Jump to content

Talk:Ahmed Abdi Godane

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

salaan

[edit]

asc walaal waan kusalaamay salaan kadib waxaan ahay walaal muslim ah oo kutaageera adiga waxaan kuleeyahay kuleeyahy kunooloowa nolo sare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.220.64.64 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robow

[edit]

The man in the file is not Godane. It is instead one of his estranged former Al-Shabaab commanders, Mukhtar Robow, who is still alive. Godane actually wanted Robow assassinated for alleged insubordination. Other than his confidants within the Al-Amniyat elite and the intelligence officials that killed him, no one knows Godane's real identity. Various portaits have been published, with none of them definitive. Middayexpress (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be the first time I have been mislead by sources into thinking a person was actually someone else. This would make it the 4th time it has happened to me, (Not my fault that the U.S government and other sources could be so wrong), so I apologize for uploading the wrong image. StanMan87 (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Middayexpress (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, Godane's real identity is unknown. Various different portraits have been published that purport to be of him; for example, the one TIME published in 2012 [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand the previous image not being suitable, because you proved it was former Al-Shabaab Emir Mukhtar Robow. This image being discussed however is used by the U.S State Department [2], and the individual looks rather different to Mukhtar Robow. The only instance where I see the use of this image is when discussing Ahmed Abdi Godane [3][4][5]. You would have to prove that this image is in fact not Ahmed Abdi Godane, and is in fact someone else, as the sources support my contention. We could reach a compromise. The article Abu Mohammad al-Julani has an image purported by many outlets to be al-Julani [6]. However, there is no definite proof, as al-Julani is never seen at all so there is nothing to know for sure that it's him. Taking the side of caution so as to not defame someone, I took the image out of the info-box and into the article itself with a description that the man in the image is believed to be al-Julani. I could put the image being discussed here in the article page with the description that this man is believed to be Ahmed Abdi Godane according to the U.S State Department. This way we aren't neglecting an image that may very well be the person it purports to portray, while not acknowledging that it is. Do you find this acceptable? StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the situation with Al-Julani is, but with Godane, there are various portraits of him. The one above is just one of several. I linked to an altogether different portrait by TIME, which it too suggests was Godane. Somali media have offered other ones as well [7]. The reason why Godane's real identity is a mystery is because he was worried about being apprehended, so he usually wore disguises that only his confidants within Al-Aminyat were privy to. In fact, he would often disguise himself in women's attire according to the government [8]. Given this, I think the parameter code in the infobox noting that his real identity is unknown is best. Middayexpress (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the image with an appropriate caption. What you believe should happen to the image is now up to you. StanTheMan87 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can't do that since it's not certain that that is him in the first place. As shown, there are different portraits of the man; this one could thus very well be of someone altogether different and living. If so, it would also breach WP:BLP. AcidSnow, please share your thoughts on this. Middayexpress (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not even him anyways, so let's reduce the risk of breaching BLP. AcidSnow (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Would you mind doing the honours, AcidSnow? Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image was of poor quality anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The image here is permissible to use [9].

