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

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 I: Heading name

From reading your responses, it seems that "controversial preachings" will be acceptable to Sefringle, however MezzoMezzo says that he is not only a preacher, but other things.

From reading the current section, it appears that the section focuses heavily on his controversial preaching, but some other things too.

My initial, first up suggestion for this section goes something like this:

===Controversy===
Usamah's preaching was the source of controversy in January 2007.
{details about preaching (all pretty well cited in the current version)}
{his rebuttal}
{any other controversial stuff that isn't preaching}

The logic behind this is that it has been idenitified by one party that his preaching isn't all that's controversial about him, so the header should be general. The other wants it to be specific to outline exactly what the majority of the section is about.

Of course, the suggested first sentence in this version needs work, but it outlines my logic in this first comprimise suggestion: state the heading as "Controversy", but then specify immediately that the majority of the section is about his preaching.

Could both of you just note below if this is acceptable or not as a comprimise solution? If you don't feel it is, or have further suggestions/comments, it'd be great to expand on that in your comments (still in a brief form) so that any future versions can incorporate your suggestions. With some luck, hopefully it won't need another round of suggestions and commentary, however I fully understand if it does. Daniel 04:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. MezzoMezzo 15:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have a hard time agreeing to something still ambiguous.--Sefringle 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your concern. A minor clarification: when you object as "ambiguous", are you talking about the details of my proposal being ambiguous, or the actual suggested text being ambiguous? I think I have a solution to each, however I'dlike to know which one before we take the next step. Cheers, and sorry for the delay, Daniel 08:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The actual text. Before I make a decision as to whether I will accept this version, or if we need another round, I would like to know specificly what you are proposing.--Sefringle 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair call. MezzoMezzo, would I be able to get you to create a draft of the section in question, applying the comprimise principle that you agreed to? It's best if exact content comes from the parties. Cheers, Daniel 09:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is something very basic I threw together. I tried to keep it as simple as possible, if this isn't satisfactory then we can just edit it:

===Controversy===
Abu Usamah's preachings were the source of much controversy in January 2007.
He was filmed by the Channel 4 documentary programme Dispatches in their investigation titled Undercover Mosque. Some of his preaching that was secretly filmed included a number of anti-Western, anti-Israel, antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Christian, and other controversial sentiments.
Abu Usamah has told worshippers Osama Bin Laden is "better than a million George Bushes and a thousand Tony Blairs" and that non-Muslims are "pathological liars."
Abu Usamah stated that Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with living in anything other than a total Islamic state. He says that apostates of islam should be killed.
Regarding women, he said, "Allah has created the woman - even if she gets a PhD - deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."
Abu Usamah said, "No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar. We hate the kuffaar."
Abu Usamah stated in defense that the documentary had quoted him "out of context."

Was that sort of what we're looking for? Also, and this is unrelated to the heading dispute but is related to the section, would it be appropriate if we reference his video rebuttal of the documentary on YouTube along with his claim that he was quoted "out of context"? MezzoMezzo 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to this version, especially the first sentence, because it is making light of the controversy.--Sefringle 08:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Could you possibly suggest a first sentence that you would be supportive of? Daniel 10:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This was a recent change to the article, that fits well into this article, either as an intro to the controversy section, or in the intro to the article.

Abu Usamah has been accused of preaching messages of hate towards non-Muslims and has links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri.--Sefringle 04:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I also offer Abu Usamah has been accused of preaching messages of hate towards non-Muslims. He has also been accused of having links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri., a slight change to reinforce the "accused" for the second part of the sentence and to break the long-ish section of prose up. However, fundamentally, they are the same. MezzoMezzo, thoughts on whether this is acceptable, or if it isn't, what needs to be changed? Daniel 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with your sentence, as the information is obviously notable and relevant but on the other hand, it is just an accusation which he disputes. Moving back a bit though, I don't really see how my original sentence was making light of the controversy. Is this to say that I am being accused of making it into a joke? MezzoMezzo 05:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the making light comment was that your sentence didn't adequately describe the severity of it, according to Sefringle. I may be wrong on that interpretation, though. Provided Sefringle isn't unhappy with the minor structural change to the proposed sentence, I believe we may have found a comprimise :) Daniel 05:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree.--Sefringle 05:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! I've added the content to the article with a link here. Thanks for being so reasonable :) Now, onto issue two... Daniel 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)