Talk:Abdulhadi H. Taher

False claims

The claims regarding his funding of Al Qaeda are false. Some of the references that were attached hardly mention him... while others are blatant WP:SYNTH. You may not give your own context to sources. We can only include something in the article that has been directly said in the sources. We can not derive information based on sources or use a fact from the source to elaborate on it on our own. That would be Original research.

The federal case, which focused on the Arnaout-Bin Laden relationship, was blown to smithereens when a federal judge ruled that evidence was spotty at best. [1] [2] It also argues that the document that Plaintiffs attribute to Osama bin Laden is similar to the Golden Chain, in that it lacks foundation and authentification. [3] Yet another reliable source denies such links [4].

Given that your sources do not make such a connection while there are sources that clearly deny such connections, it would be WP:OR and infact totally incorrect to make any such connections in the article. --Ibrabra1 (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not true. You are Ibrahim Taher, a member of the Taher family. Stop trying to write your own family's history. This has all been well sourced. You are the one doing original research and synthesis here with your claim that the Golden Chain has been "blown to smithereens."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.230.142 (talk • contribs)

My name is not Ibrahim. I am Ibrabra. I dont know how you made that assumption. Accusing and discussing editors is not your job on wikipedia and doing this is uncivil. You should focus on content if at all you are here to constructively edit on wikipedia. References have been provided and your personal attacks do not counter any claims. Please do not revert disputed content by calling it vandalism. Wikipedia does not allow reverts of content under false pretext. --Ibrabra1 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not call your dispute with the other editor vandalism and do not edit war on the article. Discuss your concerns on talk page. --103.255.6.78 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

it is vandalism to delete well-sourced material because you are the subject's nephew. The person who is deleting this material has already identified himself as a member of the family and has not provided any reason not to post the material other than two primary sources that do not mention Taher at all. 45.246.233.198 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not even in the same country as any of the other people here. I'm not involved in the content of this article but did see you editwarring and stopped you from that. Accusing every one you think opposes you of being a relative will not get you anywhere. I also noticed that the user above has declined of being the same. You may want to understand that there are multiple people interested in this article. Anyway, before adding negative material about a person, it would be best to discuss here on the talk page. For the same you may want to discuss with the above user and the other IP editors to gain consensus. At the same time I also encourage you to declare any connection you have to the topic as you have no other history on Wikipedia and seem to only be working on adding negative information here. Declaring will put other edits in better perspective. --103.255.6.79 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no special connection, except interest in the family and the individual. I don't take any judgement one way or another on whether the information is "negative." But if the Wall Street Journal and der Spiegel published it, why should we keep it off his page?45.246.228.171 (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I changed the language to emphasize he was neither charged nor convicted of al-Qaeda affiliation. It seems the probem here is that there are indeed many sources that list him in this capacity. But at the same time, he was never charged. So we need to be careful not to delete information from respected newspapers and journals about Taher -- while also being careful not to imply in any sense that he was necessarily guilty. I hope this compromise is agreeable to all.45.246.232.147 (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The process is to gain consensus here first, not add your claims back. I suggest you lay out what you want to add, here on talk first. --103.255.6.102 (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

New comer here. I don't understand what the objection to this material is. It is well sourced from reliable newspapers. I support keeping the following statement, of which I can see no reason for deleting:

Abdulhadi Taher has been accused of being an early financier of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. He was neither charged nor convicted of this. The accusation arose when his name was found on the Golden Chain document that was recovered by the CIA during a raid of an al-Qaeda safe house in Bosnia in 2002. The Golden Chain is believed by some to be a list of Al-Qaeda sponsors as well as recipients to whom those funds were paid.

