Talk:2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irishpunktom's edits[edit]

You removed;

Sunny Hundal[1], editor of Asians in Media Magazine[2] writes, "The MCB is clearly disappointed that the law will 'criminalise legitimate armed struggles against violent regimes'[3], essentially meaning they'll have to be careful when expressing support for suicide bombers in Israel or terrorists in Kashmir."[4]

This is legitimate analysis. It's an important viewpoint as to why the MCB is against the Bill. The article states the reasons the MCB give. Hundal's analysis just balances that. Hundal is not making wild allegations. There is evidence for his viewpoint. For starters, just see; BBC response to MCB complaints, The MCB and Hizb ut-Tahrir & Sacranie, Yassin and Gandhi.


In the section The Protest, you changed;

Omar said he had no regrets about his style of dress

to

Omar apologised "wholeheartedly" today to the families of the July 7 bombings and said it had not been his aim to cause offence but said he had no regrets about his style of dress

This is a misrepresentation of the truth. Khayam at first refused to apologise, saying: "I would do it again to make a point. I could have held up banners or something but this made the point better." [5] Omar Khayam's eventual apology came several days later "after pressure from moderate Muslims fearful of a backlash over the protests", only after the initial media outrage. This is why his apology appears later in the article, in the Repercussions section.

For these reasons, I'm reverting your edits.Veej 13:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is Sunny Hundal? Why is Sunny Hundal's view more important, and thus worthy of inclusion more than any others?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is Sunny Hundal? I've already provided the links answering your question. He is a notable journalist who has worked for leading British newspapers including The Guardian, The Financial Times & The Independent. The British media clearly feels that he is notable, hence he has been interviewed by ITV News, Sky News & Channel 4 News. Obviously, he is the editor of Asians in Media Magazine, which is written by some of Britain's top journalists. His views are important because he is notable & he has provided intelligent, relevant & insightful analysis. If you can find other analyses worthy of inclusion, please feel free to add them. Veej 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense. There was analysis in every major publication from every angle criticsizing almost everything about the march. Your inclusin of a carefully selected section of a carefully selected article criticsizing a group who had no part in the event of which the article is supposed to be about is a clear cut case of bias. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please, let’s concentrate on the content rather than attacking me for what you perceive as bias. I assume that you’re asking me to explain the relevance of the MCB to this issue? The protest was organised by al Ghurabaa. They announced it in a press release calling "all Muslims to rise”.[6] “The Muslim Council of Britain (www.mcb.org.uk) is the UK's representative Muslim umbrella body with over 400 affiliated national, regional and local organisations, mosques, charities and schools.” [7] From MCB’s press releases, it claims to speak for British muslims.

1) Al Ghurabaa asks for Muslims to protest in Britain & the MCB speaks for Muslims in Britain.

The ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause from the Terrorism Bill is inextricably linked to this protest for reasons given in the article & elsewhere on the talk page. The MCB chose to try to publicly influence parliament regarding it & therefore became involved in this controversy.

2) MCB urge MPs to vote against ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause.

The MCB react to the march by organising another, more mainstream march. ‘Organisers also said it wanted to dissociate the mainstream Muslim community from a "minority of extremists".’ [8] Muslim rally organisers tell extremists to stay away is a reaction to the controversy.

3) The MCB make highly public reactions to the controversy.

I’ve provided 3 solid reasons why the MCB are involved. Tony Blair, David Davis, William Hague, Simon Hughes & Sir Ian Blair were not actually present at the march yet they are relevant to this article. By the same token, though the MCB were not actually at the protest, they are relevant to this article.

I’ve provided in depth answers to all your questions, yet you haven’t answered my question below, from 4 days ago.Veej 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishpunktom's edits again[edit]

Please explain why you removed this sentence; Police try to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest'.

