Jump to content

Talk:Esam Omeish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

This article is highly flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.35.60 (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is article is strange, and seems written by the subject himself. It neglects to mention that he ran (unsuccessfully) for a state office in Virginia. It neglects to mention 2 controversial episodes in his life that made the national press. One was him getting kicked off a board on Virginia immigration for statements about the 2006 Lebanon War with Israel; the other was when he spoke at a "Jerusalem Day" demonstration in Washington, DC, where he said (BTW, you can see it on YouTube):

"We, the Muslims of the Washington metropolitan area, are here today in sub-freezing temperatures to tell our brothers and sisters in Palestine that you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land. And we by standing here today... we are telling them that we are with you, we are supporting you, and we will do everything that we can, insha'allah, to help your cause."

Does such an article, a hagiography as it stands, get radically rewritten or just deleted until a real entry is created for this person?
The part when about his wonderful children seems somewhat unencyclopediac. 142.59.186.243 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"happily married and blessed".. seems a muslim wrote this sh*t, LOL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.4.28 (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo & "hired" segment

[edit]

fwiw: I concur with the IP's removal of the photo and the "personally hired" segment. The references for that section didn't reflect what we were asserting. The newspaper link was dead & the Google books link only indicates that the names of both individuals are in the book. (from what I can see - on a list in the book.. ). Even if we could back up the text, a photo of that size on an article of this size about a totally different person seems to lean toward WP:UNDUE. --Versageek 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added supporting refs from the Washington Post and Paul Sperry. I'll wait on the photo -- but that is the "thumb" size, which is generally recommended. I've also now added a quote from the subject as reported in the Washington Post about al-Awlaki.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Known for"; deletions of material called libel/slander

[edit]

Calling my brother a "terrorist" is libelous and furthermore has nothing to do with this subject. Secondly to find quotes of political opponents in the Washington Post - as if this is the opinion of the WP itself - is disingenuous. The quotes are nonetheless an inaccurate reflection of me and who I am. I will continue to fight to clear my name even if I must take this further EsamOmeish (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Explain to me why positive things and/or refutations are deleted while slanderous material is continuously added? Esam Omeish —Preceding unsigned comment added by EsamOmeish (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the "sources" of the material in question are people with political agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EsamOmeish (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are people that are deleting any positive information about Esam Omeish (me) and further adding quotes from people who have political agendas. The other poster keeps posting that I "personally" hired Anwar Al-Awlaki which is a bald faced lie. Then they keep implying that I had something to do with 9/11 by called Dar Al Hijrah the "9/11 mosque". Someone keeps removing all of the information about awards that I have received and adding these allegations as if that is all that I have done —Preceding unsigned comment added by EsamOmeish (talk • contribs) 04:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As a general comment, the subject of the article and now another editor have repeatedly made deletions of material they assert are libel/slander. In each case this is material that is reflected in RSs, and generally it is material with heavy RS coverage -- indeed, most of the coverage of the subject in RSs relates to this. Perhaps they are confusing "uncomplimentary" coverage with libel/slander. But those are very different things. There has been no showing that this material is libel/slander, nor that reflecting this RS coverage is not proper within WP's policies.

