Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Protected edit request on 28 February 2014

Here is the second sentence in the "Al-Muhajiroun" section: He embraced Islamism, and with the Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Muhammed, co-founded al-Muhajiroun. I believe that the first comma in this sentence should follow the word "and" rather than the word "Islamism," so that the dependent clause may be properly set off from the rest of the sentence. Perhaps some kindly administrator will take this under consideration?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it was fully protected when I tried to edit it yesterday. Or at least the edit notice told me so.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment

With the recent controversey along with the time since it's first review I thought it necessaey to put this up for a reassessment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

GAR result=No consensus. Closed due to drama. Reommendation: 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) 04:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversions

I would very much appreciate the reasons Parrot of Doom, and Bencherlite reverted Choudary. The edits I included provided an accurate description of Choudary's extremism, and the banned terrorist linked organizations/events he was either involved in as a founder or leader. The revert omits any direct mention of him as an extremist, or that he has gained world-wide recognition because of it. As editors, it is our job to inform, not misinform by omission, and it is certainly not our job to rewrite history, or portray someone as something they are not by twinkle toeing around the truth. The comments on the reverts appear more as a personal critique of me based on a differing POV instead of it being a written collaboration by volunteer editors working together to improve a Wiki entry.
Parrot of Doom's comment "(this is hardly an improvement)" is hardly an acceptable reason for deleting someone's work, especially when the revert is poorly written, lacks proper sentence structure, and falls short of being a comprehensive BLP suitable for entry in an online encyclopedic resource such as Wikipedia. Bencherlite's comment "Badly written/sourced/formatted and POV. No thank you", comes across as a personal critique, and POV. While on the subject of POV, I'll reference another comment made by """Binksternet""" a few days ago in response to my question about Islamophobia vs Terrorism Projects on the ANI. To be quite frank, I was concerned that it showed prejudice for followers of Islam to a level unbecoming for an unbiased editor. I hope that isn't the case, but it certainly appears to be based on what's happening now. I am fully aware there are distinct differences, and that not all Muslims are radical or extremists. I have always maintained a NPOV in all of my writings. As a magazine publisher and professional writer for over 35 years, I was rarely if ever criticized for turning in work that was "badly written/sourced/formatted", or reflected a bias to one group or person over another. This isn't my first rodeo. I've been a Wiki editor since 2011, so please, let's cut to the chase, and save ourselves some time. Please just tell me what parts you considered "badly written", or that reflected a POV. Tell me what parts you considered badly formatted, because I followed the formatting that was consistent with the bio. If you think the few edits I made were badly formatted, then the whole bio needs to be rewritten. I focused only on the lead-in, and had plans to work on improving sentence structure for the rest of the article at a later date. I don't see anything in my edits to justify a complete revert. If it's about POV, then we need to take this straight to the ANI, and stop wasting time. --Atsme (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're a professional writer then I'm a monkey's uncle. Changing "British solicitor" to "British born" verges on racism. "Extremist" is pejorative. Then, you cite something from the Daily Mail, which is about the least reliable source there is. There are no such things as "Sharia Law controlled zones in British cities", no matter how much you'd like to believe there are. Then you introduced Lee Rigby to the lede, when the article makes no mention of him. And you introduced other material also not in the article, and compounded these mistakes by not citing them. Parrot of Doom 08:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What Parrot said. Plus you didn't format the sources correctly. And any writer, let alone a professional one, should be able to spot the difference between a comment made by someone called "Binksternet" and someone called "Bencherlite". Funnily enough, we are two different editors. Yes you've been here since 2011 - and in that time you've made just 50 edits to articles. Parrot of Doom has been here since 2005 and has nearly 25,000 article edits, including scores of featured and good articles, so I strongly suggest that you pay attention to what he says. After all, he's got both Nick Griffin and this article to Good Article status, which strikes me as the actions of someone able to write decent unbiased articles on controversial subjects. And ANI is not for content disputes, so don't bother taking the issue there. Bencherlite^Talk 08:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, hello Monkey's Uncle, :-) you are incorrect on most counts, and since Bencherlite agrees with you, he's equally as wrong. At least there's some degree of consensus. I never said I was perfect so excuse me for mixing up the names, Bencherlite and Binksternet. I corrected my mistake, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Unfortunately, the correction didn't eliminate my concerns regarding POV. I'm not going to resort to personal attacks or condescension like what just happened to me, so let's try to stay focused on Anjem Choudary, and what motivated the revert after my inclusion of important information in the bio. It appears Parrot of Doom's incorrect interpretation of certain words may be the culprit. Please keep in mind that we are ALL simply volunteer editors for Wikipedia, and as such, we share the same rights and protections, complete with all their limitations. None of us have a legal claim to a particular project, and we certainly don't hold any copyrights for any of the volunteer work we've done, but we are expected to maintain a NPOV, and be respectful of the contributions made by others. When I first started out as a Wiki editor, it didn't take me long to realize egos and guardianship over one's work can be formidable hurdles to overcome, especially when trying to improve upon an editor's "pet project", or when trying to overcome a POV issue that may skew reality, and inevitably the reader's perception of a subject. Marketing an opinion or personal belief is not much different from marketing a product. Liability exists in both instances which is why Errors & Omissions policies are a requirement for independents in professional broadcast, and print (also internet e-zines).

