Talk:East London Mosque

reflect

Someone may wish to reflect these articles here, here, and here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

scope of article

The London Muslim Centre used to have a separate Wikipedia entry, but was later incorporated in the East London Mosque entry. However, the boxed entry about Architectural information refers only to the mosque, not the adjoining centre or new Phase 2 expansion. What is the best way to present all the information correctly? UsamahWard (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I note someone has added details of the most recent architects. UsamahWard (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the box 'British Bangladeshis' really appropriate for this article? UsamahWard (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a lot more work on it for example there is no mention of the Gilligan allegations even though it is covered by a major paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.144.238 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

leadership and dome

I live in this mosque. As I said, Dr Bari is still the chairman of this mosque. Regarding the imams and muezzin, were added when this article were created. This mosque has 2 domes. Look in google maps, the second dome is above the al baraka restaurant. Fisingi (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC) You are copying from here. http://www.eastlondonmosque.org.uk/content/management Habibur rahman is abdul bari's son. Fisingi (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You really live in the mosque? Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari stepped down as chairman last year; Habibur Rahman is the current chairman, and is certainly not the son of Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari! This has been reported on the mosque's own website, and recorded in their entry at the Charity Commission. There is no dome above Baraka Eatery, it is on top of the residential tower next door, which is part of the Gateway Housing Association, not part of the mosque. The Muezzin is not a part of the leadership, he performs the call to prayer. The mosque has a section on its website where it explains its management. Please undo your last reversion, as you have broken the WP:3RR rule. I'd be happy to meet you in the mosque if it helps resolve this. UsamahWard (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I may have broken the 3RR myself, I didn't know about it, so I must apologise. Fisingi is clearly mistaken. I won't try to correct it again now, because of 3RR.Inpeacebase (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fisingi should be given time to undo his own reversion, which is allowed under the 3RR rule. If he doesn't, others could be invited to review the issue. It's not a critical issue, but you're right to say he's mistaken. UsamahWard (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There have been more edits of the leadership section without further discussion here. The info box now wrongly states Muhammad Abdul Bari as the "Ex President". The leadership of the mosque is clearly explained on its own website. The edits that have ignored this have not been sourced at all, other than by claims of living near or even in the mosque. Inpeacebase (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong? In these last days the user Fisingi,UsamahWard and Inpeacebase are editing the leadership of this article. My last edit was a reliable source. Muhammad Abdul Bari was the chairman of this mosque, so it means he is the Ex President. The user Fisingi deleted the chief imam of this mosque from the leadership. After that I added back him . Then the user User:Manspacey undid my edit , so it means he supported the user Fisingi. For that reason I have contacted and admin to be sure if User:Manspacey belonged Fisingi. But I did a mistake! The Admin have found that the UsamahWard's IP adress is the same of the User:Manspacey. So it means UsamahWard is a sockpuppet, in fact after few days there will be a sockpuppet investigation about him. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 16:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any sockpuppet, and I'm open enough to use my own name. I work at the mosque, and there's any number of people here - many dozens - who would see bizarre claims about having 2 domes, or that the new chairman is the son of the old chairman, and wish to correct that. Also, as I added the fact that Sheikh Abdul Qayum is the Chief Imam, I would hardly create a sockpuppet to change that! The leadership of the mosque is openly known and shown on the website. The single dome - not two - can be seen clearly on the image. These should not be contentious matters. UsamahWard (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Rinfoli, chairman and president are not the same thing. Why include a former chairman in the leadership?Inpeacebase (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin Rinfoli, why did you think that I was a sockpuppet? This is my only account. That usamahward is a sockpuppet and vandal. Not me. Fisingi (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

