Talk:Peter Tatchell/Archive 2

Islamophobia Watch
Islamophobia watch is not a reliable source. It's a highly opinionated blog which has a very unusual definition of what constitutes Islamophobia. The only thing which Islamophobia Watch can be a source about is what is said at Islamophobia Watch - and that was not what it was introduced as. The paragraph in which it was included attempts to assert as fact that Peter Tatchell has concentrated on muslim homophobia to a degree more than is warranted. Any such assertion would be, by definition, POV. The secondary problem is that adding up the number of opinion pieces in this way does not prove, and could not prove, the claim which was made. The number of pieces written is irrelevant, and such a quantitative approach is ill-suited to the purposes of analysing political stance. David | Talk 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever your opinion of Muslims, what it stated is clearly verifiable fact! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No one wants to add the opinion piece, just the verifiable factual point made by Islamophobia watch, which can be verified using the citations provided. Thats all. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that that 'verifiable fact' is a meaningless one. It's no more meaningful than citing the number of words in a particular opinion piece as evidence of how well thought-through it was. David | Talk 15:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not meaningless. If it was meaningless I doubt very much that you would be on such a crusade to censor it! - It is fact, and it is verifiable fact! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to censor it - in other words, remove it for political reasons. I think it unencyclopaedic and want to keep it out of the article because it detracts from its quality. I am trying to help write a high quality, neutral article. I would like to think you are, too. David | Talk 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am, but your actions appear to the contrary. The material is cited fact, it is verifiable cited fact, and takes up less than three lines, yet you keep removing it. Verifiable cited fact should remain in. It is notable, especially in relation to the context of the section it is being entered into. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is verifiable, cited fact that Peter Tatchell's front door is painted black. But that too is not worth mentioning. I've explained why this is not a meaningful statistic to quote, and certainly does not assist any argument which seeks to claim that Peter Tatchell concentrates on muslim homophobia to a degree more than is justified - which is what it was introduced as. David | Talk 15:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How would that be connected to any of the sections? There is a section dealing specifically with his attitute towards Muslims, and it is into that section that this info is entered, as it is relevent, notable, verifiable and cited. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, it's a verifiable fact that Tatchell has recently concentrated on Muslims. How about we just concede that and don't make a claim one way or the other about whether he has done so "to a degree more than is warranted"? (OTOH, I agree we don't need the gloss on "Sharia law") Dogville 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it is a verifiable fact that Peter Tatchell has recently concentrated on muslims, although he certainly has made his voice heard in various debates concerning muslims and human rights. What I'm concerned about is writing this in such a way as to (possibly inadvertently) suggest that his approach to muslims has been to a degree motivated by prejudice - the previous mention led directly in to the unchallenged fact that he had been criticised for Islamophobia. Do you want to suggest a wording to overcome this problem? David | Talk 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he's certainly been accused of Islamophobia. How about we order things like this? Tatchell has concentrated recently on muslims (measured by percentage of his output in terms of press releases and articles written). Critics have claimed this is disproportionate and some have accused him of Islamophobia or other dubious motivations, for example abc. Tatchell denies this and says xyz. Here are some briefly-described incidents of note (and then the existing subheads in the section, if possible trimmed). Dogville 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeps, I would go with that --Irishpunktom\talk 16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. That simply is not encyclopaedic. I've explained why measuring the percentage of output is entirely inappropriate. There is no cite saying it is disproportionate (Islamophobia Watch regard any criticism of muslims as inappropriate, however well merited). What "other dubious motivations"? This also removes the fact that Peter Tatchell has always attacked Islamophobia and has engaged in campaigns to support muslim people, including gay muslims and the Palestinians. David | Talk 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering Islamophobia-watch has been condemned by Tatchell, going so far as to suggest it is a tool used by terrorists, I am going to add a section on Islamophobia-watchs Critics and his replies, from here the info can be added. