Talk:Brixton Mosque

Suggestions
I have a few concerns about the sourcing and neutrality of this article. I realize that a chunk of it was copied in good faith from the Brixton and other articles, but I note that there is some fairly serious allegations (e.g. "most fundamentalist and uncompromising mosque" etc that are sourced to what are very likely to be unreliable sources,www.communitychannel.org, youtube (for some other material), as well as some unsourced information.  I am also concerned about the balance here, and the focus on the extremists/terrorists who have worshipped at the mosque in the past. It appears in plenty of reliable sources that the leader of the mosque Abdul Haqq Baker has actually been working and speaking against extremist elements, including by alerting authorities etc and this should surely be reflected. Here are some reliable sources I have found about the mosque and its leader that would probably be useful for expansion and balance.    --Slp1 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I did add some material from the Brixton article, without focusing on the sources (as it was the present state of things in that article, I imagined I could move it over).  So would be happy to look at them when I have a moment, or have someone else do so (or both).  As to adding more on the mosque that is in RSs, I think that a fine idea (and if I have a moment will be happy to join others in doing so).  As to the mentions of extremists who attended the mosque, that's relevant/notable, and I would point out the last two paras discuss ones who were on the outs w/the mosque, so that reflects well on the mosque IMHO (for those who are not pro-Islamist).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Info on the structure and the construction history would be good additions. A photo would be nice, too. Should be easy to find a Wikipedian in London with a camera. --74.14.18.232 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Second that photo suggestion.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit
I have removed the sentence about how Moussaoui "made his initial steps into radical indoctrination in Brixton Mosque". I have also added that he "may" have met Reid there. The first isn't supported, as far as I can see, by any source; in fact several of sources given emphasize that Brixton was a moderate mosque and that the radicalization took place elsewhere, at the Finsbury Park Mosque in particular or by people leafleting outside etc. Regarding Richard Reid, some say he did meet Reid there, some say maybe he did. I think it is preferable to verge on the cautious side in such a case. --Slp1 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That may well be right. If I put that in, I would not have done so without a source, but could not seem to find it at a quick glance.  Good catch.  As to the second part, its a fine point, but another (though less elegant) way to address it is to say something along the lines of "some say he met x ..."  In fact, the only scenario that makes all correct is if he did meet him at the mosque.  If he didn't, some of the RSs would be incorrect.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "indoctrination" phrase was originally part of the copy and pastes from the other articles that you did when creating the article, as I have found the phrase elsewhere, equally unsourced. I removed it here (and elsewhere). Before restoring sentences, I always think it is always a good idea to check the sources cited to be sure that they were actually being summarized correctly. Maybe I should assume good faith, but especially on a topic like this, I don't!! Yes, I'd be happy with "Some say/report he met...". I think it says pretty much the same of "He may have met..."; it is important not to state it as a fact, since a significant number of good sources express uncertainty about whether he did or not. --Slp1 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would indeed explain it. It's not like me to insert a sentence I have sourced that doesn't match the source.  But if rushed, in the unusual case like here where some of the article already exists elsewhere as a wiki article I will copy and paste without checking the sources.  The thinking is a) I'm pressed for time; b) it has survived in that form in another wiki article, with whatever eyes viewed it there; and c) it is subject to correction (in both places) if it is wrong.  If I have time, I would rather look at the source, not just to verify, but also to see if it is reflected as nicely as it could be reflected in the wiki text.  Have a good weekend.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My view is  that it is not a good idea to edit in a rush, most particularly when the material deals with living subjects (however much one may disagree with a subject and their choices). Checking the sources is important before copy and pastes even, otherwise one may be spreading false information. BTW, apparently  the copy and pastes need to be attributed in the edit summary.(see this for details).  Finally, editing in a rush is really not a good idea when it comes to restoring material that another editor has deleted (maybe with a good reason, as here).--Slp1 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've explained, if it it/has been in one article in Wikipedia, related to precisely the same subject, it has been subjected to the same "checks" that it would have been had the editors put it in what is now the new article. IMHO.  So we may simply have different views.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we start annotating entries for every church visited by Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik while we're at it? Shabeki (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)