Talk:Peter Tatchell/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Correction

I say that the Polytechnic of North London is now the University of NL on the History page, but it is actually now part of the London Metropolitan University. I should read the pages I link to! The UNL page gives more of the pre-history of the institution than the LMU page, so the link is acccidentally more appropriate.

Philip Cross 03:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering why nothing has been written about the essay by Ken Livingstone in responce to Tatchell's oppinions on Al Quarradary in the critics section

Till about 24 hours ago there wasn't a critics' section. I just reorganised the article and added subheadings. I'm not familiar with Ken Livingstone's essay because I don't know very much about Tatchell himself. But feel free to whack in a reference to it! It'd be absolutely super if you had a link to the paper itself too. Happy editing! Wulfilia 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This man's views of Jesus are very scary.

Criticism (Underage Sex)

Tatchell has drawn great criticsm from many quarters for his advoaction

I don't like this section for 2 reasons:

1. It doesn't say who the "many quarters" are - who are these undefined people? 2. Tatchell _doesn't_ believe that anyone can have sex with 12 year olds - he believes in stepped ages of consent, which is similar to the law in the Netherlands. --Paul Moloney 01:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this in. I've now changed it, having found the 1996 OutRage! press release that Peter gave me at the time. David | Talk 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Relations with Muslims

There are valid points here, but the writing is disjointed. The whole section needs better (i.e. primary) sources, because too many citations come from one article written by Ken Livingstone, and not from Tatchell's own work. Does anyone want to rewrite and copy-edit this section? BrainyBabe 17:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Have had a bit of a go. Needs more work, definitely. David | Talk 17:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
good going, thanks. BrainyBabe 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Irishpunktom, please discuss changes here. The American Nation of Islam is a more specific and useful descriptor than Muslim, which you have changed it back to twice. See "Divergence from mainstream Islam" within the NoI page.
And secondly, in the rebuttal by Peter Akinti, the article you linked to does not show him using the word "insulting", though you have repeatedly reverted my change. That word is the choice of the sub-editor who writes the Guardian headlines, not the columnist.
I appreciate your work. Let's keep the article as accurate as possible. BrainyBabe 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I thought everyone knew this - Contrary to what Peter Tatchell would have you believe, Malcolm X was Muslim. Upon Converting to Islam (from the Nation of Islam) he became an avid anti-racist. Contrary again to Peter Tatchells piece, the man was almost certainly shot by a member of the nation of Islam. Malcolm X was a Black Muslim, stop changing that. Secondly, re-read the title of the rebuttal. Thats where Insulting comes from, and its a more powerful word than the other two. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on this talk page. I hope we can work together to make this a stronger article. First of all, "I thought everyone knew that" is a dangerous principle to base an encyclopedia on! I did not know that Malcolm X was Muslim (in the sense that I understand the word, ie exclusive of NoI). I accept that he ended his life that way, but he spent a lot longer as a leader of the Nation of Islam. The biography on which Tatchell's article is based must cover the whole of his life; perhaps, in the interests of fairness, our fleeting reference should be to both or neither?
Secondly, you are correct that the word "insulting" only occurs in the title, and as I have said, that is the choice of the subeditor, not the columnist, and so cannot be attributed to him. Nowhere in the article does Akinti use that word. BrainyBabe 20:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Err, well Malcolm X always referred to himself as a "Black Muslim" both before and after conversion to "mainstream" Islam, thats really why I wanted the phrase kept as ‘Black Muslim’ - As for insulting, Fair enough, Insult-I think- is a more powerful word though. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
First point: a person's self-reference is important, but not necessarily the most important thing in an encyclopedia article, which is a view of how history came to judge the individual in question. In Wikipedia terms, ideally this is a consensus view. The reason to have any description of Malcolm X in this article about Tatchell is to help the reader "place" him, in other words, to name the thing for which he is most well-known. This article is not about the ins and outs (no pun intended) of Malcolm X's life, but about Tatchell and his work. Do we agree?
Secondly, the word "insult" is not used by Akinti, and it is unfair to ascribe that to him. He uses plenty of descriptive words in his piece -- take your pick, but be fair.
Finally, thank you for providing references. BrainyBabe 21:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Hijab quote

Is on pages 124 and 129 of this pdf (warning, 38.9 MB). Don't know if it has much to do with Peter Tatchell other than that Ken Livingstone used it to attack him. David | Talk 22:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Tribune

From the Tribune: The only place I could find it online was:[1]

Human rights campaigners claiming victory after Sir lqbal Sacranie failed to speak, as advertised, at the recent trade union-sponsored Unite Against Fascism (UAF) conference in London. His no-show followed widespread protests against his participation. Sacranie has condemned gay people as immoral, harmful and diseased.

Supported by London Mayor Ken Livingstone, plus five trade unions and the South East Region of the TUC, the UAF conference theme was "Stop the BNP". Why did UAF invite a speaker whose views on homosexuality echo the bigotry of the far Right?

A coalition of Left-wingers, trade unionists, gay activists and progressive Muslims accused Sacranie of parroting the homophobia of the British National Party and argued he was unfit to attend a conference dedicated to fighting neo-Nazi hatred.

Imagine the reaction if BNP leader Nick Griffin said black people were unacceptable and spread disease. The Left would demand his arrest. But when lqbal Saeranie, leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, made similar intolerant remarks about gay people, most of the Left looked the other way.

Sacranie is a hypocrite. While demanding the right to say offensive things about homosexuals, he doesn't want anyone to have the right to say offensive things about Islam. He demands the freedom to be homophobic but is lobbying to curtail the free speech of those who criticise or satirise his religion. The man is a bigot, yet some on the Left embrace him as an ally.

Labour MPs Michael Meacher and Sadiq Khan agreed to share a platform with Sacranie. So did a number of union leaders. All oppose homophobia, but saw no contradiction in boosting the credibility of a Muslim leader who campaigns to deny human rights to gay people.

The National Assembly Against Racism was another sponsor of the UAF conference. It would never share a platform with a racist, but its leader, Lee Jasper, seemed happy to line up with a homophobe. Do some on the Left believe some victims of oppression are more worthy than others? Race and religion are, it seems, at the top of their tainted hierarchy of oppression, while queers and women are at the bottom. They would rather appease homophobes in the Muslim community than defend gay people.

