Talk:Abu Usamah

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Concern about quality of sources

Given the very negative tone of this article, I would suggest higher quality sources are required. Addhoc 10:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Completely agree with MezzoMezzo. Addhoc 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with bias in the article

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)

Controversy is too vague. The title should give a little more detial to his terrorist supprot.--Sefringle 03:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

As I already pointed out, "Controversy" is a good enough term. If you disagree then state why here so we can all come to a consensus. Do not edit the article without discussing it here again when you know that the dispute hasn't been resolved. MezzoMezzo 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Why is it vague? What does the designation of "preachings" add to the article? If you look at other articles on controversial religious figures such as Pat Robertson "controversy" does just fine; if anything, add "criticisms" to it as well as that is the standard. One sentence simply reiterating your point that you think it's too vague without any real explanation is not justification to change the article. MezzoMezzo 22:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I like your response here, we're into the meat of it now. This should make things easier.

• "First, in Pat Robertson they say controversy, but then they list the criticisms."

I know that, his section is better and more developed. Perhaps you should use the documentary called 'Undercover Mosques' as a reference here as the criticisms to bring this article more in line with that of other controversial religious figures.

• "Secondly, he clearly said he hates the secular world and supports terrorists, as the sources clearly point out. He is only denying it."

And he clearly says in his rebuttal video, which I did a quick search for and found on YouTube, that this isn't the case. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only provides information to the public; it's not up to this site or us (its editors) to make a judgment call and this comment in addition to your earlier ones makes your intentions a bit suspect.

• "I don't know why you provided a link to WP:DR, because I see no violation."

I never said there was. I placed it there for both your and my reference.

• "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."

You are correct about there not being criticism, and as I suggested earlier, perhaps you should flesh the article out a bit more to fix this. As for preachings, it's just another adjective that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Why preachings? Why not speech? Or comments? Or remarks? Or banterings? Or a dozen other synonyms for the word? It doesn't add anything at all to the article and is completely unnecesary to get the idea across, and getting the idea across in the most direct and concise manner is something any good encyclopedic source should try to do. As I said, check the other articles on controversial religious figures. It would make sense to keep this one consistent with the others. MezzoMezzo 03:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

This is getting dissappointing now. You have openly stated that you have taken sides in the issue and appear to want your opinion of Abu Usamah to be presented as fact in this article. I'm going to link to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy and will ask that you please review it, because you are on the borderline of violating it at this point.

• The issue of preachings is not the main deal now at this point, as it is simple: you seem to think it is more accurate when that is clearly just your opinion; the appropriateness of a certain adjective is clearly a subjective matter as adjectives are something to be avoided in an encyclopedia. Remarks or comments would be just as useless, that's why I threw them out there. Since your only reasoning for adding preachings has been that in your opinion it sounds better, I will change it back and not allow you to tamper with it again.
• I also checked out the links to Adam Yahiye Gadahn and John Walker Lindh and found absolutely no mention of Abu Usamah. Considering your stated intention to insert bias into this article, I believe based on that that you are trying to insinuate a link with random terrorists who have nothing to do with Abu Usamah. The link to Osama bin Laden is appropriate as Abu Usamah has mentioned the guy before but the other two are being removed now.

I have explained to you in clear language here why what you are doing is wrong. I will not report it as vandalism since your edits do seem to be in good faith (despite being incorrect), but if you tamper with this article again then I will bring this forth for arbitration from the site. Please step back from the computer, cool off for a day or two, and think seriously and maturely about what I am saying before you act next. MezzoMezzo 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• I linked Adam Yahiye Gadahn and , John Walker Lindh because they are famous converts to Islam who support terrorism."

They aren't just supporting terrorism; they are widely regarded as taking part in it. That's a world away from the type of comments that Abu Usamah makes. It's not even close and inappropriate.

• "I linked Osama bin Laden because Abu Usamah praises Bin Laden."

I know, that's why I stated in my last comment that I don't take issue with bin Laden being linked to.

• "Secondly, you apparently did not read my last comment. I said my reason for adding preachings is that he is a preacher."

I did read yours and explained why your reasoning here is incorrect; if anything, you did not read my post. I'll restate it for you here. He is a preacher; he is also a lecturer, a speaker, a polemicist, and a thousand other things. You said that preacher is a more appropriate term, which is absolutely, positively, 100% just a matter of opinion and not fact.

• "Do not put words in my mouth. And mind WP:NPA."

Now this is almost funny if it weren't a subtle jab. I challenge you to show where I put words in your mouth and where I attacked you. Was it my pointing out your bias? Look here, from your own comment above:

• "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."

