Talk:Abu al-Walid

More information

I am aware of some factual inaccuracies in the article. I am in the process of gathering more info and hopefully I will soon weed them all out. ForrestSjap 19:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just corrected some mistakes and added some information. I will now begin writing a chapter about accusations of terrorist acts. I hope it will be finished soon so I can add it. ForrestSjap 20:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that's about it for now. pretty much complete for as far as I can tell. ForrestSjap 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of referenced content

Dear 82.27.39.34, please discuss your elaborate plans on the talk page before removing truckloads of well referenced sections of an article. I have written this article myself, and you can rest assured that I am not an agent of the Russian propaganda machine. I am in fact a great forespeaker of Chechen independence and I have tried my best to keep this article as objective as possible. Your edits were simply outrageous and I have reverted them all. Feel free to discuss this with me here. ForrestSjap 08:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

OK.

What is your proof linking Salafi Islam to terrorism?

Was fighting occupying Russian forces (ie the MAK) terrorism and why would it lend credibility to the claim that a person who fought those occupying troops would then be a terrorist?

Which definition of terrorism covers fighting occupation troops in Iraq?

As regards Chechen women, how is stating 'someone did this, and this is the reason they did it' encouraging it or defending it or announcing it?

If I stated Peter Sutcliffe did such and such and the reasons he did it were blah blah blah, does that mean I have become his supporter or defender or I am encouraging more of what he did?

The article states there is no proof of Abu Walid ever committing terrorism, so isn't it obvious that the title should not say 'INVOLVEMENT IN TERRORISM?'

'NON INVOLVEMENT IN TERRORISM' would be more appropriate then, would it not?

The section talks about Russian accusations, hence 'RUSSIAN ACCUSATIONS OF TERRORISM' is suitable don't you think? 82.27.39.34 09:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then if you insist.

I am not linking Salafism to terrorism, never have, never will. I do not claim the activities of the MAK were terrorism, never have, never will. I do however claim that having been trained by the MAK adds credibility to rumors of involvement in terrorism. This because many suspected and convicted terrorists were Arab Volunteers of the Soviet-Afghan War trained by the MAK, and the MAK was in fact the predecessor of Al-Qaeda. I also feel I should point out that by implying the claims of involvement in terrorism against Al-Walid are more credible, I am not implying they are actually more likely to be true. By using the word credibility I am referring to the perception of these claims by the public. Let's face it, most people are more likely to beleive a person is involved in terrorism when he is a Salafi Muslim and a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan war, than when he is a moderate Catholic trained in car maintenance. As for the statements about suicide operations. Suicide operations are not means of conventional warfare and in the case of the conflict in Iraq they are not used for military gain, but for manipulating public opinion. I consider these actions to be terrorism and the section belongs in this chapter. Responding to questions about suicide bombings (on civilian targets) by Chechen women, al-Walid tried to explain the motives of these women and the fact that they had been brutalized by the Russian occupation forces. Yes, this is called defending, in any case, Al-Walid is making a statement about acts of terrorism so this section should not be removed. The title 'involvement in terrorism' is suitable because it is a question rather than a statement, the chapter is about al-Walid's involvement in terrorism and anyone interested in it should read it to get to know what his involvement actually was. It is neutral and does not contain any judgment, whereas 'non-involvement in terrorism' or 'Russian accusations of terrorism' are obviously biased. That will be all for now. ForrestSjap 09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

1: What is your justification then for stating that because Abu Walid was a Salafi it lends credibility to ACCUSATIONS of terrorism? Your statements regarding Western public perception are irrelevant - EVERYBODY accuses their opponents of being terrorists, and trumpets this to their own people who (in the West for example) end up thinking that any Muslim who fights anyone for any reason is by definition a terrorist. This is not what Wikipedia is about.

Credible means 'able to believed or trusted' - so of course you are implying they are more likely to be true, otherwise you're using the wrong word!

2: Which leads to my next point - US supported freedom fighters of the MAK become retrospective terrorists when SOME OF THEM later become opposed to the US do they? Maybe if you use George Bush's dictionary, but such statements have no place on Wikipedia. Which organisation should Abu Walid have trained under at the time of the Soviet conflict and which crystal ball should he have had in order to ensure that one day such far fetched accusations of terrorism would not be levelled at him?