The conference organisers defend their decision to invite Sacranie on the grounds that they want to create the broadest possible alliance against the BNP. But would they argue that creating a broad alliance against climate change or the Iraq war justifies embracing racists?

A broad alliance against the BNP is a good idea. Solidarity with the Muslim community against Islamophobic discrimination is important. But why does most of the Left always chose to ally with reactionary Muslim leaders and never with liberal Muslims? Why didn't the UAF invite progressive Muslim speakers, such as Ziauddin Sardar, Sheikh Dr Muhammad Yusuf or Munira Mirza?

Sacranie heads the Muslim Council of Britain. Many MCB members support Sharia law – a clerical form of fascism, where society is ruled by religious leaders and the death penalty is enforced against unchaste women and Muslims who embrace "unlslamic" ideologies such as socialism.

Unlike human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Liberty, the MCB is consulted by the Government on major policy issues. But it is a deeply reactionary organisation. Resorting to inflammatory language barely distinguishable from the homophobic tirades of the BNP, the MCB website demonises samesex relationships as "offensive", "immoral" and "repugnant".

Trade unions would not sponsor a conference with a speaker who said that Jamaicans or Hindus are offensive, immoral and repugnant. Why were they willing to host a homophobe who says these things about gays and lesbians?

Sacranie's views are not an isolated aberration. They are widely shared within the MCB. Another prominent official, Dr Abdul Maffid Katme, is quoted by the Muslim writer Anissa Helie as telling a conference in this country: "Lesbianism is spreading like fire in society. We must vaccinate our children against this curse".

Sacranie and the MCB are guilty of more than stirring homophobic hatred. Working together with their fundamentalist allies in the Evangelical Alliance and the Christian Institute, they actively campaign in favour of legal discrimination against gays.

The MCB opposed an equal age of consent, same-sex civil partnerships and the outlawing of homophobic discrimination in the workplace. It backed the retention of Section 28 and a ban on gay couples fostering or adopting children.

Sacranie has led the MCB's homophobic attacks on the lesbian and gay community. He put his name to an MCB news release condemning the repeal of Section 28 as "giving legitimacy to so-called 'gay families' and 'gay marriage' through the back door", and paving the way for councils to "spend public money on homosexual youth groups, homosexual youth workers and homosexual festivals".

One reason why the MCB refuses to participate in Holocaust Memorial Day is because it objects to the ceremony including a commemoration of what it dismisses as "the so-called gay genocide". The MCB regards the murder of gay people in Nazi death camps as unworthy of remembrance.

This year's Festival of Muslim Cultures is being funded by the Home Office and the British Council. Its aim is to showcase the "diversity and plurality" of Muslim communities. Nevertheless, the festival has banned gay Muslim events from its programme; allegedly at the insistence of the MCB.

Despite nearly 40 years of Leftwing activism, I am now persona non grata among the pro-Islamist Left, especially the Socialist Workers' Party, Respect and the Stop The War Coalition. This is partly because 1 have challenged the MCB's homophobia and misogyny and defended liberal Muslims against authoritarian Islamists.

Ken Livingstone and his friends in Socialist Action have condemned me as an Islamophobe. His allies run the Islamophobia Watch website. [Which will no doubt come as a surprise to Eddie Truman! – MS]

They denounce me as anti-Muslim. My crime is exposing Right-wing Islamists like the cleric, Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who endorses female genital mutilation and the execution of apostates and gay people. Most of my hate mail used to come from supporters of the far Right. These days, much of it comes from people on the far Left and their Islamist friends.

By failing to tackle the prejudiced politics of Right-wing Muslim leaders, the Left is leaving the field wide open to the BNP. Islamophobic demagogues could easily exploit the vacuum created by the Left's ambivalence towards Islamist intolerance. Most of the Left ignores the homophobic, sexist and anti-humanitarian agenda of the Muslim Right.

If socialists continue to remain silent, the fear is that the BNP will fill the void with a generalised, irresponsible and unjust anti-Muslim hate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irishpunktom (talk • contribs).

OK, that seems reasonable. David | Talk 10:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Self-described" and satire

The problem with including "self-described" is that it could be put on almost anyone. After all, Her Majesty describes herself as Queen, and many others do not recognise the title. I think, within the bounds of reason, people should be allowed to keep the descriptions they choose for themselves, especially with something as wide-ranging as "human rights" about which there is a very wide range of views about what it encompasses.

And was Adam Yosef being a modern day Juvenal, satirically taking on the taboos of a society, or was he just being a ranting homophobic bigot? Terribly difficult to tell the difference in the abstract, but I think the issue is whether he claimed they were satirical, and I can't find any place where he did. David | Talk 10:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, I've tried to compromise, citing his organisation. Regarding Adam, it was a "Piss-take", it was far from serious, as is his style. You say you have read the piece, have you read it all? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to get all tu quoque about this, but I could quite envisage that some of the BNP's islamophobic rants might be defended as "far from serious" and "satire" because they try to put jokes into them. A criticism is a criticism, whether intended as satire or not. David | Talk 12:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So thats a No then - What, exactly, are ytou basing your opinion of the article on then? - The carefully edited version presented by Tatchell and co?--Irishpunktom\talk 12:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I did read the whole thing at one stage, but it's not really relevant. Criticism is criticism whether undertaken through the medium of satire or not. David | Talk 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

Adding each individual little element of the dispute relating to the Qaradawi visit is leaving this article seriously unbalanced as this one incident, long-running though it has been, is not the most important in Peter Tatchell's career. Unless the rest of the article is similarly expanded I will go through and prune it all back. David | Talk 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Expand the other stuff rather than removing other peoples work. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"an activist based in Britain who became famous for his role is publicising Gay rights"

Can we just condense this down to "gay rights activist", or is there a reason you're using such a strangulated construction, Irishpunktom?

