Talk:Anjem Choudary

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Choudary comments in the wake of the 'Lee Rigby' trial

Someone ought to update the (closed) wiki with a sentence or two on Choudary's appearance on BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme on 20 Dec 2013 in the wake of the 'Lee Rigby' trial. 66.225.160.9 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually did try to include some mention of the Lee Rigby trial without embellishing, but my edits were reverted. Working to change that now. Atsme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 20 February 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, 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)