Talk:Undercover Mosque

Poor writing and skewed prose

the lead is atrocious, and requires a substantial rewrite. it is currently brimming with emotive language and the writing itself features plenty of grammatical errors. ITAQALLAH 09:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well edit it, don't just leave a tag and run.Hypnosadist 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited by me and other editors, now has a criticism section, removed pov tag.Hypnosadist 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah, i added the criticism sect. the content sect still fails to report on it neutrally, assuming the allegations of C4 to be true. ITAQALLAH 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Added source for the content section, Channel 4 have not put up a transcript just a "highlights" page. PS All the alligations are clearly videod and much as the MCB bitch about context there is no context to explain tossing homosexuals of cliffs. So whats not neutral about that section now as its quotes.Hypnosadist 00:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, that's what i mean. C4 give a sensationalist overview of the contents of the 'documentary.' they are under no obligation to present the overview on their website neutrally (and why should they when they can opt for cheap hype?); whereas we should be impartial to its contents and not assume (nor imply) that it proves what it claims. ITAQALLAH 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can watch the documentary on you tube (link at bottom of article), also Channel 4 is a major british broadcaster of quality and none of the criticisms say that the video is doctored just "taken out of context" (what ever that means). So you have no evidence to say the documentary does not contain what they say it does on the website, but i do hope they post a full transcript so more can be added.Hypnosadist 01:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

C4 are not obliged to adhere to WP:NPOV, we are. thus, we should not replicate their charged overview here and should instead aim to present the general contents of the documentary neutrally. ITAQALLAH 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the neutrality disputed template. The quotes are all contained in the documentary and there is no way that any context could have changed their meaning unless they were attributing the quotes to someone else which they were not. It should be emphasised that the article is an accurate reflection of what is stated in the program. And it is clear from the program that these preachers are operating in mainstream mosques. I think that it is unreasonable to dispute the neutrality of the article. If there are any further disputes about neutrality I propose that specific statements in the article and that further items to include are discussed here.Gerryfarm 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

the neutrality is disputed, because i am here disputing it. that's what the tag signifies: that the neutrality is not agreed upon, not necessarily that it is not neutral. the summary of the contents provided in this article consists of extremely biased commentary. ITAQALLAH 09:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two main things to say about this. Firstly, it seems to me that you are disputing the neutrality of the C4 program rather than the article. If so, other viewpoints have been included on this page (such as the comments of the Islamic Human Rights Commission) have been included and which restore the article's NPOV. The neutrality tag/template is not intended to describe the program itself, it is intended to describe the content of the article. Secondly, just because there is someone disputing the neutrality of the tag does not mean that they are being reasonable in doing so, and I note in this regard that you are not providing specific rubuttals regarding any of the statements made in this article.Gerryfarm 10:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Itaquallah, I've just seen your description of your edit. Let's look at each statement and ensure that we are happy with it.Gerryfarm 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

it seems to me that you are disputing the neutrality of the C4 program rather than the article - i am disputing the way the contents of the documentary have been expressed in this article. a lot of the section, seeing as though a number of personalities in the video have been named, may constitute a violation of WP:BLP. we should make quite clear that the documentary presents allegations, not facts, irrespective of whether editors believe it to be true. quite a simple demonstration of this is the charge that the involved preachers "sanction pedophilia." in the UK, to do such is a crime, and this page declares them guilty without them having been found so in a court of law. there are significant legal implications of allowing such biased commentary to remain on the article page. less importantly, it's simply not neutral (and this comment in particular is original research), it's an allegation, and we are not to present them as factual. the same principles can be applied to the other bullet points. ITAQALLAH 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree that WP:BLP impacts at all on this article. There is definitely no original research in this article. What the documentary presents is not allegations but recorded statements by preachers which raise disturbing questions. If you do not like the charge that the preachers "sanction paedophilia" perhaps you would prefer to suggest a rephrase - but I note that you do not do so, and indeed you have not responded to any of my requests to suggest constructive changes to any statements. In any event, sanctioning paedophilia is definitely not a crime in the UK, so a court of law need not be involved here, and you need not fear for Wikipedia. But the use of the expression "sanctioning paedophillia" is a terse way of describing the actual content of what one of the preachers was saying. I feel that you are not discussing your disagreements with the comments, but are trying to distract from the real issues with bluster. Gerryfarm 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