--Paul Moloney 22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a reason. Irishpunktom wants to have it as "gay rights activist" but can't make that edit for a while because it's a 3RR violation. I have pointed out that Peter Tatchell has ceased to be merely a gay rights activist, and is now referred to and defines himself as a "human rights activist". See Irishpunktom's talk page for the cites justifying my edit. David | Talk 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
An interesting sidebar to this debate: I went back and looked at the very first edit to the article and lo and behold look what I saw. It also reminds me that 1 AM tomorrow will be the second anniversary of my first edit to this article! I must have written most of it, too. No, Irishpunktom, you are most definitely not invited to the party. David | Talk 01:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Attitude Towards Muslims: Disputed

Edit summaries are not the place for discussion and they most certainly are not the place for incivility [2]. I think the great number of templates added (or re-added by IrishPunktom) are a bit over the top. Just one disputed template in the Attitude Towards Muslims section should do. I personally haven't done a lot of research on this man, but it doesn't appear at first sight like the section in question in "Islamophobic". Peter Tatchell may have, to some readers, made disparaging comments about Islam, but that is his opinion and his attitude. The neutral point of view policy doesn't extend to subjects' personal opinions. joturner 23:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Departing for one moment from the article and discussing politics in general, I think it can hardly be called discriminatory to say that Muslims who criticise homosexuality are being homophobic. What would be discriminatory is to say that homophobia from muslims may be discounted or regarded as "par for the course". I should think that a shocking indictment of the faith of Islam and it is certainly not my experience of muslims either.
Irishpunktom is a POV revert warrior who is insisting on his own version of the article (which is highly POV) and refusing to justify it. The impossibility of negotiating with him is not something up with which I will put and I am therefore seeking resolution of this dispute through other means. Meanwhile User:Maliki-sis is heading for a swift block for personal attacks the way he is going. I hope the page is reverted to my last version. David | Talk 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Time for Irishpunktom to list his objections

If the {{totallydisputed}} tag is not to be removed swiftly, it's time for Irishpunktom to list precisely the areas he objects to. I've set out a template below for this. David | Talk 22:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

  • Item here. Source that states the opposite here.

Neutrality

  • Item here. Analysis here.

Neutrality

Unless justification is given here today for placing this tag on the article, I will remove it tomorrow morning. David | Talk 13:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the version defended by Irishpunktom was inferior: besides the broken English, the avalanche of typos and the incorrect sources (e.g. the term "clerical form of fascism" does not appear in the link given by IPT's version), it was ridiculously POV. However, there was also some POV in David's version, e.g. as to the reason for the MCB's boycott of the Holocaust Day ceremony or the Livingstone controversy. I have tried to come up with a synthesis version which includes a maximum of verifiable information.--Thomas Arelatensis 18:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I've made some corrections. Firstly, with the OutRage! website down, the claim that the picture appeared on every page is unverifiable. Secondly there is no evidence that Peter Tatchell was personally responsible for putting it there, and such a claim is unlikely given that someone else is responsible for the website and Tatchell is not particularly good with technology (private knowledge but he has also said so in public interviews). The other changes are minor formatting and typographical. David | Talk 20:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. --Thomas Arelatensis 10:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that User:Irishpunktom has added a "neutrality disputed" banner to the main page without adding anything to the talk page. In my opinion, this should be deleted unless he immediately states why he thinks this is biased.--Paul Moloney 10:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, if IPT won't, let me step in myself. This article looks like it's improving but there are still blatant NPOV violations both pro- and anti-Tatchell. For example:

Having established a policy of fighting restrictions on human rights regardless of their origin, Tatchell has been unwilling to exclude Islamic sources from criticism.

This goes far beyond reporting the facts (Tatchell has recently devoted a lot of time to criticising Muslims/Islam) and instead implicitly justifies it in the context of a particular anaylsis of Tatchell's project. It then, in the second half, goes so far as to posit some dilemma where Tatchell has been put on the spot over whether to "exclude Islamic sources from criticism". It would be a lot better to stick to the facts.

The fact is that Peter Tatchell criticises homophobia wherever he finds it. To say he "criticises muslims" is POV: the criticism is not that they are muslims, but that they are homophobes. Those are the facts. David | Talk 11:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That still doesn't justify the wording as it stands. "In the last few years, Tatchell's campaign against homophobia has included a focus on Islam?" Dogville 11:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't accept that as being an unbiased statement. It implies a deliberate concentration on Islam. His criticism is not of Islam, but of individual muslims, and the vague "in the last few years" is an unhelpful beginning. David | Talk 11:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Criticising sharia law is not a criticising individual Muslims, and the sheer length of the Islam section in this article suggests that it's a perceived recent focus. "Tatchell's criticisms of Islamic homophobia have been a source of controversy"? Whatever you end up with I really think the current "refusal to exclude" formulation is far too POV.Dogville 11:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason it's so long is that Irishpunktom is seemingly obsessed with using the article to prove that Tatchell is islamophobic, despite all the available evidence. David | Talk 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
To be fair that's hardly an opinion unique to IPT. Meanwhile, can I suggest that the paras on Jakobovits (PT accused of anti-semitism) and Palestine (accused of racism/Zionism) would both be more suited to be subsumed under an "accusations of racism" (or whatever) section which can then also incorporate the Islam stuff? The "Controversies" bit as it stood (which I've tentatively renamed as per earlier suggestion) seems a bit random as it could be a header for pretty much the whole article. Dogville 12:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand:

Tatchell has drawn criticism from many quarters for his dislike of the concept of an age of consent.

Why does this para start with an assertion of widespread but unnamed critics, rather than just explaining Tatchell's views on the age of consent? Why does the para fail to cite any specific instances of such criticism?

It does now, and from an unlikely source. There was plenty of mainstream criticism and to detail it would be excessive and somewhat pointless. David | Talk 11:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have a quick go at removing some of the more blatant instances here but it probably needs a finer toothcomb. Dogville 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

Don't like this heading. Why not just 'other campaigns'? Are we saying that criticising Eminem is more controversial than his OutRage! work was at the time? Dogville 11:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Greatest mistake

Subject has just disputed the claim that his greatest mistake was the 10 Bishops in 1994. The source is The Independent of October 15, 2003, pages 2-4 of the supplement (an article where many celebrities have been asked about their greatest mistakes). Subject said:

"I knew when Outrage outed 10 Anglican bishops in 1994 it was going to be controversial, but I totally underestimated the way it would be misrepresented. Most of the media portrayed outing as a vindictive and cruel exposure of innocent, harmless churchmen. The truth was that we outed the bishops because they were publicly condemning homosexuals and opposing gay human rights while privately having gay affairs. They were outed because they were hypocrites and homophobes. The bishops' two-faced double standards were never reported, let alone criticised. Instead, we were denounced as 'homosexual terrorists'. My miscalculation derailed what was a very important and still relevant campaign against Anglican homophobia."

