happens to validate everything the people who host him on their shows have been screeming about for the last two years? I mean this is a giant joke, that this article will quote sean hannity saying he's evil, but not mention the fact that he's been on his show before. Any criticism section should point out that he's been called an invention of the media by a great number of people, including in one of the external links on this page. 173.26.55.148 (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)miah

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)