Talk:Quilliam (think tank)

Sept 2009

Ok most of the sources are not only incorrectly formatted, but also don't match up with the content they supposedly support. Also, videos, webcasts are not acceptable on wikipedia, unless you link to the written transcripts. And newspaper opinion pieces are not acceptable if they're being used to support factual claims, other than "so and so (i.e. the author of the opinion) thinks so and so. Avaya1 (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than an encylopedic article about a think-tank, the page is an illiterate essay arguing against the think-tank's theological tenets

This is an encyclopedia, not an essay writing dump. Moreover, blog posts do not constitute references. I refer you to wikipedia guidelines. And, some of the editors on this page should learn basic grammar before writing in public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.129.189 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits

I have removed the term neocon when labelling nick cohen and david aaronovitch. these two are members of the left not the right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.215.92 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This article has been expanded - please list below any points of disagreement so it can be edited in a sensible manner.

There is too much criticsm, i want to know more about the actual group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.187.236 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Over half of the article details what the organisation is about, detailing its founders, objectives, ideology and advisors. What is missing that you think should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Those from the Quilliam Foundation (ie ed husain and majid nawaz) or pro-Quilliam who dislike critique, please stop vandalising the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TO Jk54, I know that the QF may really wind you up, so you went to all this effort to write a long essay on them, much of which may be true, but you need to put the facts into wikipedia bit by bit, in a decent format, and with proper references. Wikify it. And don't remove the old stuff! —Preceding Funsigned comment added by 193.115.70.42 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make specfiic suggestions as to which sections need changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding a POV tag needs additional comments to indicate where POV exists in the article so it can be discussed - if you cannot highlight this please remove POV. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jk54 You seem to remove tags willy nilly is the Quilliam Foundation not a Islamic organisation and was not launched this year so why removed it. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwanyewest - your comment does not make sense - can you please clarify what you mean by QF is not an Islamic organisation...which tags being removed are you unhappy about and why? which terms are you specifically referring to as weasel words?

Reliable sources

WP:RSN I feel some of the sources are unreliable as they are from blogs and does not fit the reliable sources criteria Dwanyewest (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwanyewest - sourcing from a blog in itself does not mean a source is unreliable. The source would only be unreliable if for example it was not referenced to academically peer reviewed material. Can you cite which blogsite references you think are unreliable and are in turn unreferenced? They can then be reviewed. Thank you. Jk54 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK then I believe it falls under the criteria of self published work and plus you used reference 48 as a reference I believe that using wikipedia itself as a reference is not allowed.WP:SPS [2][3][4] [5][6][7][8]

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus some of these so called references are forums. Its under WP:BIGNUMBER

Dwanyewest (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

References cleanup

If there are any editors or anyone who can clear up the references section as I feel its hard to read and needs a clean up to meet wikipedia standards.

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Competitors

Does 'British Muslims for Democracy'actually refer to 'British Muslims for Secular Democracy' - these guys? http://www.bmsd.org.uk/contactus.asp 85.211.98.243 (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

major article issues

This is less an article about the foundation than a personal essay arguing against the QF's theology and politics. Regardless of whether one is personally sympathetic to the foundation, the approach in the current text seriously contradicts WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a too wishy washy broadbrush comment that provides no help at all. Please highlight specific sections and provide specific comments so something can be done if there is a concern about hte article. There are no doubt as you are aware a large number of trolls damaging this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This article currently reads like a plug

It needs balance, and needs to include credible and significant criticism, as this group is rejected as heterodox by most Muslims Aaliyah Stevens (talk)

In an encyclopedia article, we need to include facts about the subject, what they stand for, and who agrees with them and who doesn't. In this case, they're trying to identify a modern synthesis of Muslim views. At present this article reads like an essay plugging the views of opponents. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's work on the current text that exists, and not remove referenced quotes because they may be embarrassing. I would be the first to say that the current format: a list of unfavourable quotes for opposition, is not suitable, balanced or thorough enough. But it can be worked on, rather than bouncing back to a propoganda piece for the organisation as Mualliq would like, with all unfavourable quotes and points edited out. Aaliyah Stevens (talk)

These guys are quite clearly incredibly out of touch with the majority of Muslims. Ed Husain was in favour of the Iraq War and rejects the entire notion of Islamophobia (take a look at the BBC investigation into the reactions of random employers towards Islamic-sounding names on CVs if you're duped by the idea that there is no prejudice going on). Just examine their website for the names of the scholars on their page, and then dig around for their views - most of them oppose the things the Quillam Foundation promotes! And let's not even get into the shadowy financiers behind the whole project - 'Kuwaiti businessmen' whose identities Ed Husain refuses to divulge (see the Guardian website).

What a joke. Could these guys be any more neoconservative? 92.11.111.242 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mualliq appears to work for the foundation as he appears to strip out anything negative about the foundation, regardless if it is in accordance with Wiki policies or not, and insert propaganda pieces in favour of the foundation. This article needs to be reverted and each area be worked on section by section rather than allow such blatant abuse by such individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This article may be biased against Quilliam Foundation

... to the point of slander. Some of the quotes do not appear in the cite given. I have tagged it and tried to make a few improvements. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted much that was only about Ed Husain rather than Quilliam Foundation itself. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of Quilliam views are expressed by Hussain - if you strip that out what remains of Quilliam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk54 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If its an article about Quilliam Foundation and Ed H is talking that's one thing. If its just Ed H talking no mention of Quilliam , that's different. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - Ed Husain has little if any credibility other than the Quilliam Foundation project. All his contributions in the media and general works revolve around this organisation.

strongly biased reverts byjk54

edits by jk54 are not reliably sourced (blogs by non-notable persons are not WP:RS), violate WP:BLP and may be libelous

• "ex-activists expelled from the UK branch of the Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir - Maajid Nawaz, Mahboob 'Ed' Hussain and Rashaad Ali." (I believe Hussain says he resigned)
• "after failing his GCSEs Husain drifted between Islamic groups achieving little of note"

This is just scratching the surface. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is also question of the honesty of the edits. For example in regards to a religiously motivated murder at the college Ed Hussain was attending that shocked him into leaving the Islamist group HT, the article states:

"Hizb ut-Tahrir categorically denied he [the murderer] had ever been a member and the trial Judge’s report concluded the Newham College murder had in fact resulted from an argument over a table tennis game." This link is gived as the source: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/145_584.htm

However the link goes to a statement on "Minimum terms set for young offenders by the Lord Chief Justice" which says this:
At the time of the offence, there were divisions on racial and religious grounds amongst the multi-ethnic student population of the College. These tensions had been in evidence during Ramadan that year. .... At about 1 pm on Monday, 27 February 1995, a group of young men picked a quarrel with the deceased outside the College. Some of the group were armed with knives and hammers. The group having surrounded the deceased, he was stabbed to death by Nur. Qadir was armed with a hammer and at least aimed a blow with it at the deceased. indicating that much more than table tennis was involved. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hussain was never a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and has yet to state he has - only a member of a group can resign. Hussain tried to gain Islamist credibility by implying he was a member by the use of vague and ambiguous comments. Hizb ut-Tahrir have officially stated he has never been a member. Ref: CNN on May 3 2007 - http://westminsterjournal.com/content/view/123/75/

The quote you dispute is:

"Hizb ut-Tahrir categorically denied he had ever been a member and the trial Judge’s report concluded the Newham College murder had in fact resulted from an argument over a table tennis game"

The trial judge said:"It was common ground that, on Friday, 24 February 1995, the deceased had sustained a small stab wound in his left arm (his right arm was withered) from an Asian student who, it appears from the documents before me, was identified as Qadir's brother, Abdul Qadir. That occurred during an argument about table tennis in the Student Common Room at the College."