I stand by my belief that Anjem Choudary needs to be updated to reflect more closely who he is, and what he represents. The revert omits some of the most important aspects which earned him the notoriety that made him a public figure, thereby making him eligible for entry in Wikipedia. It appears rather obvious that bias has played a role in some of the articles written about Islamism, particularly when extremism is at play. It is quite evident in Pamela Geller, and how she was portrayed VS the bios of notable Islamist extremists. Do you truly believe it's acceptable to call someone an "Islamophobic" for their beliefs while omitting the use of "Islamist extremist" for another's beliefs?

There's an excellent article on the subject at The Gatestone Institute which is actually an excellent resource. There is also a good interview on the BBC's Hardtalk - What is Islamism? - Maajid Nawaz, Quilliam. Once you've had an opportunity to review both, you will be better able to discuss the most important aspects of Choudary's notoriety which he earned entirely on his own. Omitting specific terminology from his bio, and denying his extremism neither improves the article, nor helps the reader understand his true position.

Parrot of Doom stated, Changing "British solicitor" to "British born" verges on racism." "Extremist" is pejorative. When an editor doesn't understand the definition or origin of words like "racism" or "extremist", or the proper use of those terms, we end up with POV. This is a serious issue because what results are omissions and unrealistic portrayals. For a classic example about bias, racism, and extremism, you need not look any further than the resources cited in Anjem Choudary, most of which are proven to have a liberal bias, such as MSNBC, which is rated as one of the least trusted names in news, and the Guardian which achieved its goal as the "world's leading liberal voice", and the unprofitable Salon, which was cited as the source for the Hannity comment during his interview with Choudary on FOX News. I could go on and on about the bias and liberal slant of the sources cited in Anjem Choudary, so I find it rather odd that the few sources I cited would be criticized as unreliable.

