Talk:Omar Bakri Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This article is clearly having an aggressive tone. Plus Omar has lately stated that he had no connection with Al-Qaeda. CG 06:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

If anything, this article is far too tepid in condemning this vicious, stupid little git. He may have said *lately* that he has no connection with Al-Qaeda, but he spent at least a decade claiming to be Osama's spokesman in Britain.

Woa! Hang on in there mate. If you can't write about an issue in a detached tone, then an encyclopaedia is not the place for you. Opinions belong to discussion forums--by using an article as your own personal mouthpiece you're affecting the credibility of the whole project. Please refrain from posting passional diatribes on the main article page. I have reverted to the version from 09:21, 25 August 2005.--81.42.164.30 19:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
btw, Shouldn't the Quotes section should be moved to Wikiquote. It's also lacking references.--81.42.164.30 19:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Bin Laden's Man In Britain"

This quote in the opening paragraph needs a sourcing. Babajobu 09:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anjem Choudary

Why does Anjem Choudary redirect to this person? Is it an alias? A human 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Found out myself. It is an alias, it is the very same person. [1] A human 22:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I really doubt whether that indymedia soucre is correct in this case. pictures of both bakr & anjem have been published in the british press. they have both appeared on tv news also. they are honestly not the same person. therefore i will remove "also known as Anjem Choudary" from the page. Veej 11:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
They are certainly not the same person. LDH 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lebanon

Steve, I know it's unsual to refer to a country using 'the'. It always sounded bizarre to me too. For some reason though, the media in the UK (actually, there's an example!) have always refered to Lebanon as the Lebanon. I'm not sure why they do it, but I trust the BBC to use correct language. Therefore I'll re-insert 'the'.Veej 11:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Quotes

The current list of quotes is not very useful. Most of them are taken from a limited range of sources which may not be reflective of the subject's writing/speeches, and simply listing excerpts from a few links does not add much to the article. A section on 'Bakri and the Media' or a more broad-ranging review of his work would be better. I am not able to do this. Burn the asylum 11:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I have no idea why a user keeps changing this article to US spelling? Any explanation?--Zleitzen 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV intro

An editor has restored this quite obviously POV introduction which fails to adhere to any of the WP:V WP:NPOV core policies. A category "British terrorists" was erroneously added also. Bakri has not been convicted of terrorist activities and this should not be re-added, please see WP:BLP and WP:Words to avoid.

..is a notorious Islamist who until 2005, when the British government deported him, became an outspoken supporter of Al-Qaida in the United Kingdom. British newspapers have called him the "Tottenham Ayatollah." After the September 11, 2001 attacks the British media uncovered he was indoctrinating Muslim youth and inciting terrorism.

  1. "notorious" is not a neutral description of any subject
  2. "the British media uncovered he was indoctrinating Muslim youth and inciting terrorism." The British media accused him of indoctrinating Muslim youth and inciting terrorism - not uncovered. Please see WP:V WP:ATT WP:NPOV etc
  3. This new introduction omits what Bakri actually did. ie. he was a publisher and activist etc.
  4. A previous citation added to this introduction [2] referred to Abu Hamsa, a totally different Islamist crank, not Bakri. Please see WP:BLP.

If it's any help, for the record : Bakri has long been a risible crank and self confessed "joke figure" who has only been wheeled out recently to sell newspapers during the current terror climate. Before that, he was the subject of regular ridicule at the hands of all communities as a latter day village idiot.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 11:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No... it has now been revealed that he was the source of instruction for the kidnapping-beheading plot. Plus, he headed Al-Muhajiroun which is a designated and banned terrorist organization (according to the UK gov). I agree that 'notorious' was inappropriate, though I did not add that. The current introduction also comes across pov - 'activist' would not seem to cover his... other activities. KazakhPol 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The details of the "kidnapping-beheading plot" haven't even entered court yet so we cannot state any of this as uncontrovertable fact - it is an allegation. In both wikipedia and the real world, people are innocent until proven guilty. In fact there are no citations confirming that Bakri was involved in any violent act in Britain on this or any other page.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 07:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aggressive editing

Can I ask KazakhPol to end this aggressive editing and reverting immediately please and address issues on the talk page.