This game led to someone being stabbed - a significant fact. Something significant happened during the game that then led to an argument and stabbing over a game - secondary factors may also exist. If you believe there are additional causative factors, you are welcome to justify and add - however you maybe accused of POV as your citation shows other elements existed but not that they led to or even contributed to death.

It is dishonest for Husain to imply the murder was religiously motivated - even if one does want to interpret the judge's comment, it states there were also racial tensions present in the environment which Husain omites. At best this entry should be expanded NOT deleted.

Only examples from two paras are brought yet dozens of paras have been deleted - it leads one to question neutrality. (post by jk54)

The report does not say the murder was about table tennis. it describes the murder thusly:At about 1 pm on Monday, 27 February 1995, a group of young men picked a quarrel with the deceased outside the College. Some of the group were armed with knives and hammers. The group having surrounded the deceased, he was stabbed to death by Nur. Qadir was armed with a hammer and at least aimed a blow with it at the deceased.

But aside from that fact, are we to have paragraphs and paragraphs about one incident mentioned in a book because the author of the book is a co-founder of the foundation? The article is about the foundation, not the author, and not an incident in his book. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The report clearly states the murderer's brother Qadir stabbed the victim over a table tennis game argument - this event is causative of the murder as something dreadfully went wrong during this game. The report does not clealry state any other causative factor - thus the para in the article is accurate. (post by jk54)

report clearly states the murderer's brother Qadir stabbed the victim over a table tennis game argument. yes the report says he "sustained a small stab wound in his left arm ...

[t]hat occurred during an argument about table tennis"

this event is causative of the murder. Where does the report say this??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For Husain to use this event and allege otherwise for his personal ends is questionable - it is for the reader to decide what to believe from these conflicting facts.

Maybe you can highlight the "paragraphs and paragraphs" on this one incident for me please as I can only find 1 very short para on this. Maybe you can also kindly address the other responses to your arguments re:"bias". (post by jk54)

If we do as you suggest - At best this entry should be expanded NOT deleted - we will have a very long section about --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

edit warning and blocking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jk54_reported_by_BoogaLouie_.28Result:_24_hours.29

Coppied from the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring:

User:Jk54 reported by BoogaLouie (Result: 24 hours)

• Page: Quilliam Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Jk54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: [9]

before my edits

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jk54 has four reverts in 24.5 hours, and he uses blanket reverts to install his own much larger version of the article (59 kb vs 13 kb). I do not see that he got consensus anywhere for his larger version. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting following the discussion - boogalouie can't respond to javk's points so get him banned! Reminds me of nazi tactics! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.70.194 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

I have restored some items that were removed from the Talk page by Jk54. Do not modify others' comments! (See WP:TALK). Try to reach agreement on any disputed issues. If you can't find any wording you agree on for the article, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article currently reads like a hacket job on Quilliam Foundation

This is why I am going to tag the article POV

Following the lead, the article starts not with a decription of the goals or statement of puropse of the organizatoin but with a section on the three founders. starting with ed husain it gives a highly antagonistic desription:

• "Husain drifted between Islamic groups achieving little of note .... (the source for this is husain's book, The Islamist. Either a quote should be given from the book saying he achived little of note or the phrase should be deleated).
• "Ziauddin Sardar questioning whether [husain's] book was penned by someone in the Government of the United Kingdom .... (either equal time should be given to the several "rave reviews" the article talks about or that attack should be deleted.)
• "Hizb ut-Tahrir categorically denied he had ever been a member ... (no source is given)
• "Husain describes the Arab "psyche" as irredeemably racist ... (husain uses the phrase 'irredeemably racist' after a harrowing description of racism he encountered in Saudi Arabia)
• he defends the government's decision to ban Muslim cleric al-Qaradawi from Britain because he [al-Qaradawi] defends Palestinian martyrdom operations ..." (POV language. Should be replaced with "because huasin opposes lethal attacks on Israeli civilians." --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has a section about the aims and objectives of this organisation. The starting point cites the three founders and their motivations which provides a context for the stated aims and objectives.

Your POV tag is debatable as your examples don't support it:

• What did Husain achieve with any group that he mentions in his book - any position of seniority? any significant responsibility? any qualifications? Nothing - this is a fact and not POV - the entire book illustrates this point if you care to read it. That is why critics argue he swung towards the govt agenda to achieve fame, money etc that is however POV.
• Ziauddin Sardar is in fact one of the Quilliam Foundation's supporters (watch the Tariq Ramadhan interview where Maajid and Ziauddin both appear) - maybe equal time should be given to those who critique it like the following links amongst a plethora of others:

http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/

http://www.islamic-considerations.blogspot.com/

http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com/

• Even those who gave rave reviews (eg Melanie Philips) have begun condemning the organisation.
• Husain's non-membership of HT is factual - Taji Mustafa Spokesman of Hizb Tahrir UK on CNN stated Ed Husain had never been a member (whereas they acknowledge Nawaz was a member) - Ed's response was he "studied" with them for two years - a significant difference for anyone who has read Tahrir's party structure and affiliation processes - Joe public can attend and study with them, a member is one who has been through a certain process and undertaken the party oath - none of which Ed did. Feel free to add the reference if you think it is necessary.

MUSTAFA: Ed Husain was never a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. We need to have our facts very clear.

AMANPOUR: So you're denying that?

MUSTAFA: That Ed Husain was a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir? Absolutely.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/04/cnr.02.html

• If you wish to expand on/justify Husain's racist generalisations about Arabs feel free to do so and please cite the references - however do note that his comments are not POV, they are factual

It is not POV that Qardawi condones martydom operations as that is what they are in his opinion. It is important the reason remains as to why they are opposed to Qardawi as he is a very high profile scholar in the Arab world. If you feel it is important to explain their reasoning for wanting to ban this scholar feel free to add it - maybe you can also add why they don't want to ban inflamatory and extreme individuals like Heer Wilders (who the UK govt banned from travelling to the UK) as that is also quite relevant to this section.

Am47 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some replies

• Your POV tag is debatable as your examples don't support it
  - The POV tag does not mean there is unanimous agreement that the article is POV. If there was it would have been changed and there wouldn't have been a revert war.
• The article has a section about the aims and objectives of this organisation. The starting point cites the three founders and their motivations which provides a context for the stated aims and objectives.
  - The section about what the organization is created to do - its aims and objectives - ought to come first.