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Add it to any page on Islamophobia Watch, where it is relevant, and not here, where it is not. David | Talk 17:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * of course its relevent here! what an absurd suggestion!! - 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * David, you're embedding an obvious POV here (and your apparent admiration for Harry's Place makes such a POV fairly predictable). Tatchell's recent campaigns have been loudly supported by some and roundly criticised by others (including Imaan). There has been a clear controversy about them, and they have been all over the news. You have a long list in the article of controversy-causing writings and press releases about Muslim individuals, groups and governments from Tatchell over the last couple of years. And yet rather than concede the fact of his particular engagement with Islam right now, and then summarising the argument over whether or not it's proportionate, you are denying it exists. What's particularly depressing is that your refusal to cite Islamophobia Watch because they're marginal extremists is just how people tried to dismiss OutRage! for years. Dogville 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but if one wants to know exactly how extreme Islamophobia Watch is, then check out this page, where they have added Renoir's Impressionist painting "The Mosque (Arab Holiday" to their Hall of Shame because it displays the Arabs in it as "an indistinguishable blob." Which is what I thought Impressionism was. --Paul Moloney 09:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/ShowPicture?moduleId=127130&pictureId=146547&galleryId=10607
 * hall of shame? Where did you get that phrase from? Islamophobia watch is critical of classical orientalism, and in so being is about as extreme as Edward Said, Tariq Ramadan and Tariq Ali and most Arab Scholars. Calling a website that is sympathetic to Islam "extreme" is a pretty low cheap shot too. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I reserve the right to call religious cranks of all hues and sky-gods "extreme". For sky god's sake, they're criticising an Impressionistic painting as Islamophobic because _it shows stylised people_. I mean, hello? This is the same website that called "Little Britain" gay actor Matt Lucas an Islamophobe because he protested against the hanging of teenage gays in Iran. By labelling everyone and everything Islamophobic, they dilute the word and have a "boy that cries wolf" effect. There is real Islamophobia in the world, and they don't help matters one bit.


 * You are misrepresenting them two fold now, but your POV is noted. Where did they call Lucas an Islamophobe? The only mention of him on the site I can find is this. Are you making things up to prove your point?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please tell me how I'm misrepresenting them; including that page on a site documenting the "War against Islam" insinuates those involved are at war at Islam, surely? And your defense that "they are only as extreme as Tariq Ramdan" isn't a very good defense, considering the many criticisms of that particular scholar, including the fact that he wouldn't condemn death by stoning until last month! (See the Criticism section of his page). If you don't consider "extreme" I'm sorry, but that's your problem, not mine. --Paul Moloney 14:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You claimed they called Matt Lucas an islamophobe - they didn't. You made that up. Now you are joining in the Sun led criticisms of Tariq Ramadan. The Islamophobia watch website reports on a lot of things, including events surrounding non Muslims like Tariq Ali or Matt Lucas. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm getting bored with your blatant twisting and dishonesty. I haven't a clue what the Sun, a paper I never read, has said or not said about Tariq Ramadan - I'm quoting from a Wikipedia page that YOU YOURSELF gave a link to about him! Are you now claiming the linked page itself is wrong, or that it's all based on a Sun article? Secondly, are you seriously expecting us to believe that Islamophobia Watch just happens to mention certain events with no relevance to Islamophobia? I had a discussion about this with the owner of the site himself, Bob Pitt, who thought that, AT BEST, Lucas was misguided and led into it by other Islamophobes (no doubt a reference to Tatchell himself). Answer me this: is believing in stoning to death extreme, or not extreme? --Paul Moloney 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Typing in Caps is considering shouting and rude, please refrain from it. Now. Where has Ramadan ever supported Stoning to death? Ever, once, supported it? Also, as you have stated, the site does not say Lucas was Islamophobic, and the owner believes he was misguided. There are many instances of misrepresentation which have been referenced by the site, and this is another example. So, now we have agreed that it does not in fact say that Lucas is an Islamophobe you want to move on to Tariq Ramadan, which has nothing to do with either the site or this article - but I will bite. Again, I ask, where has he ever supported stoning? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I rarely resort to it, but sometimes typing in caps is the only way of getting through to some people. I notice you take back your insinuation that I get all my information through The Sun. Apology accepted. As I said, Pitt thinks that at best, Lucas is misguided - that is, he probably is an Islamophobe, but it's possible that he got roped into it unknowingly by another Islamophobe. Therefore, my allegation that the site characterises him as a Islamophobe still stands, though I'm willing to change that to "heavily insinuates in a sneaky way". Finally, I'm loath to repeat myself again, but the page about Tariq Ramadan that you yourself linked this discussion to says "In 2004, during a television debate (100 Minutes pour convaincre) with the then French minister of interior affairs, Nicolas Sarkozy, he refused to condemn the application of hudud laws - which are controversial due to punishments, such as amputations for theft, the stoning of adulterers and the persecution of those with dissident views on Islam (see Prof. Nasr Abu Zayd). He only wanted to propose a 'moratorium'. In doing so, he distanced himself from many mainstream islamic scholars (as grand mufti Soheib Bencheikh, Prof. Zaki Badawi, prof Azizah Al-Hibri) who massively reject stoning." If you have an issue with this, I suggest you pop along and busy yourself with that page as well. --Paul Moloney 14:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't do it, it's rude and uncivil. Anyway, whatever the personal opinions you of the maintainers of the site, they are not reflected in the site. There is no suggestion that he is islamophobic at all, and you have stated that the sites maintainer believes he was misled. You have also spun your own interpretation of his words, which is really irrelevent - I don't care about your POV. As for Tariq Ramadan, he has not ever, never, supported stoning, or that interpritation of the Shariat, and has suggested a workable way of removing it - yes, applying a moratorium and then discussing the situation as equals with those who apply the punishments - rather than merely sitting on a high horse and issueing arbitrary condemnations. Ramadan gave actual workable methods for eliminating the practice, and because he engaged in Realpolitik he was condemned by all sides, and is now banned from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Egypt. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There you go, changing my words again. (I know punk advocates the cut-up method, but still...) I said that at best, Pitt think he's misguided. Pitt himself suggests he's probably Islamophobic. The fact that Pitt doesn't openly state this publically on the website and uses insinuation doesn't count as a defence, in my book. On the issue of Ramadan, again to quote my own words, what I said was "he wouldn't condemn death by stoning until last month", not that he actively supported it. And while I suppose I should be glad he is not actively pushing for women to be buried up to the neck and have rocks thrown at them 'til they are bludgeoned to death, I'm not exactly hearted by the fact that he still finds the punishment "Islamic" (http://www.tariqramadan.com/call.php3?id_article=264?lang=en) and his objections are based purely on its impractical application. Finally, I haven't a clue why Ramadan would be banned from Tunisia and Egypt for being against stoning when this punishment isn't used in either country.  --Paul Moloney 15:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are saying that Pitt said he was Misled at Best, and from that you have decided that you can read his mind and know what he actually thinks. Its irrelevent anyway, your opinion of Pitts opinion is not reflected in the site! That there insinuation is your opinion, and not one I share. Ramadan asked for a Moritorium on all capital punishment, irrespective of its method. Actually, he put it better when he said "I am calling for Islamic feminism. Domestic violence is not Islamic. Female circumcision is not Islamic. Polygamy is not a man's right. Arranged marriages are not acceptable. We have to stop it in the name of Islam. We are calling for an end to corporal punishment, to stoning and the death penalty. These punishments are implemented against the poor and against women. It is not acceptable. It is anti-Islamic. But change has to come from inside, not from Westerners outside saying 'We know what is right'." I don't know enough about Tunisia, but Egypt does kill prisoners. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On Ramadan, if he is indeed genuine about making such changes and not just playing to whichever peanut gallery he's currently facing, I sincerely wish him all the best. But to get back to the original topic of this thread, I don't think that Islamophobia Watch should be considered as any kind of objective or even serious source. If we do, then someone's going to have add their opinion of Renoir as an Islamophobe to his article too. --Paul Moloney 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It deserves a mention because this is an article on Peter Tatchell who has attacked Islamophobia watch on more than one occassion. And, Islamophobia watch has never said Renoir is an Islamophobe. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh very rich - you forget to mention that they attacked him first! Slight omission there. Should we compile a list of all blogs that have attacked him? --Paul Moloney 15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Only the ones he has attacked in his end of year reports, and ones he has accused of aiding terrorists. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * @Paul -- you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting IW here. Firstly, as IPT has several times repeated, they are not "calling Renoir Islamophobic". They are using it to illustrate a perfectly standard cultural-historical point about representations of other races. To interpret this the way you do is the equivalent of seeing any of a thousand pictures illustrating the "male gaze" and thinking the artist was being accused of misogyny. On Matt Lucas, they report his attendance at the protest straight; your "war of Islam" line is taken from the subtitle of the whole site, as you must be aware. And on Ramadan, your response beginning "if he is genuine about making such changes" parallels a standard bit of Islamophobic rhetoric, that is, these Muslims don't tell the truth when they're talking to us. It's a rhetoric with a long history, and was one of the standard Nazi lines about the Jews. (No, I'm not saying you're a Nazi or necessarily an Islamophobe, but automatically doubting the sincerity of the speaker seems to happen more under some circumstances than others.) Dogville 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So I'm not allowed to be suspicious of a man who makes different statements to different audiences, simply because he is a Muslim? That seems to be the tenor of your argument. As you don't know me, it's interesting that you grasp at my skepticism of anyone's words, especially politicians and religious folk, and attempt to twist it to prove that I'm an Islamophobe and, therefore, can be simply dismissed as a bigot. (Honestly, anyone who thinks I'm against Islam in particular should hear me talk about priests. I suppose we should also add the irony that I'll be emigrating to a predominantly Muslim country in the near future. I guess this also makes me a self-hater or masochist?) Again, to repeat myself, the reason I am suspicious is not because he is a Muslim. It is because his statements in different arenas can be taken in different ways. It is possible, indeed probably, this this is a deliberate attempt to ingratiate himself to different audiences in order to bring them together to a moderate consensus(a la Gerry Adams), rather than simple subterfuge. (And yes, I speak as someone who was skeptical of Adams.) Oh, and thank you for not thinking I'm a Nazi. --Paul Moloney 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a personal attack. You haven't a clue what my POV is despite your attempt to "predict" it. It is completely untrue that my edits here have been PoV. I'm not denying that Peter Tatchell has criticised muslims for being homophobic. What I am denying, and which is the focus of the criticism, is that the reason Peter Tatchell has been attacking muslim homophobia is that he is Islamophobic. I notice you refer to "Islam" not muslims, which is inappropriate. Islamophobia Watch is not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, not because they adopt ludicrous positions (though they do). OutRage! is not a reliable source of anything other than what OutRage! thinks, under the same policy. David | Talk 17:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My use of "Islam" immediately followed the rather tortuous "Muslim individuals, groups and governments" so I think it was obvious shorthand, though I cite again his criticism of Sharia law, which can hardly be understood to apply to any individual Muslim(s). I apologise if you are insulted by my suggestion that your POV on this issue is not unusual for a HP fan, but please don't insist I have no idea what that POV is. You have repeatedly stated it on this page. Your POV is that the fact that Tatchell's recent work has involved more incidents of criticism of Islamic individuals/groups/governments than of members of all other religions combined is inherently justified/proportionate, and that therefore any mention of its relative proportion is inherently POV. I'm not sure the first half is a given and therefore I disagree with the second.Dogville 19:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What on earth does Harry's Place have to do with it? I happen to have known one of the people who blogs there many years before it started. So what? It's a cardinal principle that evidence of an editor having a POV outside Wikipedia is never evidence that their edits are POV on Wikipedia, and you don't even have that evidence. I certainly do insist that you have no idea what my POV is. I am insulted by the suggestion that you do. I have introduced material critical of Peter Tatchell and material supportive of him to the article.


 * Peter Tatchell has tackled homophobia wherever he has found it, regardless of the source. I am aware of no-one outside Wikipedia who has made the argument, in terms, that Peter Tatchell has concentrated on muslims in a way disproportionate to the homophobia coming from them. If you are aware, then please say who it is. There is also no real quantitative way of measuring these proportions: it is a fundamentally qualitative judgment. David | Talk 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A bit of a straw man to repeat and amplify your outrage at my HP reference after I apologised for it. Let me repeat: you have stated your POV on this matter explicitly on this page. You have said clearly that Tatchell is not Islamophobic; and that he "criticises homophobia wherever he finds it" (as opposed to disproportionately among Muslims). If you didn't mean to say either of those things perhaps you could clarify but I think it's a reasonable conclusion that you did mean to. (If you think that by POV I mean that I know what you think of Tatchell tout court, then I never said that, and I don't.)Dogville 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You have misunderstood. I was discussing the contents of the article and said that I have seen no evidence that Peter Tatchell is Islamophobic, but plenty that he will tackle homophobia regardless of its source - and that this is his own position. Of course, NPOV means that the article cannot endorse the view that Peter Tatchell is Islamophobic. It is fairly clearly demonstrated that he has taken on anti-gay prejudice from a very wide range of sources by the examples outlined in the article.


