Talk:Islam4UK

Islam for UK or Islam for the UK

Question : is the group called Islam for UK or is it called Islam for the UK ? if you visit the website it would appear to be the latter.Codf1977 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article should be moved accordingly. Rothorpe (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Their website seems to refer to it as Islam4UK, as does the BBC. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving to Islam4UK per 12 and their own website. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The website did CLEARLEY state "Islam for the UK" - I hope you are not confusing a domain name with the group's name - if or when the website comes back and the banner is still there then I may well move it back. Codf1977 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The website does say this, in bold text right across the top. Islam4UK is probably named so because its easy to remember. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Islam for the UK" was a slogan on the website, a statement of intent. If you read the "about" page you will see they refer to themseleves as Islam4UK. Here is google's cache of the page. All reliable sources also exclusively refer to them as Islam4UK, and this is what people will look for when trying to find the article, and that is the most important consideration when choosing the article name. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That works for me, thanks for clarifying the matter. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ditto Codf1977 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail

This edit concerns me deeply. The Daily Mail is one of the least reliable and most vehemently racist and anti-Islamic newspapers currently on the market. I wouldn't wipe my arse with its pages. I very much doubt the neutrality of the article being cited here, and want to remove it pronto. It offers all kinds of claims, but doesn't actually state with clarity where Choudary supposedly made these accusations. The tone of the article is more an opinion, rather than a reliable, newsworthy source. Opinions? Parrot of Doom 15:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree as it does not quote the exact words that Choudary used, I am going to remove the ref to stormtroopers. Codf1977 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments in it are being widely reported and it is a major British daily newspaper, why is it ok that you want to remove the Nazi stormtroopers comment but you want to include that he called British troops merciless murderers? Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the paper, it does not repeat the exact quote - I have looked on other sites and can't find it repeated any ware - in the interests of balance, until his exact words are reported, it is best to leave it out. Codf1977 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need a direct worded quote, its enough that it is being reported. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Its being reported by a piece of toilet roll newspaper with a clearly-defined anti-Islam agenda. It has no place in this article, its pure trash. Parrot of Doom 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside Parrot of Doom's comment about the paper, which I do not agree with. Such a comment needs to be verified since as far as I can see only once source is reporting it and are not reporting it word for word; it is prudent to wait until more sources report it. Codf1977 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still not totaly happy with the wording, however it is a lot better. We need to make sure that if other sources come to light that we avoid any WP:CIRCULAR issues and make sure that they are not just repeating what the Mail has said or what is said on the Wikipedia page. Codf1977 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the The Sun is also running the line, however it is not clear what the source is so it could be a repeat of the Daily Mail story. Codf1977 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We also have the daily Express [[1]], however I doubt he called them heros, so the daily Express seems to refeltc his words better. Another source [[2]], this one from India. As well as the daily Star [[3]]. So its not exaclty unreported.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I have found the interview that is the source of the story it is from Sun Talk Radio [4] here - the section between about 3:00 and 4:30 min in. Not sure that it totally supports the line the Daily Mail takes, he did not use the word stormtroopers for one - nor did the interviewer. Please can others listen so that we can reach a consensus about this part of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is the interview (and it seems to be) then its the sun (and others) putting words into his mouth. I think we need to balance this and use something like.

"the interviewer asked if Britsh solders were Nazis to which he responded that they had commited war crimes, but he did not use the word Nazi".Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand since he gave countless other interviews that day, what makes that one worthy of coverage. Why not just remove the whole sentence? Codf1977 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, since it clearly isn't from a reliable source, just Quote the man directly? Parrot of Doom 20:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the DM bit and am happy for anything else to be added. Codf1977 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Facebook group "number"

If you feel like updating the number of people in the facebook group - only do so if you can quote a reliable source to backup the number. Codf1977 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

MCB

Statement on the march here Parrot of Doom 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Taken the liberty of adding it, and one other muslim response, there are a few more.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article could really use work on its wording, so that it conveys the facts without any slant either way. At the moment, it reads very anti-Islam4UK, especially given the article is opened with words such as "extremist", a loaded and subjective word which instantly skews the article's neutrality. Now, I don't like what this group stands for, but Wikipedia's articles aren't a platform for opinions or taking sides: we don't, for instance, say that Hitler was the evilest man on the planet. Instead, we merely present the facts without bias and let the reader decide themselves rather than use wording that "guides" the reader's view. That really needs to be applied to this article before it gets bad. -- 86.169.228.192 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You could try removing 'extremist'. 'Islamist' is clear enough for me! Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is the press including the Times for example have called them extremist, even the BBC (source) have used the word hardline to describe them. Maybe that would be better terminology than 'extremist' though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I added the source to extremist, so if people want to use hardline or another similar word that's fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Report the facts from the sources, not their biases. Of course the British media is going to describe them as extremists, hardline, but that is not a fact, it's an opinion, one that won't be universally shared. The British media would go into a flurry of "treason", "traitors", etc for the Cambridge Five, the Russian media isn't. Probably the best comparison is with Al-Qaeda, where we don't use the word terrorist, extremist, or anything else with such a perjorative slant. We shouldn't be using these words as though definitive fact. Use them elsewhere in the article when attributed to scholarly sources examining the organisation, when its made clear it is an opinion, but not in the intro in this fashion. -- 86.169.228.192 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit as it broke the ref list Codf1977 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

