User talk:Bot3skfjs

Dahabshiil Article - 'Links to terrorism' section
Hi,

I see that you have inserted a new section at the top of this article. I strongly recommend that this section is removed for the following reasons:

First of all I would draw your attention to statements published by the Washington Post and the UK's Daily Telegraph which together make a number of important points. These are:

1. To its knowledge Dahabshiil has never been the subject of any investigation in relation to alleged terrorist funding.

2. There have never been any judicial findings of any kind to substantiate or support any such allegations.

3. None of Dahabshiil’s branches or operations in the US were shut down by the US authorities after September 11 or at any other time before or since.

4. Barre was not charged with any offence and was released by the US authorities - he is now a free man.

5. The allegations involving Dahabshiil were later dropped from the US Government's summary of evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/guantanamo-bay-wikileaks-files/8477381/Guantanamo-Bay-detainee-file-on-Muhammad-Sulayman-Barre-US9SO-000567DP.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/10/AR2009061003990.html

Secondly, you have referenced an article by Andy Worthington for the Huffington Post which mentions the allegations of links to al-Qaeda as just that - allegations, while you have stated them here as fact. Even more importantly however, that same article goes on to provide documented evidence of complete retractions of the claims made against the two men you mention:

On Barre:

'...through a false allegation coerced from some other prisoner, the authorities claimed that he was not in Pakistan in 1994 and 1995 -- despite the existence of UN papers documenting his meetings in Pakistan in those years -- but was actually working in Osama bin Laden's compound in Khartoum, Sudan, an allegation so worthless that his lawyers described it as "implausible and unsubstantiated."'

On al-Barakat:

'..al-Barakat had been included on the watchlist because U.S. intelligence analysts thought it had been used to finance the 9/11 hijackers, but the 9/11 Commission had investigated the claim and had found it baseless. In February 2009, in a report for the Washington Post, Peter Finn noted that, in the allegations against Barre at Guantánamo, Dahabshiil's alleged ties to al-Barakat had been dropped by 2006..'

And on Ismael Arale:

'..when Reprieve, the legal action charity whose lawyers represent dozens of Guantánamo prisoners, became involved, another narrative emerged, in which Muhammad not only had no connection to al-Qaeda, but was, in fact, "an English teacher and centrist political activist."'

Your only source of any authority which could be said to substantiate anything you've written here is Wikileaks, whose only source, in turn, is the US Department of Defence. Therefore as the US authorities have since admitted the falsehood of the claims against these two men and released them after several years of "wrongful imprisonment" (Andy Worthington's words), it can be shown very easily that the facts are not as you have presented them here, and that therefore any mention of these two men is entirely irrelevant.

I recommend therefore that this section is removed. Thanks.

Biggleswiki (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I strongly disagree with this section being removed because everything I've written on there is not my opinion but the opinion of the U.S. government. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give a complete picture on issues, so whether the allegations have been dropped is of no relevance because 1) I have not accused Dahabshiil of being terrorist financiers, rather I have pointed out that at some point in time Dahabshiil was accused of having links to terrorism & 2) Muhammad Barre and Ismael Arale both have connections to the Dahabshiil organization and the facts that I mentioned in the section are facts. Muhammad Barre gained employment with Dahabshiil through the company's founder, Muhammad Ducale, and he was operating an illegal branch in Pakistan that was used to funnel funds to terrorists in Africa. Neither of the links you gave refute this.


 * I will update the section and do a little editing, but deleting it is unfair and unnecessary. Using your logic, any and every mention of Michael Jackson being accused of sexual abuse should be removed from his Wikipedia.


 * Regards, (Bot3skfjs (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

Hi,

Okay, but Michael Jackson was charged and tried. I can't see how the non-pursuit of these allegations is of 'no relevance'. I don't deny either man's association with Dahabshiil, but I don't see how you can state something as fact when the US government has found itself unable to. These were the opinions of the US government but they aren't any longer. If what you've said was correct then Barre and Arale would still be in Guantanamo. Even your title 'Links to Terrorism' is highly suggestive - 'Allegations of terrorist financing' would be more accurate. You must make absolutely clear that these were only ever accusations, and ones which have since been dropped after several years of wrongful imprisonment. Anything else is surely misleading the reader.

Best regards,

Biggleswiki (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I have seen your comments on the Talk:Dahabshiil and it is obvious that you are not being neutral here. FYI, Muhammad Barre and Ismael Arale were released because they had no links to 9/11 or the Taliban. That does not mean they have no links to terrorism, nor does it negate the fact that they are both linked to Dahabshiil in some fashion. Again, the intention of Wikipedia is to provide a complete picture on issues by "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" as per WP:NPOV. The onus is on you to provide verifiable sources to refute what I have written on the page and you have not been able to do so.