Hope this clears it up for the few people listening to Little Atoms. David | Talk 16:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So you admit now that you lied when you said he had never outed anyone? Or are Christians not really people in your eyes? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag

The idea that Tatchell is a HUman Rights campaigner is POV. he is a self decribed one, but is actually a Gay Rights or anti-Muslim campaigner. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's just your POV. Not good enough. Tag coming off. David | Talk 13:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, its his POV that he is ahuman rights campaigner, and not a Gay rights one. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain. Gay rights is a subset of human rights, so even if Peter Tatchell had done no other campaigning than gay rights, it would still be correct to describe him as a human rights campaigner. As it is, he has done substantially more campaigning on areas which do not touch gay rights. David | Talk 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"substantially more" - SOurce that! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not in the article so I don't need to source it. I merely need to point to Zimbabwe, to Australia and the aborigines, to the Vietnam war, to Malawi, to Iraq, to the Ahwazi people of Iran, and to the persecuted Danish people over the cartoons. None of these were gay rights issues. David | Talk 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So its unsourced speculation on your part, a lot of speculation. The fact is he is a gay rights campainger who has engaged in breaching the Human rights of others. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

other tag

David, which claims do you want verified or sourced?--Irishpunktom\talk 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I want a source, other than your own calculation, stating that Tatchell has deliberately concentrated on muslim homophobia and remained silent on other sources. David | Talk 13:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said "deliberately concentrated" I just wrote down cited fact, and a quote by him. Where did I say he remained silent? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't prove the contention you are seeking to assert merely by that sort of calculation anyway. The calculation means nothing. You need a source making the assertion which I detailed above, and then it would have to be written in as an assertion made about Peter Tatchell rather than as a fact. David | Talk 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The statement is cited and is fact. The fact is that in the religion section of his website 10 of the 13 articles refer to Islam and Muslims. This is fact, and is cited from the website. Further, of the Guardian Comment is Free, 5 of his seven pieces thus far relate to islam. Again fact, again cited. This is verified by sources linking directly to the places the claims refer to. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Given the flurry of edits today I've protected this. All editors (yes, that includes me) must agree on the talk page. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. David | Talk 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert it to the previous version and then say its not an endorsement. You've removed valid sourced info you dislike and then prevented others from editing it. That is utterly ridiculous.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm reviewing the protection as an uninvolved admin, because of the complaint. I was going to protect it on the version that didn't involve a 3RR violation, but as you both seem to have violated it, that won't work, so I'm going to judge by content, which we're normally not meant to do, but there's no other criterion in this case. I'm going to protect it on the current version, because what Tom is doing is borderline OR. On the one hand, it's like saying 2 + 2 = 4, because anyone with access to the source can count how often Tatchell has written about Muslims. On the other hand, if no published source has made the same point, it's arguably an example of adding an unpublished analysis or novel synthesis in order to advance a position, which is a violation of OR. So Tom, I'm going to protect on the other version. Sorry. If you want to make the point, try to find a source who has said the same thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally I wouldn't want it thought that the reason I protected this version was that it was my preferred version - it certainly isn't. There are many more problems which Irishpunktom has introduced which I would like to tackle during the period of protection. As a matter of fact I only decided on protection after removing the original research paragraph. Had Irishpunktom reverted again, that would have been the protected version. David | Talk 14:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The source was Islamophobia watch [3], which Tatchell himself has condemned (Which surely would make it notable in this context at least?) originally reported it, but David decided it was "not acceptable"[4], so he removed it. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia Watch