UsamahWard are you working in this mosque? An admin have found that your IP adress is the same of User:Manspacey. We're still not sure that you are sockpuppet, in fact we will make a sockpuppet investigations.
Inpeacebase In my language chairman and president are same thing. The chairman of a college is even the president of a college. Have you understood? YOU asked why include a former chairman in the leadership? Why not. Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari was the president of this mosque for many years, and he has an article in wikipedia as well. Many people believe that he founded this mosque, although this mosque was built in 1910. So why we shouldn't mention him???
Sorry Fisingi, I am not an admin, I thought that you were a sockpuppet because User:Manspacey undid my edit. With regard to your edit, the other dome doesn't belong to this mosque. Then, S. Habibur Rahman is not Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari's son. Habirur Rahman is from Sylhet instead dr Muhammad Abdul Bari from Tangail. If you live near at the mosque, we can meet.Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 18:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As you, Rinfoli, and Fisingi appear to be new, having only created accounts this month, I would welcome you to Wikipedia and hope that you will be able to make valuable contributions. One of the many principles at Wikipedia is to assume good faith, so you shouldn't leap to false accusations of sockpuppetry. Your record of contributions does not support your claim to have information from an "admin"; do you have another account through which you are communicating? Another important principle at Wikipedia - indeed, a fundamental principle - is the reliable sourcing of relevant information. If you add, remove or alter information without recourse to a reliable source, it is hard to insist on its retention. In the last couple of days some of the changes have been, frankly, ridiculous, such as the claim there are two domes. Your own insistence that this mosque is the "one of the only and first mosques in Europe which are allowed to broadcast the adhan" (on your user page) is astonishing. Leaving aside the mosques in Istanbul, Albania or Granada, there are other mosques in Britain that broadcast the call to prayer - the East London Mosque may have been the first in Britain. I note this claim from your user page is exactly the same, word for word, as the insertion into the mosque article by Ellodorando. Also, your claim that "chairman and president are same thing" is patently not true; you cannot arbitrarily change people's titles - we do not, for example, say "Chairman Barack Obama", and if you tried to change it in the Wikipedia entry I suspect it would quickly be changed back. Your reason for including a former chairman in the current leadership - "why not" - isn't really a reason at all, and arguably would open the door for a list of all the former chairmen; this may be worth recording in the main body of the article, but surely not in the info box. UsamahWard (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded the image of this mosque where there is written that "which is one of the only and first mosques in Europe which are allowed to broadcast the adhan".I have only copied from this article and just it. Why don't you want to include the former chairman'name and imam's name in infobox? The imams name was included since this aRticle was created. .Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 08:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Rinfoli, the content of the infobox for religious buildings is dictated by the template, which can be found here: Template:Infobox religious building. For leaderships is says: "leadership — the current person in charge of the building (i.e. Archbishop X or Reverend A.)". How can you or anyone else change this? You have also changed back the number of domes to 2, even though you have acknowledged this is wrong. The mosque itself has a page for management. I think you need to re-read my explanation above. Please undo your latest reversion, or this will have to be referred. UsamahWard (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

the imams must be here, and there are 2 domes in that mosque, and we do not need to add chairman in template box, we need only imam. Then habibur rahman is the son of abdul bari, he looks like him. why you people do not undestrand? Fisingi (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

UsamahWard If I changed back the number of domes to 2, it was certainly mistake, it is happened when I undid something. For leadership you don't have to mention only the current chairman. You could add the older one as well. President is also a synonim of chairman, but it doesn't matter I've changed it. Fisingi I am tired to explain and answer you. .Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 10:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Rinfoli, as I suggested before, if you feel it is relevant, add details of previous chairmen and other staff in the main body of the article. But the Wikipedia infobox template clearly says "current" for leadership. The Chief Imam is the religious leader, the Executive Director runs the institution, and the Chairman is the non-paid trustee of the registered charity who leads the trustees. The sources for this, amongst others, are the management section of the mosque's website and, in the latter case, the Charity Commission. It is not disrespectful if former chairmen, other imams or the muezzin are not included in the leadership, it is just a reflection of the facts of the matter. UsamahWard (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

UsamahWard I said that the imams were added when this article wasr created. So now why do you want delete all of them?? Nothing happens whether there are some imams name in this infobox. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 10:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Rinfoli, the names of the Imams were not added when the article was created, check the history. However, the issue should be whether it is appropriate, not whether it's been on the article for a length of time. UsamahWard (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Fisingi Why have you cancelled chairmans names???? You will be blocked from editing. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#}, 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need chairman's and executive director names?? Only Imams and muezzin are ok. Fisingi (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The link to the religious building info box is very helpful. I may go through it to see if the article has got it right, but I'll avoid the leadership and domes parts to avoid the 3RR problem.Inpeacebase (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

vandalism from usamahward and .....