THAT MAY BE YOUR PERSONAL OPINION TO WHICH YOU'RE ENTITLED

• What did Husain achieve with any group that he mentions in his book - any position of seniority? any significant responsibility? any qualifications? Nothing - this is a fact and not POV - the entire book illustrates this point if you care to read it.
  - Well he did learn arabic and teach in Syria and Saudi Arabia. Some might think that is of note. But in any case this is your WP:Original Research, if not POV. You are declaring that "after failing his GCSEs Husain drifted between Islamic groups achieving little of note," not some notable source. Original Research is not allowed in Wikip.

THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH BUT A FACT AS PREVIOUSLY STATED AND CORRECTLY REFERENCED

But who says it's a fact? You do. Wikipedia is based on what notable sources say is true, not what editors believe to be true. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ziauddin Sardar is in fact one of the Quilliam Foundation's supporters
  - Supporting Quilliam Foundation is no more a disqualification for being quoted than an opposing it (are we going to eliminate critical comments by someone for being an opponent of Quilliam?) Was Ziauddin Sardar a supporter of Quilliam Foundation before he reviewed Husain's book? (no. it didn't exist then.) The issue is whether the critic is notable. Operating a blog does not make someone notable.

ZIAUDDIN IS A WELL KNOWN AUTHOR AND CRITIC - PLEASE RESEARCH BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR COMMENTS

Not disputed. What is disputed is that while Nick Cohen, Melanie Phillips, Michael Gove and David Aaronovitch all gave Husain's book good reviews, the only critic quoted [ZIAUDDIN] is one attacking Husain. Why not quotes by others? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• maybe equal time should be given to those who critique it like the following links amongst a plethora of others:
  http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/ http://www.islamic-considerations.blogspot.com/ http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com/
  - Are these notable sources? Anyone can start up a blog. It is far from surprising for an anti-Islamist organization to draw fire from the people it was founded to criticise. I think that might be be mentioned.

ONE SIMPLY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THE PLETHORA OF SITES THAT PROVIDE CRITIQUE - NON-ISLAMISTS INCLUDING SALAFITES/SUFIS ETC ARE ON THERE - AGAIN RESEARCH BEFORE WRITING

• Husain's non-membership of HT is factual - Taji Mustafa Spokesman of Hizb Tahrir UK on CNN stated Ed Husain had never been a member
  - OK, we'll include that that cite that says HT says he was not a member. (Note: In a vanguard party like HT you can be an activist and heavily involved without rising to the level of member.)

VERY MAGNANIMANOUS OF YOU TO ALLOW US TO CONTRIBUTE THIS POINT NOW YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE

I suppose my response is that in articles on controvercial subjects in wikipedia (like this) sources should be given. There was no source for that claim. I'll add it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is not POV that Qardawi condones martydom operations as that is what they are in his opinion.
  - So if something is Quilliam Foundation's or its leader's opinions do we simply quote them and leave it at that? Or do we "provides a context", and decide whether they've "achieved little of note"?
  What we can do is say "what he believes to be martydom operations" --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie - Quilliam Stooge?

Am47 sound a bit like jk54, the last editor with no homepage and highly contentious edits. Are you a sock puppet for jk54? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Is intimidation the only way you get your views across Boogalouie? Are you working for the Quilliam Foundation??? 196.206.86.60 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean intimidation? If am47 isn't a sock puppet he/she/it has nothing to worry about. If am47 is, he/she/it is violating wikipedia rules. ... And I never heard of the Quilliam Foundation before coming across a link to this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can't stop flaming and being respectful to other members you should not post anything in my view.

You're nothing but a Quilliam Stooge Boogalouie-you should make your connections clear and stop pretending you're nothing to do with them.

I've seen your efforts to promote Quilliam and it's founders - any criticism of this organisation or its founders is soon undone by your self-appointed secret police style edits! One just has to look at Ed Hussain's section to see your work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am47 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Am47, I hope you'll keep in mind that Wikipedia does issue blocks for personal attacks. And please sign your comments. I would be happy if a reasonably neutral article on the Quilliam Foundation could be written. Ideally, an experienced article writer would study the references and come up with a clear and balanced story. That could take a good deal of work, but is a worthwhile effort. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Am47 Calling someone a stooge is a personal attack, which is not allowed. Changing section titles other people have written - such as such as changing Sockpuppet? to BoogaLouie - Quilliam Stooge? - is also not allowed. Make your own section heading. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits

I'm going to make changes in the article to correct problems I outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quilliam_Foundation#This_article_currently_reads_like_a_hacket_job_on_Quilliam_Foundation --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I support your beginning this effort. The discussion you linked to includes a number of mentions of blog comments. I hope you will be able to do your work with minimal or no reliance on blogs, which are not reliable sources for any matter of fact. At most they testify to the views of the writers, in case any of the writers are notable in this context. Your desire to avoid original research is laudable. I'm sure that people are standing by to respond to whatever you come up with. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than an encylopedic article about a think-tank, the page is an illiterate essay arguing against the think-tank's theological tenets

[moved from top of page by BoogaLouie (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)]

This is an encyclopedia, not an essay writing dump. Moreover, blog posts do not constitute references. I refer you to wikipedia guidelines. And, some of the editors on this page should learn basic grammar before writing in public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.129.189 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide specific references please - talking about "essay writing" is not helpful. Jk54 (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing the lead

I changed the lead to slightly but have left in a sentence (rewritten) on the charges of Quilliam critics. With such a controversial topic I thought it might be good to include quotes so readers can read what the critics are saying about the foundation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

According to various critics the group has recieved more money from the government than a "relatively unknown organisation" would merit, has "very little support in the mainstream Muslim community", and is perceived "to be toeing the government line."

References

Example of bias and disorganization in the article

There is a Criticism section and a Controversy section in the article with no apparent difference in their subject matter. Both attack Quilliam Foundation and especially its founders. The Support section is two lines long. The Controversy section takes up about 2/3s of the article, it's dozens of lines long.

It starts out:

The Quilliam Foundation's critics have included organizations and personalities such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, Azam Tamimi (Muslim Brotherhood), Inayat Bunglawala ((MCB), Yvonne Ridley, Ihtisham Hibatullah amongst others. "On blogs and among many Muslims", co-founder Ed Husain "has been condemned as a government stooge, an MI5 agent" and even an apostate from Islam.