Islamophobia watch is not a reliable source. It's a highly opinionated blog which has a very unusual definition of what constitutes Islamophobia. The only thing which Islamophobia Watch can be a source about is what is said at Islamophobia Watch - and that was not what it was introduced as. The paragraph in which it was included attempts to assert as fact that Peter Tatchell has concentrated on muslim homophobia to a degree more than is warranted. Any such assertion would be, by definition, POV. The secondary problem is that adding up the number of opinion pieces in this way does not prove, and could not prove, the claim which was made. The number of pieces written is irrelevant, and such a quantitative approach is ill-suited to the purposes of analysing political stance. David | Talk 15:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of Muslims, what it stated is clearly verifiable fact! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No one wants to add the opinion piece, just the verifiable factual point made by Islamophobia watch, which can be verified using the citations provided. Thats all. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is that that 'verifiable fact' is a meaningless one. It's no more meaningful than citing the number of words in a particular opinion piece as evidence of how well thought-through it was. David | Talk 15:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not meaningless. If it was meaningless I doubt very much that you would be on such a crusade to censor it! - It is fact, and it is verifiable fact! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to censor it - in other words, remove it for political reasons. I think it unencyclopaedic and want to keep it out of the article because it detracts from its quality. I am trying to help write a high quality, neutral article. I would like to think you are, too. David | Talk 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I am, but your actions appear to the contrary. The material is cited fact, it is verifiable cited fact, and takes up less than three lines, yet you keep removing it. Verifiable cited fact should remain in. It is notable, especially in relation to the context of the section it is being entered into. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is verifiable, cited fact that Peter Tatchell's front door is painted black. But that too is not worth mentioning. I've explained why this is not a meaningful statistic to quote, and certainly does not assist any argument which seeks to claim that Peter Tatchell concentrates on muslim homophobia to a degree more than is justified - which is what it was introduced as. David | Talk 15:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How would that be connected to any of the sections? There is a section dealing specifically with his attitute towards Muslims, and it is into that section that this info is entered, as it is relevent, notable, verifiable and cited. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, it's a verifiable fact that Tatchell has recently concentrated on Muslims. How about we just concede that and don't make a claim one way or the other about whether he has done so "to a degree more than is warranted"? (OTOH, I agree we don't need the gloss on "Sharia law") Dogville 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is a verifiable fact that Peter Tatchell has recently concentrated on muslims, although he certainly has made his voice heard in various debates concerning muslims and human rights. What I'm concerned about is writing this in such a way as to (possibly inadvertently) suggest that his approach to muslims has been to a degree motivated by prejudice - the previous mention led directly in to the unchallenged fact that he had been criticised for Islamophobia. Do you want to suggest a wording to overcome this problem? David | Talk 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, he's certainly been accused of Islamophobia. How about we order things like this? Tatchell has concentrated recently on muslims (measured by percentage of his output in terms of press releases and articles written). Critics have claimed this is disproportionate and some have accused him of Islamophobia or other dubious motivations, for example abc. Tatchell denies this and says xyz. Here are some briefly-described incidents of note (and then the existing subheads in the section, if possible trimmed). Dogville 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeps, I would go with that --Irishpunktom\talk 16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No. That simply is not encyclopaedic. I've explained why measuring the percentage of output is entirely inappropriate. There is no cite saying it is disproportionate (Islamophobia Watch regard any criticism of muslims as inappropriate, however well merited). What "other dubious motivations"? This also removes the fact that Peter Tatchell has always attacked Islamophobia and has engaged in campaigns to support muslim people, including gay muslims and the Palestinians. David | Talk 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering Islamophobia-watch has been condemned by Tatchell, going so far as to suggest it is a tool used by terrorists, I am going to add a section on Islamophobia-watchs Critics and his replies, from here the info can be added. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Add it to any page on Islamophobia Watch, where it is relevant, and not here, where it is not. David | Talk 17:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
of course its relevent here! what an absurd suggestion!! - 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
David, you're embedding an obvious POV here (and your apparent admiration for Harry's Place makes such a POV fairly predictable). Tatchell's recent campaigns have been loudly supported by some and roundly criticised by others (including Imaan). There has been a clear controversy about them, and they have been all over the news. You have a long list in the article of controversy-causing writings and press releases about Muslim individuals, groups and governments from Tatchell over the last couple of years. And yet rather than concede the fact of his particular engagement with Islam right now, and then summarising the argument over whether or not it's proportionate, you are denying it exists. What's particularly depressing is that your refusal to cite Islamophobia Watch because they're marginal extremists is just how people tried to dismiss OutRage! for years. Dogville 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but if one wants to know exactly how extreme Islamophobia Watch is, then check out this page, where they have added Renoir's Impressionist painting "The Mosque (Arab Holiday" to their Hall of Shame because it displays the Arabs in it as "an indistinguishable blob." Which is what I thought Impressionism was. --Paul Moloney 09:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/ShowPicture?moduleId=127130&pictureId=146547&galleryId=10607