Are you telling me that I shouldn't be alarmed by another user stating openly that they think any article on Wikipedia, and objective encyclopedia, should have an inherently negative tone? That's a textbook definition of bias right there. I will be seeking outside mediation at this point, as you have demonstrated not only a desire to violate the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy but also that you are unwilling to take a break from this for even one day to consider what I have said, as I recommended to you per the page on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I find this entire exchange very disappointing but let it be known that I followed all guidelines and tried my best to explain this to you in a reasonable manner. MezzoMezzo 13:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• "They aren't just supporting terrorism; they are widely regarded as taking part in it. That's a world away from the type of comments that Abu Usamah makes. It's not even close and inappropriate."

Keep in mind the only reason Abu Usamah is notable is because of his support for terrorism. See the Afd. Every source that proves his notability says he is a terrorist supporter.

• "I did read yours and explained why your reasoning here is incorrect; if anything, you did not read my post. I'll restate it for you here. He is a preacher; he is also a lecturer, a speaker, a polemicist, and a thousand other things. You said that preacher is a more appropriate term, which is absolutely, positively, 100% just a matter of opinion and not fact."

Preacher is the best synnomym. "Controversial speakings" doesn't make sense in english. "Polemicist Controversy" might make sense, though I think it might confuse some readers. "Controversial lectures" is just inaccurate, since when he made the comments he wasn't teaching. He was preaching. If you have a better term, that would be better

• I'm not going to respond to your other comment, because it is irrelevant to this article.--Sefringle 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

This article is under mediation

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)

Police lodge complaint against Channel 4

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)

Birth name?

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

Removing content

@Rahman.mukras: - 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)

Removing content

@MontyKind: - 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)

Fair enough @MontyKind:. However, on that same line of reasoning, the daily mail and daily mirror both of which have been used in this biography, certainly have have a lower reliability ranking than MEMRI (see for example [1]). Is there a reason why those references were added? or why they cannot be removed? Rahman.mukras (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Revise Controversy to Undercover Mosque Controversy

It seem sees as though Abu Usamah was an unfortunate victim of the Undercover Mosque program that was concluded by the police to be overtly biased and completely distorted the intended message (see for example BBC Standard). Almost all the negative articles referenced in this biography refer back to the same Undercover Mosque report. I suggest that the Controversy section of this article be changed to Undercover Mosque Controversy, and its contents be adjusted to be less biased. Rahman.mukras (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rahman.mukras: But then again, OfCom rejected the claims of distortion. "in a ruling published today Ofcom found that the programme was "a legitimate investigation" and said there was "no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity" and "On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context.". The police was even forced to issue an apology and pay a "six figure sum" to Channel 4. I suggest you select sources less selectively. This won't fly. Kleuske (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Yes, and thank you. I was not selective, but actually unaware of those references that you supplied. This is a good discussion in that it reflects the natural sequence of events that unfolded starting from original Undercover Mosque program, followed by the police submission to Ofcom, and finally Ofcoms reply. This is very far from the picture that has been painted in this biography, and I think the narrative that has been discussed here is probably a more balanced and better placed to be employed in the biography. Rahman.mukras (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It took me all of ten minutes to get that information. My brief search does not suggest Mr. Usamah is an "unfortunate victim of the Undercover Mosque program". Since no claim is actually based on that program, I fail to see the problem. Also, we don't do "narratives" here. We summarize reliable sources. If you have reliable sources (on Mr. Usamah), please cite them. Kleuske (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely a good exchange because the reason it took you 10 minutes, is probably because it took me the most part of an hour to chronologically order the references in trying to make sense of the broader picture. You then picked up on my research and pointed out the decision made by Ofcom. As such, I believe it is worthy to add a new section entitled Undercover Mosque Controversy with the following text:

During Abu Usamahs tenure at Green Lane Masjid, he was among a group of preachers whom were the focus of the Undercover Mosque program which was first aired on 15 January 2007. In the program, Abu Usamah was quoted, among other things, to have said that Christians and Jews are enemies to Muslims, to have taught that jihad is coming against the unbelievers, and to have referred to non-muslims by use of the derogatory term kuffar [2].

The story caused backlash that resulted in 364 viewer complaints to Ofcom [3]. In addition to this, on 10 August 2017 the West Midlands Police also raised a formal complaint to Ofcom regarding what it considered to be a completely distorted view of the intended message by Abu Usamah and the other preachers [4] [5] [6]. However, upon investigation of the matter Ofcom ruled that the show did not breach any of the protocols under which it was being investigated [7]. The West Midlands Police also later apologised for their initial accusation, and offered £100,000 in compensation to Channel 4 [8]. Rahman.mukras (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

If you replace "that the show did not breach any of the protocols under which it was being investigated" with "in favor of Channel 4", I'm O.K. with that. Kleuske (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Abu Usamah At-Thahabi at Lecture.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)