if you read extremist it says is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society - spot on for this case Codf1977 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It also says "The term is invariably, or almost invariably, used pejoratively.", which lessens it's suitability here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I had exactly the same arguments on Nick Griffin. Regardless of the political views of the subject, let the reader judge, not the encyclopaedia. Terms like 'extremist' are a bit of a grey area. That's why I've left out such terms on Anjem Choudary. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I ha ve to agree. But we could word these statemnts by attrubuting them. Such as "he has been widley called an extreamist in the Briitsh media". By the way has he deniedbeing an extramist?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how I'd put it. One has to be careful to ensure that it isn't all criticism, especially if support is available, but "X is considered by many media outlets to be Y, and has been accused of doing Z", etc. Parrot of Doom 15:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've altered the text again since I was reverted, the use is now more consistent with the demands of WP:NPOV and WP:EXTREMIST (there's a guideline that explicitly argues against use of these sorts of words in the exact way it was used). It now attributes the view to the British media, with the Telegraph reference (but this reference alone is not enough, it needs a few more from other mainstream papers), the Muslim Council of Britain and the British government. That is neutral presentation: it is no longer presented as fact, but as the opinion it is. -- 86.169.228.192 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have more or less agreed that if ww make it clear that this is an opinion then we can have this in the artciel? What policy says "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears." Well we have provided muliple (independant) sources. It also makes it clear that they are represented as extramist, not that they are.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Look out the window, they are extremist, they are the BNP of the muslim world, to describe them as partisan is ridiculous. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well find another word then, extremist and terrorist are listed as words to avoid. --Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They are about to be proscribed under UK terrorist legislation so if it is sourced I cannot see an issue with extremist. Leaky Caldron 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

if used in RS it can be used as long as it is properly attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, get real. Open your eyes.. a partisan banned illegal organization under the terror laws, give over. I don't think partisan describes them at all, its irrelevant, call them fluffy do good bunnies for all I care but they are extremists, you do the public a disservice by attempting to portray them as normal run of the mill partisan muslims. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Try not to be trivial. Happy for you to get rid of partisan, the banning is enough to make it clear what they are. I'm not attempting to portray them as anything, just applying wikipedia policy not to use extremist/terrorist etc.--Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Such a proscription order is no guideline to their political stance. Rather than label a group in the lead, simply describe who they are, and what they've done. If they are, as people say, extremist, then most people will be in no doubt after they've read the article. I prefer to leave such judgements to the reader, and not those editors with an opinion. Parrot of Doom 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good point --Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way I find it rather telling that people would rather argue over a label, than work on expanding what is a woefully inadequate article. Parrot of Doom 17:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Words to avoid, yes right, after thursday they are an outlawed group under the terror laws, they are extremists they have no politcal position of any worth at all, ha ha. Attempting to portray these muslims as not extremists is simply playing into the hands of people who are anti muslim...yes these are normal run of the mill muslims, they are all like that, ridiculous. Fluffy bunny muslims they are. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Cool it, I am making no attempt that I can see to portray them as run of the mill anything. For good reason Wikipedia suggests that certain words are avoided and we need to respect that. Try dealing with the content and policy rather than making up stories about the motivations of other editors based on little or no understanding on your part. --Snowded ^TALK 17:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The constructive editors here are not attempting to portray anybody as anything—that isn't the position of Wikipedia. People can believe in whatever imaginary invisible mystical sky fairy they like, whether its Allah, or Jesus, whatever. Here we copy verifiable fact as such, and mention verifiable opinion if notable. The range of opinions on this page alone demonstrate that "extremism", as a description of this group, is very much open to debate. I believe that such terms are pejorative, and do not have a place here.