I would very much like to corroborate with you, and try to achieve common ground without having to escalate this dispute. I would also appreciate your input on Pamela Geller, SIOA, Steven Emerson, and The Investigative Project On Terrorism. I am interested in hearing your opinions on the use of terminology and words you consider pejorative and unacceptable for use in Anjem Choudary, and cited as your reasons for the revert. Thanking you in advance….Ms. Atsme (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In response to the criticisms of Choudary's role in setting up Sharia Law controlled zones in British cities, I am providing the following information in rebuttal. I believe it is very important to include Choudary's efforts as a leading figure in the "Islamic Emirates Project" that was launched by the now banned group, Muslims Against The Crusades. The focus of the Emirates campaign is to turn twelve British cities into independent Islamic states that would be ruled by Islamic Sharia law. According to a report by Civitas, an independent social policy think tank in London, there are at least 85 Sharia courts operating in Britain. Anjem Choudary has devoted a good part of his life to propagating the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and implementing Sharia as the law of the land in Britain. I believe it would be a disservice to readers to omit such an important aspect of the man's life. Atsme (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello folks. I was asked by Atsme my opinion of the recent reversions and edits that have taken place. My opinion is this: I think that you need to get the wider community involved. My suggestion, a very strong one, is that you commence an RfC setting forth as alternatives the two versions of the article that are a subject of discussion. There is really no other way. I guarantee you that if the current back-and-forth continues there will be the following result: 1) There will be no resolution of the dispute and 2) One or both of you will get in hot water. As for my opinion, superficially I have to say that I find Atsme's version, especially the lead, to be more informative and user-friendly. However, that is not a firm opinion. I am not an expert in this subject matter and have no strong opinions on it. So let the RfC commence! Have a great day to all, Coretheapple (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, you know what? I think I'll do it myself. Stand by. Coretheapple (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note Page has been fully protected 4 days due to the edit warring. Please allow the RfC process to take its course and do not resume edit warring when the protection expires. —Darkwind (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Atsme - Re on "British born" - do you have any evidence he is no longer British in some way? Has he taken up residence/citizenship of another country? This can be construed as racist - could be seen to suggest non-white British people aren't *really* British at all or are not "worthy" of being so. I record the actions of the British far-right, so I've seen this before. Tread carefully, as I don't think that was your intention. AC is clearly a comical character of sorts with a hatred for his own country, but he's still from that country regardless. Whether he or you like it or not :P --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Somchai Sun - thank you for your input, and for recognizing my intention was not racist when using "British born". In my 35+ year career as a writer, British-born, American-born, Chinese-born, etc. has always indicated place of birth, not race. When did that change? The only racial connotations in the article is a brief mention of his Pakistani descent, and that wasn't my doing. In fact, when Choudary was asked if he saw himself as a British Muslim, he was quoted by the Huffington Post-U.K. as saying: "I am a Muslim living in Britain, who has a British passport - I think it's a matter of time before Theresa May changes the law and takes my passport away." FYI, there is an article on British Chinese that states: Those born in the UK are known as British-born Chinese or BBCs. From what I gather, Choudary's parents are Pakistani, so if we wanted to distinguish race, wouldn't we say "British-born Pakistani"? Perhaps editors are going a little overboard with political correctness, and concern over racism. As for my position, I am neutral. My primary focus is accuracy in reporting, and maintaining a neutral balance. I believe intentional omission, and biased resources disrupt the balance. Again, thank you for your input, and wise advice. Atsme (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The correct term is never "British born" unless something denotes some alternative nationality. Choudary is British. He is a Muslim. Those two things define all the qualities of any relevance in the lead unless he was to have his nationality transferred or changed. His own scaremongering via Theresa May is irrelevant. Therefore we should say "Anjem Choudary is a British former