So you go to the link about "On blogs and among many Muslims... ", Interview: Ed Husain. We were the brothers, and the first lines of that article are:
The plaudits are flooding in: Ed Husain's The Islamist has been hailed as "terrifingly honest", "courageous" and he has been "applauded for his intellectual honesty and guts" by the likes of Martin Amis, Simon Jenkins, David Aaronovitch and Melanie Phillips. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem

1. Nowhere in the article does a quote about the "plaudits" that "are flooding in" appear.
2. Many, if not most, of the comments in the article are about people — particularly Ed Husain. Yes, he is a founder of Quilliam, but there's already an article on him — Ed Husain. This is an article on an organization. If the comments are about people and not Quilliam Foundation they do not belong in this article, or at best they might be summarized in a subsection criticism of founders. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Removed from the article comments about Ed Husain or other founders that do not give any substantive information on the Quilliam Foundation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed Hussain and Maajid Nawaz are the founders (inc. Rashad Ali) and directors of the organisation. What they say and write about in such roles is relevant to and important in an article about hte Quilliam Foundation. Jk54 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research problem

Original research in one fo the first sections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_Foundation#Mohammed_.E2.80.9CEd.E2.80.9D_Mahboob_Husain regarding a murder of a student at Newham College that turned Husain away from Hizb ut-Tahrir. The article says:
.... the trial Judge’s report concluded the Newham College murder had in fact resulted from an argument over a table tennis game. i.e. not Islam or HT.

Two problems:

1. There is no independent source saying the trial Judge’s report concluded the Newham College murder had in fact resulted from an argument over a table tennis game, just an editor's say so. (which is WP:OR)
2. as note above, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quilliam_Foundation&action=submit#strongly_biased_reverts_byjk54 the Judges report does mention religious tensions, not just table tennis, i.e. the editor's WP:OR is not true, and Husain is not making stuff up as the editor implies.
   At the time of the offence, there were divisions on racial and religious grounds amongst the multi-ethnic student population of the College. These tensions had been in evidence during Ramadan that year. .... At about 1 pm on Monday, 27 February 1995, a group of young men picked a quarrel with the deceased outside the College. Some of the group were armed with knives and hammers. The group having surrounded the deceased, he was stabbed to death by Nur. Qadir was armed with a hammer and at least aimed a blow with it at the deceased. (from link gived as the source of Judge's report: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/145_584.htm ) --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Part of sentence - and the trial Judge’s report concluded the Newham College murder had in fact resulted from an argument over a table tennis game.[16] - be removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Please explain why it should be removed - is it incorrectly referenced? 90.209.49.104 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensationalism

from the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_Foundation#Mohammed_.E2.80.9CEd.E2.80.9D_Mahboob_Husain
Husain describes the Arab "psyche" as irredeemably racist, cites Mohandas K. Gandhi as his hero, criticises the director of MI5 for "pussyfooting around" with extremists, he defends the government's decision to ban Muslim cleric al-Qaradawi from Britain because Qaradawi defends Islamic suicide attacks on civilians and Husian attacks multiculturalism, declaring there to be too many immigrants in the country.

... All guaranteed to infuriate any good Muslim. But if these statements are true, we at least we owe it to Husain to explain why he thinks this way. Starting with `Arab "psyche" as irredeemably racist`, this is from the original writing by Husain that includes the sentence:
"The racist reality of the Arab psyche would never accept black and white people as equal."
What else does he say?

Racism was an integral part of Saudi society. My students often used the word “nigger” to describe black people. Even dark-skinned Arabs were considered inferior to their lighter-skinned cousins. I was living in the world’s most avowedly Muslim country, yet I found it anything but. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article1685726.ece

He compares Muslim poverty in KSA to UK.

Many of the African women lived in an area of Jeddah known as Karantina, a slum full of poverty, prostitution and disease.

A visit to Karantina, a perversion of the term “quarantine”, was one of the worst of my life. Thousands of people who had been living in Saudi Arabia for decades, but without passports, had been deemed “illegal” by the government and, quite literally, abandoned under a flyover.

A non-Saudi black student I had met at the British Council accompanied me. “Last week a woman gave birth here,” he said, pointing to a ramshackle cardboard shanty. Disturbed, I now realised that the materials I had seen those women carrying were not always for sale but for shelter.

I had never expected to see such naked poverty in Saudi Arabia.

At that moment it dawned on me that Britain, my home, had given refuge to thousands of black Africans from Somalia and Sudan: I had seen them in their droves in Whitechapel. They prayed, had their own mosques, were free and were given government housing. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article1685726.ece

References

This edit war needs to be resolved

This edit war needs to stop I suggest the dispute goes WP:AN3 Dwanyewest (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources for the "Objectives" and "Supporters" sections

While no one will contest the accuracy of the information in the "Objectives" section, I would contest it's notability. It's all cited by the think tank's official website; this is certainly how they would like to be presented and the section may have been written with an overly positive POV. The thing is though, how do we know these positions the think tank holds are notable? Is there significant coverage of these objectives in the mainstream media?

As for the "Supporters" section, then I don't know enough about Britain's Muslim community to personally comment on the accuracy. We're faced with the same issue again, though: the only source for the section is the think tank's own website. Is this support something which receives significant coverage in the mainstream media? This needs to be reliably sourced if that's the case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dead/out of date links

I've started working through this article (as and when I can), and early on there's a lot of now dead links, many of them originally to the Quilliam site which presumably has had its pages reorganized or updated since. One is the page "About Us". The text Wikipedia has at present, (originally added in April 2010):

Extremism, a prelude to terrorism, cannot be contained by Muslims alone. Not least because religious rigidity and extremism are products of the failures of wider society to foster a shared sense of belonging and to advance liberal democratic values among all sections of society. That said, we believe a more self-critical approach must be adopted by Muslim leaders to free communities from Westophobic ideological influences, escape social insularity and facilitate the organic growth of Western Islam.
Quilliam seeks to challenge what we think, and the way we think. It aims to generate creative thought paradigms through informed and inclusive discussion to counter the Islamist ideology behind terrorism, whilst simultaneously providing evidence-based recommendations to governments for related policy measures.

The first paragraph on the site - three and a half years later - is now different (and "About Us" has a different URL). I'll update this, but thought I would put the old text here in case anyone thinks we should note what was said back in 2010. Alfietucker (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

William/Abdullah Quilliam under "Criticism"

Presumably the first paragraph in "Criticism" is there to imply that there is an irony that Quilliam's name was chosen by Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaaz for their think tank. I've already shunted relevant info about their choice of name to earlier in the article, and I deleted that paragraph in "Criticism" (which has since been reinstated by another editor) as I believe it breaches two Wikipedia policiies: 1) Neither of the two sources cited, including the one currently covered by a dead link (the current "live" link is here), actually mentions the think tank as far as I've been able to see (I'd be glad if another editor could quote a relevant passage from either). Without an actual mention, this paragraph is in breach of Wikipedia's policy against original research. 2) Neither the fact Abdullah Quilliam opposed Muslim troops being sent to fight Muslims, nor that he was an opponent of the British empire, are demonstrably in themselves positions contrary to the think tank's. Of course there may be people out there who claim they are, but if so we can only say so if there is a unambiguous reliable citation which says as much. Without that, this looks like synthesis of published material that advances a position. Have I misunderstood anything here? Alfietucker (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In the "live" link you provide above it says "Seen by the new eponymous foundation as a “forebearer” for British Islam." That article does mention the current foundation and discusses the real Quilliam in regards to political Islam (Islamism). Thus, the choice of Qulliam is curious for that commentator (as many more that I've seen). Had Quilliam been a mystic Sufi with no political dimension it might have been a clearer signal. Thus, the criticism of the name is neither undue nor original research. It exists "out there" and the link above should be used. Whether it is a valid criticism is another matter and left to the sources to debate. Given the phrase "new eponymous foundation" which links to the Qulliam website, I believe this isn't a synthesis on the part of the authors of this paragraph. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah - I missed that (sorry, lack of sleep!). Fair enough, the final citation certainly binds it all together. I'll put in the live link (if you haven't already). Alfietucker (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You're making excellent well-founded changes to many contentious articles. Checking out the sources is indeed time consuming. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I've also noted your very calm and rational approach to contentious articles. Alfietucker (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Department of Education payment May 2011

A newly registered editor today posted some text based on this story saying that the Department for Education "contributed £120,000 just shortly after the Home Office refused to continue its funding in March 2011".