And this link from The Telegraph; Unchallenged, a man poses as a suicide bomber. Police stop press taking pictures Veej 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More Irishpunktom edits[edit]

You changed;

Police try to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest'.[9]

to this;

The Telegraph claims that Police tried to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest', though hundreds of photographs of the man were taken.[10]

Firstly we have no reason to doubt one of Britain's leading broadsheet newspapers's claims, especially when there is no evidence to contradict it. Where are the 'hundreds of photographs' that you speak of? I do wish you'd look at the links though. The Telegraph article shows a picture of a policewoman trying to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar. That's my evidence but where is yours? Veej 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In the section The Protest, you again changed;

Omar said he had no regrets about his style of dress

to

Though he later apologised, Omar originally said that he had no regrets about his style of dress

Omar Khayam's eventual apology came several days later "after pressure from moderate Muslims fearful of a backlash over the protests", only after the initial media outrage. This is why his apology appears later in the article, in the Repercussions section. The events of the article appear chronologically to aid understanding of the media outrage for the reader. Why repeat this information in a chronologically incorrect position? Veej 19:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

concessions to Irishpunktom[edit]

I've answered all you questions in detail, with evidence. I await detailed replies to my questions. In the meantime I'll revert only the areas discussed. I'm not going to contend the title change from 'The Outrage' to the less descriptive 'Reaction', though I will pluralize it to Reactions for grammar. Nor will I contend your addition of; All the placards were written in the same style and in similar black felt-tip pen ink implying that they were written by one person and then handed out. Veej 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Video[edit]

Added video, it says it all.--CltFn 05:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well done CltFn, a great find. I found difficult to watch though. It's really disturbing. Veej 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid revert wars[edit]

Irishpunktom, I don't want to get involved in a revert war. Is it not better for us to discuss the content rather than unilaterally reverting other editor's work? Veej 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute[edit]

Hi, Veej has contacted me to see if I can help you guys resolve a dispute you're having here.

My initial thoughts are that we should go with number 1 for dispute 1 and number 2 for dispute 2. The source (Telegraph) actually says "Police hinder photographers as they try to get further pictures of the protester in the 'bomb vest'", it does not quote that they "tried" to stop photographers.

Perhaps an appropriate compromise might be

  • The Telegraph reports that "Police hindered photographers as they try to get further pictures of the protester in the 'bomb vest'" ?
I'm good with that --Irishpunktom\talk 16:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree on that too. Veej 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second dispute, if we can find a source for that "cite" then by all means we should include it within the second paragraph. I don't have anything to gain or lose from this so take my suggestions anyway you like. :) - FrancisTyers 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute 1[edit]

  1. The Telegraph claims that Police tried to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest', though hundreds of photographs of the man were taken. [11] Though he later apologised, Omar originally said that he had no regrets about his style of dress, telling the Daily Express,
  2. Police try to stop press photographers from taking pictures of Omar in the 'bomb vest'. [12] Omar said he had no regrets about his style of dress, telling the Daily Express,

Dispute 2[edit]