  1. I reverted the deletion of what Omeish is known for. The standard template provides that as a field. A review of the RSs that mention Omeish indicate that that is what he is most known for.
  2. Some material has been repeatedly deleted by one editor identifying himself as the subject, and now by another editor, as libel/slander. The material in question is sourced accurately to multiple RSs; its inclusion is in keeping with wikipedia policy, and there is no indication that it is libel or slander. I've therefore restored it.
  3. A New York Times description of his speech, and a commentary on his comments by a notable person were deleted as libel/slander. I've restored them--they are appropriate reflections of commentary on his comments, and the source of that commentary is indicated; this is not libel/slander.
  4. Comments from the Republican candidate and a Washington Post columnist were deleted as "libel/slander". There is no indication that they are libel/slander. I've therefore restored them.
  5. I've added back material re the Clinton call. It is not negative (as it stands at least; though it fails to reflect how his taking part in the call led to controversy). It is certainly not libel/slander.
  6. I've added back Kaine's comment on talk show, as it is relevant to Kaine not having been aware of Omeish's statements. Nor is is libel/slander. I've also added back comments from Omeish that caused the Governor to call for his resignation. These were widely reported in RSs, and were the trigger to his resignation, which is what he received most of his coverage for in RSs, and is I think not wp:undue. Nor is it libel/slander.
  7. Also restored commentary by notable columnist and by newspaper, which are both appropriate for a WP article. We gave his views on the subject; it is evenhanded to reflect those of others.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still concerned about WP:UNDUE here.. for a biography of an individual, we are giving an awful lot of space to those who opine that he has ties to radical Islam and terrorism. It certainly needs to be mentioned given that so many reliable sources report it - but should close to half our article be about it? --Versageek 02:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That policy requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not require that references be equally divided between positive and negative references, or that the candidate be presented in a light skewed in a manner that is more positive than that of the RSs. Without question IMHO, this presents the subject in no worse a light than that reflected in the prominence of the positive and negative treatments of him in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, one thing I find especially odd -- the IP address that indicates it is the subject of this article, and which has been the most vociferous voice arguing "libel" here, itself was the source of what is considered per se libel editing (if untrue) at this unsourced edit, when it inserted a statement in that article that the subject of that article (Abu Usamah) left a mosque "under a cloud of allegations of sexual misconduct".--Epeefleche (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@EsamOmeish. Please point out here what positive thinks and/or refutations have been deleted that are sourced to Reliable Sources, so that they can be considered for re-insertion in the article. I am not aware of them. There is no slanderous material in the article, as previously explained. If you believe there is slanderous material, please explain why it is slanderous. Where "sources" have political agendas that are clear, it is common to indicate the statement as the statement of the source. But the comments that you keep on deleting from a political opponent and newspaper columnists are proper, identified as such, and should not be deleted. The al-Awlaki information is sourced. The reference to the "9/11 mosque" description is attributed and sourced. Furthermore, are you the same person as the IP who has been editing this article? And are your the person who made all edits from that IP address, including to articles other than the Esam Omeish article? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All references added were REFERENCED and placed but removed by Paul Sperry in spite of the PROPERLY referenced material —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.93.254 (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sperry is removing PROPERLY REFERENCED material twice now. This constitutes vandalism to the article ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.93.254 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

What Paul Sperry says below is wrong. HE HAS CONSISTENTLY DELETED ANYTHING POSITIVE added to this article because he had an agenda. All of the positive information including the winning of awards, being a 9/11 first medical responder is 100% accurate. He has an agenda and only wants to add all the negative information and throws a fit if anything at all positive is added by calling it "vandalism". The insidious language he uses is a violation of terms. The language and quotes from the articles deleted by Sperry DO APPEAR and were in fact cut and paste DIRECTLY from the article, yet he deleted the properly referenced material anyway because it did not fit his agenda. This information should remain and Paul Sperry should be blocked from editing this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.93.254 (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article has been subject to edit warring and vandalism by a number of IPs/editors leading to a number of blocks, and now Tiamut joins in restoring the formerly blocked editor's edits. As to the edits restored by Tiamut for the formerly blocked editor:

  1. The infobox was fine as it was; the edits were neither necessary nor appropriate.
  2. The claim that he is an award-winning physician should have RS support. It does not.
  3. The language in the lead that Tiamut deleted is accurate, relevant, and significant in the scheme of this article.
  4. The claim that Omeish finished secondary school in two and half years despite not speaking English upon arrival where he almost immediately excelled in gifted and talented programs and advanced placement courses and, graduating high school with a near perfect grade point average, is self-promotional puffery that requires RS support. It has none.
  5. The claim that Omeish gained admission as the only foreign student gaining admission in a pool of over 6000 candidates for less than 180 positions is self-promotional puffery that requires RS support. It has none.
  6. Same with "He has consistently worked against extremist elements within the Muslim community emphasizing that “we…are uniquely positioned and equipped to provide a comprehensive, multifaceted approach in pro-actively combating terrorism and eliminating its scourge." According to Omeish, there is a need to “protect the mainstream Islamic community” from extremist ideology and violent action."
  7. Much of the language attributed to the Connect article -- which is based on candidates' submitted statements in large part -- does not appear in the article.

Finally -- I would note that Tiamut tag-teaming w/an editor who has already been blocked for similar edits to edit war here has the same effect (in aggregate) as a 3RR violation if it rises to that level.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS Epeefleche. I'm not tag-teaming with anyone. I'm no one's meatpuppet or sockpuppet. Don't threaten me with 3RR violations when I've made one revert to this article (and you've made more than dozen). Its uncalled for. Tiamuttalk 13:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Agreed, but tht's really a minor issue. You could have fixed it while leaving the rest of the materil alone.
  2. I think Omeish is an RS for info on himself, but we can certainly move the information down and attribute to him.
  3. The language I deleted was not a very accurate or NPOV summary. It should either be expanded to include views in his defense or removed.
  4. Its not self-promotional puffery to note that Omeish excelled where many other immigrants have terrible difficulties. Not ever having been an immigrant, perhaps you don't understand? And the Muslim American Society's Cincinnati Chapter seems to to be enough of an RS for me for this information. Perhaps we should ask them at RSN what they think?
  5. Same as above.
  6. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is an RS. Your refusal to include this information seems to indicate your refusal to present a balanced NPOV account of Omeish in this article. While you may think he's a Muslim extremist, other RS don't. You can't only include the ones that support your thesis.
  7. You are flat out wrong. You didn't even check the ref. I found the article from which that material was taken. Here it is [1], check it yourself.