I've tried, without success, to find another reliable source for this story. What I did find, though, was this archived page which states that in 2011 the DfE was "conducting research into how schools in England are helping to protect vulnerable young people from the influence of extremism.[...] The research will contribute to the objectives of the Government’s new Prevent strategy, and to the work on integration, led by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The work is being conducted for DfE by The Quilliam Foundation, an independent think-tank."

I don't know what the cost of such research is, but it does now look as though it's not a straight-forward case of a "donation". Having initially kept the info in the article (with some amendment to make the wording NPOV), I am now rather inclined to keep this "on hold" until we have another reliable source to reinforce and provide further detail for this. So for now I'm removing these sentences from the article. Alfietucker (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Alfietucker thanks for looking into this. This was originally cited on BBC Newsnight in the mix of the bigger story of a spat between HO and DfE. I'm concerned the current paragraph gives the impression that there was no funding beyond 2011 hence I removed it. Quilliam111 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, some additional Information and breakdown on the Home Funding is available: Home Office direct funding for Quilliam is quite clear. In 2008-09, it was £665,000; in 2009-10, it was £387,000; and in 2010-11, it was £145,000. Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110315/halltext/110315h0001.htmQuilliam111 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the BBC source you provided earlier, the £120,000 was given by the DfE in May 2011, so essentially this doesn't invalidate the sentence with which the paragraph you wanted removed says: "Since 2011 Quilliam has not received government ('public') funding". Until we have a reliable source or two which says anything different, then there's no reason to remove it. Even if such sources materialise, I would suggest amending the paragraph accordingly rather than deleting it altogether. Alfietucker (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New Additions Under "Funding"

Hello! I'm adding this to the talk page to provide a space for discussion on new edits made to the "funding" section of the article. The edits were as follows:

Quilliam have accepted large donations from the Conservative[44] [45]and Ultra-Conservative Right-Wing[46][47] of US politics meaning they've shared Donors with Schwarzenegger, Bush, Romney and John McCain as well as Charles Murray, author of the racist book The Bell Curve [48] along with The Witherspoon Institute who argue against LGBT equality[49]

I feel as though the wording of this may not conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for a few reasons. The information regarding funding--particularly by the Bradley Foundation--does seem relevant and useful for the article, but describing the think tank as having "shared Donors with Schwarzenegger, Bush, Romney and John McCain as well as Charles Murray, author of the racist book The Bell Curve along with The Witherspoon Institute who argue against LGBT equality" may unfairly prejudice viewpoints concerning the work of the think-tank. The main issue arises because the wording seems could seem to indicate that the think-tank shares many views with the "ultra-conservative" right wing, without making clear what those views are. The book "The Bell Curve" is also controversial, but I also believe calling it outright "racist" in the context of the Quilliam foundation could further influence how readers view the work of the think-tank in general. The same goes for the inclusion of "The Witherspoon Institute who argue against LGBT equality."

A better re-write may be something along the lines of "Quilliam has also received funding from the conservative Bradley Foundation. This is useful in that it provides more information about funding sources of Quilliam while allowing readers to learn more about it without running the risk of prejudicing readers to the work of Quilliam itself, independent of its donors. I of course welcome any feedback from more experienced editors than myself, and am happy to clarify anywhere it is needed! East by South (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by East by South (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Description of Majid Nawaz as an atheist

The second paragraph describes Majid as an atheist without any source. Majid has always described himself as a reformed / liberal Muslim. I will make the change, if anyone wants to change it back to atheist, please provide a credible source.

"According to one of its co-founders, Maajid Nawaz, who is an atheist, "We wish to raise awareness around Islamism";[2] he also said, "I want to demonstrate how the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam. Secondly … develop a Western Islam that is at home in Britain and in Europe … reverse radicalisation by taking on their arguments and countering them."[3]" Anaverageguy (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Objections

@Sweet6970: Let's start from the beginning. What are your objections with the sources provided in the article? Why did you specifically remove well cited sources? Let us come to a consensus. It would be best if we addressed these issues here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

In view of your allegation of pov-pushing, followed by your inappropriate report of me as a vandal, which included the accusation that I leave dishonest edit summaries, and your reference to me on Doug Weller’s talk page as a vandal, after your report had been rejected with a warning to yourself, I am not optimistic that we will be able to have a reasoned discussion on this page.

So, before we start, I invite you to withdraw your allegations. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this at User talk:Doug Weller#Require help with a vandal.

@NarSakSasLee: You must not refer to another editor's good-faith edits as vandalism—see Wikipedia's definition of that term. Repeated violations can lead to a block.

@Sweet6970: Wikipedia doesn't work like that and you don't get the option to make demands on other editors before participating in talk page discussions. If you decline to answer the very reasonable questions above you are disqualifying yourself from editing the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: It was an invitation, not a demand, with the aim of improving the atmosphere and making reasonable discussion easier. I have not refused to answer any questions. I think you have misunderstood my intentions. I am preparing a detailed response. Sweet6970 (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind your demand has to critically address the peer reviewed source with another source disputing it and must not be your own reasoning as this would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The reason why I thought you were a vandal was because you removed information and didn't provide a reference to say what was wrong with the Jill Dando Institute authors' paper. I would also advise not to place in ad hominem's attacking the authors as this is not constructive and does not address their work. @Johnuniq: would appreciate it if you could help with moderating the discussion between me and Sweet6970. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Objections to edits by NarSakSasLee

1. Insertion of ‘claims’ in the first sentence of the lead. This is not neutral language. I propose that the first sentence be changed to: ‘Quilliam is a London-based think tank co-founded by Maajid Nawaz whose stated aim is to focus on counter-extremism, specifically against Islamism, which it argues represents a desire to impose a given interpretation of Islam on society.’ I consider that this is more neutral than NSSL’s version.

