This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Much to the dislike of the far right members.....of what? not at all clear what these upset people are members of. Sandpiper 1 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies".WP:CSECTION Jontel (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, though I believe a section on their ideological positions is noteworthy however - for example, they do not support or stand in solidarity with the Ahmadiyya community, which is a controversy that exists not within the British Muslim community but between Muslims and Ahmadiyya. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trans-Neptunian object (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't feel that badly about a controversies section in an article like this. In a large organisation with a long history, there would be some events or developments that jump out. There is no harm in highlighting those, provided attention is paid to WP:DUE. I notice that this page has been largely non-controversial, with no post on this talk page for almost twenty years! I would apply WP:IAR here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, when I cleaned up the lead of the article, I wrote:

Since 2009, successive British governments have maintained a policy of "non-engagement" with the Muslim Council of Britain based on claims that the group is not sufficiently representative and that its officials have made favourable remarks about extremists in the past.

Since then it has been repeatedly modified to add additional detail about the engagement vs. non-engagement. Currently the text reads:

In 2009, the Labour government cut ties with the MCB but this decision was reversed later that year. Under the 2010-15 Coalition Government, only the Liberal Democrat ministers engaged with the MCB. Since 2015, Conservative governments have maintained a policy of "non-engagement" with the MCB, based on claims that the group is not sufficiently representative and that its officials have made favourable remarks about extremists in the past.

This is problematic at several levels. In the first place, it is WP:UNDUE detail for the lead. Even then, the current text is not fully accurate:

• Labour government did not "cut ties". It suspended them pending a review.
• In January 2010, it "lifted" the suspension following assurances, but in May 2010, it lost power. It is doubtful if anything significant happened during the intervening four months, save for one meeting with the Communities Secretary.
• As to what happened duirng the Coalition Government, we only have MCB's word that they met some Lib Dem ministers. There is no mention of anything having come out of those meetings. The Conservative ministers refused to meet them. There were no government-level contacts, consultations, or funding releases. There are no secondary sources mentioning anything during the coalition period. Instead we have the Economist, saying "No one to talk to".

So all this nit-picking is quite unnecessary and doesn't belong in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]