you are declaring allegations made by a documentary as fact. that's all there is to it, and it violates WP:NPOV. -.- ITAQALLAH 05:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the documentary. The article represents the documentary in a non-biased way. The documentary might be biased, but the article is not a continuation of the programme. It is merely an article about the programme. If we continue down the "biased" road, the end result is that any and all people who edit any article about, say, Hitler are nazis. Moreover, any article that deal with said Austrian person is biased and promotes anti-semitism. How's that for not understanding what an encyclopedia is? Eh? --Tirolion 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Have not been working with me constructively to produce a good article

I'm unhappy with the changes that you have made to the article, Itaqallah, as I think that it is a whitewash and removes most of the content of the article. I note that you made radical changes, removing most of the content under discussion, only after I had done quite a bit of work to try to address your concerns about the article. It's a depressing experience trying to collaborate with you to produce a good article as anyone who looks at this page and the history page will see. I am considering undoing your edits and appealing to the wider Wikipedia community. Gerryfarm 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Gerryfarm 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

this singular attempt [1] did not address the primary concern at all. ITAQALLAH 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The material that was taken out is easily verifiable material and not in question , so the blanking out it is counter-productive.--CltFn 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It would make more sense to keep in statements that were made in the documentary but insert them in context, stating that the documentary "showed" such and such making the following statement etc. This is because the statements were definitely made but the editors obviously chop excerpts up as they wish for impact purposes. There should be no bias at all. It is an encyclopedic entry after all, not a personal opinion of what was shown. The documentary inevitably caused an outcry and so it is okay to explain that the mosque or organisation disagreed with something whilst the producers/public or other organisations agreed or were shocked etc. but you must include all sources to such quotes and opinions and NOT include your own as wiki editors. --UK 007 14:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

what do you think about this presentation? it takes all of the commentary/quotes from secondary sources and avoids the problem of inserting sensationalist editorial commentary, which is a problem in the current version. by the way, newer comments go at the bottom of the section. ITAQALLAH 14:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Material that was recently removed

The footage provides an uncensored insider's view in major mainstream mosques in Britain throughout 2006 capturing imams and speakers as they:

• preach hatred of non-muslims who are repeatedly labeled as Kuffr.
• incite for the murder of apostates "Whom ever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else kill him".
• advocate violent Jihad against the non-muslims and predicting that an army of Muslims will arise against the non-muslims in England.
• sanction marriage with pre-pubescent girls, "The prophet Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty. With his practice, he clarified what is permissible, and that is why we shouldn't have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman."
• condemn Muslim integration into British society.
• calls for the overthrow of the British government and democracy. "They will fight in the cause of Allah. I encourage all of you to be from among them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching - where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength."
• explain that Muslims in Britain are in a situation in which they have to live like a state-within-a-state - until they take over. But until this happens, they have to preach, until they become such a force that the people just submit to.
• advocate the beating and degradation of women, "Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete, ...by the age of 10 if she doesn't wear a hijab, we hit her.
• threaten muslims if they do not pray "if you don't come for prayer, we will arrest you. But if you still don't, then we have to bring the punishment on you - you will be killed"
• call for the murder of homosexuals who “should be killed by throwing them off a cliff".

.--CltFn 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like user Itaqallah is objecting to these cited quotes being part of the article. Would some other editors weigh in on the matter--CltFn 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"cited quotes"? a lot of the factualisations of allegations above are not mere "cited quotes," unlike my proposition. ITAQALLAH 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not recall seing anywhere that quotes have to be inside boxes in the format you have inserted. As I have suggested , we should also see if other editors might consider weighing in on this quote issue , as we ought to establish some consensus rather than a tug of war on this.--CltFn 05:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

consensus can be, and usually is, achieved through comprimise. it is not simply an issue of editor stacking. the presentation doesn't have to be in my format, but my format allows for appropriate attribution instead of emotive editorial language that you have been insisting upon.. you quite simply cannot declare allegations as fact. ITAQALLAH 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are simply extracts from the documentary. This is not an issue about fact or not , this is simply what is contained in the film. Furthermore the quotes are cited to verifiable and notable sources. The "emotive language" is not mine , but the speakers' s own words in the mosques. Are these allegation? I think not , anyone can watch the linked video and hear it spoken straight from the horse's mouth. --CltFn 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