solicitor, and Muslim advocate". Also I would advise that you read the link associated with BBC's - it's really about community identification in online fora - I'm not convinced that it's actually accurate as it's used in the article. Koncorde (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't see what would be wrong with saying Pakistani in the lede. Pakistanis are just as good people as Englishmen are. How is it 'racist' to point at one's ethnicity when it's relevant? In the article about Alex Salmond it also says ... is a Scottish politician, not British politician. Are we being anti-Scottish racist by doing so? The subject of the article himself has said: "I am a Muslim living in Britain, who has a British passport." He emphasizes that he has a British passport, he obviously finds nothing wrong with being Pakistani.
Now, as for the 'extremism', I really don't think political correctness should go to the extent of whitewashing. Look, some Neo-Nazis also don't like being called Neo-Nazis and consider the word as pejorative, especially in our contemporary world were terms like Neo-Nazi or far-right are used in an inflationary manner. Now, his organization has been banned under counter-terrorism legislation and is referred to by mainstream media (including centre-left media like The Guardian) as extremist. The guy is known for expressing confidence that "there will be other Lee Rigbys" [1]. Now how much more extremist can you get before getting into prison even under the present politically correct government of the UK? Really, if you don't like being called extremist, then just don't promote extremist ideas like ″transfer[ring] the authority and power to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharee’ah (in Britain)″. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The facts on the ground are that he is a native born citizen of the UK. He has not renounced his citizenship has he? He may be ethnic Pakastani. You can write that fact. Both need to be clear. "I'm a professional writer" doesn't make anything clear. It's very interesting and all but off topic and irrelevent. You can't call him an exteremist in wikipedia voice. Wikipedia is neutral and has no opinion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho if it's not ok to accurately describe Choudary as an extremist, or radical, then why is it ok to incorrectly label his critics as Islamophobics, or anti-Islamists, or Muslim-bigots, and why is it ok to label anti-terrorist organizations as "hate groups", and then lump sum them all together with a navbox defining them as "Part of a Series on Islamophobia"?? Islamophobia is a neologism that has not been accepted into mainstream language because it is as racist and discriminatory as what the label itself attempts to define. It is unquestionably WP:POV. In fact, Islamophobia was deleted from the AP Stylebook, a writing style guide that's widely used by journalists and other writing professionals. The reason given was "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts." Unfortunately, instead of maintaining writing integrity, we have editors who are hanging Islamophobia labels on any and all persons and organizations they unilaterally determine to be critics of Islam, Muslims, or Sharia Law, regardless of mission statements, or stated goals. It is a clear violation of WP policy. Atsme (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme you would have to be more clear. Who's labeling whose critics as such? As far as extremist and radical, Barrack Obama and Ronald Reagan have been called both.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not only that the Wikipedia's core policies like NPOV allow calling him an extremist, they warrant this! To say otherwise is politically correct nonsense. Organizations that are extremist according to reliable sources should be described like that here, too. Be it God Hates Fags or Islmic supremacists like the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not censored to make obnoxious persons and organizations more palatable. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit: WP:LABEL of WP:WORDS. If you want to use extremist it is really going to require in-text attribution to a reliable source. This is loaded language. It is not nuetral in this usage. While you can use it your usage has to be nuetral.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, thank you for your continued consideration in this matter. It is much appreciated. With regards to Anjem Choudary, I tend to agree with Lokalkosmopolit. The biggest hurdle is finding reliable resources that do not refer to Choudary as an extremist, or radical. I doubt such a resource exists. Mr. Choudary is quite passionate about his faith, and a formidable advocate of Sharia. To portray him as anything other than who he actually is would be deceiving. I liken it to portraying Sam Kinison as Jerry Seinfeld. The result would be an intense, politically incorrect Seinfeld rather than a toned down, observational Sam Kinison. Atsme (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