This language shares information and claims made about Taher in major international newspapers without taking any particular stance on those claims. There is no reason to censor information that the Wall Street Journal and der Spiegel has already published.110.143.225.253 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

None of the references you have posted above mention Taher's name, except one. That one reference is sourcing back to a wikiepdia mirror site which means the reference is sourcing back to this article itself. That is called circular referencing and is gaming of the system and unacceptable as a reliable source. Also, you need to disclose that you moved to a different IP address or if you flew to Australia so that we can all understand that you are not pretending to be two persons as you are clearly continuing the above discussion. --Ibrabra1 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ibrabra1. Your claim doesn't check out. Several articles clearly mentions Taher's name. For example, see: https://www.renenaba.com/resurrection-de-golden-chain-list-quinze-ans-apres/ Other articles that mention his name as a potential al Qaeda sponsor include the intelligenceonline article, as well as the WSJ article. What is your issue here? What is your connection to this guy? If your issue is connection to living relatives, then you should argue that their names be deleted. But you shouldn't try to delete information from good publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.198.242.73 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Mine is not a claim. The claim is yours which you have to defend with reliable references if you want to include it into the article and with its importance and significance that it is even due in the article. I commented on your references as I could not see the name in them where as one was even sourced to a mirror site of wikipedia itself. Circular referencing like this is ridiculous. Now coming to the new comments you have added above. I dont have a personal issue. I'm a reader and I found out that there were people editing the article, just like you, so did I based on my interest. Being on the opposite side of your opinion doesn't mean that I'm related to any one any more than you are. Now coming to the living relatives - that would be a WP:BLP issue adding highly negative information on wikipedia about living people without ambiguous context or references. So that should be deleted and I've already started a separate section for that below regarding duker and relatives related content. As far as the Al qaeda connection goes, that claim is speculative and a "potential" connection as you say. It is not worth inclusion in wikipedia on its own merit which is what should remain the topic of discussion here, not his relatives. If you want to discuss his relatives, use the below section where I made that comment. --Ibrabra1 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal and Der Spiegel are reliable sources. You just section blanked multiple sections of this article. Who are you to delete public information. You are displaying tendancies of ownership. Like the others, I believe this information is perfectly reasonable to include. You are the only one who seems to object. 185.198.242.33 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not taken any sides yet regarding the Al qaeda section other than telling you two not to revert each other but get talk page consensus, but I do think that the information about Tarek was a WP:BLP violation which states that a living person should not be attributed to negative information without credible sources and in specific a living person isn't notable just because he was involved in a single event. The racing and arrest is a single event which is not basis for notability. Wikipedia is very careful about including information about living people and you have to read that policy. Blanking information that is a BLP issue is exempt from edit war and vandalism. And if some one adds a dispute summary in the revert, it is no longer vandalism. The sooner you'll differentiate, the sooner this debate will become more civilized. Ibrabrah, please comment on the sources, not the fellow user IP above. As is suggested to the IP. --103.255.7.58 (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Saudi Ambassador and American State Department got involved. Two major articles appeared in LA Times. This is clearly notable. The Prosecutor and Parole Officer both said that Abdhulhadi's parenting was partially to blame. How is this not related?49.181.166.52 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The material is fair. There is a lot there. You may not like it, but it is clearly sourced to major publications.49.181.166.52 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

New here. But this is getting really ridiculous. The documentation is there. More and more articles keep coming out. You can't block them all.disruptive Regardless, you need to bring up individual issues as you find them. You can't keep deleting everything you don't like in one broad swipe.49.181.166.52 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please delcared all the IPs you are using instead of switching IPs for comments so that there's no confusion. --103.255.6.110 (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Duker

The IP 43 recently added a section about Duker which they have been trying to maintain. This was done in addition to adding family related information. It is requested that you declare any conflict of interest ie. if you have any connection to him. The information about Duker seems to be in a series of edits that on one hand add negative information about living persons therefore violating the WP:BLP policies and on the other hand adds unrelated information about Duker to the article about Taher.