Gorgucurtesabre wants to have many edits, infact he did more tha 20 thousand edits in wikipedia, and he is also racist. Instead usamahward want be elm' boss, and he want to do whatever he want. He deleted all imams and abdul bari's name, then in "Prominent visitors" he moved mawlana sayeedi, yashir qadi and saad nomani's name from "imams" to "others notable visitors". He did also other bad things about this article. These two are vandals and they should be blocked. 109.157.151.48 (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Silly, nasty and untrue. I am probably the same race as you, and from the same country (read my profile) so how can I be a racist? Shame on you. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Same race? Pakistani and Bengali are same rece? Pakistani are known as thieves in saudi arabia (it is true and I am not offending). They killed either many muslims and hindus in Bangladesh. They tried to destroy bangladesh. So how can they can be same race? George Custer's Sabre you should be ashamed of yourself. 109.149.79.197 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the shame is yours. "Pakistani are known as thieves in saudi Arabia". This is a racist statement. I'm bored now and won't reply again. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Prominent visitors section

Dear all, the problem with this section is that the citations in the section don't support all the claims of visitors. It seems that some of the visitors are mentioned above, and correctly cited above, but this leaves the problem with the citations in the Prominent visitors sections. They will need to be changed to include the sources from above. I'll try to make a start on this in the weekend Insha'Allah. In the meantime I think it best to remove the incorrect information. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In general, sections like this bother me. It's most WP:TRIVIA to be honest. I can somewhat deal with the names that have secondary sources for them (although some are basically just passing mention), but I've got issues with the names where the only source is the mosque's website. WP:SELFPUB says it's okay for basic information about the subject but not to use them for unduly self-serving purposes. This seems to me to clearly fall into that category. We don't mention in a university article everyone who's given the commencement address unless something notable happens. This section is just basic name-dropping, nothing else. I think it needs serious trimming. Any thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the talk section below, I agree this section could be removed. It's worth checking if any of the individual visits not mentioned elsewhere in the article might be considered non-trivial - in which case, they could be moved into the timeline. I checked the history, it seems I "created" this section in 2010 - but only by splitting a previous section (Management and Affiliations). The idea for adding prominent visitors came from an IP editor (diff), who is welcome to add to this discussion. If there is no dissent from the proposal to remove, perhaps Ravensfire could do the honours! UsamahWard (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed names sourced only to self-published sources. Something that supports should consider is that a list of names in a section like this is WP:TRIVIA but if the mosque holds an event that gets significant coverage from independent secondary sources it may useful to include in the article along with significant parties for that event. Please though - note the "significant coverage" part. A single paragraph blurb in one or two sources isn't significant coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing content which is sourced elsewhere in the article

It is not reasonable to remove content as "unsourced" if it has already been established earlier in the article. In the case of material which has already been sourced previously within the article, at most the citation should be repeated - although this is not encouraged in Wikipedia (see WP:REPCITE). I repeated citations to avoid an edit war or losing sourced content, but unless there is any objection, I think they can be removed as per WP:REPCITE. UsamahWard (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's something that's in a different section and it's being challenged, it's probably a good idea to recite. Something else to consider - is this section essentially WP:TRIVIA? How often, in similar articles, do you see a "Prominent visitors" section? Ravensfire (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's acceptable to challenge the relevance or appropriateness of such content. In this case, however, content sourced earlier in the article was removed on the premise that it was unsourced. UsamahWard (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Read my comments above. One can't have incorrect citations in one section of an article just because the citations elsewhere in the article are accurate. I really do agree that the whole "Prominent visitors" section is trivial. Will you oppose its removal on the grounds of being trivial? George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth reviewing the structure and content of the whole article. Ravensfire rightly implied it should be compared to similar articles; it would be helpful to identify such articles for comparison. Some of the people mentioned in the "Prominent visitors" section are not mentioned elsewhere in the article - if the visit of any of them may be considered non-trivial, then they should be mentioned elsewhere before the section is removed. UsamahWard (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's finer that from now on everyone included in the Prominent visitors must contain a reliable source. However, in my opinion this George Custer's Sabre is still a semi-vandal in wikipedia (and full vandal regardless of sharia). You should be stopping to overemphasize, otherwise your "salah" might not be accepted. As Ravensfire, you need to cease to observe all my contributions. AHLM13 talk 18:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@AHLM13: I'd be glad to, as soon as you stop with the personal attacks (hint - read WP:NOTVANDAL and calling someone a vandal only because you object to their edits is a personal attack), stop using poor sources, stop adding material not supported by the given reference and stop adding puffery to articles. From your history, that's going to be a while. You need to really review WP:RS. Here's an example - calling this Europe's largest when reference for that claim is first a census that doesn't actually mention the mosque and second is for the UK only! Seriously? I've got no problem with it being in the article IF YOU HAVE A GOOD SOURCE FOR IT. This isn't a blog where you can say what you want. Ravensfire (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ravensfire:

With regard to these personal attacks, I wasn't be able to remain calm. It's difficult to hold the patience in this case.-- AHLM13 talk 18:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

How outrageous that AHLM13 claims that Allah subhanahu wata'la would refuse to accept my prayers because he disagrees with my Wikipedia edits. That's hateful. Please desist. I edit in good faith. The default setting on Wikipedia is to demand citations for claims, and if citations are not forthcoming or are inadequate, to remove the information. I also brought my concerns to the talk page in search of an editor consensus. I'm not a vandal. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@George Custer's Sabre, the supreme being knows the best. I can't accept that "you edit in good faith", in my opinion it isn't true. Users like you have to be ashamed of themselves. AHLM13 talk 11:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We have encountered each other before, and last time you made personal attacks then too. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have changed back the lead. AHLM13 made some changes that couldn't be justified; he shouldn't have ignored the corrections by the other editors. Nor, of course, should he have made personal attacks. UsamahWard (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Claim re adhan is not in the reference cited

AHLM13 has cited Kratke's Transnationalism and Urbanism (p 145) for a claim that had been disputed before at various talk pages. The same editor has recently used that citation in several articles: London, Islam in England, Islam in the United Kingdom, Religion in England, Religion in the United Kingdom and East London Mosque. The reference does not support the claim, that the East London Mosque was "the first mosque in the European Union to be permitted to broadcast the adhan" - it just briefly recounts disputes over allowing the adhan in 1986. The claim does not even appear on the mosque's own comprehensive website. I will remove the claim and ask AHLM13 not to repeat it without a source which clearly and directly states it. NebY (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If the source only supports that the mosque used loudspeakers in 1986 and does not mention anything about it being the first then that's what we need to say in the article per WP:V. I'll support the change in all relevant articles. Ravensfire (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a clear statement that ELM was in 1986 "one of the few mosques in Britain permitted to broadcast calls to prayer (azan)" in Making Muslim Space in North America and Europe here. That doesn't explicitly refer to loudspeakers. In Representing the City: Mosques and the Planning Process in Birmingham here we find that in 1982 the mosque committee of the Birmingham Central Mosque sought permission to use loudspeakers and that one of their arguments was that Calderdale Borough Council had already granted such permission to a mosque in Halifax. Birmingham City Council eventually permitted a one-month test period and finally granted lasting permission in 1986; the test period seems to have at least begun in 1985 (p1169). I notice the mosque committee are not reported to have used the East London Mosque as another example in their argument, which seems odd if the ELM had also preceded them - but that's inference and WP:OR.

So yes, we could say that the ELM was granted permission in 1986. I just worry that that won't mean much to most readers; in many cases, 1986 is simply long before they were born. But I think the "one of the few" in the first reference allows us to write "one of the first". Would "In 1986, the mosque was one of the first mosques in Britain allowed to use loudspeakers to broadcast the adhan" be acceptable? NebY (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that's both an acceptable compromise and (more importantly) supported by the sources given. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The recent changes are an improvement, but I am not at all convinced there is a case to include reference to the adhan in the lede; in my view, the mention in the main body is sufficient. UsamahWard (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced either. The "first in Europe" claim was used to justify choosing this mosque to illustrate other Wikipedia articles, but that's not necessary here. NebY (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that claim isn't supported by the sources, it probably needs to get removed. Of course, we'll end up with an edit-war over it, I'm sure. It's borderline for the lead here, useful for the body here and should be removed completely in most other articles as WP:PUFFERY that's not supported by the source. Ravensfire (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the first in Europe is absolutely fine, as UK an Turkey are the only countries where the azan were allowed to be given. -- AHLM13 talk 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not fine. There are dozens of mosques in the European part of Turkey, and there is no reliable source ruling out other parts of Europe. UsamahWard (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If the source only talks about the UK, then that's all we can say in the article. Trying to say "all of Europe" when the source only mentions the UK is original research which isn't allowed here. Likewise, having a source (or sources) for facts, then drawing a conclusion that isn't in the sources isn't allowed - it's called synthesis. You've got to follow only what the source says, not what you believe. Ravensfire (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In this case UK is EUROPE. -- AHLM13 talk 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the UK is in Europe, but the source only mentions the UK. For all we know based on that source, there could be many other mosques elsewhere in Europe that broadcast the adhan before the East London Mosque. Bosnia comes to mind, as well as Turkey. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