First off you have to find a reliable resource that refers to AC as a Extrememist or a radical. Then if you put that in the article you have to attribute it to the sources. No where in this article should wikipedia refer to this guy as extremist. This is loaded language. There's the voice of sources and there is wikipedia voice.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

:With regards to the POV issue and reverse discrimination aspects of Islamophobia, please review the navbox titled "Islamophobia" which is currently being used to label anti-terrorist organizations and critics of Islam under the heading of Islamophobia, whether intentional or not. The mere presence of the navbox in the article creates the impression. A circular reference is also created, and the result is further validation of the Islamophobia label purely by association. As I explained in my comment the other day, the Associated Press nixed the word Islamophobia from its Stylebook, stating that it should not be used "in political or social contexts." You will find an Islamophobia navbox prominently displayed in the articles for each of the following organizations: Stop Islamization of America Stop Islamization of Europe Stop Islamisation of Denmark Stop Islamisation of Norway 969 Movement David Horowitz Freedom Center Dove World Outreach Center English Defence League European Defence League Investigative Project on Terrorism The navbox gives readers the option to visit related links under the following headings: Organizations, Issues, Specific Incidents, Blogs, and Opposition. All are POV issues because the included links were unilaterally selected in an effort to create a network that lends credence to Islamophobia. It's a simple matter of linking organizations who are critical of Islam to articles that focus on the persecution of innocent Muslims, thereby stigmatizing the linked organizations, and creating a specious network of Islamophobes. In fact the very first link under Issues is to an article titled Persecution of Muslims. The 2nd link is to an article titled Islamophobic incidents. Keep clicking on the navbox links, and you will see for yourself they are all POV with an indisputable prejudice to Islam. The series on Islamophobia should be quashed for the same reasons there should not be a series on Islamic Extremism, or perhaps there should be? Imagine a navbox that, by its mere presence in the article, labels an organization as a terrorist organization, (label by association), and then groups all the listed organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, al-Muhajiroun, al-Qaeda, etc. in a nicely networked package that links only to selected articles about the persecution of Christians, Sikhs, Jews, non-Muslims, secular Muslims, women, the burning of embassies and churches, and Islam's hatred for the West. It would not be any different from what the Islamophobia navboxes are doing in reverse. Editors must argue for the use of words like radical and extreme when it comes to Islam, yet that same terminology is used freely against critics of Islam. It's happening right now with Anjem Choudary and a request to extremist, while the opposite is happening with Pamela Geller, and SIOA with a request to remove such labels. It is clearly reverse discrimination. My recommendation for resolve is to begin by stating a goal such as the collaborative effort for neutrality; Step #1 eliminate the Islamophobia navbox, and discourage use of the word; Step #2 update the articles of the organizations formerly in the Islamophobia series; Step #3 begin updating the BLPs associated with those same organizations; It may very well be an ambitious endeavor, but it is certainly a worthy one. Ms. Atsme (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sharia controlled zones

Ok there were no Sharia controlled zones set up. How ever there was the "Islamic Emirates Project" of the “Muslims Against Crusades”. Apparently AC was some how connected. So what needs to be done for this information to be included? Obviously we need Reliable sources that document his involvement. Beyond that There are no Sharia law zones. It would have to be written so fact is clear.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Moved to BLP-N by Atsme at 03:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC). )

There is a currently a dispute between editors involving two possible versions of the article. One can be found here.[2]. Let's call that "Version 1." It is the current version at this writing. The other version can be found here.[3] Let's call that "Version 2." This article concerns a living person who is somewhat controversial, and I think it's fair to say that Version 1 is less negative than Version 2. The question to be resolved in this RfC is, which version is better, more informative and above all, more compliant with policy, Version 1 or Version 2? Coretheapple (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• TLDR. Sorry but I think this RFC needs to be reworked, and perhaps cut into smaller parts. That's an awfully long article to ask people to read and compare, when ultimately it's likely there are positive aspects to each version. Is there one section in dispute, or one idea? If this is a complex case you may need to simplify it for others who are not intimately aware of the issues and sources available. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to otherwise involve myself in this case, but here's the diff comparing version 2 to version 1 (take note that version 2 is the "old" and version 1 the "new" edit in that specific diff). That way, the two versions can at least be compared without having to read through both articles as a whole. The differences are, with exception of a single bracket, in the lead and the lead alone. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Both versions have issues, some POV problems and inflated language, verses NPOV error of omission. As it may take a bit of time I suggest starting with the first sentences, and build from there. Look to find the NPOV of expressing how he is tied to the cases cited, assuming reliable sources make the connections. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry for the over-simplicity of the RfC, but it really comes down to two versions, so it seemed to be a question of which was more in line with policy. The lead paragraph I think is where the main issues lie, but they also like elsewhere. My aim was to get more eyeballs on an article that is contentious, controversial, and urgently needs wide community input. I have not edited the article but was asked to look at it by one of the two editors involved in this warfare. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is it really your position that this article is "contentious" and "controversial"? Parrot of Doom 18:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Just speak in simple declarative sentences. I'm not going to get involved in a back-and-forth with you. I am not invested in this article other than to get more eyeballs on it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I declare you're talking nonsense. Parrot of Doom 18:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's an example of the input you've been bringing to the discussion, I can understand why things are at loggerheads and it underlines why the community needs to get involved. I have no further interest in this article though I may look in on this RfC at some point in the future. Right now this whole mess goes off my watchlist. Coretheapple (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