  1. Why have the key encyclopedic descriptions that were on this page for a long time been removed yet again?
  2. Why are US spellings returning to the article on a regular basis?
  3. Why is a sourced piece of info relating to Bakri being a "clown" being tampered with?

These are just a few of the many questions that need asking before editing resumes.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your "key" "encyclopedic" descriptions are irrelevant and partially incorrect. Bakri is a sheikh. "US" spellings? The article has your spellings of 'organized' and 'criticized'. The sourced piece of info was "tampered" with because you portrayed his conversation with Ronson in a highly pov fashion. KazakhPol 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Your US spellings are taken from US sources. This is an article that was started in British English, is about a figure in British life, and thus per guidelines should use British spelling. What is irrelevant about describing Bakri as a publisher, cleric and activist? That is what he is. The sourced piece was a direct quote, what are you talking about tampering and POV? As for POV, you have added a section titled "ties to terrorism" for goodness sake. This is getting ridiculous.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 15:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the U.S. spellings are not there, so stop complaining about an issue that does not exist. Bakri is the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda according to European counter-terrorism officials. The sourced piece was not a direct quote. I added the quote, you added "despite being vilified in the media." That's a lot more pov than anything I have added. I actually enforced WP:BLP by removing content thats been on this page for months. What have you done? KazakhPol 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
US spellings were repeatedly added by you. Hence my complaints. If you think that adding "despite being vilified in the media" is more POV than adding "terrorist" categories and starting a section called "ties to terrorism" without any legal precedent then we've obviously got our wires crossed as to what constitutes NPOV. As for what have I done? Attempted to stop this page from breaking basic WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Enforcing WP:BLP? That's odd. When I look at the page history I see you adding "After the terrorist attacks of September 2001 Bakri was accused in the British media of indoctrination and incitement to terrorism."[3] with no source, in violation, of WP:BLP. You also added[4] "After September 11, 2001, Bakri praised the attackers as 'magnificent'" with no source, in violation of WP:BLP. That's a funny way of enforcing WP:BLP. KazakhPol 15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That was May 2006, before WP:BLP was even designed. No dice I'm afraid.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 15:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Right - now we're moving things round the page - removing a source I found for the vilification. Changing the perfectly acceptable wording to the clown paragraph yet again. What is the purpose of this?-- Zleitzen (Talk) 15:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove your source. Your source is still there. The wording is the same except I took the full quote. KazakhPol 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bakri wasn't deported to Lebanon

He stupidly travelled there of his own accord after the Syrians pulled back in the aftermath of their assassination of Hariri. Once Bakri was in Lebanon, the Home Office barred him from returning. He tried to use the Hizbullah-Israel war of 2006 as an excuse to get back into Britain, but that didn't work. Here's an account of it all from Bakri's friends at the Guardian: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1825781,00.html

Okay, I added this bit. LDH 11:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Didnt he get beheaded?

What an idiot, Im suprised he isnt beheaded himself, by the way Im a Muslim and this bakri dude sux--212.107.116.240 15:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronson

Wasn't there a Jon Ronson film just about Bakri called 'Tottenham Ayatollah'? Jooler 07:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashed or cleaned up BLP?

What's going with the recent reversions? Why is content being taken out? nadav (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. If the editor removing content would care to explain his rationale for deleting (he has so far not provided so much as an edit summary explaining why), I'd like for him to speak up. --ForbiddenWord 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
My reverts, not the edits listed above, we're only putting 'Muslim' back where 'Khawarij' has been placed by 70.64.56.194 where NO citation for the modification was given. I can and have agreed with 70.64.56.194 in that Bakri is not classed as a scholar but as for 'Khawarij' then their is no reference. In fact, without making citations, rather just speculation, 70.64.56.194 has persited in editing 'Muslim' and/or 'Sunni' and replacing it with 'Khawarij' of the biographies of Abu Hamza al-Masri, Abu Izzadeen and Anjem Choudary. Robert C Prenic 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hopeless

Wiki is hopeless where rabble-rousers like Omar Bakri al-Londonistani are concerned. Again and again his fans will return to obliterate the facts about this thug, and substitute grandiose propaganda about him. Pathetic, but true.

BTW real al-Qaida people rarely mention Omar Bakri. The guy gives jihad a bad name.

LDH 06:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheikh?

Was he a Sheikh? Can this be verified? What entitled someone to be given this title? Officially? 81.156.13.254 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)