i think you're misunderstanding. you are declaring that they "incite murder", "sanction pedophilia," (which you admittedly changed subsequently) etc. you are providing judgemental commentary instead of simply letting the quotes speak for themselves (as i have done). ITAQALLAH 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

just as a reminder, you don't put fair use images on talk pages. they are copyrighted, and only become acceptably used in article space as long as they conform to fair use policy (which they don't here anyway). ITAQALLAH 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now sourced all the images to the article with verifiable , notable references and to make things clear, though I hear your arguments , I do not see any longer sufficient merit to support your repeated blanking of the content section, thus I support restoring the content section with all the quotes from the documentary.--CltFn 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

i am not blanking the section. i am trying to ensure that the commentary (not the cherry-picked quotes, which would still violated NPOV anyway), if any, is from and clearly attributed to secondary sources. you do not see why declaring allegations as fact (they haven't been proven in a court of law, nor have they been found guilty by the authorities) is an utter violation of WP:NPOV. i will conduct an RfC shortly. ITAQALLAH 12:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Itaqualla, the summary of the programme that is made under the section entitled "content" which you refer to as commentary is a reasonable summary of the program. Your comments regarding "cherrypicking" would suggest that you would want more information put in the "content" section but instead you reduced and removed the content before it was recovered by other users.

If you do not like the content of the documentary, this does not mean that the neutrality of an article summarising the documentary is in question. In fact there is plenty of critique in the article.

Your comment about "declaring the allegations to be fact" is absurd in several respects:

• Firstly, the "allegations" of what people said can be seen and heard as clearly as anything on the Channel 4 website. There can be no question about that.
• Secondly, a fact does not have to be proven through a court of law before appearing on Wikipedia (it would be absurd if it did).
• Thirdly, you are confusing the neutrality of the program with the neutrality of the article. The neutrality of the documentary is handled through the critique sections in subsequent bits of the article. The neutrality of the article is assessed by looking at how well it covers the facts and how well it serves the cause of truth.
• Finally, just because you yourself do not think that the article complies with the NPOV policy does not mean that you are correct in adding a neutrality disputed tag. Your comments and rationales do not appear to be reasonable or rational. I am however glad that you have made a RfC as I hope that this will settle the matter. Gerryfarm 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Footnotes

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.155.224.232 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

RfC

the subject of this RfC is Undercover Mosque#Content, and whether or not it is appropriate to declare that subjects did XYZ, instead of keeping OR and NPOV problems out of it by quoting secondary sources and their commentary on the content of the documentary. the dispute does not centre around the quotes, while although i feel the way they have been cherry-picked is problematic, the editorial commentary authored by CltFn seems to be the main concern. the version i proposed, which still needs to implement some other quotes, can be seen here. ITAQALLAH 12:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The documentary itself cherry-picks quotes, and these quotes are the reason the documentary has gained so much press. However, there is a lot of pointless and POV commentary accompanying them. For example, under the speakers' interpretation of Islamic law, apostates and homosexuals should be executed, not "murdered" which suggests illegality. There are many more like this. The test is this: if the writer's point of view is evident, we've failed WP:NPOV. The second problem I have with this (for now) is that the quotes are attributed to "the speakers." We should take care to attribute each quote to its individual origin, not only because these are living people (though that itself is an excellent reason,) but because some of the speakers may not agree with everything another said. I think if CltFn (or someone else) does this, this particular dispute is likely to die down, sparing everyone much trouble.Proabivouac 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has just posted a transcript which links each quote clearly to a speaker and the medium it is (recorded undercover, DVD or Live internet feed). As to "postates and homosexuals should be executed, not "murdered" which suggests illegality" it's illegal