hall of shame? Where did you get that phrase from? Islamophobia watch is critical of classical orientalism, and in so being is about as extreme as Edward Said, Tariq Ramadan and Tariq Ali and most Arab Scholars. Calling a website that is sympathetic to Islam "extreme" is a pretty low cheap shot too. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I reserve the right to call religious cranks of all hues and sky-gods "extreme". For sky god's sake, they're criticising an Impressionistic painting as Islamophobic because _it shows stylised people_. I mean, hello? This is the same website that called "Little Britain" gay actor Matt Lucas an Islamophobe because he protested against the hanging of teenage gays in Iran. By labelling everyone and everything Islamophobic, they dilute the word and have a "boy that cries wolf" effect. There is real Islamophobia in the world, and they don't help matters one bit.
You are misrepresenting them two fold now, but your POV is noted. Where did they call Lucas an Islamophobe? The only mention of him on the site I can find is this. Are you making things up to prove your point?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please tell me how I'm misrepresenting them; including that page on a site documenting the "War against Islam" insinuates those involved are at war at Islam, surely? And your defense that "they are only as extreme as Tariq Ramdan" isn't a very good defense, considering the many criticisms of that particular scholar, including the fact that he wouldn't condemn death by stoning until last month! (See the Criticism section of his page). If you don't consider "extreme" I'm sorry, but that's your problem, not mine. --Paul Moloney 14:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You claimed they called Matt Lucas an islamophobe - they didn't. You made that up. Now you are joining in the Sun led criticisms of Tariq Ramadan. The Islamophobia watch website reports on a lot of things, including events surrounding non Muslims like Tariq Ali or Matt Lucas. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting bored with your blatant twisting and dishonesty. I haven't a clue what the Sun, a paper I never read, has said or not said about Tariq Ramadan - I'm quoting from a Wikipedia page that YOU YOURSELF gave a link to about him! Are you now claiming the linked page itself is wrong, or that it's all based on a Sun article? Secondly, are you seriously expecting us to believe that Islamophobia Watch just happens to mention certain events with no relevance to Islamophobia? I had a discussion about this with the owner of the site himself, Bob Pitt, who thought that, AT BEST, Lucas was misguided and led into it by other Islamophobes (no doubt a reference to Tatchell himself). Answer me this: is believing in stoning to death extreme, or not extreme? --Paul Moloney 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Typing in Caps is considering shouting and rude, please refrain from it. Now. Where has Ramadan ever supported Stoning to death? Ever, once, supported it? Also, as you have stated, the site does not say Lucas was Islamophobic, and the owner believes he was misguided. There are many instances of misrepresentation which have been referenced by the site, and this is another example. So, now we have agreed that it does not in fact say that Lucas is an Islamophobe you want to move on to Tariq Ramadan, which has nothing to do with either the site or this article - but I will bite. Again, I ask, where has he ever supported stoning? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I rarely resort to it, but sometimes typing in caps is the only way of getting through to some people. I notice you take back your insinuation that I get all my information through The Sun. Apology accepted. As I said, Pitt thinks that at best, Lucas is misguided - that is, he probably is an Islamophobe, but it's possible that he got roped into it unknowingly by another Islamophobe. Therefore, my allegation that the site characterises him as a Islamophobe still stands, though I'm willing to change that to "heavily insinuates in a sneaky way". Finally, I'm loath to repeat myself again, but the page about Tariq Ramadan that you yourself linked this discussion to says "In 2004, during a television debate (100 Minutes pour convaincre) with the then French minister of interior affairs, Nicolas Sarkozy, he refused to condemn the application of hudud laws - which are controversial due to punishments, such as amputations for theft, the stoning of adulterers and the persecution of those with dissident views on Islam (see Prof. Nasr Abu Zayd). He only wanted to propose a 'moratorium'. In doing so, he distanced himself from many mainstream islamic scholars (as grand mufti Soheib Bencheikh, Prof. Zaki Badawi, prof Azizah Al-Hibri) who massively reject stoning." If you have an issue with this, I suggest you pop along and busy yourself with that page as well. --Paul Moloney 14:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't do it, it's rude and uncivil. Anyway, whatever the personal opinions you of the maintainers of the site, they are not reflected in the site. There is no suggestion that he is islamophobic at all, and you have stated that the sites maintainer believes he was misled. You have also spun your own interpretation of his words, which is really irrelevent - I don't care about your POV. As for Tariq Ramadan, he has not ever, never, supported stoning, or that interpritation of the Shariat, and has suggested a workable way of removing it - yes, applying a moratorium and then discussing the situation as equals with those who apply the punishments - rather than merely sitting on a high horse and issueing arbitrary condemnations. Ramadan gave actual workable methods for eliminating the practice, and because he engaged in Realpolitik he was condemned by all sides, and is now banned from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Egypt. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There you go, changing my words again. (I know punk advocates the cut-up method, but still...) I said that at best, Pitt think he's misguided. Pitt himself suggests he's probably Islamophobic. The fact that Pitt doesn't openly state this publically on the website and uses insinuation doesn't count as a defence, in my book. On the issue of Ramadan, again to quote my own words, what I said was "he wouldn't condemn death by stoning until last month", not that he actively supported it. And while I suppose I should be glad he is not actively pushing for women to be buried up to the neck and have rocks thrown at them 'til they are bludgeoned to death, I'm not exactly hearted by the fact that he still finds the punishment "Islamic" (http://www.tariqramadan.com/call.php3?id_article=264?lang=en) and his objections are based purely on its impractical application. Finally, I haven't a clue why Ramadan would be banned from Tunisia and Egypt for being against stoning when this punishment isn't used in either country. --Paul Moloney 15:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You are saying that Pitt said he was Misled at Best, and from that you have decided that you can read his mind and know what he actually thinks. Its irrelevent anyway, your opinion of Pitts opinion is not reflected in the site! That there insinuation is your opinion, and not one I share. Ramadan asked for a Moritorium on all capital punishment, irrespective of its method. Actually, he put it better when he said "I am calling for Islamic feminism. Domestic violence is not Islamic. Female circumcision is not Islamic. Polygamy is not a man's right. Arranged marriages are not acceptable. We have to stop it in the name of Islam. We are calling for an end to corporal punishment, to stoning and the death penalty. These punishments are implemented against the poor and against women. It is not acceptable. It is anti-Islamic. But change has to come from inside, not from Westerners outside saying 'We know what is right'." I don't know enough about Tunisia, but Egypt does kill prisoners. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
On Ramadan, if he is indeed genuine about making such changes and not just playing to whichever peanut gallery he's currently facing, I sincerely wish him all the best. But to get back to the original topic of this thread, I don't think that Islamophobia Watch should be considered as any kind of objective or even serious source. If we do, then someone's going to have add their opinion of Renoir as an Islamophobe to his article too. --Paul Moloney 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It deserves a mention because this is an article on Peter Tatchell who has attacked Islamophobia watch on more than one occassion. And, Islamophobia watch has never said Renoir is an Islamophobe. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh very rich - you forget to mention that they attacked him first! Slight omission there. Should we compile a list of all blogs that have attacked him? --Paul Moloney 15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Only the ones he has attacked in his end of year reports, and ones he has accused of aiding terrorists. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
@Paul -- you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting IW here. Firstly, as IPT has several times repeated, they are not "calling Renoir Islamophobic". They are using it to illustrate a perfectly standard cultural-historical point about representations of other races. To interpret this the way you do is the equivalent of seeing any of a thousand pictures illustrating the "male gaze" and thinking the artist was being accused of misogyny. On Matt Lucas, they report his attendance at the protest straight; your "war of Islam" line is taken from the subtitle of the whole site, as you must be aware. And on Ramadan, your response beginning "if he is genuine about making such changes" parallels a standard bit of Islamophobic rhetoric, that is, these Muslims don't tell the truth when they're talking to us. It's a rhetoric with a long history, and was one of the standard Nazi lines about the Jews. (No, I'm not saying you're a Nazi or necessarily an Islamophobe, but automatically doubting the sincerity of the speaker seems to happen more under some circumstances than others.) Dogville 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
So I'm not allowed to be suspicious of a man who makes different statements to different audiences, simply because he is a Muslim? That seems to be the tenor of your argument. As you don't know me, it's interesting that you grasp at my skepticism of anyone's words, especially politicians and religious folk, and attempt to twist it to prove that I'm an Islamophobe and, therefore, can be simply dismissed as a bigot. (Honestly, anyone who thinks I'm against Islam in particular should hear me talk about priests. I suppose we should also add the irony that I'll be emigrating to a predominantly Muslim country in the near future. I guess this also makes me a self-hater or masochist?) Again, to repeat myself, the reason I am suspicious is not because he is a Muslim. It is because his statements in different arenas can be taken in different ways. It is possible, indeed probably, this this is a deliberate attempt to ingratiate himself to different audiences in order to bring them together to a moderate consensus(a la Gerry Adams), rather than simple subterfuge. (And yes, I speak as someone who was skeptical of Adams.) Oh, and thank you for not thinking I'm a Nazi. --Paul Moloney 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a personal attack. You haven't a clue what my POV is despite your attempt to "predict" it. It is completely untrue that my edits here have been PoV. I'm not denying that Peter Tatchell has criticised muslims for being homophobic. What I am denying, and which is the focus of the criticism, is that the reason Peter Tatchell has been attacking muslim homophobia is that he is Islamophobic. I notice you refer to "Islam" not muslims, which is inappropriate. Islamophobia Watch is not a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, not because they adopt ludicrous positions (though they do). OutRage! is not a reliable source of anything other than what OutRage! thinks, under the same policy. David | Talk 17:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My use of "Islam" immediately followed the rather tortuous "Muslim individuals, groups and governments" so I think it was obvious shorthand, though I cite again his criticism of Sharia law, which can hardly be understood to apply to any individual Muslim(s). I apologise if you are insulted by my suggestion that your POV on this issue is not unusual for a HP fan, but please don't insist I have no idea what that POV is. You have repeatedly stated it on this page. Your POV is that the fact that Tatchell's recent work has involved more incidents of criticism of Islamic individuals/groups/governments than of members of all other religions combined is inherently justified/proportionate, and that therefore any mention of its relative proportion is inherently POV. I'm not sure the first half is a given and therefore I disagree with the second.Dogville 19:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What on earth does Harry's Place have to do with it? I happen to have known one of the people who blogs there many years before it started. So what? It's a cardinal principle that evidence of an editor having a POV outside Wikipedia is never evidence that their edits are POV on Wikipedia, and you don't even have that evidence. I certainly do insist that you have no idea what my POV is. I am insulted by the suggestion that you do. I have introduced material critical of Peter Tatchell and material supportive of him to the article.
Peter Tatchell has tackled homophobia wherever he has found it, regardless of the source. I am aware of no-one outside Wikipedia who has made the argument, in terms, that Peter Tatchell has concentrated on muslims in a way disproportionate to the homophobia coming from them. If you are aware, then please say who it is. There is also no real quantitative way of measuring these proportions: it is a fundamentally qualitative judgment. David | Talk 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
A bit of a straw man to repeat and amplify your outrage at my HP reference after I apologised for it. Let me repeat: you have stated your POV on this matter explicitly on this page. You have said clearly that Tatchell is not Islamophobic; and that he "criticises homophobia wherever he finds it" (as opposed to disproportionately among Muslims). If you didn't mean to say either of those things perhaps you could clarify but I think it's a reasonable conclusion that you did mean to. (If you think that by POV I mean that I know what you think of Tatchell tout court, then I never said that, and I don't.)Dogville 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You have misunderstood. I was discussing the contents of the article and said that I have seen no evidence that Peter Tatchell is Islamophobic, but plenty that he will tackle homophobia regardless of its source - and that this is his own position. Of course, NPOV means that the article cannot endorse the view that Peter Tatchell is Islamophobic. It is fairly clearly demonstrated that he has taken on anti-gay prejudice from a very wide range of sources by the examples outlined in the article.
What I detect hanging behind this, especially in the bizarre insistence on using the spurious Islamophobia Watch statistics, is the contention that because Peter Tatchell has written recent articles criticising muslims, he must therefore be anti-Islam in general. That's a non sequitur. If the police arrest 10 burglars, 8 of which have blond hair, then that's likely to be because 8 out of the ten burglaries are committed by blond burglars, and not because the police are prejudiced against blond people. David | Talk 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
OK: if you insist that your statement that you have seen no evidence for proposition x should not be taken to imply that you do not believe in proposition x, then I will accept this nicety and agree that I don't know what you think. Of course, having defended the opacity of your opinion you immediately go on to "detect" mine. Well, I'm less shy about showing mine than you are, so let me clear that up. I don't think it automatically follows that PT is anti-Islam. I do think it's notable (and possibly troubling) that he is directing so much of his energies against Islamic homophobia at the moment. And if the police stop 10 men driving nice cars, 10 of whom are black, that doesn't demonstrate that all car thieves are black. Dogville 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Addendum. But also ... I didn't mean for this to get heated. I can see that you might perceive my wading in largely (though not entirely) on one side of a long-standing dispute as insulting, particularly as you've done so much work on the article. I do think it's an evident fact that Tatchell has spent a lot of time criticising Muslims recently, and that as he has also been accused of Islamophobia and (knowing) misrepresentation of the opinions of some Muslims, the simple fact of this recent focus is worth recording. But I don't mean to attack the article as a whole. Dogville 22:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Final addendum. This, and another Wikipedia article, have distracted me terribly today and I am behind with work. I cannot afford to allow myself to look at WP tomorrow. So any lack of further response is simply due to absence. Dogville 22:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the 'Attitude to Muslims' section