2. Insertion of ‘The organisation has been condemned by researchers for spreading deliberate misinformation and pseudoscience.[1]’ into the lead. The source for this is a reference to the article in Race & Class. It is misleading because it suggests to the reader that there have been several instances of condemnation, whereas the source only provides one article critical of Quilliam. (By referring to ‘researchers’ as plural, presumably NSSL is referring to the authors of the article in Race & Class.) Since there is only one report referred to in the article which criticises Quilliam in this way, I consider that it is not appropriate to have this sentence in the lead, as it gives undue prominence to the report, and I propose that it should be deleted.

3. Insertion of ‘It is funded by the foreign organisation, the John Templeton Foundation, which is based in the United States and which has been criticised for its pro-Christian stance’ into the lead. The source for this is Medium. On the Wikipedia page regarding the reliability of sources, Medium is described as a ‘blog hosting service’ which is considered ‘generally unreliable.’ [[14]] Either a better source should be provided for this, or it should be deleted from the article, including from the ‘Funding’ section of the article.

4. Revert of my amendment to ‘Quilliam argues that Islam is just a religion, not a political religion or an ideology,[7] ‘ After looking at the source, I changed this to ‘Quilliam argues that Islam is a faith, not an ideology’ as this was what was said in the source. Does anyone object to this alteration?

5. Hierarchy of headings I tidied up the headings, because it does not make sense to have, for instance, ‘Condemnation of the 2008 Gaza War’ as a subheading under ‘Terminology’. This was reversed in NSSL’s edit. Does anyone object to this alteration?

6. Dispute with Southern Poverty Law Centre I added a section on this, which was deleted in NSSL’s edit. Does anyone object to this? If so, why?

7. The section ‘Erroneous Reporting on “Muslim rape gangs"

(a) The report in question is actually called ‘Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs’. https://www.quilliaminternational.com/shop/e-publications/group-based-child-sexual-exploitation-dissecting-grooming-gangs/ So the heading is misleading, in that it suggests Quilliam is referring to this matter is sensationalist terms.

(b) The first sentence of this refers to ‘researchers’ plural in the same misleading way as in the lead.

(c) The first sentence says that the researchers condemned Quilliam for spreading ‘outright lies’ against British Muslims. This is not what the source says. The only reference I can find in the report to ‘outright lies’ is in this sentence: ‘Tellingly, the key word “comprehensive” was later deleted amid furtive corrections to the published report: when challenged, staff outright lied and continued to meet valid criticisms with personal attacks.’ This is in the part of the report which criticises Quilliam’s staff’s response to criticisms of their report – the alleged lies were about the report. There is no allegation in the source that Quilliam’s report spreads lies about Muslims. This is a serious misrepresentation of the source.

(d) The article ‘Failing victims, fuelling hate: challenging the harms of the ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ is published in Race and Class’ magazine. This magazine is not listed at the Reliable Sources page, so it is not clear whether it is a respected journal. The title of the article indicates it is more of an opinion piece than a scientific paper. The article starts: ‘Over the past decade, the “Muslim grooming gangs” narrative has become firmly established in popular and political discourse in the UK. Claims of how Muslim culture and faith supposedly perpetuate sexual abuse have helped collectively demonise British Muslim communities, especially young Muslim men. Initially driven by the rightwing media, this construction has been advanced and legitimised by ostensibly liberal and feminist actors.’ This kind of assertion is the sort of thing you would expect in an opinion piece in the political pages of a newspaper. It goes on: ‘Additional boosts have come via discredited, highly-politicised and partisan “research” from special interest groups, apparently seeking to capitalise on wider anti-Muslim attitudes in order to influence government policy and otherwise profit.’ This sounds like a reference to the Quilliam report. It does not say how the groups would ‘capitalise’ or ‘profit’, but seems to be a general attempt to smear these groups, and seems to me to be possibly defamatory. Throughout the article, there is a partisan tone. For instance, it refers to Sajid Javid: ‘Notably, Javid’s interest in racialising sexual offending has not extended to organised abuse in schools, religious institutions, sports clubs, politics, celebrity circles and other contexts likely dominated by white offenders.’ This is why I referred to the article in my edit summary as ‘opinionated original research’ – it is very much more an opinion piece than a measured social science report. Indeed, I find Kenan Malik’s opinion piece in the Guardian to be more measured and temperate.

(e) One of the sources is an opinion piece by Kenan Malik. He is a journalist, rather than a researcher, and his criticism of the report seems to be based on Ella Cockbain’s views. As an opinion piece, it is not a suitable source to found the ‘Erroneous reporting’ section.

(f) The third source, Eastern Eye, is based on information from Ella Cockbain, so it does not constitute independent criticism of Quilliam’s report.

(g) Proposal: I propose that the Quilliam report, and criticism of it, should be stated in one sentence: ‘The Quilliam Foundation’s report “Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs” has been criticised for poor methodology.’ The source would be the article by Cockbain and Tufail. Anything more would give undue weight to this report and the criticism of it.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no dispute with the other sections.

Can you please split your concerns into manageable headings? This is far too much to read and I would like to address each point on it's own without messing this talk page up. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a valid concern: WP:TLDR is standard procedure. However, please do not split the big post and start discussing each point. Instead, take the most pressing concern with the best evidence and start a new section to discuss that point. When finished, move on to the next. Or, if a couple of points are closely connected and can meaningfully be discussed together, put them in one (brief!) section. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am receiving contradictory instructions and I don’t know how to proceed. NarSakSasLee has asked me to split my arguments into headings. Johnuniq has told me not to. I cannot satisfy both of you. NSSL has said ‘I have no dispute with the other sections.’ If I understand NSSL correctly, this means that they are concerned only with the section currently titled ‘Erroneous Reporting on “Muslim rape gangs” ‘, which is my point 7 . Perhaps agreement on that aspect could be reached quickly if NSSL would accept the proposal I made at my point 7(g):

I propose that the Quilliam report, and criticism of it, should be referred to in one sentence: ‘The Quilliam Foundation’s report “Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs” has been criticised for poor methodology.’ The source would be the article by Cockbain and Tufail. Anything more would give undue weight to this report and the criticism of it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's make this a little clearer. My main concern has been the removal of sources and it mainly concerns point 7 (it is not a magazine, but an academic journal and as such it is important to include it's views, especially considering it is a peer-reviewed journal by authors who work for the Jill Dando Institute as well as Cockbain being a child sex exploitation expert herself). Let's deal with this first. I think a good compromise can be made here. I am in agreement the section needs to be cut down as per the advice of another admin. He said it should be cut down to a maximum of 220 words. I think the proposed sentence you've given is too small, and I would like to extend it a little further with a quote from the authors itself which provides an adequate grievance of their concerns. Something to the effect of:

The Quilliam Foundation’s report “Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs” has been criticised for poor methodology; with authors Ella Cockbain and Waqas Tufail saying "Stereotypes of ‘Muslim rape gangs’ were greatly boosted by the Quilliam Foundation’s ‘grooming gangs’ report, source of the spurious but ubiquitous claim that ‘84% of grooming gang offenders’ are Asian. Although framed as ‘academic’ and ‘evidence-based’, the report is shoddy pseudoscience. Its conclusion that the ‘over-representation of Asian-ethnicity (predominantly British Pakistani origin) individuals . . . is conclusively irrefutable’ is deeply misleading. The supposedly ‘specific crime profile’ under investigation is actually confused, inconsistent and incoherent".

