Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Anjem Choudary/1

Anjem Choudary

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Anjem_Choudary/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: No consensus. Closed due to drama. Recommendation: After the current drama is resolved this should be put up for GA reassessment. It has been 4 years since this was first assessed. There has been varying amount of drama since. A personal assessment will suffice after this drama has been resolved. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

With the controversey on the talk page I think there is a legitimate question of whether or not this page still meets GA criteria. It's also currently up for review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anjem_Choudary Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear. The "controversy" is from one rather inactive self-proclaimed "professional" writer who made changes to this article that verge on racism.  He added an outrageous claim from the Daily Mail, quite possibly one of the least reliable sources available anywhere on the internet, and introduced material to the lede which does not exist elsewhere in the article.  And as if that wasn't bad enough, he then went on a long, rather boring rant about liberal views polluting Wikipedia and how unfair it all is.  I'll call a spade a spade - the person who initiated this argument is a closet racist seeking to label this article's subject as an extremist nutjob.  There's no bias in this article, just a reporting of facts and views.  Readers are free to form their own conclusions, without being made to read badly-written rubbish like "British born" and "extremist".


 * But if excluding pejorative terminology like "British born" and "extremist" means this cannot be a good article then go right ahead and delist it. Parrot of Doom 09:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think those are reasons to delist this. I did not put this here as a way to settle that dispute.Regardless of what happens in that situation I don't feel that would effect the GA status. This was listed 4 years ago. It has been thru a number of changes since. Numerous changes as well as revisions. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy. Parrot has tried to keep Anjems article clean and adhering as tightly to the letter of Wikipedia biographical rules in order to avoid clear breaches of guidelines that would make it controversial.
 * Whether it is a GA or not is irrelevant. De list it by all means, but at least deal with the real issue - the attempt to make a current GA a terrible article that relies upon tabloid hysteria by one specific editor. Koncorde (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am offended by the condescending remarks to discredit me, but again, I'll take the high road and consider the source. This is a case of WP:OWN.  Parrot of Doom has a history of bullying, and disenfranchising good editors, like Coretheapple who was kind enough to respond to my call for help in the beginning.  A reassessment was long overdo, and I thank Serialjoepsycho for stepping up to the plate.  Anjem Choudary may very well have been a GA if Choudary was actually the person portrayed in the article, but that isn't the case.  It is a skewed representation as a result of omission, and I am not the only editor who has recognized POV issues.  Anjem Choudary is negatively neutral and overly diffused to the point it comes across as a propagandized defense of a very controversial figure who has either co-founded or led radical Islamist organizations linked to terrorism.  The sources I've presented are reliable sources, except to those who disagree with the information, or have something to hide. Atsme (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the Daily Mail is a reliable source then I can only suggest that you are a fool. A racist fool.  A racist fool who, like many others, doesn't understand the difference between stewardship and ownership. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that your only edits to article space since 2012 have been edit-warring this nonsense back into this article 4 times, and that the vast majority of the balance of your 53 total article space edits have been edit-warring spam links into articles about obscure fish using edit summaries written in ALL CAPS, I don't see why anyone should take your opinions on good article criteria or wikipedia policy seriously in any way.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * alf laylah wa laylah What happened to me in the past was very much like the bullying that's going on now. I've learned there is an overabundance of WP:OWN bullies on WP, and it is very disruptive to editing. Atsme (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. It's your story.  You tell it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not feel that the controversey or non controversey is any reason to deList this article. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I offer my apology to everyone here. As it says on WP:GAR this shouldn't be placved here during a content dispute. The apparent reason why can be seen clearly above. This GAR should be ended immeadiately unless anyone disagrees and we can do this on the basis of Good Article Criteria. A GAR is not a proposition that this should be Delisted. It's a question of if it should be delisted. If the answer is in the affirmative you still shouldn't delist it automatically. You fix it or you give others oppurtunity to fix it. So do we go forward or do we shut this?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Shut it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs to go forward, Serialjoepsycho. Anjem Choudary needs improvements in sentence structure, is lacking customary biographical information, and needs updating.  It is not a good representation of a GA at this time.  Atsme (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to go foraward. This isn't about some petty wiki squabble. It needs improvements yes. All GA articles need improvements. There is a rating above GA. The question is does it meet GA criteria. Not your criteria but GA criteria.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What it needs is MORE COW BELL!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This GAR is closedSerialjoepsycho (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)