Talk:Abu Usamah

message: Given the very negative tone of this article, I would suggest higher quality sources are required. Addhoc 10:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox news and daily mail are not quality reliable sources? The man is a terrorist undeserving of any praise. Plain and simple. That is why the article has a negative tone. Terrorists are not depicted in a positive light.--Sefringle 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the statements he has made seem downright awful from what I have read, to call him a terrorist is not only incorrect but irresponsible.  The man has never committed an act of terrorism, thus he is not a terrorist (even if he seems to support it).  To call him that shows a strong bias, as does the notion that this or any article on Wikipedia should inherently have a negative tone; this is an encyclopedia and is meant to be a neutral portrayal of all articles on the site.  With that in mind, I can look up other sources on him when I have the time (there are many would really would dispute Fox News and the Daily Mail as reliable sources).  All perspectives need to be displayed, in a neutral context. MezzoMezzo 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with MezzoMezzo. Addhoc 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern about quality of sources

message: I recently noticed a series of edits in this article by one individual that are extrmely biased.  I changed the section formerly called "Radical Preachings" to "Controversey" as that is neutral, as an encyclopedia should be.  What is or isn't "radical" is a matter of opinion and such adjectives have no place in an objective encyclopedia.  Furthermore, I removed the "See also" link for "Islamist Terrorism".  While there is controversey over him being accused of supporting terrorism and him saying he was quoted out of context, he has never actually committed any act of terrorism and therefore is not a terrorist.  The person who inserted that link has referred to him on more than one occasion as a terrorist which is not only biased and factually inaccurate but also wildly inappropriate for an informative work such as Wikipedia.  I can provide links for Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy if need be.  Please don't allow such slip ups to happen again. MezzoMezzo 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy is too vague. The title should give a little more detial to his terrorist supprot.--Sefringle 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His supposed support for terrorism isn't the only issue listed under the section, there appear to be a number of controversial statements he has said.  There is nothing at all vague about the term because, as I stated above, he has claimed that his statements were taken out of context and disputes much of the information about him, even recording a video in his defense.  That's where the controversy comes in.  All Wikipedia does is inform people of it. MezzoMezzo 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Controversy is way too vague. They were preachings, and we should mention so. --Sefringle 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you are making light of his support for terrorism and hatrid for the secular world with your recent edits. Preachings adds that he expressed his views to an audience, and it implies some sincerity in his comment. Why are you so opposed to the "preachings" being in the title?--Sefringle 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you think I am making light of it or not, the fact remains that he claims he doesn't support terrorism and doesn't hate the secular world.  It is not up for Wikipedia to decide if he is being sincere in that or not, and your continued insistance that he is not and clear statement that you think the article should have an inherently negative tone causes me to suspect your intentions.  I can see from your user page that you have a mostly stellar history in editing and improving this encyclopedia so his seems out of character; please view the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page before continuing.  As for "preachings" specifically my issue is with the wording and what it implies.  Controversy is simple, concise, and to the point, exactly how an encyclopedia should be.  Like I said before if you want a compromise that will be more clear, then I believe that "Controversy & Criticisms" would also be good.  Articles on other controversial religious figures such as Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye have much the same.  There is no reason why this article, which is also about a controversial religious figure, shouldn't keep with that consistency. MezzoMezzo 18:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, in Pat Robertson they say controversy, but then they list the criticisms. Secondly, he clearly said he hates the secular world and supports terrorists, as the sources clearly point out. He is only denying it. I don't know why you provided a link to WP:DR, because I see no violation. Preachings is better because it provides important detials as to what the controversy is about. Controversy and criticisms is not appropiate, because there is no criticism.--Sefringle 19:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: His so-called "rebuddle" video is a lie. But as you said, we won't argue that point. Why preachings, because he is an iman, who preached hatrid toward the secular world and praised Bin Laden in his preachings. Speeches, comments, or remarks would be inappropiate and inaccurate. Preachings is the most accurate adjetive. It does add something to the article; it adds that he is incouraging other muslims to hate the secular world and support Osama Bin Laden, which is exactly what he is doing in his preachings. Since you want to compare it with other religous controversial figures, take a look at Adam Yahiye Gadahn, John Walker Lindh, and Osama bin Laden. Nowhere do I see "controversy" as a subtitle. They only mention their support for terrorism, as the subtitle.--Sefringle 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I linked Adam Yahiye Gadahn and , John Walker Lindh because they are famous converts to Islam who support terrorism. I linked Osama bin Laden because Abu Usamah praises Bin Laden. I am not linking random terrorists. Secondly, you apparently did not read my last comment. I said my reason for adding preachings is that he is a preacher. Do not put words in my mouth. And mind WP:NPA--Sefringle 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've stated your position clearly and i've stated mine to the best of my ability, so i'll leave it for now.  Hopefully the mediation will take place soon and this can be resolved. MezzoMezzo 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with bias in the article

message: There has been a recent "edit war" over the addition of certain things to the article.  This article is currently under mediation by Wikipedia's official mediation committee due to a number of disputes and other users should recognize that.  When the mediation has been completed then editing it should be fine and it should be more clear as to what is appropriate and what is not.  Until then, please be mature and respect the fact that the issues with this article are already being sorted out. MezzoMezzo 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is under mediation

message: This information should be incorporated into the article. I have added a BBC News ref which can be used. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police lodge complaint against Channel 4 

message: Does anyone have a source? -- Y not? 19:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth name? 

message: - please refrain from removing sourced material from this article or adding unsourced material as you have done on a number of occasions recently. If you have a reason for this please mention it here first. MontyKind (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing content 

message: - Ok. I am going to add the following factual information (I believe this is what sourced means) onto the Abu Usamah page. Please explain here prior to removing it, as you have on several occasions. 
Abu Usamah is well known for his unequivocal position on Islamic extremism, and extremism in general. During a Friday sermon delivered at the Green Lane Mosque of Birmingham, United Kingdom, Abu Usamah criticized ISIS, and similar groups, for radicalizing Muslim youth Memri.
:To understand better what is meant by reliable sources please refer to WP:RS and especially WP:BLP. Not all sources can be considered acceptable for a biography of a living person. The source you have provided (Memri TV) seems to be contentious according to a number of entries on the WP:RSN (see for example Memri). If you feel that it is a reliable source then it would be worth asking about this on the RSN before adding it to the article. Also, proper attribution would probably be required. Additionally, the source does not support your claim that "Abu Usamah is well known for his unequivocal position on Islamic extremism, and extremism in general." You would need to find a reliable source to support that. MontyKind (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Mail is an unreliable source. However, there are other reliable sources that support the text such as this in the Evening Standard. MontyKind (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing content 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion