Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Abu Usamah/Issue III
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Issue III: 'Terrorist supporter'
OK, lets move on now.
First things first, I'm slightly confused by the issue here. On the RfM page, it says "Is it appropriate to refer to Abu Usamah as a terrorist?" as the issue; Sefringle's statement above seems to be saying that the dispute is whether to call him a "terrorist supporter" or not, whilst MezzoMezzo says the dispute is whether to call him a "terrorist".
Before I can begin, can I find out which one it actually is? Cheers, Daniel 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Terrorist supporter.--SefringleTalk 06:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- About a month back during an edit Sefringle did refer to Abu Usamah as a terrorist and not just a terrorist supporter. If that was a typo then please forgive me for not understanding. MezzoMezzo 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I presume MezzoMezzo won't object to the concession that he isn't a 'terrorist'. Now, the next question to clarify fully: MezzoMezzo, do you object to him being called a 'terrorist supporter'? Cheers, Daniel 04:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Quick question. Considering Issue II isn't compltely resolved, why did you archive it?--SefringleTalk 05:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clean out this page for Issue III - my browser doesn't like large pages, hence why I rarely post on ANI or let my user talk page get long :) I'll un-archive it when we come back to it, but I needed somewhere safe to store it until then. Daniel 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do object, because it hasn't been proven that he is a terrorist supporter. There is a dispute over that, and Wikipedia should not take sides. On the one hand, you have the periodicals linked to in the article plus the Undercover Mosque documentary spoken about which do showcase claims that he has made statements in support of terrorism - which is a valid viewpoint and must be included in the article. On the other hand, the guy also released an interview video where he claims to address those accusations and to dispel any such rumors - another valid viewpoint and also should be showcased in the article, especially considering it's his own words. You can see his video rebuttal here, here, and here. Because he disputes the accusation that he supports terrorism, it is inaccurate to confirm that he does as it's not our job to judge his sincerety; it would be accurate, however, to say that he is an alleged supporter of terrorism. MezzoMezzo 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, Sefringle, do you agree with the statement "[b]ecause he disputes the accusation that he supports terrorism, it is inaccurate to confirm that he does as it's not our job to judge his sincerety"? Daniel 08:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree with that statement. The vast majority of people who do bad dispute their accusations of doing bad. Thousands of criminals plead innocent at their trials and turn out to be guilty. Almost all racists despute they are racists. Likewise, Usamah disputes he is a terrorist supporter; that doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist supporter. He was probably thinking something along the lines of "Oh crap. I'm in troble now. I should have said this instead to avoid troble. I'll say I was taken out of context and actually meant to say... (what he said)"--SefringleTalk 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not being patronising or disapproving in any way with this question, so my apologies if it seems that way to you. Sefringle, has he ever been charged/convicted/had any of this proven against him? Again, I'm not using this as a leading question, but rather one to establish a point of information (as you know much more about the subject than I). Daniel 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- He's been charged, I don't think he's been convicted.--SefringleTalk 07:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not being patronising or disapproving in any way with this question, so my apologies if it seems that way to you. Sefringle, has he ever been charged/convicted/had any of this proven against him? Again, I'm not using this as a leading question, but rather one to establish a point of information (as you know much more about the subject than I). Daniel 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree with that statement. The vast majority of people who do bad dispute their accusations of doing bad. Thousands of criminals plead innocent at their trials and turn out to be guilty. Almost all racists despute they are racists. Likewise, Usamah disputes he is a terrorist supporter; that doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist supporter. He was probably thinking something along the lines of "Oh crap. I'm in troble now. I should have said this instead to avoid troble. I'll say I was taken out of context and actually meant to say... (what he said)"--SefringleTalk 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, Sefringle, do you agree with the statement "[b]ecause he disputes the accusation that he supports terrorism, it is inaccurate to confirm that he does as it's not our job to judge his sincerety"? Daniel 08:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do object, because it hasn't been proven that he is a terrorist supporter. There is a dispute over that, and Wikipedia should not take sides. On the one hand, you have the periodicals linked to in the article plus the Undercover Mosque documentary spoken about which do showcase claims that he has made statements in support of terrorism - which is a valid viewpoint and must be included in the article. On the other hand, the guy also released an interview video where he claims to address those accusations and to dispel any such rumors - another valid viewpoint and also should be showcased in the article, especially considering it's his own words. You can see his video rebuttal here, here, and here. Because he disputes the accusation that he supports terrorism, it is inaccurate to confirm that he does as it's not our job to judge his sincerety; it would be accurate, however, to say that he is an alleged supporter of terrorism. MezzoMezzo 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clean out this page for Issue III - my browser doesn't like large pages, hence why I rarely post on ANI or let my user talk page get long :) I'll un-archive it when we come back to it, but I needed somewhere safe to store it until then. Daniel 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here's what I'm thinking (it's very similar to what we did with #I). We write a section about it, detailing a) who made the allegations; b) his response; c) a timeline of what's happened since then (Sefringle mentions he's been charged, we can say that). Doing this means were are representing all the facts: those of the people who accused him, those who defended him (including himself); as well as giving encyclopedic information about what the current situation (both socially and legally) is.