"Tatchell has described Sharia law, the religious rules Muslims live by" - I don't think we need to add this explanation as most people understand what Sharia law is; even if they don't they can follow the link. To say that they are the rules Muslims live by is to gloss over considerable dispute on what Sharia law actually says: like most legal systems, interpretation is the key and this has varied in the past. It also manages to imply that Sharia law is invariably obeyed by muslims, which is demonstrably false.

The explanation is important, as the Shariat are the rules for Muslims to live by, from washing your nose before salat to entering a house by the right foot, to how you should Salaam (Young salaam the old, standing Salaam the seated etc). The explanation of what it is in English, whereas the word Sharia is Arabic - Ths it would make more sense removing the word sharia and just saying "Tatchell has described the religious rules Muslims live by". There are many parts of the Shariat which tend to be universally shared by Muslims, there are many which are not, the shariat is not a monolith, despite what Tatchell says. - Irishpunktom\talk 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Most English-speakers would instantly understand what Sharia law meant, in general, without needing to have it explained to them. Peter Tatchell hasn't said that it is a monolith, and that wasn't the burden of his criticism. David | Talk 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Most Non-Muslim english speakers I've met have a lot of misconceptions surrounding Islam and words we use. Some believe Fatwa means death sentence, some believe that Sharia means stoning people to death. Referring to what the word actually means using three or so words is not excessive and is the correct way to proceed. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree. David | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Why?--Irishpunktom\talk 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than citing the unhinged rantings of Bob Pitt et al as a source, the reference should be to the Tribune article quoted verbatim in Islamophobia Watch. It may not be on the web but that's not required. When citing sources, one should cite the primary source, not the source that quoted it.