I propose this because in future if anyone were to criticise Cockbains and Tufail's report the section can be extended to add in opposing views. The rest of the quote which is currently in the article should be deleted. Before moving on to the other points, are we in agreement that a small explanation and a quote from the authors is adequate enough? This seems a good compromise. @Johnuniq: you're views would be welcome too. NarSakSasLee (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The quote which NSSL proposes to include is a claim by the authors of the report. As regards the statement by Cockbain & Tufail that the Quilliam report is ‘pseudoscience’: I do not think that Cockbain & Tufail are in a position to criticise anyone on this – their article is almost entirely an opinion piece, presented as social science. I don’t think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to host Cockbain’s & Tufail’s opinions. If there is a link from Wikipedia to their article, as a source, then any interested reader can make up their own mind how seriously to take their article.

It seems that the statistic that ‘84% of grooming gang offenders are Asian’ comes from the Quilliam report, and was reported in the press, and that this statistic is disputed. But if this is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, then this is giving more publicity to a possibly dubious claim.

I suggest that the Wikipedia mention of the Quilliam and Cockbain reports should be:'The Quilliam Foundation’s report “Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs” has been criticised for poor methodology. In particular, Cockbain and Tufail disputed the validity of the statistic in the Quilliam report that 84% of grooming gang offenders are Asian.’ But, as I said, I am doubtful about including the 2nd sentence, because it gives publicity to a possibly dubious statistic. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I am formulating a response to this. But since it's too big I don't want to violate WP:TLDR. I will be posting a shortened version with a few references as to why I disagree with you here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Just an update I'm still formulating a response. I apologise for the delay. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

TLDR is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. I will read what you post, however long it is. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I am going to have to cut this short. I don't think I will have time to write what I want to say given the consequences of the coronavirus. It is getting too serious in my area and I am becoming extremely busy as a result. For now I will settle with this proposition: "The Quilliam Foundation’s report “Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs” has been criticised for it's poor methodology by Ella Cockbain and Waqas Tufail, in their paper “Failing victims, fuelling hate: challenging the harms of the 'Muslim grooming gangs' narrative“ which was published in 2020". I will at some point be back to discuss this once things have calmed down with respect to the virus. However I hope you will accept this compromise for the time being. @Johnuniq: could we please have your input? Consensus is far from over but given the circumstances I cannot spend too much time right now on Wikipedia. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I would accept the wording in italics in your post, as a replacement for the current section headed ‘Erroneous reporting on Muslim rape gangs’. (“Its” does not have an apostrophe in this context.) The source would be the Cockbain and Tufail report. To get to this, I would first revert your last edit to the article. This would reinstate all my alterations, and delete the section ‘Erroneous reporting’ etc. I would then add your wording in the Criticism section. Do you agree to this? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But as I've stated above, this is only a temporary consensus. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

My opinion was requested above. I will refrain from investigating the details of the discussion but will look at subsequent editing of the article and may comment later when content is changed. I am unlikely to express an opinion on the merits of the edits because administrators need to be careful to avoid becoming WP:INVOLVED but I will offer generic platitudes such as that content should not be WP:UNDUE in focusing on what proponents say are excellent features, nor on what opponents say are horrors. Some recent text (not sure about the proposed edit) had the word claims and that is not desirable per WP:CLAIMS. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Alterations now made as agreed above. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Home Office report

@Unreal7: Explain to me why the Home Office Report, which doesn't mention Quilliam, is relevant to this article, which is about Quilliam. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Further comments to Unreal7: Your addition about the Home Office report is Original Research and Synthesis. See WP:OR , WP:SYNTH. The onus is on you to justify the inclusion of this material, per WP:ONUS. Also, it was agreed in the previous discussion (above) not to use the ‘84%’ statistic, as this would draw attention to what seems to be a dubious figure. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the claims that South Asians were disproportionately involved came from that 2017 Quilliam report. Unreal7 (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You have agreed that the Home Office report does not mention Quilliam. Your statement that the ‘claims’ came from the Quilliam report is your own idea. Wikipedia only follows the sources. There is no justification for including your alteration in the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: @Unreal7: This mentions the Quilliam Report and the Home Office Report (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/19/home-office-report-grooming-gangs-not-muslim). It needs to be included in the article for balance. Quilliam are claiming one thing, whilst an official report prove the opposite was true. They don't need to officially mention each other. I saw nothing wrong with @Unreal7: edits and have restored them. Sweet, I think you need to read the policies you're quoting, you're misapplying them. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added in the following section since it's relevant:

Writing in The Guardian, Cockbain and Tufail wrote of the report that "The two-year study by the Home Office makes very clear that there are no grounds for asserting that Muslim or Pakistani-heritage men are disproportionately engaged in such crimes, and, citing our research, it confirmed the unreliability of the Quilliam claim".

NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee: Thank you for adding the Guardian report of 19 December. I hadn’t seen this. I agree that this makes the connection between the Home Office report and the Quilliam report, which was not previously evident. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: No problem Sweet, take care. NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Better Organisation of the Article

Hello all, I have taken liberty to organise the article better (nothing new has been added however; it was just a quick tidy up so that the article can be read better - it was previously a bit of a eye sore). If anyone has any feedback or dispute we sort it out here. Cheerio. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee: Hallo again. Happy New Year – or at least, better than 2020, I hope!

Regarding your alterations: I think it is better to have the Southern Poverty Law Centre in full in the heading. If I just saw the initials in the heading, I would have to stop and think/guess which organisation this was about.

I have added a link from ‘Prevent’ to the article on CONTEST. I trust you have no objection to this. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: Hello Sweet, happy new year to you too! I have no objections with respect to CONTEST (I think it refers to the PREVENT strategy, the article isn't entirely clear?). With respect to the SPLC, the section is pretty short so it wouldn't really justify having such a long heading? Further, on Nawaz's own article the abbreviation in the TOC isn't mentioned in full either (I suspect for the same reason of not wanting to make the TOC an eyesore). Plus the centre is already mentioned in full in this article in that very sentence. What are your thoughts? NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. On the Prevent/CONTEST connection: I looked for an article on ‘Prevent’, and the only thing I could find was the CONTEST article. I think the ‘Prevent’ in the CONTEST article must refer to the ‘Prevent’ strategy.

I think it is more important for the headings to be informative, rather than to look good. Readers will only look at the section on the SPLC if they are interested, and if they don’t know what the initials stand for, they are unlikely to bother. Now I have looked at the Maajid Nawaz article, I think it would be better if that heading was changed to ‘Claim by Southern Poverty Law Center’.