  1. The demonstration was cited as a reason for Charles Clarke to rush through his Prevention of Terrorism bill. It was also cited as a reason, by Tony Blair, to support the bill. The bill passed when ten fewer Labour MPs rebelled than the previous time.
  2. On the 14 February 2006, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) urged MPs, to vote for the removal of the ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause from the Terrorism Bill.[13] The MCB say the Bill is perceived as "unfairly targeting Muslims and stifling legitimate debate".[14] Tony Blair managed to win the battle, banning the glorification of terrorism, by 315 to 277 votes. He said, "The new law will mean that if people are going to start celebrating acts of terrorism or condoning people who engage in terrorism, they will be prosecuted, and if they do not come from this country, they should not be in this country. We have free speech in this country, but you cannot abuse it."[15] Sunny Hundal[16], editor of Asians in Media Magazine[17] writes, "The MCB is clearly disappointed that the law will 'criminalise legitimate armed struggles against violent regimes'[18], essentially meaning they'll have to be careful when expressing support for suicide bombers in Israel or terrorists in Kashmir."[19]
The MCB had nothing to do with the "UK Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy" - Their comments,and opinions of their opinions - if ever warranted - should be included in the article on the bill in question, not on a march which influenced the bill of which they had no part in. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had given 3 reasons (above) why the MCB are involved:
1) Al Ghurabaa asks for Muslims to protest in Britain & the MCB speaks for Muslims in Britain.
2) MCB urge MPs to vote against ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause.
3) The MCB make highly public reactions to the protest.
Simply saying ‘the MCB had nothing to do with [it]’ is not an argument. As I said above, Tony Blair was not actually present at the protest either, yet he is relevant to this article.
The page on Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 doesn’t deal with any opinions at all. Not even the Prime Minister is quoted. As he shouldn’t. That page purely relates to the Act itself. If this page purely dealt with the protest itself, there would be 3 sentences. We know a relatively small protest shouldn’t normally warrant a wikipedia page but hundreds of articles were written about it in the press, Parliamentary opinion was shifted & a man went to prison. Wikipedia must document this to become the ‘sum of all human knowledge’. It is the repercussions & the context of the repercussions that are relevant here. Perhaps we should change the title of the article?Veej 20:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second point, I guess we have to decide if it is relevant to the article. Part of that will be deciding if the demonstration had a causal effect in getting the Bill passed. Did it? Do any notable journalists say it did? I mean this new bill is kind of irrelevant since they (the protestors) were probably eligible for being arrested under the Public Order Act anyway. If you'd like to include it, what would you suggest the article title be changed to? - FrancisTyers 01:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Booth, of The Times wrote, “The outrage appears to have increased the Government's zeal for reinstating the offence of glorifying terrorism in the Bill. Mr Blair repeated several times that the police and prosecutors needed extra ways to punish those who publicly support terror.”[20] She has also written for The Telegraph & The Guardian. Here are 29 articles from just The Guardian. She has also been quoted in the Adam_Yosef & Independent_school wikipedia articles.
You’re correct in that they probably could have been arrested anyway. But that’s just what the Blair government does. They bring in vague laws that aren’t really needed anyway, to create the impression that they are dealing with problems. They have been widely criticized for this. But whether the Bill is useless or not, it is still news, as is the protest. And they are inextricably linked.
The existing title isn’t that bad but it’s not perfect. Perhaps, “Danish Embassy protest & the ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause”? That’s not great either as there have been lots of protest at Danish Embassies. I’ve never been very good at titles unfortunately. Maybe, “London Danish Embassy protest & the Terrorism Bill”? How about, “London Danish Embassy protest & repercussions”? Though it does seem common sense to me that the repercussions would be discussed in an article of this nature. Veej 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we still need to thin it down a bit, also it should be mentioned in the article explicitly that Jenny Booth or "journalists" write that the protest had a direct impact on the bill getting through. If we do this I don't think we need the quotes from the MCB or Tony Blair. We just state what they said without necessarily providing long quotes. Something like:
Journalists report that the demonstration played a part in increasing the support for the Terrorism Bill which outlaws the "glorification of terrorism" [citation needed]. The Bill was eventually passed 315 votes to 277 [citation needed] despite calls to MPs from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and other religious and civil liberties groups to oppose it [citation needed].
Feel free to chop, change and alter this, I'm just making a suggestion (and probably badly worded!). As mentioned above I think a section on repercussions is a good idea, but it shouldn't be out of proportion with the rest of the article, especially since these demonstrations weren't the only thing to cause the bill to pass. - FrancisTyers 15:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
after Edit Conflict
There is an article about the bill where the background to the introsuction to the bill should be discussed. The MCB are an unelected umberella group, the MAB have proved that they have significantly more support from Muslims. The MCB had Nothing to do with this protest in the same way the Pope had nothing to do with the Dublin riots which were comitted by people who would classify themselves as Catholic. Further, Using a Non-Notable journalist writing in a Non-notable publication to attack a group which had nothing to do with the UK Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy is simply a POV attack, and has no place in this article. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to err on the side of not including the Sunny Hundal quote too, he's writing about something only tangentially. relevant to this article. If he were commenting on the demonstrations themselves then perhaps a quote would be in order, e.g. "Media response" section. But as he is commenting on the Bill, not on the Demonstration I think it would belong more in the article on the Bill. I'm not saying however that he is necessarily non-notable or anything like that, just that the quote is inappropriate for the above reason. Veej, if you disagree feel free to proprose some alternate wording or justify the inclusion. - FrancisTyers 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Tom’s points; The wikipedia page on the terrorism bill is massive with 26 subtitles under the main title. The Bill itself is massive though & the whole thing hasn’t gone though Parliament yet. ‘’There are 3 schedules and 39 clauses’’. To start adding big chunks of text to that is nonsensical. We are only dealing with one clause here, though it should be linked to that page & vice versa. The non-notable issue has been dealt with. I’ve provided proof that Sunny is notable & you’ve simply alleged that he isn’t. Regarding, “MAB have proved that they have significantly more support from Muslims”, again where is this proof you speak of? The Pope & Dublin riots analogy doesn’t work. The MCB publicly chose to try to influence parliament regarding the “glorification of terrorism” clause. The MCB reacted to the protest with a counter protest. Has the Pope involved himself in the Dublin riots in a similar way? How is inclusion Hundal’s analysis a POV attack? The article states the reasons the MCB give & Hundal's analysis just balances that. I’m disappointed that so far all you’ve wanted to do is censor the article rather than contribute to it.