I suggest you take a step back from your keyboard, and think carefully before you write anything else, because your arguments appear to be descending into nonsense, and your tone into insults. Parrot of Doom 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Partisan is nonsense, radical is better - extemist seems to fit but I would prefer to leave it to reliable sources rather than those editors who have a particular opinion, one way or the other. Leaky Caldron 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We leave that laed out of the lead, and mention that the British medai and MCB have labled (called, accused whatever) then as extreamist.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

David Cameron said on the radio yesterday that he wants to radically change the country. That doesn't make him a radical in the same sense as you suggest this group is. Parrot of Doom 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave the lable out of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just put there that they are normal everyday partisan muslims and that they are representative of middle of the road muslims. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that its not true it would be very silly for anyone to suggest it even you. Please try and stay civil and read what people are saying--Snowded ^TALK 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, give over, its not my edit war, I know what they are and so does the public and the reliable citations in the papers and everywhere, as I said if you want to attempt to portray them as partisans then imo this is silly in the extreme and poorly represents the facts for ordinary people that just come here to find out about this group, to represent this group as anything other than extremist radicals is an insult to peoples intelligence. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of sitting in here and whinging about the article, why don't you actually try and improve it? Or is that too difficult?

  Seriously, I suggest you take a break. Your posts are becoming increasingly laughable. Parrot of Doom 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At this time Off2riorob is sailing a bit close to 3RR. He can't make his preferd edit without breaching it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We really don't need 'partisan' or 'extremist'. Clicking islamist gets you: 'a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.' I think that says it all. Rothorpe (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Except they want rather more then that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

'Unite politically' = 'take over the world'. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are hundreds of thousands (perhaps more) of moderate British Muslims that reject these extremists and that are right now totally ashamed of this group. Off2riorob (talk)

I would say it means what it says, unite politically, it does not read introduce sheria law into the UK for example. But (as I have said) leave the accusation out of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned terror organisation

They have been banned under the terror 2000 law..

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a group can be banned if it "commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism". Groups can also be outlawed if they "unlawfully glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism". Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps its all a mistake and they are just a very silly group which is taking an attention seeking position? Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not stricly accurate, it has been announced they are to be banned.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can wait until Thurdsay when the lead can be changed to "...is a proscribed British Islamist organisation....."

That the are currently extremist is in little obvious doubt, but the proscription with a suitable link to the Terrorism Act 2000 should be enough to put them in context. Leaky Caldron 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Extremist