 * By the way, I mentioned Michael Jackson because he was accused of sexual abuse but he was acquitted on all charges, so using your logic his Wikipedia page should not mention these accusations of sexual abuse or any other controversy surrounding him, but it does. Again, the reason is because it provides a complete picture on the issue. The Dahabshiil page is intended to provide as much information on the company as possible. It is not meant to be an advertisement.


 * I will change the title to the one you have suggested, but I really think you need to read WP:NPOV.


 * (Bot3skfjs (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

Pardon if I interject for a moment here gentleman, but I couldn't help but notice the major changes to the Dahabshiil article. For the record, I think both of you raise some valid points. Biggleswiki is quite right to show concern about how freely we use the 'terrorist' label per Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. That said, it would be unrealistic to pretend that the company is not under duress at the moment, even if we ignore all that Bot3skfjs has written above. I posted a paragraph on the article's talk page showing several present, ongoing areas of concern involving the company: namely, (a) its feud with the popular singer Saado Cali, alleged attempts to smear her through particular websites & alleged attempts to also have her assassinated, (b) its defamation lawsuit against the award-winning investigative journalist Dahir Abdulle Alasow (who reported on the feud, among other things), which a Dutch court only a few months ago dismissed as baseless, and (c) the Wikileaks controversy, wherein the U.S. Department of State ended its document with the assertion that "the Dahabshiil organization and its support of extremist operations" is an area of "potential exploitation". Given all of this, I think at least a brief mention of some of these charges is warranted. Biggleswiki also has a point when he suggests that the US government may have suspended or even dropped its terrorism charges against some of the individuals linked to Dahabshiil in the recent past. However, no evidence has been put forth to suggest that it has stopped considering the firm itself as "supporting extremist operations" altogether or that this is no longer an area of "potential exploitation". I have therefore reverted the addition of the section until we can all reach a consensus with regard to a passage that best addresses the situation. To this end, I submit for consideration the boxed paragraph that I have already posted on the Dahabshiil article's talk page; it does not focus solely on the company's alleged ties to Muhammad Barre and Ismael Arale (who, per Biggleswiki, may no longer be considered terrorists by the US; I'm not sure), but gives a broader view of some the firm's alleged activities/actions. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there,
 * Honestly, I don't know what consensus we need to reach when Bigglewiki and I have already reached an agreement and I have been accommodating of every request Biggleswiki has made. I have change the title and I have changed the wording of some passages as well. If we need to reach a consensus it is on whether the information you presented here should be added to the page as well, but I see no reason to revert my additions. (Bot3skfjs (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Hello. Thanks for contacting me. I don't see a consensus having been formed, but actually Biggleswiki disputing Barre and Arale's continued association with terrorism charges. I also seriously doubt that the user would object to my having reverted your edit so that we can all decide on a neutrally-worded passage. There are also a couple of things wrong with your edit. First, it is placed in a very inappropriate place in the article i.e. even before the company's history is described. Second, it doesn't provide any context as to what Dahabshiil is accused of; it just jumps right into talking about this Barre fellow. Third, the edit places undue weight on Al-Barakat, without mentioning that the UN later cleared the firm of all charges. Don't get me wrong; I think much of what you wrote is notable. It's just unfocused and not entirely well-presented. It's also somewhat incomplete, as I've pointed out above. I haven't reverted your edit, but we still have to work on a consensus version that we can all agree on once Biggleswiki has had a chance to respond. Please leave a response if any here so that the discussion is in one place; I'll get back to you later. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * The issue of whether Barre and Arale are "terrorists" are issues that should be discussed on their Wikipedia pages, not on the Dahabshiil one and, in any case, those issues are irrelevant to this discussion because I never mentioned any alleged terrorist activities that either took part in. Rather, I mentioned their connection to Dahabshiil and the fact that both of these gentlemen were detainees in Gitmo. These are facts, not opinions.


 * I mentioned Al-Barakat because the U.S. government suspected Dahabshiil and Al-Barakat of having close ties. I mentioned Barre first because he is the individual with the strongest connection to Dahabshiil and it is because of his actions ( operating a branch of Dahabshiil illegally in Pakistan and the branch subsequently being used to send funds to terrorists in Africa) that Dahabshiil come under the microscope.


 * I have reworded the passage and changed the title, if that is not being accommodating I don't know what is. You yourself agree that this information ( as well as the controversies you've mentioned) deserve to be on the Dahabshiil page, so what consensus do we need to reach? I have changed the wording, I have changed the title, and I will now edit the placement of the passage in the article, so let's move on and begin discussing how the information regarding Saado and Dahir should be presented on the page.