3: Walid talked about suicide operations on OCCUPATION TROOPS - perhaps you're getting this mixed up with attacks on civilians. Of course attacks on OCCUPATION TROOPS are for military gain. Suicide attacks may be unconventional to people who use F16's to kill people en masse, but I don't see the relevance here. Which is the terrorism, fighting occupation troops or the suicide part? If you claim it is the suicide part then in order to appear rational, you will have to call anyone who ever took a drug overdose or hanged themselves a terrorist also.

4: Stating why somebody did something is not defending, well not according to the laws of logic at least. In any case, what proof do you have that Walid was referring to suicide attacks by the Chechen women on CIVILIANS?

Of course the section should be removed as it is under a heading stating Walid's involvement in terrorism! Otherwise create a new section with an appropriate heading for it.

5: A question has a question mark. Without a question mark it is a statement. There is no proof of terrorism, and the only referenced accusations are made by Russia, so I've no idea why you claim 'RUSSIAN ACCUSATIONS OF TERRORISM' is biased. 82.27.39.34 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what Wikipedia is all about. Man, I had things so messed up but now that you've shown me the way everything is suddenly very clear. I will undo your edits one last time, after that I will report them as vandalism. What you are doing has NOTHING to do with contributing to this medium; you scan articles for content that is not to your taste and then delete it. Be constructive and create something instead of just undoing other people's work because you happen to not like it. Also, you appear to know your way around Wikipedia but you are using an unregistered IP. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out you've already been banned and are now using a different IP to continue your 'work'. Keep in touch! ForrestSjap 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

As you are now exposed as a propagandist due to your reverts despite your capitulation and defeat in this debate, it is in fact I who will be looking into contacting Wikipedia or taking whatever other action I can if you revert again. 82.27.39.34 21:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

So user Strothra what are your justifications for the changes you have made to the article? As well the points above, do you think it's neutral to use the word insurgents instead of fighters, why the word solid, why the word unclear instead of unknown? 82.27.39.34 07:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I am not involved in this content dispute, I was simply correcting an act of vandalism. Removing cited content from Wiki is vandalism. Please learn how to properly edit Wikipedia before trying to make major changes. --Strothra 07:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Not necessarily it isn't, and (having read the vandalism article) in this case it definitely isn't. There is a proper reason for removing the content, it is irrelevant and not on the subject matter of the heading it is under. As well as restoring irrelevant content, you have made a number of changes to the article with your reversion which makes the article fail the test of neutrality. 82.27.39.34 08:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Since you appear to beleive you have 'soundly defeated' me in the debate, I will reply to your statements one more time. I have dropped the discussion not because I was overwhelmed by the superiority of your arguments (in fact, all you did was rephrase the arguments you had alreday presented and repeat them), but because you are utterly unreasonable, rude, paranoid AND BECAUSE YOU MAKE EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS HOPING IT WILL ADD TO THE FORCE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS. It appears you are on some sort of rage-fueled crusade against what you perceive to be 'propaganda' on Wikipedia and I have had enough experience with people like you to know very well that it is completely useless to try to argue with you because it will lead to nothing. You have a one-tracked mind and you will not compromise or tone down. I have requested third party intervention for the dispute and if other, reasonable people beleive all your edits were just I will let you have your way, but in my opinion your edits are vandalism, and I beleive some people might agree with me. It is your right to disagree, but it is not your right to hop around on Wikipedia and delete anything that you think is not right. I also noticed you have placed an NPOV tag above the article, that is also your right but if you don't mind, I will place it under the 'Involvement in Terrorism' section since that seems to be the only section of the article you thoroughly disagree with. I hope third party moderators will review the dispute soon and hopefully we can come to a solution, untill then any further communication between you and me on this subject would be pointless so I will refrain from replying to your comments. ForrestSjap 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

1. You have no answers no my points, and here you launch an ad hominem diatribe and excuses, which only reinforces your defeat in the debate.

2. Your statement that I do not have the right to delete is incorrect.

3. I will leave the NPOV tag where it is now unless I later find out it should be at the top of the article.

4. You are being hypocritical, you constantly revert ALL changes, even the ones which correct blatant NPOV, not just the ones you incorrectly consider vandalism. You state earlier "I have written this article myself" and it seems that this is part of the problem. See OWNERSHIP OF ARTICLES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

YOU are the reason discussion is pointless as you chose to not participate in it, after you had initiated it. You have not compromised or toned down, even though I made the perfectly reasonable suggestion the deleted text could be kept (though I still don't see the value or significance of it) under a new heading, as neither of the two deleted points relate to Abu al-Walids's so called 'involvement in terrorism'. 82.27.39.34 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

While I agree that the wholesale removal of the sourced material does not serve the article, there do seem to be issues in the article as it stands right now concerning neutrality. The title of the disputed section "involvement in terrorism" lends itself to a point of view. In the absence of proof, it would be more properly titled "allegations of terrorist involvement". There are other statements within that section that seem to lend themselves to a point of view: "His devout Salafism and the fact that during the Soviet-Afghan war he has trained at the Maktab al-Khidamat adds credibility to these claims." It might be proper to state "According to CNN, his devout...." According to my reading of policy, however, this is the kind of claim that must be attributed in order to prevent our drawing conclusions from sources.