AHLM13, it's very simple. We say what the source says. That's it. The source says Britain, not Europe. The source says one of the few, not the first. Anything else is WP:OR and must be removed as such. Ravensfire (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I need to find a source which says Europe. -- AHLM13 talk 10:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to say Europe in the article, you'll need a source that says that. Given what has been said about Turkey and Bosnia above (also, Albania, etc.), I doubt you will find such a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the range that such a source would have to search for potential candidates is even wider, geographically and historically, considering the invention of loudspeakers preceded even the fall of the Ottoman Empire. NebY (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry, i wrote "one of the first" not "the first". I think that Western Europe is fine. You all can go in this place and ask to the chairman.-- AHLM13 talk 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but there are many mosques in the places I mentioned. "One of the first in Western Europe" is fine if you can find a source for it. I don't think telling us to visit the mosque and ask the chairman satisfies the requirements of WP:V, I'm afraid. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mosque/Masjid

This is a small point: the descriptor for the aerial image has been changed from "mosque and centre" to "masjid". I don't think this is appropriate, but I'm prevented by 3RR from changing it again. In my view the use of the word "masjid" in preference to "mosque" is inappropriate, not least for an institution that labels itself as a mosque. I'm happy to let others decide. UsamahWard (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree; mosque is the term the ELM uses, the article uses, Wikipedia uses and English-language sources use. NebY (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Ravensfire (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done NebY (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@UsamahWard, it was changed because mosque means mosquito, which is created to offend these religious building.-- AHLM13 talk 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And yet it's called a mosque just about everywhere. See WP:COMMONNAME. Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mosque does not mean mosquito; see Mosque#Etymology. NebY (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It does. -- AHLM13 talk 09:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is another of the many sources that debunks this myth - one can easily find others in Google: http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1560 UsamahWard (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that's pretty thoroughly debunked. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Class rating

The article currently has a C rating for the WikiProject Islam project. I think it meets the B rating according to WP:BCLASS. Do others agree? Inpeacebase (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

C is correct. There's far too much promotional language like famous visitors, when it needs more information on people who run the mosque, and third-party sources.--TheJegos (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Various opinions

This mosque would be the second largest mosque in the Western world (the first one being in Italy and the ahmadi qadiani one can't be considered). Can this be included? The mosque interior's picture seems to be very old, hence a new one needs to be put. The prominent visitors section is missing numerous notable imams and leaders. Also, the mosque is going to acquire the big synagogue which cost 1.5 millions, therefore it will be larger and something should be mentioned about this on wikipedia. Besides, most of the donations come from the British Bangladeshi Community, could this also be comprised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walespeedentry (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the purchase went through http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/149624/east-end-synagogue-sold-its-muslim-neighbours. I'm not sure if it's the largest as it's a series of buildings built over time, not a single structure.--TheJegos (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Gay rights section

I reverted this section which 2a02:c7f:c626:400:cc95:c5a0:ad23:4a18 had removed - they had written: "Inappropriate and disproportionate - NPOV, appears to be response to complaint made by mosque to Pride in London about CEMB."

It's true that the recent complaint about CEMB has brought attention to the mosques actions in the past on this issue: that just means good wiki practise: to add content to provide a more rounded picture over time.