I have added a NPOV tag to this article as the overuse of extremist in this article is well beyond what is acceptable. We don't need numerous references to what this group would call detractors calling them extremist. BigDunc 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There are four uses of the word, three from the MCB, two in realtion to hte wooton Basset march. One realting to hte British press.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And how is it NPOV that only the views of opponents are getting preference? BigDunc 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not. There are plenty of quotes stating thier views (by the way both myself and Doom have tried to find possitive material). Now if you can finid possitive material please do.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd be doing this article a service by finding groups who support Islam4UK. We've tried, and failed. That says to me that they have no support. Parrot of Doom 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with the NPOV tag - plenty of coverage of their views, positive media coverage cannot be invented. Codf1977 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming they are not extremist (e.g. 1 2) I tried to find a statement from Islam4UK itself refuting claims they are extremist but couldn't find one. As the only uses of the word are in the context of the claims others make, and we have already discussed about and removed the word as a description from the intro, I'm removing the NPOV tag.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the NPOV tag which was incorrectly removed by another editor: [5] Removal of a legitimately inserted tag which is accompanied by an ongoing talk page discussion is a violation of the editing process. Meowy 17:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even a glance at the article shows the extent of the neutrality issues, from the very first sentence. "Islam4UK is a banned offshoot of the banned British Islamist group Al-Muhajiroun" - does any editor seriously think they can get away with that wording in an encyclopaedic article? Is there any such wording in, for example, the article about the Provisional IRA, also a "banned" organisation. Nor is the word "banned" appropriate - the IRA article uses the word "proscribed" and says where it is proscribed. Nor does it mention "proscribed" in the first sentence. since being "proscribed" has nothing directly to do with the core aims and identity of the IRA. it would be the same for Islam4UK. I suggest editors go back to December versions of the article, before things got heated, and build on that. Meowy 18:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag. It was not wrongly removed. The issues you raise above were not present at the time I removed the tag. The reason for inserting the tag was use of the word "extremist", which had been discussed and dealt with by the time I removed the tag. Simply reinserting the tag "because it was wrongly removed" does not help improve the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the lead is currently over the top. Rothorpe (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have again reinserted the NPOV tag. The issues are mostly still there. Please don't remove this tag until the article becomes stable. There is no point in one editor removing the tag after removing much of the POV wording if the very next edit by another editor puts the pov wording back. Meowy 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing from you here saying what you consider to be NPOV. The only reason stated above has now been handled. --Snowded ^TALK 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My purpose here was just to restore a wrongly removed POV tag. There is no requirement for me to say what in the content requires the tag to be there. The tag was originally legitimately inserted and legitimate points were made to accompany its insertion, so it should not have been removed. Read the message on the tag - "please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". The point of removal is not when you think the issue is resolved, but when a consensus is reached that the problem has been solved. Such a consensus has not been reached. However, I already had pointed out the unsatisfactory nature of the lead. Yes it was rewritten to make it better, but most of the old problems immediately returned. It is not acceptable to have the pov and vague word "banned" in the lead sentence. And the problems with the article are not restricted to just the lead sentence. Meowy 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not wrongly removed, the objection (the number of times extremist was used) specified had been handled in an edit. That is what tags are meant to trigger changes. Neither is it acceptable to make general assertions, you need to be specific otherwise the tag goes. At the moment the only specific objection is to "banned"--Snowded ^TALK 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it needs to be spelt out - here are some obvious problems with the article in its current form. The way the word "proscribed" is used is pov. Is Islam4UK "proscribed" in France, is it "proscribed" in Germany"? The article does not actually say where is it "proscribed", by whome has it been "proscribed", under what legislation has it been "proscribed", and what "proscribed" actually means". I already pointed out that in similar articles for "proscribed" organisations (such as the Provisional IRA one) the word is not used in the primary description of what the organisation is. Since being "proscribed" would appear to have nothing directly to do with the core aims and identity of Islam4UK (unless a source can be found saying it is) it is pov to use the word "proscribed" in the first sentence to characterise the organisation. The chronology of events described in the article appear to have been somewhat distorted, leading to possible pov bias. Essential information appears missing, like when was the organisation founded, what are the links between "Al Ghurabaa" and "The Saved Sect"? I also note that the unsuitable word "banned" rather than "proscribed" is used in those two articles, and is, like this article, being used in a pov way as if it were their primary characteristic. Meowy 22:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It does need to be spelt out if you tag it, other editors cannot guess what you mean. The Proscribed issue is one of fact and context, as its a UK organisation and the pipelinks are there to the counter-terrorism act I think its clear, but this would not be a POV issue anyway. There are other tags for missing information, that is not a POV issue. The other two articles may or may not have issues, but that is not relevant here. Drive by tagging is not encouraged on wikipedia and the use of a tag requires (i) that you use the right one and (ii) that you make you reasons for tagging explicit in the edit summary or better on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you may not have realised it, or realised the seriousness of it, but alleging bad faith and drive-by tagging are serious accusations. I suggest to you that you moderate both your language and your accusations. Fail to do it, and I will raise a complaint in the appropriate forum. Meowy 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It clearly states that it was proscribed under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 on 14 January 2010. How is this statement of fact POV-pushing? Unlike the IRA for example, which is notable for it's actions, you will note that the proscription of Islam4UK is a key part of why the organisation is notable. How should the article be improved in your opinion so as to detail these basic facts in a neutral way? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why a group is notable will vary over time. The lead sentence for the IRA article does not mention its actions - it describes what it is (not what its opponents call it) and its core aims. The reason I've been urging comparison with that article and others like it is because the text in those articles will have been developed by very many editors over a long period - so it is probably a good example to follow. Meowy 21:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Another one which has 'is' in the lead. Rothorpe (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes made by Snowded

I notice that Snowded has made a number of changes that have removed significant elements of the text, including a number of quotes and information (see here). I am not entirely happy with the changes, however wish to see if there is a consensus feeling. Codf1977 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a tidy up, some of the material was duplicated, others like Cameron asking for a ban had been overtaken by events. I don't think I removed anything substantial, but I thought we should get on with improving the article so I'd start the process. --Snowded ^TALK 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to remove cameron calling for a ban, many people have called for a ban, it would be better to include a non political notable person but it is also as snowed says overtaken by events, they are banned. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine - was just checking - I do think the Cameron quote is useful as some of the criticism of the ban revolves around the timing of the ban - may be if I get some time I will but a para together about that. Codf1977 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And some of the lack of criticism involves Opposition MPs feeling unable to criticise the decision because of Cameron opening his mouth before thinking and thus making it a sort of party policy issue. So it probably is worth mentioning. Meowy 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The reasons given for the original tag were addressed. The tag has been placed on the article but no reasons given here, can we please have them otherwise I will remove the tag. --Snowded ^TALK 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

re-order of lead

I think the order of the lead is improved if we started by describing what it is, i.e. a proscribed organisation. This is not dissimilar to when we describe someone as a convicted criminal right up front, for example Rose West & Peter Sutcliffe. So, per WP:BOLD, I have re-ordered it. Leaky Caldron 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. West & Sutcliffe are famous for their murders; I4UK isn't famous for being proscribed. And the paragraphing is over the top. WP is not a tabloid. Rothorpe (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - rather than using a quote to allow the group to describe itself in the lead, you might be better off summarising the group from the sources used within the article. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't agree either - it is now messy and fragmented and have reverted it. Codf1977 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your's frankly is a mess and I think you might have waited for other editors to a considered my changes. Leaky Caldron 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept I could have done, but the same could be said for your changes, however one of the reasons behind my change was to remove the word 'ban from the lead as it was felt that while that was in the lead the article was not NPOV. Codf1977 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)agreed PoD, but I would personally prefer to leave the original content until the dust settles on the other issues elsewhere. Leaky Caldron 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The paragraphing is over the top? There was 1 monolithic para. and now there is a short, definitive, unambiguous opening. Either way, it's clearer and states what they are now rather that stumbling over what they were. Leaky Caldron 21:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But what there were is why they were proscribed Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What they are is more contemporary than what they once were. Leaky Caldron 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