 * (Bot3skfjs (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Middayexpress, I decided to take a look at the "history" of the Dahabshiil page and it seems like the information I added was already on the page until June 2010 until you removed it. I think it's fair to say that no consensus is necessary on this issue as I have not added information that was not previously displayed on the page.
 * Take Care,
 * (Bot3skfjs (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC))
 * While I admire your remarkable mastery of Wikipedia protocols and practices in record time for a new account, I'm afraid that WP:CONSENSUS, as one of Wikipedia's core policies, always matters (refer to WP:BRD's bold-revert-discuss cycle for more on editing standards on this website). You are, however, correct in noting that I did clean up the Dahabshiil article to a considerable degree in the past, including adding actual company info, an infobox, section headings, the company logo, photos of the firm's operational areas, etc.. That's because much of the material listed at the time on the company was either defamatory and false and/or original research. For example, in a section titled "Legal Complications", it was indicated that some company called "Dihab Shill" was implicated in terrorist activities in south-eastern Africa ("Dahabshiil also spelt Dihab Shill was determined to have been the conduit used by al Qaeda to fund the perpetrators of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania") . However, Dahabshiil does not and has never gone by that name. Dahabshiil was previously known as "Dhiig Shiil" ("blood money"), not as Dihab Shill, the latter of which is an altogether different company. Moreover, the source that supposedly supported this name connection did and does not even mention "Dihab Shill" let alone Dahabshiil. I made this clear in my edit summary too ("not the same company, nor does the ref claim it is"), only for some single purpose account to then try and restore that OR passage with the unsupported explanation that "It is the same company. Same manager is now in charge of Nairobi office". It was at this point that I decided to take a closer look at the other claims made in the "Legal complications" section, and sure enough, they were either sourced to dead-links or were original research i.e. they too were unsupported (something which, incidentally, I also indicated in my edit summaries; c.f., ). Specifically, the following assertions were original research, not indicated in any of the cited sources:


 * "'During his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, Barre, a Somali, testified that Dahabshiil was initially founded to serve Somali expatriates. During the tribunal Barre's Personal Representative produced printouts from the Dahabshiil website, confirming Barres' account that Dahabshiil was a legitimate organization which continued to operate in the USA, and was fully compliant with the law and sensible business precautions[...] Barre explained that al-Barakat, a Somali corporation involved in the hawala system, and Dahabshiil were competitors, and that when a significant part of al-Barakat's operations in the US was suspended in 2001, its former customers shifted their business to Dahabshiil.'"


 * The above charges and claims may or may not be correct. It is difficult to say since they were not supported by any reliable sources. The charges in that paragraph I posted on the article's talk page, on the other hand, are all supported by reliable sources and the people/organizations leveling those charges are identified by name (Saado Cali, Alasow, Dutch court, US Dept. of Defense). That's the difference. Whatever the case, the bold-revert-discuss cycle still applies, and a consensus version of the passage still needs to be agreed on. Biggleswiki has yet to respond. Please be patient; there is WP:NODEADLINE to meet. Middayexpress (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Firstly, I do not appreciate your sarcastic tone. Whether you believe it or not, I AM new on here. Secondly, your claim that the quoted information was entirely "original research" is not convincing. A simple Google search would have provided you with sufficient information ( and sources) on this particular issue, but instead of researching the issue and correcting the information that was presented, you decided to delete the entire section.


 * This conversation is not getting anywhere and I will not be wasting any more time discussing this matter with you. On the one hand you agree that the information that I provided should be on the page, however you want us to reach a "consensus" on how it should be presented, but I have changed the title, the wording and the placement of the passage in the article so what else is it that you want me to do here? I have complied with every request that was made but I doubt Biggleswiki will be satisfied until the entire section is removed and that is not something I will be willing to do.


 * If you want to discuss how the controversies surrounding Dahabshiil, Saado and Dahir should be presented on the page then ( as I have every intention of researching this controversy and adding my findings to the Dahabshiil page) I am more than willing to discuss that issue with you, but I will not be participating in any more conversations surrounding this particular issue. If you want to futher discuss this issue, please take it to Biggleswiki's usertalk page.