There is more than enough proof here to maintain that it is indeed Godane and portrays the person who it is intended to portray. As per the sources cited by StanTheMan87, ([10][11][12][13]) the onus of proof is on anyone else to provide sources which discredit the POV held by the United States State Department, BBC, Reuters and CNN that the image is Godane. The fact that the image is featured on the Rewards for Justice website is already adequate enough proof, the U.S State Department being one of the most premier sources for counter-terrorism. This is no stab in the dark. It's not like this image has been randomly found on the internet with the caption 'Ahmed Abdi Godane' below it. Reputable sources state that the image is Godane, as per WP:V. If you challenge this assertion, either cite some sources which explicitly disprove this or deal with it. It is as simple as that. --Ritsaiph (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Mukhtar Robow, Ali Rage and the late Omar Hammami, Godane's identity is uncertain. This is because he was worried about being apprehended, so he usually wore disguises that only his confidants within Al-Aminyat were privy to [14]. As shown above and also noted by AcidSnow, there are various portraits of the militant leader available. Most media outlets in Somalia (where he is from) show an altogether different portrait of the individual [15][16]; as do some foreign media, like TIMES [17]. However, a lot of the foreign media are apparently showing the wrong person ("turns out old photo of Godane used by most media outlets was not Godane" [18]). Another thing, the indicated permission for the file suggesting that "this work is made by Somali citizens in Somalia" is inaccurate. There's no evidence that the image was shot in Somalia let alone by a Somali national; the very subject of the file is uncertain. Middayexpress (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not cited any sources proving the image is not of Godane. All you have done is cited sources using a different image of what looks like the same individual, taken at a different angle, at a higher resolution, with eye-wear. What, so you are saying that you are right and the United States State Department plus the plethora of international media agencies are wrong. Well, that's just convenient for your POV. Uhh, sorry Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Your sources are so weak. You state that he wears women clothes, as if this somehow disqualifies the image depicting him. The source [19] credits this piece of 'ground-breaking' intelligence on a Somali warlord Yusuf Mohammed Siad. Your mention of this is pointless, and doesn't help your argument, whether it's true or not. Your second source is also worthless. You take the words of a blog over a the United States State Department and some of the most well known media agencies in the world, with the deepest connections anywhere in the world through their sources and correspondents... That article was posted in January 2013, before any of the major international media agencies had broadcasted that image of Godane, and even if it was also used prior, the words of a blog don't hold any water whatso-f**king-ever compared to the sources already cited against you. Let me be clear, you haven't proved your position with these sources. The position to use this image has been proved with the above sources, and many, many others: [20][21][22][23]. Is this enough? I can keep citing more if you want. If you doubt the image's authenticity, then I suggest you write a nice little email to the Rewards for Justice email: info@rewardsforjustice.net and ask them. But as far as the facts go, the image shows Godane, and the onus is on YOU to investigate this for yourself, by asking the U.S State Department if you doubt them. Middayexpress , I find it hard to believe you have been editing Wikipedia for 6 years, becuase you're an absolute joke. Your whack POV is ruining this article and preventing a permissible image from being added. The image will continue to remain and be used in the article until you can provide information from reputable and world-class sources. Continue to remove it, and I will be pinging an admin on the issue. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. This isn't a personal matter and that bellicose tone is uncalled for (e.g. "don't hold any water whatso-f**king-ever"; "you're an absolute joke"; "whack POV"). Per WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material. That would be you, not me. That said, the situation is really quite simple. There are multiple images on Godane, not merely the one you are championing. You can link to that one image as many times as you like, but it won't make those various other portraits vanish. Almost all the Somalian media put forth this altogether different portrait of the man. That includes the Somaliland media, the region where Godane was actually from. I don't see why foreign new agencies, which weren't based in Somalia let alone in the insurgent controlled areas, would be more reliable on a Somalia-based figure than the Somalian media itself. On the contrary, the Somalian media would more likely be accurate on this. Since there is space for only one portrait in the infobox while there are in fact various published portraits of different individuals purported to be the man, no image should go there. However, the various portraits can perhaps go in the body as StantheMan87 suggested as a compromise. They must, though, be clearly labeled as being only one of various portraits of Godane. They cannot be presented as the sole portrait of him, as that would be patently false. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read very closely Middayexpress.
  1. Per WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof that the image shows Godane has already been proven through the many, upon many reliable and reputable sources. You seem to have an issue with this, therefore the onus has now been transferred to you in order to prove to the contrary, something which you have so far failed to do.
