Talk:Islam4UK

Islam for UK or Islam for the UK

Question : is the group called Islam for UK or is it called Islam for the UK ? if you visit the website it would appear to be the latter.Codf1977 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article should be moved accordingly. Rothorpe (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Their website seems to refer to it as Islam4UK, as does the BBC. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving to Islam4UK per 12 and their own website. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The website did CLEARLEY state "Islam for the UK" - I hope you are not confusing a domain name with the group's name - if or when the website comes back and the banner is still there then I may well move it back. Codf1977 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The website does say this, in bold text right across the top. Islam4UK is probably named so because its easy to remember. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Islam for the UK" was a slogan on the website, a statement of intent. If you read the "about" page you will see they refer to themseleves as Islam4UK. Here is google's cache of the page. All reliable sources also exclusively refer to them as Islam4UK, and this is what people will look for when trying to find the article, and that is the most important consideration when choosing the article name. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That works for me, thanks for clarifying the matter. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ditto Codf1977 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail

This edit concerns me deeply. The Daily Mail is one of the least reliable and most vehemently racist and anti-Islamic newspapers currently on the market. I wouldn't wipe my arse with its pages. I very much doubt the neutrality of the article being cited here, and want to remove it pronto. It offers all kinds of claims, but doesn't actually state with clarity where Choudary supposedly made these accusations. The tone of the article is more an opinion, rather than a reliable, newsworthy source. Opinions? Parrot of Doom 15:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree as it does not quote the exact words that Choudary used, I am going to remove the ref to stormtroopers. Codf1977 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments in it are being widely reported and it is a major British daily newspaper, why is it ok that you want to remove the Nazi stormtroopers comment but you want to include that he called British troops merciless murderers? Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the paper, it does not repeat the exact quote - I have looked on other sites and can't find it repeated any ware - in the interests of balance, until his exact words are reported, it is best to leave it out. Codf1977 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need a direct worded quote, its enough that it is being reported. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Its being reported by a piece of toilet roll newspaper with a clearly-defined anti-Islam agenda. It has no place in this article, its pure trash. Parrot of Doom 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside Parrot of Doom's comment about the paper, which I do not agree with. Such a comment needs to be verified since as far as I can see only once source is reporting it and are not reporting it word for word; it is prudent to wait until more sources report it. Codf1977 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still not totaly happy with the wording, however it is a lot better. We need to make sure that if other sources come to light that we avoid any WP:CIRCULAR issues and make sure that they are not just repeating what the Mail has said or what is said on the Wikipedia page. Codf1977 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the The Sun is also running the line, however it is not clear what the source is so it could be a repeat of the Daily Mail story. Codf1977 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We also have the daily Express [[1]], however I doubt he called them heros, so the daily Express seems to refeltc his words better. Another source [[2]], this one from India. As well as the daily Star [[3]]. So its not exaclty unreported.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I have found the interview that is the source of the story it is from Sun Talk Radio [4] here - the section between about 3:00 and 4:30 min in. Not sure that it totally supports the line the Daily Mail takes, he did not use the word stormtroopers for one - nor did the interviewer. Please can others listen so that we can reach a consensus about this part of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is the interview (and it seems to be) then its the sun (and others) putting words into his mouth. I think we need to balance this and use something like.

"the interviewer asked if Britsh solders were Nazis to which he responded that they had commited war crimes, but he did not use the word Nazi".Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand since he gave countless other interviews that day, what makes that one worthy of coverage. Why not just remove the whole sentence? Codf1977 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, since it clearly isn't from a reliable source, just Quote the man directly? Parrot of Doom 20:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the DM bit and am happy for anything else to be added. Codf1977 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Facebook group "number"

If you feel like updating the number of people in the facebook group - only do so if you can quote a reliable source to backup the number. Codf1977 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

MCB

Statement on the march here Parrot of Doom 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken the liberty of adding it, and one other muslim response, there are a few more.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article could really use work on its wording, so that it conveys the facts without any slant either way. At the moment, it reads very anti-Islam4UK, especially given the article is opened with words such as "extremist", a loaded and subjective word which instantly skews the article's neutrality. Now, I don't like what this group stands for, but Wikipedia's articles aren't a platform for opinions or taking sides: we don't, for instance, say that Hitler was the evilest man on the planet. Instead, we merely present the facts without bias and let the reader decide themselves rather than use wording that "guides" the reader's view. That really needs to be applied to this article before it gets bad. -- 86.169.228.192 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You could try removing 'extremist'. 'Islamist' is clear enough for me! Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is the press including the Times for example have called them extremist, even the BBC (source) have used the word hardline to describe them. Maybe that would be better terminology than 'extremist' though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I added the source to extremist, so if people want to use hardline or another similar word that's fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Report the facts from the sources, not their biases. Of course the British media is going to describe them as extremists, hardline, but that is not a fact, it's an opinion, one that won't be universally shared. The British media would go into a flurry of "treason", "traitors", etc for the Cambridge Five, the Russian media isn't. Probably the best comparison is with Al-Qaeda, where we don't use the word terrorist, extremist, or anything else with such a perjorative slant. We shouldn't be using these words as though definitive fact. Use them elsewhere in the article when attributed to scholarly sources examining the organisation, when its made clear it is an opinion, but not in the intro in this fashion. -- 86.169.228.192 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)