Franc’s points; I don’t understand the need to thin the article. It doesn’t seem too long to me. Battle of Badr from the front page is significantly longer. I do understand your point on proportion though. But I have found more relevant information that will make “The Protest” section about 1/3 longer. I’ll make a start on that soon. I also see your point about the inclusion of Hundal. I have some problems with your wording though. Tony Blair did use the protest as reason for the “glorification of terrorism” clause in Parliament at Prime Minister’s Question time. This is really important. I also prefer the accuracy of direct quotes as their use can help avoid squabbles about wording. I haven’t read any reports about “other religious and civil liberties groups to oppose it”, but they can easily be added when & if they’re found. I read somewhere that the Church of England was all for it. When organisations/individuals are anti something or pro something we should allow them to give reasons why. I also found your proposal far too short. There’s just not enough information there for the reader to understand the events that occurred. That is surely the point of the article rather than any wikipedia policies or conventions.

I’ve come up with a modified bare minimum information version in hope that we can agree on this and continue writing an encyclopaedia:

Journalists report that the demonstration played a part in increasing the support for the "glorification of terrorism" clause of the Terrorism Bill [21]. The Bill was eventually passed 315 votes to 277 despite calls to MPs from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the civil liberties group Liberty to oppose it.[22] The MCB say the Bill is perceived as "unfairly targeting Muslims and stifling legitimate debate" [23] & will “criminalise legitimate armed struggles against violent regimes”[24]. William Hague said at Prime Minister's Questions that the inclusion of "glorification" in the Bill was mere spin, an attempt to give the impression that tough action was being taken. Blair insisted that an offence of glorifying terror was the only way to prosecute demonstrators who carry banners praising the 7/7 bombers. He said that existing laws only allowed prosecutions for preaching hate by word of mouth, but not by the written word or through placards.[25] Veej 08:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't have a source, but I suppose Liberty would be against it [26]. I think your new suggestion is definitely an improvement. Tom, what do you think? Any further suggestions? - FrancisTyers 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • nice one franc. added that now. by the way, have you heard the Shami Chakrabarti single by the Dastards? Awful song. so bad it's hilarious. Even Shami doesn't like it. Veej 12:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'd say we should include your version and remove the NPOV tag as there has been no reply for a while. If Tom comes back and has some comments to add he is welcome. - FrancisTyers 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The POV tag should stay, the article is skewred and containst more information and one-sided opinions on a bill that on the demonstration. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishpunktom's plan[edit]

ok tom, so what do you recommend? what is your proposal? Veej 12:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "plan" is that the article should be about the Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in the UK. The repurcussions should be dealt with, but not including that it helped influence the bill, but the myriad of opinions concerning that bill should be contained with the article for the Bill. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've been though this before. This argument is going round in circles because of a man whose only contribution here is an POV tag. So you accept that the repurcussions should be dealt with, but not that the demonstration helped influence the bill? It's absurd to leave out the most significant repurcussion. Parliament was discussing the demonstration in the debates surrounding the "glorification of terrorism" clause. I've given countless reasons to include it, with evidence. You've simply given your opinion that it shouldn't be included. That is not an argument, Tom. That's your POV. Veej 18:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, there is a source that states that the demonstrations helped influence the Bill, so I think it would be reasonable to include it. I appreciate that the current version might be giving undue weight to this, but if you could contribute a version that you think takes care of your concerns then perhaps we could get some consensus going :) Thanks - FrancisTyers 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you outline specific complaints regarding NPOV so that they can be more easily dealt with, I'm sure Veej would appreciate this as it is often difficult to see ones own POV shining through. - FrancisTyers 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're getting nowhere, so lets do this one at a time.
  • The editor of a magazine giving his POV on an organisation, in connection with a bill which was influenced by this march, which had no connection to the organisation. Why should this be included? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Sunny Hundal? Because that isn't in the proposal. It hasn't been for a number of days now. - FrancisTyers 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two errors in the article[edit]