  2. None of the sources you have cited have explicitly denied the authenticity of the image. They have merely used a different image of Godane. This does not support your contention that the image which is being discussed here, which is used by sources more reliable and reputable (e.g United States State Department , BBC and Reuters, among others) against the sources which you have cited, of which I have not heard of any one of them ( 'Suna times' and 'Waamo news').
  3. No, there are not "multiple images on Godane", there are only two: The one being discussed here, and the one you consistently regurgitate. Yes, it won't make the other various portraits vanish. This still doesn't help you, becuase through the above sources, it is seen which image is clearly favored by the more reliable sources. This source here, [24] is the only thing that you have showed me which highlights that the image may not be Godane. I bet you're smiling and clapping your hands right now that through this magical source you have proven the image is not Godane, right? WRONG. This source is meager. It is unreliable as it is questionable. The article is a blog, unworthy of proper accreditation, and it's riddled with spelling errors and grammatical errors, e.g ("Hammami is still advocating for Robow’s troopss.") Are you kidding me? The author can't even spell, and you're taking this blog over acclaimed sources such as Reuters or the U.S State Department. Wow is all I can say. Furthermore, the blog doesn't identity which picture is incorrect (If indeed any image is incorrect, the author never cites his source), and the article was published over a year before those media sources cited above circulated the image being discussed here. Moreover, even if the images were used prior, it still doesn't help, as the author hasn't established where he got his information from concerning this supposed 'incorrect' image of Godane. Again, you're going to have to do more digging than that in order to prove your point.
  4. The basis that 'foreign media agencies' have no credibility on reporting in areas where local media is present is just well, stupid. By that logic, any material/information coming from any part of the world which is not from the United States, the United Kingdom or Europe already excludes many of those sources. This geographical argument is meaningless. Ok then, how about I remove all references to BBC,Reuters, Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, the National Counterterrorism Center (Oh look, they use the image as well! [25]) and many, many more sources just becuase they are reporting from places where they are not 'based'? Hmm? Seems reasonable to me, if we were to follow your logic. What you are forgetting is that each news agency, no matter if its western gets its information from local sources from the places where they are covering a story or reporting from, whether that's Somalia or Timbuktu. This source for example from BBC [26] is from the BBC African branch, BBC Africa. They will have reporters, correspondents, sources, all across Africa. And this is only one media source. The Somalian media are going to be no more accurate than BBC Africa , as they will not have the extensive resources that the BBC have, even in Somalia but also elsewhere.
  5. And finally, this. "the various portraits can perhaps go in the body as StantheMan87 suggested " -[27]. So now you're willing to compromise? Ahh, I see! So when you find yourself in between an undeniable rock and a hard place when it comes to your POV, you finally are willing to take a compromise that was offered to you by StanTheMan87, which you rejected? "We can't do that" -[28]. StanTheMan87 was way to conciliatory towards you by even offering you a choice: "What you believe should happen to the image is now up to you." - [29]. I'm afraid that I'm not as conciliatory, and will be taking this further. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it rather odd that the image was being prohibited all together from being shown in the article, despite the sources showing its authenticity. My input in this is that I just prefer the image to be used within the article, in whatever capacity. StanTheMan87 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritsaiph: I'm not sure what you're on about. Your rude remarks had zero effect on my decision-making, I assure you; but you are welcome to believe otherwise. There's also no policy that "transfers" the burden of proof onto others. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus was always on you. Middayexpress (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StanTheMan87: The contention, at least on my part, was over the infobox parameter specifically. Only one file could be accommodated there, whereas there are multiple different portraits of individuals purported to be Godane. As I wrote, "I think the parameter code in the infobox noting that his real identity is unknown is best". I believe it was AcidSnow that reverted your file in the body, citing valid WP:BLP concerns ("to reduce the risk of breaching BLP"). That said, I am satisfied with your suggested disambiguatory file-in-body compromise. If any other portraits of individuals purported to be Godane are available, I'll add them there as well for balance. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let us all calm down. Anyways, including all they different portraits is better than having one of them. Other than the one already proposed I found some more photos of "him": [30][31][32]. AcidSnow (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ahmed Abdi Godane. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ahmed Abdi Godane. 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) 09:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need some connections

[edit]

Am a Kenyan 25yrs dark-skinned ,I really need to be one your members. I don't understand the Islamic language. Please add me up. Omar aka Hussein (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

me too +254717825495 105.160.13.212 (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahmed Abdi Godane. 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) 12:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

join you 0700117299 105.160.54.232 (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmed_Abdi_Godane&oldid=1252602513"