Now, reasoning about this, this is an article about Taher who is a notable figure. Similarly mentioning that there is a chair in a university on his name is also something notable (maybe having a separate section about him is not notable yet). However, mentioning who specifically has been bearing the titles of that chair is not only irrelevant to this article, it is also WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACKs the article to a different story just for its inclusion. So this section should be trimmed down or completely removed. Best would be to mention about the chair in a single line as to follow WP:DUE and remove the mention of Duker all together. --Ibrabra1 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I dont know about anyone else. But what do the two things have to do with each other? This is an article about Taher, not about Duker. 185.198.242.73 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Kindly mark each comment when you change your IP that it is you so that people on wikipedia dont mistake that you are trying to pretend to be multiple people. Anyway, so it is very good that we agree on this that these two have nothing to do with each other and as I said, the article is about Taher and not Duker.. those mentions that you included are not WP:DUE and shouldn't be a part of the article. Now we can finally focus on your comments in the section above. --Ibrabra1 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't mean Duker's situation doesn't have anything to do with Taher. It just means they are seperate issues. Stop section blanking. That is vandalism. You need to establish consensus here. 185.198.242.33 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think what user Ibrabra removed was mention of Duker (a non notable person) in an article about a notable person. That much of coverage is not due. From what I saw in user Ibrabrah's removal comments, he did agree that if there's an article about the chair itself in future, that may contain such content.. which sounds reasonable. But does this belong here? No. --103.255.7.58 (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

it has been covered by many news outlets, that makes him and it notable. Duker is cited all over wikipedia.185.198.242.33 (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you dont have the slightest idea about what notability is. Getting cited on wikipedia doesn't make him notable. If he is notable, you can create a wikipedia article about Duker. And then if that article survives, you'll know he is notable. You can also put his life story and being on the chair maybe on that article if that is all his life career and notability is about. Or maybe as the user Ibrabrah agreed, an article about the chair itself may have that text (I personally dont think the chair is that notable for its own article). So again, dont put back Duker into the article about Taher. He is not related to Taher, only to the chair on his name. For that too he's under the cloud but that's another story. --103.255.7.58 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It is uncivil to call a reasoned revert vandalism. Reverting a BLP violation isn't an edit war even (the BLP violation is the part of content about Tarek so dont add back before clarifying in the above section why it's not a BLP violation). Adding Duker content is also not a good idea. Apparently in your first comment you said Duker has nothing to do with Taher. Yes, they are separate issues too and Ibrabrah separated the two issues in two different sections here on talk page. But when you add content, and it is reverted, you need to get consensus before adding it back. The burden is on you to justify why the content about Duker belongs in this article while he's not notable enough to have his own article. Also, why the content about Duker and his firing fromt he chair needs to be deleted in the article about Taher? It does not relate to Taher and his biography - remember, this article is the biography of Taher. --103.255.7.58 (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Apart from your dispute with the user Ibrabrah, dont revert everything and other minor positive edits from the article such as wiki linking and other formatting even when you do revert with consensus. 103.255.7.58 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I am only trying to tell him that WP:COATRACK says content like this can not be included in unrelated article which is about life of Taher not about Duker's life on a chair in his name. --Ibrabra1 (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you are conflating every single issue here and deleting everything you don't like at the same time. This is disruptive editing. You have been warned. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

The material is fair. It has everything to do with Abdulhadi Taher and the Chair he established.49.181.166.52 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

None of the issues have been conflated. I have created a separate section for discussing Duker here. But you are reverting in everything in one go instead of just reverting the Alqaeda claim. If you revert all your edits, including BLP violations, in guise of content dispute, that is gaming the system. I have also noticed that in your edit summary you are claiming that multiple parties agree with you, but there are 3 parties here only. Me, you and one IP from PK who is mostly neutral on Alqaeda claim and only concenred about Duker and BLP violations about Tarek. All other IPs are your proxies or VPN as seen here [5]. Doing that is not allowed. --Ibrabra1 (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

that doesn't say there was a vpn use210.185.107.32 (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC). You are deleting whole swaths of information with a single edit. that is not allowed.

There is nothing forbidding a revert of large content additions. User ibrabrah's revert may also be reverting Al qaeda involvement claim which is under dispute but other content he/she reverted are blp violations which should not be on the article. Do not add those back again. For adding back Al qaeda involvement, you may get consensus in above section first. Whether or not you are using a VPN, what ibrabra pointed out is that all your IPs need to be delcared as yours so that you don't look like you are pretending to be more than one person. --103.255.6.110 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)