to murder people as these nuters have no right to execute anyone in the UK, SIMPLE.Hypnosadist 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree with you, but our opinions are irrelevant here. The speakers do not see themselves as advocating the commission of crimes, but the imposition of Islamic law. In their view, such laws come from God, whose authority in this regard has been usurped by the UK. I should add that "murder" also suggests moral disapproval which isn't necessary here - readers should be allowed the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Perhaps "kill" is the most neutral word.Proabivouac 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right i suppose that we should use killed not murdered. Hypnosadist 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"it's illegal to murder people as these nuters have no right to execute anyone in the UK," this quote demonstrates the problem the problem with original research. in this case, it is the assumption that they are actually telling people to go out and kill apostates/homosexuals, whereas if you read the subjects' press releases they said that they were discussing implemenation under Islamic law, not UK law. inciting murder (or inciting to "kill") in the UK is a criminal offense, and as they have not yet been found guilty in a court of law, it is inappropriate to declare that they have done such or violated any law, as this article does. imo, it violates WP:BLP, and i am inclined to restore the other version because of this. editorial conclusions about what they saw on a documentary are to be regarded as original research, and i say we do away with them altogether. if we want commentary, we can use the secondary sources (i.e. newspapers, tabloids), while employing attribution, as i proposed. ITAQALLAH 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh they don't want to kill homosexuals now, just Later, oh thats OK then. As to worrying about WP:BLP, the transcript is there now, you can tie the comments to a speaker and a medium, please do that and it will comply totally with WP:BLP.

"editorial conclusions about what they saw on a documentary are to be regarded as original research" Wrong! WP:OR is only done by wikipedia editors! Hypnosadist 11:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"WP:OR is only done by wikipedia editors!", yes, that is what i mean when i refer to "editorial commentary." there is no room in this article for editors' interpretations or conclusions of the statements made in the documentary. this is why i have proposed we use secondary sources (of which there are plenty) in giving us commentary of the documentary. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac-. The article's contents section simply reflects the content of the documentary, which might be distasteful for some but which is nevertheless an accurate representation. The referenced articles support the contents section in so many different ways. As far as terminology is concerned like the word murder , it is defined in the American Heritage dictionary as "The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice" and that is exactly what those speakers were calling for in their sermons.--CltFn 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of it seems accurate, though I do remember the seperating the head from the shoulders referred specifically to a British soldier serving in Afghanistan - arguably treasonous, but not quite beheading non-Muslims at random. I also wonder if a list is really the best way to deal with this material, although it's a good starting point, encyclopedia articles more typically have full sentences, paragraphs, etc. I'll work on in a bit more when I find the time.Proabivouac 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH 's version is by far the better. It is also by far the clearer about the nature of the accusations. Using direct quotes is the right way to go; but I would suggest that perhaps a few more are needed. The reported text should perhaps be arranged with line breaks in such a way as to bring out the different reported statements, Even this article has statements in the less reworked sections that should be reworded for NPOV. DGG 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that you refer to this version, it is ridiculously skewered against the program, with only a few quotes, attributed not to the speakers but to the documentary itself, with the qualifier "allegedly," giving the false impression that the only evidence was the word of the report, followed by a number of denials and denunciations from various Muslim groups. Such treatment is aptly characterized as disinformation.Proabivouac 01:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

too "few quotes" is not a reasonale critique, i have invited editors to develop it as much as they would like; the quotes are of secondary sources (i.e. journalists) providing their analysis in which they quote from the documentary. that is superior to an endorsement of wiki-editors' conclusions of the documentary. yes, what they are accused to have advocated according to the journalists' analysis is appropriately termed as alleged, and this is the correct legal term here (thus WTA remains inapplicable in this instance). the article does not say that they alegedly said sentence X or Y, but it is the interpreted implication of the statement which is alleged i.e. that they incited people to break the law. as for what other sections say, please can we concentrate on fixing up the 'content' section first? ITAQALLAH 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, you were complaining earlier about cherrypicking of quotes, and so it seems odd that you are now saying in effect that it is okay to have a smaller number of quotes. I would have thought that a larger number of quotes would be more likely to provide a good coverage of what had been said. You are now also complaining about the secondary sources quoted, after editors have tried to address your concerns about "original research" by bringing in those very secondary sources. And it has to be the strangest interpretation of "original research" that I have ever encountered if this includes the transcription of quotes from a program that appears as a reference in the article and is easily viewable online. Suspicions of original research usually surface where it is difficult to find references for the statements that someone has said in an article. It strikes me that the only "original research" in this article is actually in the talk section where it appears to be implied that the preachers were being framed by Channel 4. If this allegation is being made, I note that no threats of lawsuits have yet been made against Channel 4. And you are again bringing in this issue about the "correct legal term" - which cannot be relevant. As I have said before, the statements in Wikipedia articles do not need to be tested by court cases and should not be written in "legalese".Gerryfarm 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerryfarm, i feel that at every step in this conversation you have continually misunderstood the points i have been trying to make. that is apparent in your response in the above section as well as here. please take the time to study my points carefully.