- This will require your cooperation to tweak, and may take some time. Are both of you willing to have extensive discussion and work together to create a possible compromise section which outlines the facts about this situation? Daniel 08:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, i'm willing to help research and write this. Though as a side note, to my knowledge he hasn't been charged with anything; are we talking about the accusations or formal legal charges here? MezzoMezzo 14:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. And we'll see how it goes. I wouldn't say this part of the meidation is over yet until we have the new section written though.--SefringleTalk 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine. Why don't you or Daniel get a rough draft up right here? MezzoMezzo 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I envisage that mediation will continue, and simply we'll all discuss and work on the section together.
- My apologies, but I'm going to be a bit busy tonight (ACST), so I'll get back to you guys tomorrow with some ideas as to structure of the section. Cheers, Daniel 07:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in doing what I promised. See below in about 10mins. Daniel 02:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine. Why don't you or Daniel get a rough draft up right here? MezzoMezzo 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I need sources. Sources about who has accused him of being a terrorist support, and what they accuse him of doing. If the parties could provide a couple, that'd be a great starting stone.
I prefer not to do my own research, as I like to preserve my NPOV given my role as mediator as much as possible. Cheers, Daniel 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1. [1] sates that before 9/11 Abu Usamah had links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative. Source also states the Undercover Mosque documentary aired on January 14th stating he was a terrorist supporter.
- 2. [2] States that following the release of the doccumentary, 9 people were arrested. Source also states that between the doccumentary relaease date and Febuary 4th (date of source), Usamah has not made any more speeches. Source also says he claims to be taken out of context.
- 3. [3] states he is being investigated by the police.--SefringleTalk 03:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Sefringle. MezzoMezzo, do you agree that these sources are acceptable for use, however limited this use turns out to be, in the section per WP:RS? Daniel 04:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I find all three sources Sefringle has provided to be acceptable. MezzoMezzo 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great, this is a good platform to work from. I'll work on a section over the next 24-48 hours and see what I can come up with, and then I'll ask for your input and suggestions. From there, we'll work towards fixing anything that's in dispute inside the section :) Cheers, and thanks for acting in such a fantastic manner throughout this prolonged dispute (it makes mediation so much more enjoyable), Daniel 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, sorry for the delay - life caught up with me :( Sefringle, could I get you to possibly try and write a section, with a paragraph (of two-three sentences) on each of those three sources/incidents? Cheers, Daniel 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great, this is a good platform to work from. I'll work on a section over the next 24-48 hours and see what I can come up with, and then I'll ask for your input and suggestions. From there, we'll work towards fixing anything that's in dispute inside the section :) Cheers, and thanks for acting in such a fantastic manner throughout this prolonged dispute (it makes mediation so much more enjoyable), Daniel 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I find all three sources Sefringle has provided to be acceptable. MezzoMezzo 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Sefringle. MezzoMezzo, do you agree that these sources are acceptable for use, however limited this use turns out to be, in the section per WP:RS? Daniel 04:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's my paragraph:
Abu Usamah was suspected to have links to an Al Qaeda operative when he preached at a mosque in Peoria, Illinois.He now is an iman at the Green Lane Masjid. On January 14, 2007, an Undercover Mosque documentary aired stating he was a terrorist supporter.[1] Following the release of the doccumentary, nine people were arrested. Abu Usamah hasn't held his monthly surmons since the arrest. He said he was taken out of context.[2] Currently, he is being investigated by the police.[3]
