Talk:Londonistan

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

POV[edit]

Enochlau, care to explain why the page's neutrality is disputed so that the relevant changes can be considered?.[verification needed]

POV it may be, but this is not a candidate for speedy using any of the speedy delete criteria. Denni☯ 23:31, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Given what's just happened in London with the bomb attacks plus the changes to the page, I don't see why the neutrality of this page should be disputed. May be it could be updated with details of the bomb attacks.

London has been bombed by the IRA and Combat 18 before - and organisations explicitly supporting those acts are present in London, yet no racist names were pushed on London after those bombings, were they? so whats the difference this time????


Update 8th July 2005[edit]

I've made this a bit less POV, but I still don't think it's neutral.

My source for the term comes from the Telegraph article linked, which is the oldest mention I could find on Google. (But I changed 'experts' to 'agents', since their expertise is the journalist's opinion.) There is no corresponding article in French. I find it ironic that so many right-wing US bloggers agree with the French security services.

I put 'militants may have left the UK to avoid internment'. Please change this back to a definite statement that many did, if you can find a source.

Townmouse 8 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

There is no corresponding article in French. Not anymore, I created it. It's quite a common term in French media, it is not the nickname of London as a whole, but of the Islamist who were living and preaching freely in the city until last months.--Revas 01:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Freestylefrappe reverted a false assertion that asylum seekers are not accommodated in London. This is both untrue and deliberately misleading. As the ALG wrote: "London boroughs continue to bear the major responsibility of supporting asylum seekers and refugees. We directly assist over 40,000 people. Boroughs support the National Asylum Support Service and the 30,000 asylum seekers taking the subsistence-only package in London as many of them are in local authority accommodation. Croydon and Harrow are working with NASS to find a better way of managing the emergency accommodation in London, which the Home Office uses for 4,000 asylum seekers waiting transfer to the regions." --Tyler 21:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem determined to perpetuate a lie that asylum seekers are not accommodated in London, despite sources being cited to show that they ARE. It leads me to question whether some people understand the concept of NPOV. --Archstanton 07:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


RAacist wikipedia?[edit]

Londonistan is a racist and narrow view of London and of the Muslim community. There are only two "stans" in London of any census significance and they are Pakistan and Afghanistan. Muslims are represented by people of Somalian, Arabian (which covers a multitude of people from Syrian, to Saudi - and from Egyptian to Iraqi), Bangladeshi, Indian, Lebanese, North African and many other extractions. All the brown kids when I grew up were called "pakis" and "stanis", regardless of origin. I counted two Indians, one Pakistani, one Portugese and one Bangladeshi from memory, and they were all "paki" or "stani". More commonly the former epithet was applied, the latter was added for flavour and variety. It was less percussive and more jovial. It was the acceptable face of racist language from my peers..[verification needed]

No doubt there are radical imams in London. They are thankfully, mostly ignored by the mainstream Muslim community here. Most Muslims don't believe in shitting in their own nest. What is noteworthy though, is that the radical Imams tend not to be Pakistani or Afghan in origin. 81.86.26.78 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (probably User "Paki.tv")... er??? says who?!!.[verification needed][reply]

Dude, why are you deleting relevant factual information, and replacing it with an extended discussion of your personal opinions? If the term was coined by French intelligence in 1995, then that's something which belongs in the article -- but if you feel personally insulted and hurt by the existence of the word, then that simply doesn't belong in the article by the usual Wikipedia criteria. If you can find documented news sources (not obscure minor personal blog entries) which accuse the word of being racist, then that could be added to the article -- but NOT replacing the factual information on the term's origin at the top of the article. AnonMoos (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the term is racist. Also, none of the other views are sourced or verified.
Racist according to whom? Your personal feelings of wounded hurt don't qualify to establish that point for the purposes of Wikipedia. AnonMoos 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added reference to the book and Melanie Phillips. Also, please note that there are many other racist myths eg about refugees - so-called asylum seekers - on this page. I will deal with this when I have more time. 62.25.106.209 09:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Londonistan might be a racist phrase (IMO its not) but it is a coined phrase used frequently by the media. People want to know what is the meaning behind it and search wikipedia for an explanation. Does that makes wiki racist? No. There is a wiki page on the word kike, is it wrong to have it? No. I am jewish and i think kike deserves a wiki page and so does any piece of information that is useful to anybody. MrZaf (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"anti-London racism"[edit]

Why don't you just stick to what has been documented in written form by others, instead of coining your own new terms? The phrase "anti-London racism"[sic] simply has no meaning in this context (and I'm not sure it would have much real meaning in any context). AnonMoos 17:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=[edit]

The racist people are those who say "Islam is represented by" and then insert races. Islam is a religion, not a race - being white and Muslim does not mean you are "not a proper Muslim", as someone has suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.0.77 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usful links[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4777684.stm a review of french press in which the term is used.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/08/kurtbarling_londonrisk_feature.shtml source for the frence anti-terror police using the term.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4662905.stm a translation of french paper mentions londonistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2662393.stm a pre 7/7 reference from newsnight.Hypnosadist 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic spelling[edit]

This Google search gets a thousand hits: AnonMoos 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86+-wikipedia&btnG=Search

Loaded word but ...[edit]

"Londonistan" is a loaded word but it's still a worthwhile word for a fairly important subject. The title here is "Londonistan (term)". An article with that title should be about the word, and not about the refugee-sheikhs who comprise Londonistan. A separate article about the Islamist subculture of England (which at times is a pro-terrorism subculture, definitely) would be worthwhile too. So I recommend splitting the article into two.

LDH 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link [1] this is a website for muslims in the buisness district of london.Hypnosadist 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Most of this article should be moved to something like Islamism in London.

Image copyright problem with File:Londonbombing2.jpg[edit]

The image File:Londonbombing2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

The following text is taken from the article but I have displayed a hidden comment in small:

In 2004, the Law Lords ruled that this violated European law, but it was replaced with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, containing similar powers. Many Islamists may have left the UK to avoid internment,{{who}}{{citation needed}} This is a dubious statement given that some who the UK would like to deport can not be deported because of the danger they will be tortured or killed. while others went home after domestic political reform, such as Ali Salman, who returned to Bahrain to help found the country’s biggest opposition party, Al Wefaq.{{syn}}

The reason I think this is a syn is because there is no source that says because the UK passed these laws that anyone has left the country. It is no use producing sources that say that Ali Salman left the UK it is necessary to find a source that says he left the UK because of the acts of Parliament. Without that the juxtaposition of the two sentences imply that he is an Ismanist and that he went home because of domestic political reform and pressure under the acts of Parliament. -- PBS (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it to an extent, by splitting into two (still unsourced) claims. Zezen (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Londonistan (term). 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested and histories merged; this also fixes an old cut-and-paste move from 2006. Dekimasuよ! 01:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Londonistan (term) → Londonistan – WP:TWODABS. Unreal7 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Londonistan&oldid=1199607862"