 * What I detect hanging behind this, especially in the bizarre insistence on using the spurious Islamophobia Watch statistics, is the contention that because Peter Tatchell has written recent articles criticising muslims, he must therefore be anti-Islam in general. That's a non sequitur. If the police arrest 10 burglars, 8 of which have blond hair, then that's likely to be because 8 out of the ten burglaries are committed by blond burglars, and not because the police are prejudiced against blond people. David | Talk 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK: if you insist that your statement that you have seen no evidence for proposition x should not be taken to imply that you do not believe in proposition x, then I will accept this nicety and agree that I don't know what you think. Of course, having defended the opacity of your opinion you immediately go on to "detect" mine. Well, I'm less shy about showing mine than you are, so let me clear that up. I don't think it automatically follows that PT is anti-Islam. I do think it's notable (and possibly troubling) that he is directing so much of his energies against Islamic homophobia at the moment. And if the police stop 10 men driving nice cars, 10 of whom are black, that doesn't demonstrate that all car thieves are black. Dogville 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum. But also ... I didn't mean for this to get heated. I can see that you might perceive my wading in largely (though not entirely) on one side of a long-standing dispute as insulting, particularly as you've done so much work on the article. I do think it's an evident fact that Tatchell has spent a lot of time criticising Muslims recently, and that as he has also been accused of Islamophobia and (knowing) misrepresentation of the opinions of some Muslims, the simple fact of this recent focus is worth recording. But I don't mean to attack the article as a whole. Dogville 22:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Final addendum. This, and another Wikipedia article, have distracted me terribly today and I am behind with work. I cannot afford to allow myself to look at WP tomorrow. So any lack of further response is simply due to absence. Dogville 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the 'Attitude to Muslims' section
"Tatchell has described Sharia law, the religious rules Muslims live by" - I don't think we need to add this explanation as most people understand what Sharia law is; even if they don't they can follow the link. To say that they are the rules Muslims live by is to gloss over considerable dispute on what Sharia law actually says: like most legal systems, interpretation is the key and this has varied in the past. It also manages to imply that Sharia law is invariably obeyed by muslims, which is demonstrably false.
 * The explanation is important, as the Shariat are the rules for Muslims to live by, from washing your nose before salat to entering a house by the right foot, to how you should Salaam (Young salaam the old, standing Salaam the seated etc). The explanation of what it is in English, whereas the word Sharia is Arabic - Ths it would make more sense removing the word sharia and just saying "Tatchell has described the religious rules Muslims live by". There are many parts of the Shariat which tend to be universally shared by Muslims, there are many which are not, the shariat is not a monolith, despite what Tatchell says. - Irishpunktom\talk 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most English-speakers would instantly understand what Sharia law meant, in general, without needing to have it explained to them. Peter Tatchell hasn't said that it is a monolith, and that wasn't the burden of his criticism. David | Talk 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most Non-Muslim english speakers I've met have a lot of misconceptions surrounding Islam and words we use. Some believe Fatwa means death sentence, some believe that Sharia means stoning people to death. Referring to what the word actually means using three or so words is not excessive and is the correct way to proceed. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't agree. David | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than citing the unhinged rantings of Bob Pitt et al as a source, the reference should be to the Tribune article quoted verbatim in Islamophobia Watch. It may not be on the web but that's not required. When citing sources, one should cite the primary source, not the source that quoted it.
 * If you can find a better source, go ahead and add it. - Irishpunktom\talk 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Tribune article is the source. David | Talk 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you linkto it? - Irishpunktom\talk 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not on the web. This does not matter. It is still the source. David | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then there is no problem with the source as it stands. It verifies the content. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the Iranian hangings, there should be a better source than the Nation article; even if accepted at face value, that only says they have urged restraint and left open the possibility the two boys were hanged for consensual gay sex, whereas our article implies that they have ruled that out. Faisal Alam's quote should perhaps be balanced by the fact that Peter Tatchell has said he does have sources in Iran through which he tried to find out about the incident. David | Talk 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We have to Be NPOV with respect of the hangings. The nation article goes into far more depth than tatchell did. Tatchells claims should be added only if you are prepared to add others' claims.  Alams statement should also stay. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that Alam's statement should go. But you seem to have lost sight of the purpose of the article when you say "Tatchell's claims should be added only if ..." - this is a biography of Peter Tatchell, so his actions are by definition relevant. David | Talk 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tatchells claims need to be Neutral. We can cite his opinion, as his opinion, but also cite the facts surrounding the issue. - Irishpunktom\talk 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. You seem to be saying that if you have a source which contradicts what Peter Tatchell has said, the page should be written so as to suggest that Tatchell was saying something untrue. David | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, no, the facts surrounding the case, not the opinions of each party. Thats what makes in NPOV. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Attitude to MCB
