Talk:Anjem Choudary

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Revert War

The idea that he may have dabbled in alcohol and drugs while at university has been reverted at least 3 times now, even though it's been reliably sourced. Is there a need to semi-protect the page?--MartinUK (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. - Quite98 (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undo any mass content deletion of this by an IP address as Vandalism. The person responsible for the removal of this entire section is one and the same. After he has been warned three times, he switches IP's and starts to vandalize this article from another one. Therefore, i would suggest that even a single act of this section's deletion by an IP should result in a block of the address, especially since we can say with the utmost certainty that all these IP's are operated by the same person. Moreover, in the event of a similar act by another IP, extend the block of the IP originally blocked. That should teach him a lesson. Joyson Noel (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section about his personal life is still being removed occasionally by IP editors, I've just restored it again. While I appreciate that a lot of it is sourced to the more tabloid end of the UK newspaper market and that he's kind of an easy target hate figure for those papers (who relish painting him as a hypocrite as well as a fanatic), nonetheless they broadly count as reliable sources for WP purposes. In addition i) most of the content is in principle surely fairly uncontroversial (eg where he went to college, the fact that he is/was married etc) and ii) that part which is possibly more controversial (eg what he is accused of getting up to at University) is clearly written up as "reported", and his denials are also quoted. I neither know nor care whether those allegations are true or not, and of course that doesn't matter - if something has been reported in a reliable source, generally speaking WP can refer to it. It is not up to editors here to second-guess the reliability of the original reporting. The level of detail has been cut back from a previous version, so there shouldn't be any WP:UNDUE issues. Perhaps his more excitable supporters should simply view having the content here as highlighting yet another example of the iniquities perpetrated by the UK tabloid press - ie that it says more about them than it does about him. --Nickhh (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is still being reverted regularly. It's all sourced and it includes a denial from the man himself, and since the Daily Mail are not pro-LSD or pro-casual-sex there is no conflict of interest in their reporting, so I think we need to protect the page.--MartinUK (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a WP:BLP page, there are of course some legitimate concerns here, as I noted above (since presumably the point of these tabloid articles is to paint Choudary as a hypocrite of some sort). That was why I rewrote it and cut it back some time ago. But if this person has concerns about the material they should of course raise them here, or on the BLP noticeboard rather than simply reverting a pretty big section, most of which is quite bland and straightforward, en masse again and again. I think one IP address was blocked for a while, this one seems to be a slightly different one, but is quite likely the same individual. Let's see what happens in the next few days and then maybe look for a wider block or page protection. --Nickhh (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism appears to have increased in frequency, so I requested semi-protection. Page is semi-protected for two weeks. Quite98 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorist threats"

What exactly is a "terrorist threat" and how does this not violate WP:WTA? KazakhPol 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word threat is enough, it explains itself, we don't need to feel insecure about him being a terrorist supporter, hence put the word in as many times as possible. It also doesn't make much sense in english. Aaliyah Stevens 12:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Does anyone have any idea on how to contact this guy? I have some questions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRogers7 (talk • contribs)

What kind of questions? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have rational debates with these people. They believe that everything they do is right and everything we do is wrong. Anyone with views similar to his is completely incompatible with Britain, or most of the West --MartinUK (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit...

A paragraph was duplicated, I removed one copy of it. Scholarcs 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Islam is not a religion of peace" quote was made more revolting than it already was. I quoted the article correctly. Though I have to say that it is odd that for as prominent a hate preacher as Anjem, this particular quote was only really picked up by the right-of-center press - nothing from CNN, BBC, FOX, etc.