Talk:Stop Islamisation of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

London Daily News[edit]

I removed the material sourced to this website with this edit, it was restored shortly afterwards here. It is quite clearly not the same paper as the original London Daily News, and the fact that the Wikipedia page merely asserts that it is a revived version means nothing. Other Wikipedia articles are not - amusingly perhaps - considered reliable sources. However, even if the wikilink were removed and this material attributed instead to "the online paper the London Daily News", there's a bigger RS problem, which is that this website is almost certainly not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It appears distinctly amateurish and opinionated, and, as noted, any news source which talks about people rioting "with" the police, or which suggests that the West Bank is "in Gaza" has some serious issues. Please find another source for statements about local opinion or for the fact that this was a riot by "masked Muslims" picking on peaceful demonstrators. If any of this is true - and it may well be, I have no idea - it shouldn't be hard to find a serious, mainstream media source for each part of it. --Nickhh (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note, nor is the quote from Stephen Gash in the BBC report that is being used as a source for it. This needs to go as well, until a proper source is given for it. Content needs a) to be sourced to a reliable source, and b) to actually be mentioned in the source being cited. This is pretty basic stuff. And of top of all that, details about the violence are in the article, so we don't actually need the London Daily News stuff anyway; as for the Gash quote, even if it is sourced properly, it's doubtful that we need to give prominence to individual quotes like this, especially their unverified claims about what policemen might have said. Please explain here if you disagree, rather than simply putting it straight back in. --Nickhh (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I read your comment here and was adding a {{fv}}-tag to it as you removed it. Oops. I'm attributing this to enthusiastic reading of sources, but there has been rather a lot - both here and at English Defence League. The LDN article was used to support a claim that the far-left were attacking police, if I remember correctly - closer inspection showed that all it said was that Muslims were invovled in a riot - nothing about the far-left, nothing about attacking police. Anyway, agree entirely. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I tend to be quite brutal about these things and wield the delete button - fact tags etc never really seem to ever get resolved one way or another, and in the meantime, dubious and dubiously sourced content just gets to sit around for ages. I suspect these articles are all going to generate more heat than light for a while; if nothing else, I like to think of them as a test for my NPOV self-restraint, and my ability to (reluctantly) suspend application of the duck test where groups like this are concerned. --Nickhh (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

SIOE is NOT a right-wing organization[edit]

The article claimed that SIOE is a right-wing organization. A link was attached to prove this claim, but the link does not make this statement. The attached link is here: By the way, the left-wing press brands all critics of Islam as right-wing, fascist, and racist. If a left-wing press makes such claim, but does not provide the evidence, the claim should be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talkcontribs) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Is the campaign to stop a religion that stones women for adultery and hangs gays from spreading across a liberal, mostly secular country really right-wing? Having read a little further, it would seem that the 12 signatories of the Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism would then have to be described as being right-wing also. --Panzer71 (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Calling for a boycott of companies that even market products to Muslims is hardly anything other than an extremist position. In fact, SOIA probably qualifies more as a hate group.Shabeki (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be obvious that this article has attracted the attention of less objective editors. It is not a common thing for Muslims in Europe to support stoning and homophobia, such accusations are gross generalisations. I suggest you refrain from editing this article if you can not approach the subject objectively. Sandertams (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"Two thirds of all reported incidents of anti-gay violence in Amsterdam are by Muslim youths... In 2008, 10 Muslim youths broke into a fashion show, dragged gay model Michael du Pree off the stage and beat him bloody. Last month, several lesbians were hit by beer bottles thrown at their heads as they marched in a parade of thousands to protest violence against gays." source: Quinacrine (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Bruce Bawer is American gay writer living in Norway. He wrote a book "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within." This book lists many attacks of Muslim immigrants on European gays. Quinacrine (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
"Tower Hamlets’ gay community has become a particular target of extremists. Homophobic crimes in the borough have risen by 80 per cent since 2007/8, and by 21 per cent over the last year, a period when there was a slight drop in London as a whole. Last year, a mob of 30 young Muslims stormed a local gay pub, the George and Dragon, beating and abusing patrons. Many customers of the pub told The Sunday Telegraph that they have been attacked and harassed by local Muslim youths. In 2008 a 20-year-old student, Oli Hemsley, was left permanently paralysed after an attack by a group of young Muslims outside the pub. Only one of his assailants has been caught and jailed." source: Quinacrine (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


There are some good images [1] on Flickr that can be used on article about the Danish group which inspired this group. Also some good images of the Harrow demonstration but sadly not licenced for us to use.  Francium12  16:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gash and Radovan Karadzic[edit]

    • "Gash has written in support of accused war criminal Radovan Karadzic as one part of his campaign against Muslims"

This edit was originally placed without citing a source. Since then a source has been added but I can find no reference in the source that suggests this. I will remove the statement in accordance with WP:Biographies of living persons but if anyone can provide a proper sourced reference that is acceptable to WP then please do so.--Godfinger (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stupidity / common sense[edit]

I wonder if makes sense to mention that (i.m.o. demagogic) motto "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense" without quotation marks. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


The "of" had no reason to be capitalized. Gothbag (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Denmark & History (redundance)[edit]

After reading the article, I feel that these two sections could be combined. I notice that the separate sections contain redundant information. Maybe the history section could be removed, and the denmark section could take its place? to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Stop Islamisation of Europe. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Replace the template Islamophobia with Islamization[edit]

A politically charged WP:LABEL "Islamophobia" only reflect the opinion of some people. The inclusion of this sidebar that is not neutral and misleading which violate the policy of Wikipedia. This word is even banned for usage by formal media organizations including Associated Press. Therefore, I propose that this template removed from this article and be replaced with template:Islamization. This word is more neutral because it does not judge whether Islamization is favourable or not favourable, which do not promote any favoured point of view.

Declaration: This account is created for specially editing this topic. I have no conflicts of interest with Islamism. I have several Muslim distant relatives, whom I am keeping a good relationship with. (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is 'Antisemitism' also politiclly charged? As for being used by the media, paging through GNews with the word[2] shows the BBC, the CBC, Reuters, the LA Times, some more local US papers such as Tulsa World and the St. Cloud Times, the Toronto Star, Time Magazine, the Washington Post, the Observer newspaper, the New York Times, etc. I disagree. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Um... Their own motto is "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense". The Islamophobia template is completely accurate, and I agree that it should stay. GABgab 14:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
My god.. Even they label this with (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think articles should be written according to Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than editors' personal wishes.

According to WP:LABEL which is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow":

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

It requires "in-text attribution" of such labels. In my view, that is to say, if there is some reliable sources say this group is Islamophobic, you can state that "SIoE is described by X, Y and Z as an Islamophobic group". However, this template simply label it as Islamophobia, without any in-text attribution. And in my view, does not follow Wikipedia's guideline extracted (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really a guideline, but it seems obvious that the group's motto is enough to justify the template, what more reliable source for the group's belief do you expect? And templates don't need in text attribution. And your statement leaves me wondering why you are removing this template in articles which clearly have in text attribution. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)