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered by it. But sure I'll change it. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's now been changed. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll change the heading in the Maajid Nawaz article. Cheers. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

@Unreal7: Why do you persist in adding material from sources assessed to be unreliable? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it was deprecated and the only reason I used it was for a direct quote from Cage. Also, persist? When else? Unreal7 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

When else? I thought you had immediately put back the material from Medium.com, after I had deleted it with an edit summary saying that the source was unreliable. You say that you weren’t aware that the source was deprecated. I am surprised that an editor of your experience didn’t check first. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Byline Times unreliable as well? Unreal7 (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That source should be fine, but Medium isn't (it has no editorial oversight). You can add the Byline Times in. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Byline Times is not listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources but I found this discussion in the archives of the Reliable sources noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_316#Byline_Times The general view is that Byline Times is not reliable. So it should not be used. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

How many sources is Wikipedia gonna end up labelling as unreliable? The window seems to be shrinking every day. A story appearing in the non-mainstream press doesn't automatically mean it's not true - and this one is highly sourced. Unreal7 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. That ANI discussion is all over the place for my liking. @Sweet6970: Can you summarise why it's not reliable? And also @Unreal7: can you summarise why it is? If it has editorial oversight I see no reason for not including it within the article. On the other hand if it doesn't then I'd be against it being placed in there. On the outset it looks like a normal newspaper? Please, both of you, make a short as reply as you possibly can. Succinct answers are the best. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the article is sourced - here are three of said sources [15][16][17]. Unreal7 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, here's the About section of Byline's website - and some of the times they're been covered by other outlets. Unreal7 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Unreal7: The question for Wikipedia is not whether it’s true, but whether the source is reliable. We cannot be the judges of ‘truth’. I cannot see any connection between the sources you have linked to and the material which was added to this article. The Byline Times story does not mention the John Templeton Foundation, so it is unclear what material you want to support with this source.

@NarSakSasLee: The ‘About’ section of the website starts:' Byline Times is run by a small, dedicated team of journalists providing a platform for freelance reporters and writers to produce fearless journalism not found in the mainstream media.’ So it is not a normal newspaper, but a platform for freelance reporters. This seems to me to be the opposite of a publication with editorial oversight.

From the discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard:

So to summarize:

1. They did some original research without consulting with experts and published conclusions that contain accusations based on that original research. 2. When confronted by other people who were not able to reproduce the same results from the same set of data, they made untrue statement about what the original article said. 3. If it weren't for Full Fact and other critics, the article would not have been modified until now. But what if Byline Times was talking about hidden data that only them have access to as in the case right now? That's why I think that this incident can be taken as an evidence of poor fact checking specially when talking about secret documents that nobody has access to except them.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for being slow on the reply. Real life got in the way. I will consult both of your answers and hopefully find a remedy. Will reply pretty soon after examining both arguments/claims. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee: No need to apologise. I should mention that the result of the discussion on the reliable sources page seems to be that Byline Times was used with specific attribution in the article in question: Great Barrington Declaration. But as I said above, the Byline Times article doesn’t mention the John Templeton Foundation, and I don’t know what is proposed to be said in this article on Quilliam. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's another Byline article by Ella Cockbain, one of the authors of the Guardian article which mentions Quilliam. If that's reliably sourced - and it is - then we shouldn't just discount Byline outright. Unreal7 (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t understand your point. I don’t know what you mean by saying the Cockbain article in Byline Times is ‘reliably sourced’. And the question in this discussion is whether Byline Times itself is a reliable source. Also, since that article does not mention Quilliam, I don’t see that it is relevant. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Douglas Murray and Nesrine Malik

I note that these two people have been added/removed - so I've restored both in the article until it can be established who they are. Exactly who are they and why does their opinion matter? Why does Murray's opinion warrant inclusion but not Malik's (and vice versa)? NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? You edit Wikipedia, but you can't do a simple search?

Nesrine Malike is a journalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesrine_Malik

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/nesrinemalik

Douglas Murray is a conservative writer and activist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author)

Really, it's not our business to do elementary research for you; both of these people are sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia articles. Good information is available in the first result of a google or wikipedia search (the first RESULT, not the first PAGE). MrDemeanour (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone else added the bit about Douglas Murray. I changed it because the wording was wrong – Mr Murray did not mention McCarthyism. I deleted the bit about Ms Malik’s views.

Douglas Murray is a well known political figure and author. Nesrine Malik is just a columnist. You can see the difference if you look at their Wikipedia articles. There isn’t really enough to sustain an article on Ms Malik. Also, the wording about Ms Malik’s views doesn’t really say anything, except that she doesn’t like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who has no particular connection to Quilliam). It is undue to have so many comments on one matter, so I kept the views of the more well-known and politically significant person. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Nesrine Malik is not a reliable source simply because she is a Guardian columnist. However, if you look at her work, it is mostly for The Guardian; and she gets a column published every couple of days.

Anything she has published in The Guardian is (more-or-less) automatically RS; that has all been subjected to editorial review.

I'm not particularly a fan of Malik; but if you don't know who she is, then that's not my problem. She's notable. MrDemeanour (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: I’m not clear who you are addressing here, but whoever it is, saying ‘if you don’t know who she is, then that’s not my problem’ is not very polite, is not constructive, and is not relevant to the discussion. I know who Ms Malik is – she is a columnist who regularly writes opinion pieces in the Guardian. That doesn’t make her notable. That the Guardian is regarded as a reliable source for news does not make their opinion pieces RS, and does not make their opinion writers notable. If you read the Wikipedia article on her, you will find that it reads like the cv of someone who is trying to make out that they are more important than they actually are. Her main achievement seems to be to get someone to pay her for giving her opinions. That doesn’t make her opinions important. And note that her views, as currently stated in the article, were not published in the Guardian.

You have not answered my point that the statement in the article doesn’t really say anything, and also mentions a person who is not connected to Quilliam. What is the information about Quilliam which our readers are supposed to take away from reading this statement? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

My comment was aimed at the editor who toook the trouble to post a question about Malik and Murray, but couldn't be bothered to first try a simple search. Talk pages are not proxies for search engines.

I don't know whether Malik or Murray are appropriate citations in context. I haven't focused on that. But it would surprise me if Malik is allowed by the Guardian to publish stuff that is factually inaccurate. MrDemeanour (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: I interpreted the other editor’s question differently – not as a bald question ‘who are these people?’, but rather as a question to me as to why I think that Mr Murray’s opinion is significant, but Ms Malik’s opinion isn’t. This is a valid question, and I believe that I have answered it satisfactorily. On the other points: I did once come across a very serious misstatement of fact in an opinion piece in the Guardian – but it was not by Ms Malik. The quotation by Ms Malik which has been used in this article is, in any event, not from the Guardian. But my point remains – the quotation by Ms Malik which is currently in the article does not give any information about Quilliam, but only about Ms Malik’s attitude towards the people named, one of whom has no apparent connection to Quilliam. I consider that it should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

If I misinterpreted "who are these people", then in a spirit of AGF I apologise. I have no position on the appropriateness of the citations. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@NarSakSasLee: I believe I have answered your question satisfactorily, and I am intending to delete the comments by Nesrine Malik, as undue and irrelevant. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have now made this change. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)