I spotted two errors in this article, but I'm not going to change them due to the fact that there is an content dispute going on. Personally I don't want to get in the middle of it. Here are the errors:

Error#1: Under the reaction section, the word shadow is incorrectly linked to a diffrent meaning and instead should go to Shadow_government.

Error#2: Under reprocussions the words read, "bailed to appear" I think it should read be, "failed to appear." (see below)

Abdul Rahman Saleem, 31, of Mellish Street in east London, charged with using words likely to stir up racial hatred and bailed to appear at West London Magistrates' Court on 31 March.

Omar Zaheer, of Derwent Road, Southall, west London, charged with racially aggravated disorderly behaviour and disorderly behaviour and bailed to appear at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 31 March.

Anjem Choudary, 38, rented flat in Redbridge, east London, bailed to return to a police station on 19 April "pending investigations into material recovered in searches". He is a prominent figure in al Ghurabaa and the "right-hand man of radical Muslim cleric, Omar Bakri Mohammed" who is banned from the UK.

Abdul Muhid, 22, Waltham Forest, bailed to return to a police station on 19 April "pending investigations into material recovered in searches". He is a prominent member of The Saviour Sect and was arrested in 2005 on suspicion of preaching hatred against British troops in Iraq.

I hope one of you can go ahead and make those changes. Davidpdx 12:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the bailed is correct, as in bail. The way it appears is rather clumbsy to read however. Kyaa the Catlord 12:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I stand corrected. I wasn't sure about that one. Someone should change the other one though to make the link for shadow go to the correct place. Davidpdx 17:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow link corrected. Bailed in a British English term for when someone is released on bail with an agreement to appear in court or at a police station later. AndrewRT 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another error[edit]

The following sentence (at the top of the article) is grammatically incorrect:

Friday 3 February 2006, in response to the publication of the drawings, the Islamist group al Ghurabaa based in the United Kingdom staged a controversial from London Central Mosque near Marylebone Station to the Danish Embassy near Knightsbridge tube.

...staged a controversial what from London? I'm not changing it myself, simply because I don't know what it's meant to say. I assume it means to say a controversial protest, but someone involved in the article should please fix this. Torgo 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE DISPUTE![edit]

Chaps, please don't let the dispute between Tom & I stop you from correcting errors or contributing in any way. Please! That's been going on forever & it's fairly mindless anyway. This is an ongoing story that I don't get too much time to contribute to. The changes made so far have been intelligent & progressive. I really welcome them. Go for it! Veej 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current event[edit]

I've added back this category because the arrest and trial of the protestors are still ongoing and hence relevant additions to the article will be made in the future. AndrewRT 18:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Islamist word[edit]

The word Islamist is a slur. It's akin to me calling the LA riots the 1991 Nigger riots in Los Angeles. BlueGoose 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, just like a Fundamentalist is someone that follows the fundamentals of something. 65.95.241.86 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Islamist is a slur. from wikipedia's own Islamist page: Islamism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that can govern the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.
Wikipedia's Nigger page states straight away, "nigger s a derogatory term used worldwide to refer to black people". Veej 01:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Goose, what would you reccomend that the word is replaced with? There has been discussion regarding a title change anyway. Veej 01:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the title has been changed once already but i've never been happy with it & i don't think it's quite right yet either. Also I've never heard any objections to the word islamist. could you elaborate on why you dislike it please? Veej 02:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Tom, i'm a little confused. You've been discussing the intricacies of this page with me for nearly four weeks now. I'm baffled as to why you've never objected to the title before now? Veej 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(moved here from below)

