Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Abu Usamah/Issue II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation | Abu Usamah

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 II: 'See also' links

Quite simply, I'm going to ask this straight out: Sefringle, do you object to these links not being there at all? I noticed that your reasoning behind adding them wasn't strongly justified in your initial statement (unlike the other two, which were justified with detail), and I got the vibe that this (minor) dispute over links was really inconsequential.

Could you please indicate your stance below. If you still would like to see the links in there, or another comprimise option, that's fine, and we'll progress if you answer below to that accord. If not, the status quo of the article at present can remain and we can move on to the big issue (the use of 'terrorist'). Daniel 06:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I do object to them not being here at all.--Sefringle 06:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Daniel 06:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the first suggestion I'm going to propose is a simple one: link to List of notable converts to Islam in the See also section. Would this be substantial enough a connection, Sefringle, for your liking? Daniel 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to this, because that defeats the point. The point is not that he only convert, but that he is also a terrorist supporter, similar as those other two people.--Sefringle 06:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The second suggestion I can give is the possibility that the fact that Usamah is like the other two could be represented in prose in the Controversy section. A line like this:-

Usamah, who is allegedly a terrorist supporter, is a notable Islam convert, and has been compared to Adam Yahiye Gadahn and John Walker Lindh by [whoever compared them].

The problem is, such a statement would need a source. Sefringle, if you would agree to this solution, would you be able to find a source which compares him to these two (or others) for being an Islam convert? If you agree to this proposal, and can find a source, we can move forward by bring in MezzoMezzo, and tweaking the wording 'till everyone is happy.

And that is a problem. I'm not sure if there is a source for the comparision.--Sefringle 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Has the media/other outlets compared him to anyone else that would be (in your opinion) worth linking to, in place of the two currently? Daniel 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that i've been away. Anyway, the problem here sort of highlights my point: no one of any note has made the comparison, because it is not apt. John Walker Lindh and Adam Yahiye Gadahn are proven supporters of terrorism. Abu Usamah denies that he supports it and claims innocence. I don't see any similarity. MezzoMezzo 14:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know Sefringle's view on this argument, any response to it, as well as if my 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC) suggestion has any merit. Daniel 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ping? Daniel 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Zing? MezzoMezzo 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle hasn't edited in more than a week, and is on a 'Wikibreak'. I've put this case 'On hold' until Sefringle returns to active editing. Sefringle: When you read this, please just ping me a note on my talk page. Cheers, Daniel 03:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm back from my wikibreak now. In response to MezzoMezzo, he isn't very notable to begin with. I don't think anyone notable made a comparision.--sefringle^Talk 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, good to see you back. Sefringle, if you're going to make a comparison, you really need a source for it to hold. If you don't have one, do you really think we should have that information? Daniel 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

no. Thats why I figured just putting links in the see also section. It isn't really information. It is more just a link.--sefringle^Talk 04:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What about an appropriate category, or list, rather than specific names? Is there one? Daniel 04:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean?--sefringle^Talk 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than list two specific names (which could suggest association, or similar, which I believe is the crux of MezzoMezzo's objection to the see also section), link to a category or list of people which could be associated with Abu Usamah instead. My question is, does a category or list of this kind exist? Daniel 04:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

possibly Category:British terrorists or Category:American terrorists. Though I think there will probably be objection to this.--sefringle^Talk 04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Honstly I can see where Sefringle is coming from in trying to perhaps make a comparison between Abu Usamah and similar individuals. Is there a category for people that are just accused of supporting terrorism? MezzoMezzo 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Daniel 02:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. I suppose a Category:Terrorist supporters could be created, though there is a chance it would be deleted quickly in a cfd.--sefringle^Talk 03:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it probably would. It seems we have run into a brick wall, and, to be quite honest, the above blob of text were all my researched ideas on how to resolve this issue. Do either of you two, as parties, have any ideas (of course, other than "Leave it 100% how I like it") that haven't been mentioned above? Daniel 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should move on and come back to this issue after we resolve the third issue. This seems pretty related to the third issue as it is.--Sefringle^Talk 05:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that may be for the best. MezzoMezzo, are you fine with pushing on to #3? Daniel 07:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds fine to me. MezzoMezzo 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Revisting

Now that #3 has been resolved, we come back to this. Before I begin to try and help you guys again, I just want to check that both parties consider this an issue under dispute. If you can just say "Yes it is" or "No it isn't" in response to the question "is this an issue under dispute?", that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As for revisiting, I think I can drop this issue at this point.--Sefringle^Talk 04:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC) -->