Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit War

Simple request to Parrot to not continue to edit war.--Hemshaw (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Living on state benefits

Again according to the Standard article, that was the case in 2006. This might be a worthy addition to his personal life section if it can be verified and it was not a brief occurrence. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Separated?

According to the Evening Standard article he was separated from his wife in 2006. This should be cross-checked with more reputable source and for current relevance. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be better I think to see where he started from and how he ended up the public face of those organisations. I think it would be better so see his personal background at the start, showing events that led him to being radicle. If he split from his wife is that cause and effect? The other issue with this article is the info box, it is at present for office holder, however this article is about a person who holds no office. I cannot agree with the GA rating, it should be lower as the article stands --Hemshaw (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Some information has been blocked by another editor from this article, being:

• CNN, Splitzer, Transcript

• CNN, Splitzer, Video

• Florida Pundit, CNN, Anjem Choudary October 29, 2010

• Is Anjem Choudhary A Qualified Islamic Judge Of A Sharee'ah court in the UK, Salafi Manhaj, March 2008

Why is this information excluded? Why has this individual entry using office holder infobox instead of infobox person?

Why WP:CENSOR here? --Hemshaw (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's set aside for one moment the incredibly poor grammar you used to construct the sentences you inserted. What makes floridapundit.com a reliable source? What makes salafimanhaj.com, and the pdf file linked, reliable sources? Who wrote the pdf at salafimanhaj.com? What makes tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail a reliable source on such a contentious issue?

And finally, with regard to your claim that "He stated on CNN in a live broadcast on 29 October 2010 that he was in communication with terrorists using the internet and encouraging them to commit acts of terror. [30]", according to the very source you offered, what he actually said was:

SPITZER: Mr. Choudary, are you communicating with individuals in the United States and encouraging them to participate in attacks of this sort? CHOUDARY: Of course I am. You know, I am participating in communication with people all around the world. As you know, the Internet makes the world a very small place. You know, we have a lot of support, in fact, (inaudible) from people as far afield as Indonesia, from India…

Those are not at all the same things, and that's why I reverted your edits. Parrot of Doom 23:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

'He was known as Andy and proud of his Pakistani origin' comes from This Is London and the Daily Mail. Both are accepted as reliable sources. His comments on CNN are well documented. The edits you have reverted are close to Censorship. There are no reasons for removing the information.--Hemshaw (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a rag not even suitable for use as toilet paper, its pages are so fouled by the stench of bigotry and sexism. I wouldn't accept it as a reliable source on anything, the website doesn't even bother to print the names of its writers. You have not answered my questions. Until you provide good justification for your edits, I will continue to revert them as blatant violations of WP:BLP. This isn't censorship, it's common sense. Parrot of Doom 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia:POV, your edits to Nick Griffin quote the Daily Mail. I am not interested in Wikipedia:Edit warring, you have already exceeded the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --Hemshaw (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to "This is London", Choudary denied claims that he was ever known as "Andy". Why on earth would you write that he was, without also including his denial? The answer is that you're either ignorant of the denial, or trying to introduce a WP:POV. Parrot of Doom 00:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That he was reportedly called Andy, and the bit about The Satanic Verses already appears in the personal life section. In any case, the writing introduced by Hemshaw wasn't excellent. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To thank the last editor Christopher Connor who noted where the information is in the article, my mistake. I expected to read about Anjem Choudary at the start of the article.--Hemshaw (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in this case the basis of those tabloid reports (in the Mail and the Standard) are more or less acknowledged by Choudary himself if we believe Johann Hari and the Independent. (Amusingly, Hari was involved in a scandal because he changed quotes attributed to his interviewees, although he claims he's always done it in the interest of clarity, and not for the "greater truth"). I've clarified the paragraph a bit. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

The consensus at RS/N [1] was that the sources in question (two tabloids and an interview) are not reliable. The interview in particular is not reliable because the journalist reporting it is known to misquote people he interviews. Not only that, but the accuracy of quotes in the very article cited here has been called in question by another interviewee. All this was covered at RS/N. Consensus can change, but until you reopen the RS/N discussion, and obtain a new consensus favorable to inclusion of that material, the current consensus is against it. Note that there is no RR limit for removing BLP violations, so I'm removing it again. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? Significance?

The wikipedia page for Anjem Choudary says "He became chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, but was removed from the roll of solicitors (the official register of legal practitioners) in 2002"

Why was Anjem Choudary removed from the register? What are the consequences of being removed from the register?

74.101.128.155 (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Official" Website

The external link to the given to his official website contains no relevant content. It is a generic advertising holding page with no information specific to Anjem Choudary.

archive.org's most recent relevant snapshot can be found that the following URL.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120805075821/http://www.anjemchoudary.com/

 Done. I removed the link. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"He receives little support from mainstream UK Muslims"

This seems somewhat non-NPOV (what is "mainstream?") and is also not substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.141.172 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is substantiated by this. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia had a policy on using media articles to substantiate information? The article offered no proof...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.8 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)