Talk:Islamic Centre of England

Shia or Sunni?

Is this a Shia or Sunni mosque?--79.69.98.109 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Anti-semitic website content

A long speech quote from the Supreme Leader of Iran about the "octopus-like hegemony of international Zionism" being a "cancerous tumour that must be removed" doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article about a particular religious centre in north London. The speech wasn't (that I can see) delivered at the Islamic Centre of England, it's just one of many of his speeches that the Islamic Centre mirrors on its website.

This was originally added with the loaded preamble that "The centre's website publishes controversial, including Anti-Semitic, statements..." After I took it out as inappropriate, User:Ssilvers added the hegemony/cancer quote back "without characterizing it", but I don't really see how this is any better. Should it be removed? --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The solution to a WP:UNDUE problem like this is to add information that would strike a reasonable balance, rather than deleting referenced information. I think that many encyclopedia readers would think that the anti-semitic views expressed on this organization's website are important and necessary to the article. Note that these statements on the website are not isolated. The Islamic Centre of England is an Iranian-affiliated organization that regularly sponsors anti-Semitic lecturers like this, and its magazine, Living Islam contains racist conspiracy theories like this. See also this. It sponsors anti-Israel events, such as Al Quds Day, in London -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This content appears to be WP:UNDUE, however, the source clearly fails WP:PRIMARY and if it was noteworthy we'd expect it to have been published in independent, reliable source. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• CanterburyUK, if I look hard enough I may well find evidence already of you edit warring to put this absurd and non-neutral content in this article. Anytime someone says "such as..." they better have good secondary sources that make this noteworthy; it is ABUNDANTLY obvious that you are just picking something that you think proves something--something that is not neutral and not based on secondary sources. If you keep going like this you will be blocked, there is no doubt about it, and you may find yourself blocked from editing this article/topic as well. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• And I see you did the same thing with the cherry-picked Corbyn material, with your opinion pieces that aren't even about the Centre. Enough. I may well through in WP:CIR as a reason to get you to stop disrupting this article. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Did you have any views about what Ssilvers said?CanterburyUK (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Prominent visitors/speakers

Tanbircdq - this page is not about UK politics, so I have reverting your deletion: when introducing a new person on this page, it is helpful for the reader to know who he is and his role at the time - so this half-sentence is helpful 'who a year later became leader of the opposition Labour Party in the UK,'CanterburyUK (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

What the page is about is irrelevant, the role is only helpful as an explanation to the reader if a linked page doesn't exist, however, as this information is already available on the page of the subject it's unnecessary. Tanbircdq (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Should this "Prominent visitors" section even be here at all? It was added by the same user who focused on the now-deleted "octopus-like hegemony of international Zionism" quote, and tells us more about Corbyn's view of Iran than anything about the Islamic Centre of England. If the section title was picked out of the air to put over a Corbyn quote, we shouldn't suggest that the centre has only had one "prominent visitor" since 1995. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This content appears to be WP:UNDUE, especially if his visit to the centre on it's own wasn't noteworthy to receive any significant coverage. Also I'm not sure what place a quote from Jeremy Corbyn has about Iran has got to do with the Centre too.

By the way, these edits may have been done by CanterburyUK as when questioned on the issue on this investigation based on WP:MEAT, he/she accepted here that he/she "sometimes" edits pages without logging in. Also appears to be very active in adding WP:SYNTH and guity by association on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn here, here, here, here and here. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Drmies deleted the section 'prominent visits' saying "we don't usually list "notable visitors"--just imagine how we'd blow up the servers. and here it's two opinion pieces, which aren't about the Centre but about Corbyn--seems an attempt at guilt through association)"\

Drmies you're right about 'visitors'. Being more accurate: Corbyn was a speaker not just a visitor. Searching round wikipedia I find it not uncommon for pages about churches or buildings etc to list 'prominent speakers' (Riverside_Church, Stone_Building, The_Cambridge_Union): so that is a better title here I guess. In any case, the page is not overly huge, so a mention of Corbyn does not hurt.

Regards Corbyn, yes you're right that there is a Corbyn angle here (which in theory belongs on the Corbyn page- where his connections to iran, it's TV channel and etc is covered well). So while there is no need to cover it in detail here -it is relevant that the Mosque held a 35th anniversay of the Iranian revolution and it is noteworthy that Corbyn decided to speak at it.