The section on the Muslim Council of Britain says Tatchell "once justified his hatred ..". This is unacceptable unless there is a sourced remark of Peter Tatchell's, saying "I hate the Muslim Council of Britain". The article should simply run "He once asked how .." David | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've NPOVed that up --Irishpunktom\talk 11:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To be added
Peter Tatchell has come sixth in the list of 'living political heroes' voted for by readers of the New Statesman. David | Talk 23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a "gay rights campaigner"--Irishpunktom\talk 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been added--Irishpunktom\talk 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pruning the section on Islam
Irishpunktom seems to have misunderstood a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - I don't have to propose my edits here, especially since he has not outlined an objection to them. By WP:BOLD editors are encouraged to go ahead and make the edit. However, the reason for cutting the section down was that it was occupying too big a section of the article and therefore giving a distorted impression. Some irrelevant entries had also been made and much of the section was repetitious. I therefore reduced it in size by about a third without losing the fundamentals of anything relevant. David | Talk 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * david, why do you feel the need to "prune" information we know you want rid of ? - It seems like you are trying to whitewash that section of the article. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page to stop the revert warring. Please work out your disagreements here. Tom Harrison Talk 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes on July 15
I've made some minor changes. Firstly it seems to me that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is still going on, so perhaps "aftermath" is incorrect: the "Rally for Free Expression" took place during it, not after it. Secondly it seems to have been more a rally than a march. I've implied that the organisers' term for it may not be accepted by everyone. While some of the cartoons did lampoon the prophet, most of them lampooned other things (particularly Kjare Buitgen); as I understand it the offensiveness was in the irreverence so I've tried to approach it that way. Finally, on the Adam Yosef quote, the quote itself shows signs of having been written in haste or redrafted because it begins "compare the his views" which is gibberish. I've cut it down slightly to remove this bit but preserve the meaning. David | Talk 08:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd only question the word "irreverent" -- the cartoons depicted Mohammed as among other things a terrorist; and depending on your position the adjective could be "satirical", "blasphemous" or "racist"; in any case surely that controversy is outside the remit of this article and we can simply omit all of the above and stick to the factual "cartoons"? Dogville 12:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The only cartoon that could be said to depict Muhammad as a terrorist is the one showing a bomb in his turban. As you say, the intent and interpretation of the cartoons is disputed. The reason for including "irreverent" is that it is unchallenged fact that Islam does not like irreverent depictions of its prophet. Some parts of Islam allow reverent depictions (some don't). David | Talk 12:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not called the rally for free expression, it was called "March for Free Expression", alluding both to the traditional method of protesting (i.e Marching) and the month of the year. I don't think assiging a theme to the cartoons is appriate, its caused no small degree of edit warring elsewhere, the link to the relevent article will allow the reader to learn more. RE: A. Yusuf, I've sent an E-Mail to Adam, asking to redraft this, but he hasn't replied, so yeah, it's fine. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A relevant finding on the article lead
The BBC 'Appeals to the Governors' for April to June 2006 contain an interesting and relevant finding on pages 10-11: see here for the pdf. The findings are:


 * The Committee noted that Peter Tatchell has been described and regarded as a human rights campaigner across the external media in both tabloid and broadsheet newspapers. Having looked at the chronology of Peter Tatchell’s activities, the Committee concluded that he has been involved in various aspects of human rights campaigning, including gay rights, since the 1970s.


 * In accepting Peter Tatchell as a human rights campaigner, neither the programme nor the GPCC was giving an opinion on his campaign objectives or tactics, but accepting his own description of his own occupation, which in turn would be recognised and accepted by a very large proportion of the audience.

The implications of this in supporting the lead of the article as presently written are obvious. David | Talk 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * it supports also that the claim is disoputed, and that his actions are considered by some to be "anathema to true human rights campaigners." --Irishpunktom\talk 15:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, it is a disputed issue. We can make sure such disputes are properly analysed within the article. Whether or not the 'anathema' opinion is held by enough people to be significant is possibly a separate debate. Questions of human rights are, in and of themselves, almost certain to cause strong dispute. David | Talk 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the moment, there is no mention within the article of why this characterisation is disputed. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv addition
David recently added this to the article:

It is a reference for one of the statements (about why Tatchell uses a theatric manner when campaigning) in the article. It was removed by User:Freakofnurture as per the ArbCom ruling about David's ban from this article.

I personally can see nothing wrong with it as a reference; if no-one else objects, I will add it back into the article. Batmanand | Talk 14:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No need, I can do it for you. David | Talk 15:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (As a matter of record). User:Dbiv reinserted the references, along with some other stuff, which caused a back-and-forth revert war with User:Calton and User:Freakofnurture. It ended with User:InShaneee blocking Dbiv for a week, and (separately) User:Mackensen reinserting the stuff that Dbiv had tried to insert. Batmanand | Talk 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)