If you can find a better source, go ahead and add it. - Irishpunktom\talk 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The Tribune article is the source. David | Talk 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you linkto it? - Irishpunktom\talk 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not on the web. This does not matter. It is still the source. David | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Then there is no problem with the source as it stands. It verifies the content. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the Iranian hangings, there should be a better source than the Nation article; even if accepted at face value, that only says they have urged restraint and left open the possibility the two boys were hanged for consensual gay sex, whereas our article implies that they have ruled that out. Faisal Alam's quote should perhaps be balanced by the fact that Peter Tatchell has said he does have sources in Iran through which he tried to find out about the incident. David | Talk 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We have to Be NPOV with respect of the hangings. The nation article goes into far more depth than tatchell did. Tatchells claims should be added only if you are prepared to add others' claims. Alams statement should also stay. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that Alam's statement should go. But you seem to have lost sight of the purpose of the article when you say "Tatchell's claims should be added only if ..." - this is a biography of Peter Tatchell, so his actions are by definition relevant. David | Talk 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Tatchells claims need to be Neutral. We can cite his opinion, as his opinion, but also cite the facts surrounding the issue. - Irishpunktom\talk 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. You seem to be saying that if you have a source which contradicts what Peter Tatchell has said, the page should be written so as to suggest that Tatchell was saying something untrue. David | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Err, no, the facts surrounding the case, not the opinions of each party. Thats what makes in NPOV. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Attitude to MCB

The section on the Muslim Council of Britain says Tatchell "once justified his hatred ..". This is unacceptable unless there is a sourced remark of Peter Tatchell's, saying "I hate the Muslim Council of Britain". The article should simply run "He once asked how .." David | Talk 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've NPOVed that up --Irishpunktom\talk 11:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To be added

Peter Tatchell has come sixth in the list of 'living political heroes' voted for by readers of the New Statesman. [5] David | Talk 23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a "gay rights campaigner"--Irishpunktom\talk 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It has been added--Irishpunktom\talk 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pruning the section on Islam

Irishpunktom seems to have misunderstood a fundamental principle of Wikipedia - I don't have to propose my edits here, especially since he has not outlined an objection to them. By WP:BOLD editors are encouraged to go ahead and make the edit. However, the reason for cutting the section down was that it was occupying too big a section of the article and therefore giving a distorted impression. Some irrelevant entries had also been made and much of the section was repetitious. I therefore reduced it in size by about a third without losing the fundamentals of anything relevant. David | Talk 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

david, why do you feel the need to "prune" information we know you want rid of ? - It seems like you are trying to whitewash that section of the article. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page to stop the revert warring. Please work out your disagreements here. Tom Harrison Talk 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes on July 15

I've made some minor changes. Firstly it seems to me that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is still going on, so perhaps "aftermath" is incorrect: the "Rally for Free Expression" took place during it, not after it. Secondly it seems to have been more a rally than a march. I've implied that the organisers' term for it may not be accepted by everyone. While some of the cartoons did lampoon the prophet, most of them lampooned other things (particularly Kjare Buitgen); as I understand it the offensiveness was in the irreverence so I've tried to approach it that way. Finally, on the Adam Yosef quote, the quote itself shows signs of having been written in haste or redrafted because it begins "compare the his views" which is gibberish. I've cut it down slightly to remove this bit but preserve the meaning. David | Talk 08:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd only question the word "irreverent" -- the cartoons depicted Mohammed as among other things a terrorist; and depending on your position the adjective could be "satirical", "blasphemous" or "racist"; in any case surely that controversy is outside the remit of this article and we can simply omit all of the above and stick to the factual "cartoons"? Dogville 12:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The only cartoon that could be said to depict Muhammad as a terrorist is the one showing a bomb in his turban. As you say, the intent and interpretation of the cartoons is disputed. The reason for including "irreverent" is that it is unchallenged fact that Islam does not like irreverent depictions of its prophet. Some parts of Islam allow reverent depictions (some don't). David | Talk 12:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It was not called the rally for free expression, it was called "March for Free Expression", alluding both to the traditional method of protesting (i.e Marching) and the month of the year. I don't think assiging a theme to the cartoons is appriate, its caused no small degree of edit warring elsewhere, the link to the relevent article will allow the reader to learn more. RE: A. Yusuf, I've sent an E-Mail to Adam, asking to redraft this, but he hasn't replied, so yeah, it's fine. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A relevant finding on the article lead

The BBC 'Appeals to the Governors' for April to June 2006 contain an interesting and relevant finding on pages 10-11: see here for the pdf. The findings are:

The Committee noted that Peter Tatchell has been described and regarded as a human rights campaigner across the external media in both tabloid and broadsheet newspapers. Having looked at the chronology of Peter Tatchell’s activities, the Committee concluded that he has been involved in various aspects of human rights campaigning, including gay rights, since the 1970s.
In accepting Peter Tatchell as a human rights campaigner, neither the programme nor the GPCC was giving an opinion on his campaign objectives or tactics, but accepting his own description of his own occupation, which in turn would be recognised and accepted by a very large proportion of the audience.

The implications of this in supporting the lead of the article as presently written are obvious. David | Talk 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • it supports also that the claim is disoputed, and that his actions are considered by some to be "anathema to true human rights campaigners." --Irishpunktom\talk 15:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, it is a disputed issue. We can make sure such disputes are properly analysed within the article. Whether or not the 'anathema' opinion is held by enough people to be significant is possibly a separate debate. Questions of human rights are, in and of themselves, almost certain to cause strong dispute. David | Talk 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, there is no mention within the article of why this characterisation is disputed. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv addition

David recently added this to the article:

<ref name="AndrewNeil">"Is this your life?" television programme, Channel 4, [[August 5]], [[1995]]</ref>

It is a reference for one of the statements (about why Tatchell uses a theatric manner when campaigning) in the article. It was removed by User:Freakofnurture as per the ArbCom ruling about David's ban from this article.

I personally can see nothing wrong with it as a reference; if no-one else objects, I will add it back into the article. Batmanand | Talk 14:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No need, I can do it for you. David | Talk 15:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
(As a matter of record). User:Dbiv reinserted the references, along with some other stuff, which caused a back-and-forth revert war with User:Calton and User:Freakofnurture. It ended with User:InShaneee blocking Dbiv for a week, and (separately) User:Mackensen reinserting the stuff that Dbiv had tried to insert. Batmanand | Talk 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/t/Talk%7EPeter_Tatchell_Archive_1219.html"