to Leaky Cauldron - sensible, but these things do tend to work themselves out once the lead is expanded beyond a few sentences. After all the bollocks with the Choudary article I'm not getting involved with this (I told myself not to bother doing another biog after building Nick Griffin and then being accused of being a racist bigot but hey ho), but if you rewrite the lead from scratch I think you'll see this minor problem vanish immediately. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pod. It's the lack of collegiality and jumping on other's bandwagons that gets me at times. Leaky Caldron 22:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather too many tabloid-favourites cited as examples. Is Peter Sutcliffe notable for anything else except for being a killer? While it might not have been his life goal, the only reason he is notable enough for an article is because he is a killer. Not so Islam4UK. It is not a person, it is an organisation. Though even if it were a person, an "a proscribed, British Islamist group"-type lead sentence would be unsuitable. There are better, more serious articles to follow as examples. Al-Qaeda, also a proscribed organisation, does not have "proscribed" or "banned" or similar words used to describe it. Being "proscribed" has nothing directly to do with the core aims and identity of Islam4UK, so is pov to use the word "proscribed" next to the organisations name in the very first sentence to characterise the organisation. Meowy 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The major problem with the past tense it that it takes for granted that the banning means that it no longer exists. Such a philosophy is of course utter nonsense. In the hearts and minds of its supports its ethos, and therefore it, is not banned at all but simply not able to publically pronounce on its dubious beliefs. Until editors comprehend the philosophy of these people then the introduction to this article will remain a jumbled shambles. Islam4UK was indeed banned (proscribed). Try telling that to the handful of its radical followers. The only established fact is that it has been proscribed, but let’s not allow the facts to get in the way of waffling prose. Leaky Caldron 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for those wanting examples, the IRA, UDF, INLA and any number of other organisations were officially banned for 30 years - they continue to have followers to this day. Any lead that starts with "was" in it is way off the factual mark. Leaky Caldron 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The articles on the two previous incarnations both have 'is'. I agree, it makes no sense to have 'was' here. Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No sources are cited that say (or even suggest) it is an "is". Without that, it is just an opinion. What there is suggests its existence ended with its proscription. Meowy 00:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Choudary said that the organisation was no more, on The Daily Politics. I think you have to accept him at his word. Parrot of Doom 00:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The only fact of record we have is that it is a proscribed organisation. Anything else, including Chaudary's own comments, is speculation. What policy allows us to rely on his word? He also said he might join the labour party and see if that would be banned due to his being a Muslim. If that isn't a clear indication that he will never forego the beliefs underpinning his organisations then I don't know what is. As I've said, the only FACT is that ISLAM4UK became a proscribed oragisation with membership being made illegal. Leaky Caldron 00:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well unless you have reason to doubt him, how can you not accept his word? In that respect, he's no different to any other notable figure, unless of course its regarding some form of criminality. Parrot of Doom 00:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We simply have no way of knowing and I don't think he is a reliable source in terms of WP:RS. We know the organisation is listed as proscribed - that is all the verifiable evidence we have. Passing a new law doesn't always expunge the reason why the law was introduced. The law now says that Islam4UK etc. are now illegal - any other interpretation of recent events is not supported by verifiable evidence. Leaky Caldron 11:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The articles The Saved Sect, Al Ghurabaa and Al-Muhajiroun all have 'is' in the lead. Why should this one be different? Rothorpe (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are unmitigated disasters. I think the question should be, why should they be different? Parrot of Doom 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This ref quotes a member of Islam4UK as saying "When you proscribe groups, then you can’t monitor them because they go underground. I’m not saying that’s what we’re going to do, but we will continue our work, maybe under another name or guise." So clearly there is some evidence that the group has not ceased to exist. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we have a passage in the section about the banning saying this. Having sadi that I fail, to see the objection to 'is', it is (not was) a baned organisation, the ban after all is still in effect (and will be untill it is lifted) as such it ius a presetn tense (not past) tense event.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The objection is that the use of is implies that it is still in existence, we have Anjem Choudary on the BBC saying that they are not going to use the name. I think until we have evidence that the name is still in use then in the interests of NPOV it needs to be changed back to was Codf1977 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well while it says "is" the article implies it is still in existence despite a quote from the spokesman that it is not - NPOV. Codf1977 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If we wish to be pedantic he says (at least in the quote in the article) that they will no longer use the name, not that they have ceased operation, or that no one else will use the name. can you provide a source that says they have dispanded?.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't, but neither is there a source that says they have NOT disbanded - the website is off line - they did say Islam 4 UK has been contacted by authorities to (force) shut down its operations, we stress this name will no longer be used by us plus the quote from the BBC Daily Politics - what is there to show that they are still using it ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Prove, using WP:RS and WP:V that they no longer exist. That they did exist is not disputed. Where is your evidence that they suddenly ceased to associate because they were banned? A quote from a spokesman of an illegal organisation does not satisfy WP:RS does it? Since they are illegal presumably he would be breaking the law if he said “Oh yes, we are meeting at Anjem’s place tonight”. Please find a reliable, non self-published source that they have desisted or leave it alone. Leaky Caldron 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No you Prove, using WP:RS and WP:V that they still exist - some of the statements that they were going to stop using the name were made prior to the 14 Jan - before any ban came into effect so at that point he was not (as you say) a spokesman of an illegal organisation Codf1977 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If we had simply stuck to saying that they were a proscribed organisation as I originally suggested you would not now find yourself up against wp:rs policy. It is not necessary to prove that they continue still exist. If you want to prove that they do not exist you need a reliable, non self-published source. That is what they policy requires. Remember - wp:v - verifiability, not truth. The only published, verifiable sources we have relate to when they existed. Leaky Caldron 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed if the lead read