1. "you were complaining earlier about cherrypicking of quotes, and so it seems odd that you are now saying in effect that it is okay to have a smaller number of quotes" - that's a straw man argument. you are fixated upon the issue of quotes, whilst i have made rather clear that the main issue is the novel commentary attached to these quotes. i am not stating, "in effect," that i am comfortable with fewer quotes. please review my above comments.
2. "You are now also complaining about the secondary sources quoted, after editors have tried to address your concerns about "original research" by bringing in those very secondary sources" - that is rather strange, as only you and CltFn seem to believe that providing secondary sources cited for the primary source quotes constitutes an endorsement of original research commentary. furthermore, i'm not "complaining" about any "secondary source." i am, however "complaining" about the unencyclopedic nature of the commentary attached to the quotations, as have other editors. i have suggested that commentary attached to the quotes should be obtained from and clearly attributed to secondary sources, yet you have not once explained the fault with this approach.
3. "the statements in Wikipedia articles do not need to be tested by court cases" -- libellous statements against living people, such accusations of legal infringement (which is what this article quite clearly forwards) do. those who remain unconvicted by a court are appropriately described as alleged to have committed X. ITAQALLAH 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Itaqallah on all these points, with one modification: The video documentation is a primary source for the speakers’ own statements, albeit editted by the producers. "Allegedly" is unnecessary if our characterization of the information is directly verifiable, as follows: the program shows an individual identified as [person] saying [quote or impeccably neutral and undebatable summary]. Anything more must be attributed to secondary sources. We need to show our secondary sources discussing the quotes in any event, as lists of quotes, while interesting, are not encyclopedic, and their very assembly might be viewed as a type of OR (this presents almost a direct analogue of the list of Qur'anic quotes which appeared on Islam and Slavery.)Proabivouac 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've atributed the quotes, this needs formating (grouping the quotes of each speaker together) and more info and quotes adding. Hypnosadist 12:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but that's just made it worse: it's now a clear violation of WP:BLP- and as such i have had to revert. you may want to read through the discussion again to see what was meant when i mentioned "attribution." ITAQALLAH 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to say what in your humble opinion is wrong with my "attribution".Hypnosadist 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

you have declared in the article that various personalities have advocated legal infringements. that is libellous and in contravention to WP:BLP. your "attribution" does nothing to solve the problems we have discussed above, and in fact makes them worse. if you re-insert the material again i will be forced to take this to WP:AN/I. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain to us (because, yes, I don't understand) how something can be libellous where it is can be plainly seen on the video on the Channel 4 website? And these are not full biographies of living persons, they are quotes from these individuals. Having re-read WP:BLP I still think that the article conforms. Gerryfarm 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes are not biographies, as Gerryfarm noted. And your threat at the end of your statement is noted and unappreciated. I have never seen any dispute EVER, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, where it was considered out-of-bounds to quote someone's own words, even if they reflect badly on the person quoted. A2Kafir 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

you two have obviously failed to recognise the distinction between the quotes and libellous commentary decorating them, suggesting that you have refused to fully comprehend the argument i have presented. Gerryfarm, you are presenting your personal findings from the video as factual, which is extremely inappropriate here. your interpretation of BLP also doesn't wash: poorly substantiated, libellous material on *any* page is to be removed. ITAQALLAH 09:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly not certain as to how we should proceed re BLP. I have solicited comments from User:CyberAnth, an editor known (and congratulated by Mr. Wales) for his uncomprising stance after BLP.Proabivouac 09:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

well, i am about to post about this on WP:AN/I to see what other experienced users/admins feel about the content. ITAQALLAH 09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.Proabivouac 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

the discussion can be found here. ITAQALLAH 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile, here is CyberAnth's reply: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CyberAnth&diff=105012811&oldid=104998838.Proabivouac 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Another try