As far as this is concerned: "Apparently, the threats have never been carried out. There are no instances known of casualties caused by mines laid by Chechen fighters on Russian territory since al-Walid released this statement." Do we have a source for this? Again, it reads a bit like WP:OR.

I agree with some of the changes made by User:82.27.39.34 here. Although I'm not sure that the change of "insurgent" to "fighter" is necessary, since insurgent has a specific and context-appropriate meaning, I also don't see any harm in the change. "fighter" is also a neutral word.

Reporting on statements released by Abu al-Walid seems entirely appropriate, as long as the language used in doing so is neutral. Are there specific concerns about the validity of the sources?

It seems to me that you're both acting in good faith. :) Though I understand that the topic may be a little sensitive (or even extremely sensitive), I believe that the article will benefit from your discussion if you can manage to maintain civility and work towards consensus. --Moonriddengirl 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been some time since I last reacted here but I think it is a good thing we now have a third opinion. I want to underscore once again that my problem was not the fact that User:82.27.39.34 wanted to change several things in order to make the article more neutral, my problem was the fact that he removed large amounts of content, claiming it was irrelevant and even going so far as calling it propaganda. I will make several edits in order to make the article more neutral where possible. First of all, I understand how the line "His devout Salafism and the fact that during the Soviet-Afghan war he has trained at the Maktab al-Khidamat adds credibility to these claims." might be misunderstood to mean something I do not wish to imply, therefore I will remove it. I will also change the title of the section as Moonriddengirl suggested, I will however not opt for 'Russian accusations of terrorism' or 'Non-involvement in terrorism' but for something more neutral. I will also make some edits to the section about suicide operations in Iraq. I will however change the word 'fighter' back to 'insurgent', as the word insurgent is in my opinion completely neutral and, as Moonriddengirl argued, context-appropriate. The line about al-Walid being reclusive will also be kept, but I will place it in a context to prevent confusion as to the reason why it's mentioned. I will not make any changes to the section where al-Walid's reaction to Chechen female suicide bombings can be found, I think this section is relevant and neutral. The claim that no mines have been laid by insurgents is not sourced, but in this case it could be argued that the lack of sources is in itself a source, since the Russian media would have reported on such an event extensively if it had ever taken place. I will change it though. I hope we can all agree now. ForrestSjap 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes have been made, I hope we can all live with it now. If so, let me know and I will remove the NPOV-tag. ForrestSjap 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to note that I'm still monitoring the discussion in case further third opinion input is necessary. :) Hopefully your changes will be satisfactory for User:82.27.39.34 as well. --Moonriddengirl 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this. I don't know what happened to User:82.27.39.34, it appears he hasn't been editing a lot lately. What do you think of the changes so far? ForrestSjap 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good step towards achieving balance. My experience with third opinion tells me there may be another round or so of conversation, assuming that User:82.27.39.34 is interested in continuing to collaborate on the article. It can be hard to anticipate reactions to specific word choices and such. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just made some more edits. If nobody objects by tomorrow I will remove the NPOV tag ok? ForrestSjap 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection. If User:82.27.39.34 wishes to contest the changes, the tag can certainly be restored while the conversation resumes. --Moonriddengirl 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The tag has been removed.ForrestSjap 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'll watch the page for a few more days in case conversation resumes. If I miss it or it returns thereafter and you feel I can be of some help, please drop me a note at my talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will, thanks for helping out!ForrestSjap 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Familiar propaganda

It is futile to try to maintain a Wiki article about Muslim supremacist aggression, as long as any ignorant Muslim jingo is able to obliterate what you write, and substitute his own grandiose propaganda.

"...with KavkazCenter claiming he was killed by an air strike while preparing for prayer..."

Gimme a break.

Abu al-Walid al-Ghamdi was killed by the Russians in Daghestan, where his job was to receive money via corrupt Muslim charities. I doubt al-Ghamdi ever even set foot in Chechnya.

209.121.88.198 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)