When you demonstrate the courtesy of answering a simple question (in response to a poorly-phrased statement), then you may have the right to feel aggrieved. Until then, I suggest you bother yourself with things you understand. Parrot of Doom 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, given that this Talk page is littered with responses like this from you, it is clear that you have lost sight of what you are supposed to be doing here. No matter what the circumstances, telling someone they are "talking nonsense" and instructing them to "bother themselves with things they understand", especially when they are simply saying that more eyes are needed on this, is incredibly disrespectful and damaging to the collaborative process. You point out elsewhere you are a vastly experienced editor with 25,000 edits on Wikipedia. You should know better than to act like this. Right now, you are nothing more than a barrier to cooler heads fixing this mess. There are plenty of other articles that need work; I suggest you work on them for a while until you get some perspective. This article will still be here in six months.Robinr22 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You're only confirming what others might suspect. You know what's disrespectful? Not answering perfectly reasonable questions. And nowhere have I pointed out my edit history, so perhaps, in future, before you get your knickers even more twisted, you might care to read things properly. And don't ever presume to tell me what articles I should edit. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, it was your friend User:Bencherlite. Nevertheless, given that the number is right, you should know what is and isn't acceptable behaviour for a Wikipedia editor. And this ain't it. This is not your first time around the block and you should know better. And I'm not telling you anything. I suggested that, given the general hostile tone and aggressive attitude you are bringing to this talk page, you might want to take a step back. This is what Wiki guidlines clearly state that you should do. In response, you continue with the same attitude and tone of aggressive hostility. You are not doing yourself, the article or Wikipedia any favours at all.Robinr22 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

using the same analogy, I can only presume that given your low edit count mostly to talk pages, that you most certainly know nothing. I've done more for this article than anyone on Wikipedia, so kindly take your advice to where it's needed. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And that counts for precisely zip. This isn't your article and despite the length of time you have spent working on it (time which appears to have been mostly spent edit warring, reverting other's edits and being rude to them) your opinions and edits have no more weight than mine. We are all equal when it comes to editing. Your greater experience seems to have lead you into thinking you can simply do or say whatever you like, ignore Wiki guidelines and behave as if this is your page and your page alone and no-one else can comment or edit without your permission. This is not the case and it needs to stop. I am seeking advice from wiser heads on the best way to stop this from being an ongoing problem because, as of now, you are being little more than a disruption to the work of other editors. It wouldn't surprise me if this ends up as an enforcement issue and I suspect that this only reason this hasn't happened already is because this has been fairly low profile so far. But is that really what you want? To risk being banned over this? Robinr22 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What needs to stop is ignorant fools like you running to mummy every time you don't get your own way. Take it to ANI if you like, I could do with a good laugh. Parrot of Doom 07:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What deep insight your 79 edits to article space have given you! Would that we were all such perceptive students of the ways of Wikipedia.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, how much you edit makes very little difference to your knowledge of wikipedia guidelines and etiquette. Rudeness, sarcasm, hostility and arguing from authority are all way out of line on here. This isn't just me. Numerous people have expressed concerns about the attitudes and actions of editors on this page. Robinr22 (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Robinr22 your comments are a breath of fresh air. It's encouraging to know we still have editors who believe in corroboration. It's rather unfortunate that we have to deal with those few who think their articles are perfect. If that were the case, they wouldn't have to spend time protecting them. As to the claim that the number of articles is what determines who is the better writer, I have only one thing to say - It's not the quantity that determines the integrity of an article, it's the quality of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The quality of knowledge and knowing the difference between "corroboration" and "collaboration," I'd add. Now are you interesting in collaboration? Then discuss article content. Are you interested in corroboration? Keep making comments that elicit responses that strengthen your confirmation bias.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We have guidelines relating to civility and conduct. These are not optional. Your comments and tone, to be both me and Atsme, are way out of line. Robinr22 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You're funny, friend. It's way out of line to invite you to collaborate? The fact that you think it's out of line is corroboration. What's next? Commiseration? Conflagration? Civilization!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it rather entertaining when a peacock fans his tail, and half the feathers are missing. CORROBORATE, Alfie, corroborate, or are you not familiar with its usage? There hasn't been any COLLABORATION on Anjem Choudary since Parrot of Doom decided to WP:OWN. It wasn't because I didn't try. It was most certainly a breath of fresh air and encouraging for me to know we still have editors like Robinr22 who corroborated Coretheapple's findings that we need more eyeballs on Anjem Choudary, and that because of the rude behavior by a few bully editors, good editors have to work in a hostile environment which is extremely disruptive.