POV tag not added by me, it should stay till it can be verified that

  1. This is the most used name for this event (I don't think it is)
  2. That the groups in question have all been identified as "Islamist" by a reputable sources.
  3. That the event only took place in one location.--Irishpunktom\talk 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom. Actually, now I'm really confused. so you do object to the title? Veej 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tom, I have asked you twice now to offer an alternative if you genuinely have a problem with the title. You've had so many opportunities to raise this objection before, when Franc from mediation was here to help us. I asked you about the title on 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC) and offered alternatives. Look above. You weren't interested then. I'm beginning to wonder whether you just raise these objections to devalue an article that you dislike with a pov tag. See [27]. The Guardian call them islamists. I fail to see the relevance of no1 & 3. But I'll ask yet again, what are your suggestions for an alternative title? Veej 03:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist is a redirect, not an actual page. BlueGoose 04:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about using the word Muslim? BlueGoose 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word "Islamist" should stay. The BBC's own site refers to the protestors as Islamist. If one floats their mouse over the image of the protestors on that link, the text, "Islamist protesters demonstrate over the Muhammad cartoons outside the Danish embassy in London" appears (alternatively look at the properties of the image). If the BBC which is an established and reputable source is using such terminology there's no reason why this article shouldn't use the same terminology. Netscott 07:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the title is to be changed it should include "London" (ie: "Islamist Demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London" or "Danish Embassy in London Islamist demonstration" ) Netscott 08:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was more than one demo in London about the Prophet caricatures organised by Muslim groups. This one was organised by groups who want to establish a Caliphate - which strikes me as Islamist rather than Muslim. AndrewRT 10:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prophet or "prophet"?[edit]

(I have no problem with the word Islamist, but "prophet" is POV.) - 65.95.241.86


I see your point about "prophet" being a POV term and it is an intelligent and relevant point. However, no other pages at wikipedia put quotation marks around the word prophet. If you look at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Muhammad for example, there are no quotation marks around prophet. Though I haven't found a policy page related to this, it seems that wikipedia has already decided on a convention for this. the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for instance, which has had loads of attention, surely might be a good example for us to follow? Veej 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(moved here fron user talk page)
I am more of an opinion to correct those other articles rather than let an ignorant-mob rule the site, I have a similar kind of situation with usage of the term Linux, which most everyone no adays calls an operating system, while it is no more than a kernel. I'd rather see this corrected than continued, but I am also rather lazy and only mess with little things. I would do the same thing with anything calling Jesus a messiah, saviour or other such term. 65.95.241.86 01:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I can't fault you logic. are you going to change all examples of prophet then? Veej 01:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because unless all, or at least a signigicant proportion are changed, this example of "prophet" will look a bit silly. Veej 02:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, All i did was remove the Quote marks around the word prophet, per Wikipedia Manual of style. My recomendation in this regard, phrase it "the Muslim prophet Muhammad", or "the Prophet od Islam, Muhammad,..". As for the POV tag not added by me, it should stay till it can be verified that
  1. This is the most used name for this event (I don't think it is)
  2. That the groups in question have all been identified as "Islamist" by a reputable sources.
  3. That the event only took place in one location.--Irishpunktom\talk 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tom. I got the wrong end of the stick. Both "Muslim prophet Muhammad" and "Prophet of Islam, Muhammad" seem perfectly reasonable to me. Though the former is more brief so that probably wins it for me. Veej 02:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are at all reasonable if you're looking at this from a factual point of view, the use of the word prophet implies that this person is one. Prophecy is mythos and folklore, which should never be validated within a fact-based text of any kind. I'd be willing to attempt a correction to all related articles which make use of the term prophet, just listing the man's name is fine. I would rather it be "the religous figure Mohammad" or just "Mohammad", because supporting a religon is not very encycopedic. 65.95.241.86 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, tom does have a point there. If you look at the page prophet it says, "A prophet is a person who is believed to speak through divine inspiration. Prophets claim to speak for God (or the gods), with the purpose of delivering a divinely inspired message." The key words are believed & claim. On that basis, it seems reasonable to use the word to me. I seems to be more of a description than a validation. Veej 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


But then the dictionary gives this definition;

  1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
  2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
  3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
  4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.
  5. a) Prophets (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The second of the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures. b) Prophet One of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, especially one believed to be the author of one of these books. Used with the.
  6. Prophet Islam. Muhammad. Used with the. [28]