So Itaqallah you want it to say some thing like this? Abu Usamah is quoted in the documentry as saying;

• "Whom ever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else kill him".
• "Allah has created the woman, even if she gets a Phd, deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."
• (homosexuals)“should be killed by throwing them off a cliff".
• "Allah has created the woman, even if she gets a Phd, deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."

hope that helps!Hypnosadist 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important for balance that we include the comments by mainstream Muslim clerics making clear that what these men are alleged to have said is contrary to Islam. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is altmuslim.com a reliable source? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it.Proabivouac 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree with the above comment. i don't know much about altmuslim.com, i'll look into it. Hypnosadist, your suggestion does solve a few problems, i see nothing wrong with it. if that can be done with all of the section, then at least we can leave the interpreting to others. ITAQALLAH 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

References

NPOV Still?

There have been no changes to this page for a couple of days. Does that mean everyone is cool with it? Can we take the NPOV tag down? --Selket ^Talk 01:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

i still have a few contentions with it, i've not been able to participate as i've been busy (my apologies). i posted a reply to your much-appreciated ANI feedback here with some of the main things i still find problematic. ITAQALLAH 01:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not changed the article but want to develop Itaqallah's points. He has not changed his claims that parts of the article violate BLP or OR, although there seems to be little support for his viewpoint amongst other editors. The arguments all appear above and there is little point in rehearsing them. To go through his specific points with a view to further developing this article:

• It is true that the Sheikh Al Jibali quote has not been referenced yet to a newspaper or other article. Would this not address both the BLP and OR objections (however dubious)? I think that this could be referenced from here which apparently gives a transcript. [2]
• The Bilal Philips quote has been clearly referenced and surely there can be no further objection. If there were any concerns about defamation (which is highly dubious because you can view the program on the Channel 4 website and no one has yet sued Channel 4) then Wikipedia is protected because we can reference it. Gerryfarm 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sudais

Sudais is not a former Sheikh, and he has spoken in Britain [3] . -- Avi 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Panorama

The reference now makes specific mention that it is a transcript, and is enveloped in the proper cite template. -- Avi 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice; I did not know we had a template for that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source that connects the two media togethor? I just want to make sure that the connection is not based on a wikipedian's judgement (or OR).Bless sins 00:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg

Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar undercover documentary in France

A french journalist from algerian descent, Mohammed Sifaoui, made a similar undercover infiltration at the Clamart mosque near Paris, showing extremism and following a group of alleged terrorisst around this mosque. It showed that these people had ties with people in Great Britain, meeting the GSPC chief for France(Algerian terrorist organistion affiliated to Al-Qaeda)who lives in London. It's titled "J'ai infiltré une cellule terroriste" I saw there is a section about similar programme on the BBC. Maybe it would be interisting to talk about other docs on the same subject, I would personnaly be interested to know if there are similar exemples in the world. As a french I'm just aware of what's been done in France. I just express the idea, I wouldn't be able to write an article in proper english anyway. So you'll see if it could fit in this article or not.

Thanks ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.171.36.190 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts

Sefringle has been adding information completely irrelevant to the programming. The article is NOT about certain views, it is about the PROGRAM. How is information from a foreign scholar who has nothing to do with the program relevant? I mean just because two views seem similar does not mean they are connected. Abureem 14:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said they are connected per se. However, they are related and are similar progarms, as the article makes prefectly clear. So no; it is not irrelevant. Besides; the source mentions there is a connection.--Sefringle^Talk 05:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this won't be solved by the two of us... I am looking for the opinions of others on this. Tom? Itaqallah?