 * Regards, (Bot3skfjs (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Not sarcasm; genuine surprise. Wikipedia's policy regarding sensitive WP:BLP edits that are unsourced is to remove them and promptly. Per Jimbo Wales (the website's creator), "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone, Middayexpress - thank you for picking up on this. Firstly, Bot3skfjs and I have certainly not reached anything approaching consensus. I think for a start we need to determine as per WP:WEIGHT whether this is the view of a significant majority, or a significant or extremely small minority. If it's the view of a significant minority then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I think there is enough evidence, certainly in what Andy Worthington has researched and about which he has written extensively, that this is no longer the view of the US government, so I wouldn't consider the latter to be an adherent. Whether we can call Alasow prominent is another point to discuss I think. Again, I am not talking about Barre's and Arale's connection to Dahabshiil but chiefly about the statement by Bot3skfjs that:


 * The branch, which was run illegally from Barre's residence in Karachi, was used to provide financial support to Al-Qaeda, Al-Wafa, and other terrorist and terrorist support entities across the world. Most notably, the branch was used to transfer large sums of money to individuals in Africa which was then used to finance the 2002 Mombasa attacks in Mombasa, Kenya.


 * This is from a single source (two documents from one organisation cannot be considered multiple sources), and I think it can be verified that this is not the current view of the US government. Bot3skfjs also claims that these detainees were only released because there was nothing to connect them to 9/11 or the Taliban, implying that the US authorities released these two without charge having uncovered decisive evidence of direct financial support for Al-Qaeda, Al-Wafa, and the Mombasa attacks on Israeli civilians. He then states as fact the supposed link between Dahabshiil and Al-Barakat, citing a source which itself refers to Peter Finn's report for the Washington Post - included in the references of Mohammed Sulaymon Barre's Wikipedia article - that notes that the allegations of this link were dropped in 2006. Indeed, the information he has presented here is inconsistent with Barre's article and excludes important information in that of Arale. Biggleswiki (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

These are my last comments on this issue.


 * Middayexpress, you know very well that that quote was sourced, but the link was dead. You could have simply researched the issue and found an appropriate source ( which wouldn't have been hard considering the fact there are tons of sources on this issue) instead of deleting it, but you opted to remove it instead. You were in the wrong then and you are in the wrong now.


 * Biggles, perhaps you need to go back to the Dahabshiil page and re-read the passage because the only things that I have stated as facts, are facts.


 * The claims of the U.S. government:
 * The U.S. government believed that there had been close links between Dahabshiil and Al-Barakat, another Somali financial company. Al-Barakat was designated by the United States government as a terrorism finance facilitator. After the terrorist attacks on September 11,Al-Barakat was added to a US terrorism watch list and had its assets frozen. [26] The U.S. government had also alleged that there are connections between Dahabshiil and the Somali Al-Qaeda affiliate, Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya. [27]


 * Facts( [ as presented by the U.S. government ( which is a reliable source of information)] :
 * In August 1998, one of Mohammed Sulaymon Barre's ( a close friend of Bin Laden's and a former Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp detainee) relatives helped him obtain employment with Dahabshiil through the company’s owner Muhammad Saeed Duale [22] ( father of Abdirashid Duale) [23]. He was given $10,000 US from the Dubai, United Arab Emirates (AE) office of Dahabshiil to start the new branch. Subsequently, in September 1998, Mohammed Sulaymon Barre opened a branch of the Dahabshiil organization in Karachi, Pakistan. The branch, which was run illegally from Barre's residence in Karachi, was used to provide financial support to Al-Qaeda, Al-Wafa, and other terrorist and terrorist support entities across the world. Most notably, the branch was used to transfer large sums of money to individuals in Africa which was then used to finance the 2002 Mombasa attacks in Mombasa, Kenya. [24] The Dahabshiil organization also has links to another former Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp detainee, Ismael Arale. [25]


 * If you want to dispute the facts presented in the passage above, bring verifiable proof that: 1) Barre and Arale have no connection to Dahabshiil 2) Barre did not receive employment with the company and has no connection to the companies founder 3) Barre did not receive $10,000 from the company to open a branch in Karachi, 4) That the branch in Karachi was not operated illegally 5) That individuals did not use the branch/company to send money to terrorists in Kenya and 6) that those funds were not later used to finance the terrorist attacks on Mombasa, Kenya. You have brought no sources disputing each of these points and until you are able to do so I will kindly ask you, as I have asked Middayexpress, to leave my talkpage.


 * P.S. - If the allegations that Saado and Dahir have made against Dahabshiil are true, there is no question that they deserve to be on the Dahabshiil page. Having consensus does not mean removing facts or information you do not like. I have been as accommodating as possible; I have changed the title, the wording of the passage and the position of the passage in the article, but you will not be pleased until the entire passage is gone. Even though Middayexpress and I disagree on certain things, he does agree that the allegations made by Saado and Dahir are of importance. I find it odd that you want the Dahabshiil page not to have any trace of information you deem to be negative. You are definitely not being neutral here.


 * (Bot3skfjs (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list