--SefringleTalk 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- MezzoMezzo, any general comments or specific objections/suggestions? Daniel 02:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The basic content of it looks fine, but the spelling and sentence structures could use some work. MezzoMezzo 15:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Abu Usamah was suspected to have links to an al Qaeda operative when he preached at a mosque in Peoria, Illinois. He is presently an Imam at the Green Lane Masjid. On January 14, 2007 a documentary, entitled Undercover Mosque was aired stating he was a terrorist supporter.[1] Following the release of the documentary, nine people were arrested. Abu Usamah hasn't held his monthly sermons since the arrest. Usamah says his actions were taken out of context.[2] Currently, he is being investigated by the police.[4]
Thoughts? Daniel 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I support that version. MezzoMezzo 01:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sefringle, is this version fine with you also? If it is, can you please add it to the article (when nothing your agreement here), as you still have the GFDL rights over the text as it was largely yours. If you don't agree, we'll continue compromising :) Cheers, Daniel 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is fine with me.--SefringleTalk 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fantastic! As I said, it'd be great if you could add it to the article yourself :) I guess we'll move back to Issue II. Daniel 03:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is fine with me.--SefringleTalk 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sefringle, is this version fine with you also? If it is, can you please add it to the article (when nothing your agreement here), as you still have the GFDL rights over the text as it was largely yours. If you don't agree, we'll continue compromising :) Cheers, Daniel 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Before we move on, there is the issue of where in the article to put the new section.--SefringleTalk 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about you be bold and do what you feels best, and then we'll see how MezzoMezzo likes or dislikes it :) Daniel 08:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- As a possible tiny suggestion, it may be a possible alternative to call the section heading "Undercover Mosque documentary" or similar. Both your thoughts would be greatly appreciated on that, however if you both like the current title, that's all that we need :) Daniel 10:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, it looks fine to me as is. I think the two of you have done a real bang-up job here. One request, and this is only if Sefringle approves - would it be alright, under the external links section or something, to include links to the YouTube videos he released in response to the documentary? It's your call now. Whether you approve or disapprove, I think the whole article has been fixed now. Thank you both for the time put into this. MezzoMezzo 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Section header has been changed per suggestion. As for the video, I think it already has been added by someone else while this mediation was going on (see link entitled Official video response to C4 Dispatches from imam Abu Usamah).--SefringleTalk 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was added here. Cheers, Daniel 06:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect this is done, now. Thanks to both parties for being such fantastic mediation participants, and I'm glad we could reach solutions to your problems. I'm closing this case now - if you have any further questions or comments, feel free to leave them on my talk page or emailing me. Cheers, Daniel 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was added here. Cheers, Daniel 06:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Section header has been changed per suggestion. As for the video, I think it already has been added by someone else while this mediation was going on (see link entitled Official video response to C4 Dispatches from imam Abu Usamah).--SefringleTalk 05:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, it looks fine to me as is. I think the two of you have done a real bang-up job here. One request, and this is only if Sefringle approves - would it be alright, under the external links section or something, to include links to the YouTube videos he released in response to the documentary? It's your call now. Whether you approve or disapprove, I think the whole article has been fixed now. Thank you both for the time put into this. MezzoMezzo 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- As a possible tiny suggestion, it may be a possible alternative to call the section heading "Undercover Mosque documentary" or similar. Both your thoughts would be greatly appreciated on that, however if you both like the current title, that's all that we need :) Daniel 10:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about you be bold and do what you feels best, and then we'll see how MezzoMezzo likes or dislikes it :) Daniel 08:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
