Talk:Undercover Mosque

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Poor writing and skewed prose

message: ::::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)
replies: text: this singular attempt  did not address the primary concern at all. ITAQALLAH 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Have not been working with me constructively to produce a good article 

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

message: 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". Documentary goes undercover in British mosques, finds 'ideology of bigotry -YNet News'
* "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". Undercover Mosque - channel4 UK 
*  "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)
replies: text: I doubt it.Proabivouac 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Another try

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV Still? 

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

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

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Similar undercover documentary in France 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please explain how a clear statement advocating the murder of Jews can be distorted.  A2Kafir 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Common sense says that when someone advocates killing people based on religion, he means what he says.  A2Kafir 17:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Anti-Jew = Anti-semitism. Please do not play semantics here. -- Avi (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Islam and anti-sematism

message: 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)
thread_title: Quotations in citations

message: 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  template to help adjust the flow of text versus whitespace. -- Avi 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation checks and explanations of other edits 

message: :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)
replies: text: Explanation given. -- Avi 03:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Its a snapshot of the program , watch the program for further understanding.--CltFn 12:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MosqueUndercoverBleed.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UndercoverMosqueHeroOfIslam.jpg

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: okay, i have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Fair use review#Undercover Mosque, and have tagged the respective images with  as well. ITAQALLAH 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UndercoverMosquekill.jpg

message: Somebody should split this section into subsections, it is really inconvenient to read. -- Heptor  talk 15:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigations by the police and the CPS; Ofcom, libel case 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Video link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Undercover Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Undercover Mosque: The Return]] into [[Undercover Mosque]]