Another revert by Sefringle. The main "accused" mosque in the program is the Green Lane Mosque. If your subject programming is focusing on a certain object, then that object needs to have its information available. So, if the program was talking about Sefringle, I am sure he would want to have his website on the article. I don't want to revert this until I can get some feedback from you all Abureem 05:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Green Lane Masjid is not the topic of the program. It is one of many mosques that has been investigated by the program. If we add their link, why not the link of every mosque that has been investigated by the program? Then the external links would become really full of hardly relevant links.--Sefringle^Talk 05:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to my comment above

Youtube

Wikipedia:External links#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it says there is no blanket ban on linking to such videos. The video in question that I posted is by a well-known Islamic scholar Yasir Qadhi. He went on the IslamChannel TV station in UK and provided a specific and direct rebuttal to the Dispatches Undercover program. So, WHY is it being removed? Abureem 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

One concern is that the video on youtube violates copyright. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of his notability, and certainly see no reason why his should be the first name listed. The mainstream news links from his article are less than I'd like to see. Compare that, for example, to what one might find for Christopher Hitchens, whom you called non-notable.[4]Proabivouac 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't have to be first on list. Yasir is notable, that is why he is in Wikipedia. I'll move the reference down. Tom, the video is open for public, it is on several blogs, and to my knowledge Islamchannel is aware of it, and if they had a problem, Youtube would take it out.Abureem 13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure if the video violates copyright. it should be brought to the attention of the channel in any case, just to make sure. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll check on it, Thx Abureem 01:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say that assuming linking to the video is okay and within copyright, then does it really have to have 'unreliable source?' next to it? After all, the text just states that 'Abu Usamah alleged that his words were taken out of context.', and the video shows him alleging that, so that's confirmation that he alleges it.--Lopakhin (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC) - Update: I now find that the above users are referring to another Youtube link. My comment re. the Abu Usamah video remains though.--Lopakhin (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Islam and anti-sematism

The reason this cat is added is shown by this line, Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal: "You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews you kill them physically" need any more? 09:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i think the police findings and their allegations of distortion are enough for us to say that we shouldn't be making original research deductions from snippeted extracts. ITAQALLAH 12:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

More? OK from the source for alligations of anti-sematism in the article. "Mark Gardner, Director of Communication at the Community Security Trust said: “This was a valuable expose of extremism and anti-Semitism, which should be condemned regardless of their source.”" Also placing this article in the cat does not imply it is anti-semitic just the accusation has been made by many people including British MP's. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

those comments were likely made before the declaration by the police (who themselves would have charged anyone involved in anti-semitic attacks) that people's words in the video were "completely distorted." ITAQALLAH 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, can you give a source for the statements you come up with? Secondly, when did Mark Gardner allege Islam (the Quran or hadith) to be responsible for this "extremism and anti-Semitism".Bless sins 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Demanding that Jews should be killed physically is anti-Semitic. That goes without saying. Also, as it has been pointed out above, adding the category simply mean that the article is relevant to the topic. Nothing more and nothing less. -- Karl Meier 15:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As the police investigation showed that the speeches were "completely distorted" through dubious editing, we cannot take for granted that these remarks were meant to be anti-semitic and therefore the category does not apply. → AA ^(talk) — 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how a clear statement advocating the murder of Jews can be distorted. A2Kafir 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"As for the Jews, you kill them physically" is quite literally a nonsense statement. A2Kafir et al, soliciting anti-semitism or murder is a crime in the U.K and prosecution is under the jurisdiction of the police forces and Crown Prosecution Service- who themselves have vindicated Abu Usamah et al. of any wrong doing, claiming that these very extracts are distortions. according to them, these people have committed no crime, something which advocating murder/anti-semitic rhetoric is. ITAQALLAH 14:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Police services can and often do base their decisions to prosecute or not on political considerations, unfortunately; if they receive orders from on high to lighten up on a favored (or feared) minority, they will, if they want to keep their jobs. I'm going by common sense. The statement is ungrammatical, but NOT nonsense. It is a clear statement. Replace "Jews" with "Muslims" and put the words in the mouth of a rabbi, and I'm guessing you'd think so, too. A2Kafir 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

the investigation appears to have been independent; to suggest that Muslims - or anyone else- aren't prosecuted for hate speech is pretty surreal (see the prosecutions surrounding the cartoon demos, for example). casting doubts over the honesty of the West Midlands police force and CPS for making clear allegations of distortion is not convincing. ITAQALLAH 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense says that when someone advocates killing people based on religion, he means what he says. A2Kafir 17:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

