21:5621:56, 11 March 2009diffhist−231
User:92.17.225.113
Oh please, you're losing your iron demeanour. Surely such a tag is self applied, I've actually quite bluntly stated that I'm not a sockpuppet. Are you pushing POV as fact in the lead? Again?
14:0314:03, 11 March 2009diffhist−119
Wael Zwaiter
If you want to take this to talk, then do so. It is not the onus of someone reverting to the original to do so.
00:5900:59, 11 March 2009diffhist−122
Emily Jacir
That he was an intellectual is fact. Whether or not he was a terrorist belongs to the subject's article, and definitely not stated definitively as such in the lead. You knew that, and did it anyway.
00:3400:34, 11 March 2009diffhist−119
Wael Zwaiter
Revert - There's a source which explicitly states that he wasn't below. Yet you somehow think it's suitable to lead with such a POV statement.
21:5621:56, 11 March 2009diffhist−231
User:92.17.225.113
Oh please, you're losing your iron demeanour. Surely such a tag is self applied, I've actually quite bluntly stated that I'm not a sockpuppet. Are you pushing POV as fact in the lead? Again?
14:0314:03, 11 March 2009diffhist−119
Wael Zwaiter
If you want to take this to talk, then do so. It is not the onus of someone reverting to the original to do so.
00:5900:59, 11 March 2009diffhist−122
Emily Jacir
That he was an intellectual is fact. Whether or not he was a terrorist belongs to the subject's article, and definitely not stated definitively as such in the lead. You knew that, and did it anyway.
00:3400:34, 11 March 2009diffhist−119
Wael Zwaiter
Revert - There's a source which explicitly states that he wasn't below. Yet you somehow think it's suitable to lead with such a POV statement.