I think you need to take a step back from this article, over which you are exhibiting WP:OWN tendencies. The poor IP who was trying to balance out this hit job got blocked for edit-warring with you. I'm going to wait a bit to let you process the information above and see if you decide to treat this subject fairly. If not, I will be restoring some the reliably sourced material above. Any concerns you have over sources should be taken to RSN. Tiamuttalk 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, your reflexive revert deleted the ref formatting I did, even for refs you retained, [2]. Tiamuttalk 12:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan op-eds are not reliable sources for BLPs

[edit]

As such, I've removed this:

In 2003, speaking at a rally on behalf of the Muslim American Society, he spoke as what the New York Daily News described as an "apologist" for Saddam Hussein."[1]

A cursory review of the article reveals it to be a vitriolic op-ed tht smears a number of Arab-Muslim speakers with the same brush. [3] Absolutely unacceptable to include such a description in a BLP. Tiamuttalk 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the article by Paul Sperry which was originally published in Front Page Magazine. I opened a RSN discussion where links to previous archives were presented that indicate that Front Page Mag is not an RS.
I've also removed info cited to Muslim Mafia (book). I think common sense dictates that a book of this kind should not be used in a BLP on a Muslim-American, anymore that a book entitled "Jeiwsh Mafia" should be for an article on a Jewish-American.
Further, I've removed SYNTH on Al-Awlaki. Who or what Awlaki is or is accused of is really unrelated to Omeish unless it is mentioned in articles on him. The only thing of relevance here is that two of the 911 hijackers used to worship at the mosque where Omeish was on the board of directors and that Awlaki admitted to knowing one of them. This is mentioned in an articleby Murphy in the Washington Post that discusses Dar al-Hijrah mosque and Omeish made a comment on the subject. The other stuff is guilt by association SYNTH that has no place in a BLP. Tiamuttalk 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that I've posted a question about the Cal Thomas quote at the BLP noticeboard. I've decided that the first two sentences of the quote are totally inappropriate and irrelevant and amount to slander since they imply that Omeish is a radical and/or terrorist and liar, so I will be deleting those in my next edit. About the rest of the quote, I'll to wait to see what others have to say. Tiamuttalk 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the long quote was too much, and I truncated it to a more neutral summary. However, I am a little wary about taking it completely out, and my reason is that Omeish is a politician, and the commentary is about his public political statements. If a politician says something that is controversial, I believe it is probably not apporopriate to remove any indication of the controversy. I note that Omeish did not repudiate his previous statements, so it is kind of hard now to say that he didn't make them.Jarhed (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit looks good to me. I had already pared the quote down by removing the first two-three sentences, but I prefer your paraphrase as it is to the point. Well done. Tiamuttalk 00:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely ok to cite op-eds as long as they are notable. People trash Glenn Beck and Rush and Sarah Palin all day long, and the fact that people attract attacks is notable in itself. It is important to note that Awlaki has pretty much been confirmed enough as Al Queda to land him on the CIA kill list. It looks very bad that the 9/11 hijackers pretty much flew straight from the Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit to Awlaki's backyard in San Diego, then one of them took off to the Al Queda communications headquarters in Yemen to manage the USS Cole bombing, and the rest did a road trip to the east coast where they met up with Awlaki in Virginia later. Awlaki left San Diego about this time, disappeared someplace, probably Yemen, and it looks pretty obvious he was assigned to the Virginia mosque as part of the 9/11 plan. Awlaki himself doubts that any muslims, let alone Al Queda had anything to do with 9/11, which is an obvious lie, and that Esam must have hired Awlaki straight from Yemen or wherever he came from on the orders of somebody makes him part of what looks an awful like part of a careful plan to replace the previous firebrand imam with another one who was investigated for terrorist links as early as 1999. If anybody can help find RS to support this theory, it could be worked into this article. Bachcell (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chafets, Zev, "A Peace Movement that's going nowhere," The New York Daily News, January 22, 2003, accessed January 19, 2010
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Esam Omeish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Esam Omeish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Esam_Omeish&oldid=1205325161"