common sense also says you shouldn't always accept things presented to you on a platter at face value. ITAQALLAH 10:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Question: which reliable source has found the "findings" of this documentary to be antisemitic? By "antisemitic" I mean "antisemitism". The source should clearly say "antisemitism" or its variants (like "anti-Semitism", "antisemitic" etc.)Bless sins 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The documentary is not anti-semitic; it exposes anti-semitism that can be found in Islamic religious teachings as spoken by Islamic religious leaders. See references 4, 13, 14, and 19 for starters, and realizing that anti-Jew and espousing negativity to Jews is, by definition, anti-Semitism. -- Avi 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi, you haven't answered the question. Which sourc? And what is reference 19? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abureem (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If the source says that the documentary exposes anti-Jewish sentiments by Islamic religious figures, especially ones apparently engaged in explaining the Quran or other Islamic religious texts or dogmas, that is sufficient. In that light, please look at the reference list where a number of sources to that effect are brought. -- Avi 16:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the question is: according to whom are these sentiments "antisemitic". We need reliable sources that specifically call these sentiments "antisemitic", and connect these sentiments to Islam.Bless sins (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Jew = Anti-semitism. Please do not play semantics here. -- Avi (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, only "antisemitic" = "antisemitic". But that is beside the point. You need reliable sources to say either of those things. And then you need reliable source to connect it to the Islamic faith.Bless sins (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations in citations

I was originally going to add pertinent quotations for all of the citations, but that would severly imbalance the article length, so I removed the first one I added as well to maintain fairness and symmetry. Please do not selectively restore quotations. Also, ellipses are the proper typographical mark; three periods are an approximation. -- Avi 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation checks and explanations of other edits

I went through each citation, checked it for accuracy, and encapsulated it in a citation template if necessary. Some of the quotes were cited to the wrong source, I think I corrected each one. Also, no wiki (or mirror) can be used as a source for wikipedia—they are all considered inherently unreliable. I sourced the Saltley Gate Peace Group press release to Black Britain, and rewrote the text so that everything in the article is supported by the source. I also made some minor grammar adjustments, as well as moved the {{Muslims and controversies}} template to help adjust the flow of text versus whitespace. -- Avi 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg

Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation given. -- Avi 03:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I find the image puzzling. What does the subtitle refer to? What is the context? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a snapshot of the program , watch the program for further understanding.--CltFn 12:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UndercoverMosqueHeroOfIslam.jpg

Image:UndercoverMosqueHeroOfIslam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rationale given. -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg

Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Rationale given. -- Avi (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Avi, could you clarify what unique qualities these two other image possess which are absent from the first one? if the aim is to illustrate the programme in question (the rationale which has been provided for all three), then surely the first image suffices in that regard. i raise this in the light of section 3a from WP:FUC. ITAQALLAH 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They are coming as examples from the "content" section. Each image is from a different imam, and a different section of the documentary, demonstrating the documentary's hypothesis of widespread penetration throughout Muslim clergy in Britain (whether that is true or not is irrelevant, it is the hypothesis of the documentary, and the images demonstrate visually the different clerics and venues in which the statements were made). Also, this particular image specifically mentions Jews, which prevents any misunderstanding about the thrust of the clerical discussions and the documentary's hypothesis. So I think that multiple images are warranted; however, I hear your point and would like to hear comment from others in this regard as well. -- Avi (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

okay, i have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Fair use review#Undercover Mosque, and have tagged the respective images with {{fairusereview}} as well. ITAQALLAH 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Investigations by the police and the CPS; Ofcom, libel case

Somebody should split this section into subsections, it is really inconvenient to read. -- Heptor _talk 15:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Video link

The video link "Undercover Mosque at Google Videos (Adobe Flash video)" links to https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843 (https) this redirects to google.com, the proper link would be to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843 (http) which does not have the redirect. I looked at changing it but saw that the link is formatted using what appears to be a Google Video function that points to https. Tomf80 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Undercover Mosque. 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/20120902001146/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843 to https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 09:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Undercover Mosque. 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/20080719165532/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb97/issue97.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb97/issue97.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Saudi.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Undercover Mosque: The Return into Undercover Mosque

The sequel is not as notable, and no need to have 2 articles when Undercover Mosque: The Return can be added as a paragraph of Undercover Mosque, which is all that is needed Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)