Regards NPOV - [2a02:c7f:c626:400:cc95:c5a0:ad23:4a18] do feel free to add further sources that you feel would add balance - so far I spent quite a bit of time and added a half a dozen or so new sources under this heading. I added another one today too. So your turn!209.93.203.99 (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted this. Not about adding more! You have created a new section in article, larger than all others, with 4 paragraph quote, on a single issue which might be justified in a Wiki entry on gay rights in the UK, but isn't appropriate here. 2A02:C7F:C626:400:8C28:8FB6:8048:A337 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted removal. Please seek consensus on this talk page. Information seems properly sourced, if very much excessive in quoting - WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and don't just remove sourced information because you disagree with its inclusion in the article. Keira1996 03:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I propose bringing this back under External Relations heading, using a reference instead of the excessive quote, some editing for conciseness and balance, and some trimming where there may be WP:OVERCITE. I will attempt this in an single edit, which others can refine further. UsamahWard (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. Keira1996 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You probably noticed I left all the citations in place - it would take time to check them all, and they're not doing any harm. UsamahWard (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll add back in a couple of sentences from the large block that was slimmed down, see what you think. 209.93.203.99 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You got the date wrong, hope that doesn't get reverted too. Let's see if it gets deleted at CEMB article. 2A02:C7F:C626:400:C538:FCBF:A49A:9CDA (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The four paragraphs on gay rights essentially repeat the same ground. The mosque's complaint about CEMB doesn't seem significant enough to include, nor Peter Tatchell's response (which cites previous criticisms), nor indeed the mosque's response to him. I suggest more concise text that notes the criticisms, the Oxfam episode, and retains a suitable selection of the strongest sources. For the text: "Gay rights campaigners have accused the mosque of hosting homophobic speakers. In 2014 Oxfam cancelled an event at the mosque after finding out one of its headline speakers, Ibrahim Hewitt, had in 1994 written a book for GCSE students describing homosexuality as a great sin and saying that gay people would be severely punished under Islamic law." For the references: The Guardian, Time Out, Pink News, Evening Standard. As this is significant proposal in a heavily edited section, I'll wait to see what others say here in Talk. UsamahWard (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep the current section. I can hardly see how it's giving WP:UNDUE weight here, it's a couple of short paragraphs about something that's very much newsworthy, with dozens of sources, and may well have a long-lasting impact. Reducing any further would result in only a cursory overview, and I hardly think that's what we should be aiming for here. I'll give what's there a c/e tomorrow, probably, since it's in a pretty poor state at the moment. Keira1996 10:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

On the whole I'd agree, keep paras 1, 3 & 4 on this issue; but ditch para 2 "During a visit by journalists to the mosque...", as this report in Church Times hardly seems notable. Inpeacebase (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

One could argue that the content of the report makes it notable, though of course we may be giving it undue weight here if it's not received any significant coverage elsewhere. Maybe shorten that section and merge it into the previous paragraph, talking more about general statements from them on the topic instead of two specific ones? Food for thought. Keira1996 03:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion to shorten and merge the first two paragraphs sound fine.UsamahWard (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by CanterburyUK, who may have missed the discussion here, and which appeared to undo some of the recent edits. In the context of the article, I think the balance in the text is right now, and it looks like all the sources have been retained. Inpeacebase (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

An IP editor reverted my last edit with the reason "put back what Inpeacebase deleted and they failed to engage in talk"! I have hesitatingly undone that, because that makes 2 reverts of the same text on my part. I really hope others can reach consensus here, as I don't want to be part of an edit war - so I'm going to avoid further edits on this issue. Inpeacebase (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As Inpeacebase's edit has again be reverted by the IP user, some sort of intervention is probably need.UsamahWard (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The comment with the most recent IP revert leaves no doubt about lack of good faith. Such editors should realise they undermine their own position, as it lends weight to the view that their edits to the entry not balanced, relevant and notable, but rather fighting a POV that detracts from Wikipedia's aim to be neutral with suitable content. Hopefully, someone will put this right.Inpeacebase (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that EdJohnston has thankfully protected the entry, the rogue IP editor will not be able to continue reverting edits agreed here, having reverted three editors already, along with vulgar annotation. Unless there is any new dissent from the consensus reached before, I propose undoing the last revert. UsamahWard (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on East London Mosque. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2004%2F7%2F24%2Fnation%2F8514775&sec=nation
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theglobalunity.com/08/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=112%3Amodel-mosque-competition&catid=20%3Amenuitem&Itemid=259
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1225697933445&pagename=Zone-English-Euro_Muslims%2FEMELayout
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409130655/http://www.citizensuk.org/chapters/telco/ to http://www.citizensuk.org/chapters/telco/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913145019/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009080746030 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009080746030

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

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)