"Islam4UK is a proscribed[1] Islamist group in the United Kingdom, led by Anjem Choudary, that was proscribed[1] under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 on 14 January 2010"

this would not be an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs a sentence break somewhere. How about: "Islam4UK is a proscribed[1] British Islamist group. It was led by Anjem Choudary and became a proscribed organisation under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 on 14 January 2010" Leaky Caldron 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The above, if used, might imply that Anjem Choudary is committing a criminal offence Codf1977 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also still point out that they have not said they have ceased opeation. We can not prove they have not dispanded, we don not have to, you have to prove they have. They have been baned so were the IRA, that did not mean they ceased to exist.Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Was not aware of any statement from the IRA that they would dispand ? Codf1977 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nor is there any from islam4uk. Thats the point, they have said they will not use the name, not that they will disband.Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote WP:RS

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications .

Anjem Choudary, can, as the spokesman and former leader of I4UK be described as an expert on I4UK and his quotes have been published by reliable third-party publications - so I don’t see any issue with using his statements. Codf1977 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

no one has said his views cannot be used, but we can only use what he says, not how we interperate it. Has he said that they are going to cease operation?Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He has said they are going to stop using the name - I have little doubt Anjem Choudary and his friends will form a new "group" at some point in the future, with similar aims, but they will use a different name. Codf1977 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So the answer is no he has not said they are going to cease operation. Just that he will not use the name.Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes we can use what he says in context, but not to define in the lead the current standing of the group in such a categoric way. That would contravene wp:undue and is why the existing or alternative proposed by Slaters should be used in preference to your simple past tense option. Leaky Caldron 20:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also its worth noting that thier website actualy said that they would not "use the domain name" not that they would not use they would cease operation. Well we have this [[6]] “When you proscribe groups, then you can’t monitor them because they go underground. I’m not saying that’s what we’re going to do, but we will continue our work, maybe under another name or guise.” Pretty clear that we still will operate, we might even change our name. In other words they have not disbanded. Now can you provide a source saying they have disbanded?Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the three predecessor-organisation articles all have 'is'. I suppose 'is/was' would be too inelegant? It would at least honestly reflect the uncertain situation, as exemplified on this talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It really has to be a "was" until credible sources indicate it is an "is", since an "is" implies a continued UK existence of the group which is also implying criminal activity is going on by members of that group. Meowy 21:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactley my point - "is" implies criminal activity Codf1977 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is all revolving around what defines the group, it is all semantics, what is the entity, the name, the members, the web domain, the bank account - what? My issue is pure and simple, any wording that can imply that anything illegal is going on is a POV issue, unless and until it can be shown they are continuing under the banner the article should not imply they might be . Codf1977 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion." I suggest you do not change is to was there!