On that basis I have minimised the content down. See what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any minimizing (or minimising, if you will). The articles aren't about the Centre; it's not that there's a "Corbyn angle"--they are opinion pieces that lash into Corbyn and mention the center in passing. It might be relevant to Corbyn, but with this kind of sourcing it's not relevant here. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies that this content is sourced from two opinion pieces, which aren't about the Centre but about Corbyn therefore not notewothy for inclusion on this page. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I left that material because there are a large number of sources—including press coverage such as those two—that mention the centre in the context of its being under Iranian control. That event celebrating the anniversary of the Islamic Republic should probably be mentioned on this page, with the first of the two Corbyn references used among others to support the point. It is a prominent religious institution, but so is the Saudi-sponsored mosque; regardless of its name, this is not the main Islamic centre in England. Contrary to the tag, I do not see any grounds for regarding the topic as non-notable (or reducing it to a page about the historic building with the Islamic Centre as merely its current use). However, CanterburyUK keeps adding primary sources and original research, obscuring what the third-party sources say, which is that the Iranian control and events held in conformity with that are the main context in which the centre's name keeps coming up outside of religious publications within its own nexus. I would like the editor to do his own search for coverage in newspapers and books and help us document the notability more clearly by better summarising that material. And it would be nice if they could find the page on the website where the centre itself lists its directors; it may only be in Farsi, but surely exists. I don't like us relying so much on Companies House. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

reversion of 'The Centre is run as a UK Private company limited by guarantee as...'

I reverted this today. It is well sourced from companies house and helps to set the scene about this organisation. Before anyone deletes this again, can they talk about it here first. Many thanksCanterburyUK (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The source fails WP:PRIMARY and its claim needs to be supported by an independent, reliable source. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

talk) Hi Tanbircgd - you seem to follow me round Wiki and delete my changes. Yes of course you're right that primary sources are in general avoided - but each case is tested on it's own merits. Likewise many Wiki pages use Hansard as source: that also is a primary source of what MPs said in parliament. Both things are present on the page you and I often edit, on Jeremy Corbyn, and where you have very often deleted other peoples new content: but you have not deleted those primary sources.

So for you yourself, by your editing history, you do not believe there is a blanket ban on primary sources - that context does matter. So merely quoting WP:PRIMARY as reason for your deletion is not sufficient even by your own practises!

So in this particular case: the structure of this establishment is highly unusual - it is strongly linked to Iran and has a strict requirement that the Leader be on the trustees there. That is noteworthy. The source is a serious one: Companies House where organisations can get into legal trouble if they submit false information.

Ultimately Wiki is here for the readers not the editors: so is it useful to the reader to know this Mosque has unusually strong ties to the leadership of Iran? I can't think of any reasons against that.

So I will reinstate what you deleted.

For the future Can I suggest a new more positive way of editing? Instead of deleting new content outright - instead, leave the content up but start a dialgue on the Talk page first. This is more courteous to the editor who has taken the time to find sources and read them - the time invested into wikipedia by them is mich higher than there mere moments it takes to delete to delete comment and quote a general wiki guideline which (as here) may not have much applicability.

Ie to please respect the time and effort and good faith input of editors adding sourced content.

I am at somewhat of a loss: as you have followed me to this page that you have never edited before: and immediately gone into delete mode. You are a far more experienced editor than I am - it would be nice if you could take a more measured and supportive role when contributing to the work of less experienced editors like myself. At the end of the day, the less emotion is stirred up between editors the easier it is for all of to focus on what is useful to readers.

Are you happy with that proposed new modus operandi between us two?CanterburyUK (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well you're edits appear to be problematic at times and need to be scrutinised as we wouldn't want Wikipedia to be sued for libel. Actually you've been an editor for over nine years which is longer than I have but strangely have less than 300 edits. However, I suggest we contructively stick to the topic.

The example you are referring to is clearly a noteworthy topic incomparable with this. In this case I would say primary source certainly can't be used. If this was noteworthy then we'd expect it to be published in a secondary source.

Can I also suggest that when other editors object like Lord Belbury and Drmies object to the content you've added you don't just keep adding it back? The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that content should be included. Tanbircdq (talk)

Tanbircdq You're merely proving that this is personal for you when you write: "Actually you've been an editor for over nine years which is longer than I have but strangely have less than 300 edits. " I'm not sure the value of discussion with you when you take this line. Would you be willing, being emotionally compromised, to stand down from this page and let others handle it?CanterburyUK (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Attack on Centre During Mahsa Amini Protests in London

Please help to report accurately to what the demonstration on the centre during Mahsa Amini Protests meant rather than trying to push inaccurate and broken links and state non factual content that pictures demonstrations for Mahsa Amini as thugs. 2A02:C7C:E25A:6A00:7DDF:819D:5FD3:4CBE (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Where is my BBC link? Is it broken now? Moses Alkadhem (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, let me check. It may still be here. But my writing is gone. Moses Alkadhem (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good. It's here. But you didn't mention them breaking the windows and planting a Pahlavi flag on top of the Islamic Centre, or fighting outside the mosque with the Shia, etc. Moses Alkadhem (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you think those Twitter videos are staged or CGI or something? Go look in the article's edit history to find the videos where they plant the flag and break the windows and cause chaos. Moses Alkadhem (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)