Talk:Maha el-Samnah

Previous discussion without header

I'm nixing the Speedy Delete tag from Maha Elsamnah right now, as I'm still working on the article. She is certainly a notable person within Canada, with frequent calls for her deportation based on her "un-Western" beliefs and her alleged ties to a number of terrorists. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Self proclaimed "Al-Qaeda family"

There is no dispute that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, and Elsamnah herself said their family was "an Al Qaeda family". Hence, they are a terrorist family.. and the edit I made should be restored. 99.237.217.67 (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe IP contributor is mistaken, and will not find that Maha ever said they were an al Qaeda family. Geo Swan (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Questionable source "thefacesbehind.net"

This source was used in the article and i have removed it because it does not meet basic requirements of WP:RS. It is not clear: Who is the author? Does the author and publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Who is the publisher? Who owns the website?... IQinn (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

collapsing templates

I am uncollapsing this navigation template. The contributor who collapsed it collapsed hundreds of templates, around the same time they collapsed this one. All those collapses were made without any attempt to explain why they should be collapsed.

These collapses were discussed at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#When should navigation templates be collapsed?

I think everyone but the contributor who initially collapsed all the templates agreed there were certain limited conditions were templates should be explicitly collapsed -- conditions the collapsing contributor did not meet.

FWIW the collapsing contributor insisted that the collapses were justified because the navigation templates were POV. This contributor claimed that collapsing the templates removed the POV. I responded that if anyone felt the template really represented a POV problem the appropriate way to address this would be to explain the concern at the template's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back Geo and it seems to be that you are making up stories. This template has been collapsed because it is overkill and not helpful. IQinn (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You write: "This template has been collapsed because it is overkill and not helpful."

Sorry, I don't find this extremely brief note an adequate explanation.

The note you left on my talk said you restored your preferred version because you did leave an explanation here on the talk page, and no one objected. You wrote that as if your note above said you planned to restore your preferred version, based on your very brief explanation. Point of order. You did not say you planned to restore your version.

I object to the collapsing of the template, based on this too brief explanation. As per When should navigation templates be collapsed... templates should be manually collapsed when the template overwhelms the article -- which is not the case here; or when the usual users of a wikiproject collectively decide they will not rely on autocollapse, and will manually collapse the templates their project uses.

Could you please make a greater effort to respect the consensuses arrived at in discussions you participated in? Geo Swan (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no such consensus and the explanation is sufficient and you comment here is ridiculous. This template has been collapsed because it is overkill and not helpful and you are welcome to address the given arguments. Cheers. IQinn (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Iqinn, I I suggest it is in the best interest of your credibility for you drop the term "ridiculous" from your vocabulary. Yes, you wrote back in March 2010 that you did not recognize that a consensus had emerged in that discussion. But you never explained why you didn't recognize that no one agreed with you.

As to how it is helpful -- like all navigation templates it is an aid to readers who are not interested specifically in Maha Elsamnah, but who rather are interested more generally in Canadians alleged to have an association with terrorism.

As to how it is or isn't "overkill" -- surely you recognize that it is your responsibility to offer a clear, civil explanation as to why you think it is "overkill"? We are not, after all, mindreaders.

Our opinions are not supposed to go into article space. If you and I were talking politics over a couple of beers I'd happily let you suggest that Maha Elsamnah's association with terrorism is at too many links for you to agree she should be called a terrorist. But, as I believe I have reminded you before, I am not a WP:RS, you are not a WP:RS. Even Jimbo Wales is not a WP:RS. If WP:RS associate her with terrorism our article should neutrally report what WP:RS say, without regard to whether you or I or Jimbo Wales personally disagree with this.

Now maybe you meant something else when you called the template "overkill", but, what it looks like is that you are placing your private judgment ahead of the judgment of our WP:RS. If authoritative WP:RS link her to terrorism our article has to reflect that, even if you or I personally think the association is unfair.

We can make the article attribute the association to the commentator. We should do so in a way that makes clear that the wikipedia has not taken a stand, but is merely covering a stand taken by WP:RS.

In future, if you leave a comment that looks like you are merely explaining your initially unexplained action, could you please clearly state you want readers to interpret that as your warning that you planned to re-revert if no one objected?

In future, if you leave a comment at midnight that you regard as a your warning that you planned to re-revert if no one objected I suggest that waiting less than six hours, until 4:30 am, is insufficient time for anyone who recognizes this as a warning to voice their objection. You did re-revert less than six hours after leaving the comment you now say was your warning, didn't you? Geo Swan (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I waited long enough. You did not reply to it while in the same time frame you edited this article and others articles. And let me say it again your post on my talk page was ridiculous and you have posted been posting "troll" comments on my talk page in the past. The fact is you did not reply to this discussion here what you should have done.

I am not sure if you have ever worked in UI or website design. To post about 150 links at the end of an article overwhelms the reader and makes him just clicking the closing bottom of his browser and leave Wikipedia at that moment.

Not all reader of the article need these 150 links, not all readers are interested in them and what is most important this information is to reach with one click for those who might be interested.

I got your point and we might argue over other templates on other articles but it is simply "overkill" and not helpful to leave this one here open.

Cheers! - IQinn (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs editing - POV

Article is unbelievably slanted and POV, not at all encyclopedic. Will be working on it.Parkwells (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)