If my suggestion 24 hours ago had been accepted instead of being reverted by you, we might not have wasted so much time on this. "Islam4UK is a proscribed[1] British Islamist group." Simple, accurate and well sourced. Leaky Caldron 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy with the IRA fails, as to the best of my recollection, it's leader never went on TV to say they are going to stop using the name. The opening phrase of the article Islam4UK is an Islamist group is not NPOV – it is as simple as that. Codf1977 (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And as I've said, inserting the word "proscribed" before this "is" solves it - but you didn't like that. Sticking to verifiable facts is always the best approach, and it "is a proscribed group" is a simple solution. Anything else is a PoV of one kind or another. The problems with your version is that it not acceptable because he said it (wp:rs, wp:v and wp:undue and contradicts the spokesman's comment that "When you proscribe groups, then you can’t monitor them because they go underground. I’m not saying that’s what we’re going to do, but we will continue our work, maybe under another name or guise." maybe allows the door open for ISLAM4UK to continue, underground. Leaky Caldron 10:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sticking to verifiable facts - that is the problem - there are none, either way (unless you can show me one), the only way to prove they still are using the name is a criminal prosecution of a member. Comments made by Anjem Choudary‎ can be used - as I pointed out yesterday wp:rs does allow for Self-published material, in some circumstances.

The quote you are using can be interpreted in another way, it could mean "we will continue our work individually or under a new group or guise" - and as I said before I have little or no doubt they will form a new group - and when they do, we can all write about that new group. To put it another way, what is the most likely - to continue under the name I4UK and risk 10 years in prison or start a new group with a new name, without the risk of 10 years in prison ?

The wording you have changed to now reads as if Anjem Choudary is leading a banned Islamist group. Codf1977 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

agreed - yours is better. Leaky Caldron 12:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this for a lead? It doesn't make any claims as to the group's current status:

Islam4UK is the name of an Islamist group that was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 on 12[sic] January 2010

--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cod has put this up and I think it is also ok: Islam4UK is a now banned Islamist group, that operated in the United Kingdom. It was proscribed[1] under the UK's Terrorism Act 2000 on 14 January 2010.[2][3] Prior to is[sic] proscription it was led by Anjem Choudary[4].

They are both acceptable. Having the word "banned" helps the reader to understand better than "proscribed" - especially as the wiki proscribed is useless. Let's see if there is a swing behind either, but progress has been made. Cod, thanks for your latest changes. Leaky Caldron 12:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

been trying out some new wording along the lines of :

Islam4UK is the latest known name used by a group of Islamists seeking Khilafah in the United Kingdom. It was proscribed ......

comments ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See discusion below.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone ? Yes ? No ? Other ? Codf1977 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have said I bleive the only answer is to merge this with the other organisations that this is a renamimng of.Slatersteven (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The only answer to what? What would the merged article be called? Sounds like a recipe for a lot of pointless work - and probably plenty of disagreement. The articles already refer to each other. It's not a paper encyclopedia, no space needs to be saved, and some people, it seems, have monitors that prefer shorter articles.

Also, I'm happy with the lead as it stands. Rothorpe (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the name of the article would be the first of the many pitfalls I can foresee. As for the lead, as you can see above a number of editors have an issue with it as it stands so it does need to change, hence the suggestion. Codf1977 (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

this debate seems to have run out of steam - does anyone have any other wording ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The current "is a group that operated" seems to cover the is/was tense thing quite well. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

still have the issue that in that context "is" can imply that it still exists - I think we need to find a form of words that is neutral Codf1977 (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "Islam4UK is the name of an Islamist group that operated in the United Kingdom. It was proscribed...." This says it did operate, but makes no claims as to it's status since being proscribed.

I agree that is better than the current version. Codf1977 (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated it for now then, hopefully no one will think that it is worse than the previous version.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine. Leaky Caldron 13:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is obviously not about a "name", it is about an organisation. Saying "Islam4UK is the name of an Islamist group" is not necessary. Also, why have 3 sentences when exactly the same thing can be said using just one? "Is" has to be OR unless or until a source can be found saying it is still operating. Until then, saying "was" has to be the best course. Meowy 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a proscribed organisation. The name itself is proscribed (That's what it says in the Act end the enabling SI). It is in fact OR to suggest, without RS, that it suddenly ceased to exist from 14 Jan. It may have done, but we need a verifiable source. Leaky Caldron 16:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

By making an assumption that it still operates, without having any evidence or sources to back up that assumption, you are making an ill-disguised allegation that criminal activity is going on. And the weasily-worded "Before its proscription it was led by Anjem Choudary" is not enough to escape the assumption that you are accusing Choudary of engaging in that criminal activity. I think it is time to take this to the BLP notice board. Meowy 16:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