Speaking of editing, which happens to be why we're all here in the first place, I'm not seeing any reliable sources to substantiate….

(1) that Choudary was born in the U.K.;

(2) that he was actually a licensed British solicitor. The referenced Telegraph article states he was "a lawyer by training", and the other refs point to dead links. His legal training may have been limited to Sharia Law considering he is now a Judge of the UK Sharia Court, but the latter hasn't been substantiated, either (or I could say corroborated by one of my collaborators);

(4) if he was a licensed British solicitor, when did he relinquish his license, and what about

(5) his employment, and how he has earned an income all these years?

Those are some of the questions that arise from just the lead-in. The article needs Corroboration - Collaboration - Cooperation….the 3-Cs of good editing. What it doesn't need are WP:OWN editors who think they have exclusive rights. And as far as what's next, I'll end on a humorous note - it's most definitely not conflagration, considering the flatulence we've been getting from all the bull. Atsme (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you're so up on WP:THIS, WP:THAT, and WP:THEOTHERSTUFF, have you read WP:COMPETENCE? It took me all of three seconds to find an old copy of the dead link that disturbs you so much. If you have questions that need answers, why don't you find sources. Oh, right, you don't edit articles. Silly, silly me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

alf laylah wa laylah I don't edit articles? Wonder why….*LOL* Atsme (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• You need to break this up somehow. Your asking someone to read a long article and compare it to a long article. Break this discussion up into sections and go over each part. And be very specific about what you find contentious. Your asking that needle be found in a haystack.
• Side note This article has GA Status. If there is an actual issue then it should be reassesed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The context of Robinr22's comments seems to be a dispute earlier with Parrot when Robinr22 wanted to use the Sun and Mail as sources, something we are very unlikely to do in a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • My comments don't have anything to do with the current dispute per se nor the Sun/Mail issue. My concern is based on my experiences attempting to discuss issues with Parrot both last year and on this occasion. It is pretty obvious that he sees this as his article and is implacably opposed to considering anyone else's viewpoint or allowing anyone else that disagrees with him to contribute to the editing process. Whether he is right or the editor opposing him is right (and whether he or I was right about the use of tabloid sources last year) isn't really the point. Editing is a collaborative process and Parrot's approach of telling editors to get lost, that they aren't fit to contribute to his articles and reverting any edit that he doesn't personally agree with is way out of line. Regardless of the correctness of the underlying issues, it impossible to resolve anything at all when an editor has this approach. I personally feel that he should step back from the discussion (and I'm perfectly happy to do the same) to allow more neutral editors to resolve the issues with this article.Robinr22 (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• The Version 2 is much better. It points out some things that really make this subject notable (or notorious, if you like) and helps distinguish his views from those of more moderate Muslims. It also offers a paragraph on the causes of the banning of the organization and the connection with the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby, which as I see is missing in Version 1. So in my opinion Version 2 is superior. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Since this was moved to BLP noticeboard I'm going to close this RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have taken this discussion to BLP-N