Hmmmm. I'm not sure. Veej 04:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) Esquizombi 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles))
"The Prophet" or "The Holy Prophet" in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad"
— appropriate action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad"; in first references to Muhammad in an article in which confusion with other Muhammads is plausible, render Muhammad, or possibly "the Islamic prophet Muhammad".'
Oh well done Esquizombi. i can never seem to find these types of pages on wikipedia. Veej 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to wash my hands of this in disgust, I'll say that I think it's a shitty call to use prophet, saviour, holy, great, amazing or shitty to describe anyone in an encyclopdia. Keeping Islamic prophet in there is bullcrap, that's kotowing to a bigotted and nasty religion. He was just some dude, plain and simple. That he started one of the biggest causes of strife in the world really saddens me, triumphism is really a rotten perspective for anyone to hold. 65.94.59.17 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me again, who's bigotted and nasty? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy only seems to recommend "Islamic prophet Muhammad" in the first use, with just "Muhammad" thereafter. The article only uses "prophet" in direct quotes after the first use. I do find the policy unclear/confusing though. it needs rephrasing by somebody familiar with it. Veej 08:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in this case it works fine. Islamic Prophet for the first use, and direct quotes thereafter. In relation to an articl discussing the deed of Muhammad, Islamic prophet first, to clarify it is he, and then followed by just the name Muhammad.--Irishpunktom\talk 11:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move[edit]

The title of this article is too general as "UK Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy". I propose the title be changed to "Islamist Demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London" to more specifically reflect the events documented in this article. Netscott 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Yeah, that seems like a sensible idea. Veej 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


After a brief Check, the word protest seems more popular than Demonstration. Further, do the groups involved self-identify as "Islamist"? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The islamist issue has already been dealt with above. do al Qaida self-identify themselves as terrorists? does it matter? Veej 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia refer to Al Qaeda as terrorist? - No. It reports that they are classified as terorist by X,Y,Z. Referring to a group that may not identify itself as "Islamist" as islamist is one sides POV, but is it the others? --Irishpunktom\talk 12:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
before we go on discussing this, consider one factor. Do you really want mainstream Islam & the groups involved in the demo here, to be described by the same term, "muslim"? Are you personally comfortable with being lumped in the same category as these guys? Veej 13:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the only alternative you can think of? Muslim is far too broad.. Muslim groups maybe, or even "Al Ghurabaa" - considering it was their march. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Moved from Top[edit]

Why is it, that having reading a reasonably long article dedicated solely to one single protest march in one city, I have no idea how many people were involved? --Irishpunktom\talk 12:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you're asking why this article exists? Because of the impact it had on the UK. Britons were appalled by it. It was front page news. Our Prime Minister & other leading politicians were talking about it. Look at the External Links. The_Guardian, just one British newspaper has eight articles out it. If you search the net & newspaper archives you could find hundreds of articles about it. Look at the Repercussions. Omar Khayam went to prison as a result of this. The ‘glorification of terrorism’ clause from the Terrorism Bill was unlikey to go through; The victory means that Mr Blair, bruised last month after his own absence allowed rebels to defeat a proposed religious hatred law, has so far survived a difficult week unscathed. He had been facing what would have been his fourth Commons defeat since the last election, after not losing any votes at all in his first two terms. But the expected rebellion failed to materialise. [29] Luckily for Blair, this controversy erupted at just the right time. How many people were involved is irrellevant. This controversy has changed Britain & has affected the views of Britons. But all this is in the article anyway. Why do you really object this article? Veej 14:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That still doesn't answer the question. Numbers are obviously relevent. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how many people were at the demonstration. Please feel free to search the net yourself, looking for an answer. The primary importance of the demonstration is the repercussions, not the number of people involved. Veej 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers are in the article, if you missed them.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Where did all these images come from? Did the photographer release copyrights on them?Bless sins (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the image "Image:Islamprotest5.jpg" appears here, presumably because it is a photo of the London protest. Yet Yahel Guhan, with a source, says the image is taken from Islamabad, Pakistan. This seems to be a contradiction.Bless sins (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Islamist_demonstration_outside_the_Embassy_of_Denmark_in_London&oldid=1196484034"