They all have 'is', even ETA. But I still agree with you about 'before its proscription', quite clutterous before 'it was led'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is making an assumptions either way. It IS a group that has ceased to exist or operate.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

to Meowy:- You take it for granted that because the law makes something illegal, all activity that was previously legal and is now illegal suddenly ceases. How do you know that Islam4UK no longer meet in secret? (there is a hint of this in the spokesman’s remarks about being driven underground – above). We know for sure that (a) they existed and (b) it is proscribed. That is all we know for certain. They are the only indisputable, verifiable facts. We know nothing else for sure. Saying “(it)…was a Islamist group, led by Anjem Choudary [1], that operated in the United Kingdom until it was proscribed” is a point of view without evidence since we do not know, without proof, that it has ceased. It is hypothesis. It would be nice to believe that a law proscribing an activity made it a certain fact the following day. We require verifiable facts/proof/evidence – not necessarily what we would hope/want to be the “truth.” If you can improve the wording/structure around the known, verifiable facts please help do so, but stop advocating what is not verified because that is against policy. Every word and nuance of the consensus version is a verifiable fact, not as you say “accusing Choudary of engaging in that criminal activity.” It’s may not be ideal, but it is not a simple matter to put these facts into a meaningful phrase without making it incorrect. Leaky Caldron 17:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence - that is Wikipedia policy. And it is particularly strongly enforced where those claims concerns living individuals. If an organisation that has been proscribed is alleged to be still operating regardless of that proscription, then that is an exceptional claim. However, far from having exceptional evidence to support your "is" assertion, you have presented no evidence at all! Meowy 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a largely unresolvable issue - as I see it on the 14th something fundamental changed, it became a criminal offence to be a member of I4UK; just prior to that change both Anjem Choudary and I4UK issued or made statements to the press that they were going to stop using the name - those statements meet the requirements of WP:RS. It is therfore not reasonable to assume nothing happened with regard to the membership at 00:01 on the morning of the 14th UNLESS something post that date shows otherwise. With regard to the spokesman’s remarks about being driven underground - we can only interpret that - it is not clear, and I have already offered another interpretation to its meaning. The other thing to consider is the nature of the proscription it is only on the name - the most likely outcome is that the old members will just form a new group with a new name and as such beat the ban; Anjem Choudary may be many things one of them is a (ex-)solicitor and as such is not stupid - it does not serve him to end up in prison - so if he can avoid that by using a new name, why would he continue using a proscribed one ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proscription and the wrong Terrorism Act

Can I also highlight other significant errors in the lead? The worded “banned” appears to be unacceptable for some reason. So we are stuck with the legal expression proscribed. Not much wrong with that – we should be precise – but the current article on proscription bears little relevance to the modern day interpretation as identified in the Terrorism Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006. Referring to inapplicable punishments and specific events 2100 years ago doesn’t seem an intelligent move IMO. Terrorism Act 2006#Part 2 provides a better link, until someone writes a modern day article on proscription, or amends the existing terrorism articles to better describe what proscription means in this article's context.

Also, I believe that the groups were proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2006, under Clause 1(2) – “Glorification of terrorism” which was not included in the 2000 Act. See Terrorism Act 2006#Part 1.

Since certain editors here appear to have taken it upon themselves to own the article and dismiss my suggestions (along with others) I will for the time being leave these observations here for you experts to consider. I may come back to it when I feel like challenging the ignorance. Leaky Caldron 10:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a ref to the banning order. This is actually entitled "The Proscribed Organisations (Name Changes) Order 2010" so clearly there is no problem for us to use the word "proscribed". I agree the wiki article needs updating so will change the wikilink. As to which Act was used, it is rather complicated but the powers stem from the 2000 Act which was modified by the 2006 Act. So it is not a substantive part of the 2006 Act (as is for example "Encouragement of terrorism") but rather the powers form part of Section 3 of the 2000 Act.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge

A point has been raised about if this group still exsists, perhpas we may nedd to think about meging the variuous articles about this, and the saem group operating under differnt names?Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

agreed. An overall article would solve many problems. Leaky Caldron 20:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur, redirect the other two to this as the latest instantiation --Snowded ^TALK 11:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - but not sure super article would be without its own pitfalls Codf1977 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No to merger - please see above. Rothorpe (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Proscription"

Could I suggest that the term "proscription" be either explained within the article or replaced with another term? I have never heard the term before, and I am guessing it may be a specific UK legal term that may be unfamiliar to users outside the UK. CopaceticThought (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I have added a wiki link to proscribed - do you think more is needed ? Codf1977 (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That link is no good and was previously discussed and removed - see above. It is the same word but is an ineffective application for the modern day use of the word. Leaky Caldron 09:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So where does this leave us? Being unfamiliar with the legal concept, I don't feel comfortable explaining it myself. CopaceticThought (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wikilinked it to Terrorism_Act_2000#Proscribed groups which contains a brief description. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islam4UK. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091231120536/http://www.islam4uk.com:80/about-us to http://www.islam4uk.com/about-us

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam4UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109023803/http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-853 to http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-853
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.islam4uk.com/

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam4UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020224519/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/354891/ProscribedOrganisationsAug14.pdf to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/354891/ProscribedOrganisationsAug14.pdf

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)