Atsme (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:I closed the BLP. At this point it has been explained completely why the revisions were made and why they are justified. WP:CYCLE Be bold, Revert, and discuss. This has happened. Go be bold again Take into account what has been said. Go get some reliable sources and use neutral language so the NPOV can be maintained. If you get reverted again after that come back and discuss. Your a professional writer. That's great. Really, Go you. However that really doesn't mean anything here. You are editor just like anyone else here. Your aren't a higher status because you have some type of writing career. I really feel that comment lead to all of the later inflamatory comments and honestly after the fire started you stoked it. What they did wasn't right however you aren't absolved of any responsibility either. Let's not make it personal.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho I never made it personal. You obviously didn't read the full exchange. The only reason I even mentioned my qualifications was to fend off their condescending personal attacks. They were treating me like I was a child who had never written a book report. It's all bygones now. I just wanted to correct some of the slop I was reading in the Choudary bio. Maybe now that I've drawn attention to it, the article will be improved. Have fun! Atsme (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Atsme You mentioned you were a writer before anyone responded.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Serialjoepsycho, you are mistaken. I've moved this discussion to my Talk page. It doesn't belong here. Atsme (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken at all. I just don't care. "this is hardly an improvement" When that was used as a revision that was you queue to hit the talk page. After that you were given (Undid revision 596258751 by Atsme (talk) - the sequence is BRD: a bold edit, reverted, needs discussion - not edit-warring back in. Badly written/sourced/formatted and POV. No thank you). If these two did something else on another page it doesn't really matter. Your argument doesn't become good because you mention your writing career. Your Edits were bad. You used tabloid sources and loaded language.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Muhajiroun

Final Paragraph. Should any of the terrorist plots be named or rather things that even remotely connect him? As written it is rather vague.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING

User:ParrotOfDoom The edits I made to the page were an improvement to the lead-in. You don't start off a biography of a living person with past history. You start off with who they are NOW, not that he was a FORMER anything. You say what he does NOW. The former is used in the history sections of the bio. Year of Birth, ethnicity, nationality - REQUIREMENTS IN A BIO. You don't scatter the information all over the page. Atsme (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with your edits is that - regardless of the content - they are very poorly written, and contravene many aspects of WP:MOSLEAD. I suggest you read that guidance, and propose on this page an improved version that other editors can consider. You also need to stop edit warring, and stop SHOUTING - which is very unlikely to convince other editors that you are right. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You clearly do not know what you are doing. You are not a professional writer. You are just making a fool of yourself, and I will not allow you to introduce your own racist views into this article. Parrot of Doom 10:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A claim that the earlier version is "vastly superior" needs more explanation, not a perfunctory edit summary. Other editors disagree with that assessment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I do admit that Atsme has a slight point that starting with what he isn't, is not a particularly easy thing to read or understand. It makes him seem entirely past tense (i.e. an ex parrot). The lead would be better if he was first defined for what he currently is - an advocate for sharia, prominent muslim, political commentator, whatever is sourcable and neutral. Koncorde (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's OK in theory, but in fact he is most notable for what he did in the past, rather than any positions he holds now. None of the organisations with which he is claimed to be involved now seem to be sufficiently notable to have their own articles - and the claims are not reliably sourced in any case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he was notable as a solicitor. The "former" nature of that first sentence does read a little strangely. Is it not possible to insert a more generic description at the beginning before going on to specific positions which he no longer holds eg "...is a British Muslim activist who has been associated with several Islamist organisations. He was..." etc That seems to be neutral and covered by sources in the article. (If not "activist" then some other descriptive eg "campaigner") DeCausa (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point but I think it's wise to inform the reader from the outset that despite some of his more peculiar outbursts, he is actually educated to a good standard. Parrot of Doom 17:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I also don't believe that he was a notable solicitor (or that it had any relevance) or that his past associations are any less / more notable than his current statements. We can clearly say what he currently is - an advocate. And we can also clearly say what he no longer is - a removed solicitor. In fact almost all of his notability stems for events subsequent to 2002 - so what relevance the solicitor thing has is a bit beyond me. I would recommend the below:

"Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى‎; born 1967) is a British Muslim advocate for Islam and Sharia, and previously, before it was proscribed, spokesman for the Islamist group Islam4UK."

This largely lines up with Malcom X intro. I would also say that he could be described using similar terms as Ann Coulter such as a "social and political commentator". the subsequent paragraphs could then deal in more detail about his history as a solicitor etc. Koncorde (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree. There are two more paragraphs in the lead that explain perfectly well who he is. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's true, but the first line is terrible. What would he need to do in order to not be known first and foremost as an ex-solicitor? What relevance is his ex-solicitoring? It appears largely ignored in the rest of the article to warrant it being the first thing mentioned. Koncorde (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)