This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Following a suggestion by TeaDrinker, I have renamed this section to the more-neutral "Aftermath." I also removed the sentence about "no comment from local or national politicians." There was also no comment from clergy, plumbers, teachers, and any other number of groups, locally or nationally. So what? Finally, I expanded the description of Daniel Pipes ever so slightly. Hope this meets with approval. Godfrey Daniel 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This section is unnecessary, as the single article referenced in it is also in the References section. However, this section keeps reappearing after I delete it. Please justify its presence, or let it go. Godfrey Daniel 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently hidden; will be removed soon. Godfrey Daniel 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed. Godfrey Daniel 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"In footage used on WTVD Channel 11, he appeared to be blowing a kiss to the camera as he was led from the Orange County Courthouse." citation needed
What is this doing here? Why is it in the Debate over Terrorism section? Someone keeps restoring it. If it's important enough to be in the article, it needs to be in an appropriate section, and really ought to have a proper source cited. Godfrey Daniel 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed. Godfrey Daniel 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article has several unsourced statements, flagged with "citation needed." Perhaps someone can find the sources for these? Godfrey Daniel 07:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Probably time to take that down. Thoughts? Godfrey Daniel 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody has stated an opinion, the tag goes. Godfrey Daniel 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user (192.154.54.14) restored the NPOV tag without justification. If he wishes to state his reasons, he may do so; otherwise, the consensus here is that this tag is no longer necessary, and it will be removed. Godfrey Daniel 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Tag removed. Godfrey Daniel 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
While Godfrey Daniel continues to ignore and refuses to address my contributions and input on this matter, I do not feel we've reached a consensus on the NPOV element and I've replaced the NPOV tag. Please do not remove it again. AlanzoB 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge with all deliberate speed. "Tar Heel Terrorist" is inherently POV (many people, myself included, view the events as the actions of a disturbed individual--calling him a terrorist gives him too much credit). -- TeaDrinker 02:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Title says it all. Godfrey Daniel 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The subjective nature of this article is obvious. Would one of you RightWingerxxx's please trim the article to maintain objectivity? Putting opposing viewpoints in "quotations" makes it seem like they are "outrageous". AlanzoB
Hi, AlanzoB,
How about toning down the rhetoric? Name-calling doesn't help further the dabate, or improve an article.
As far as I can see, the quotation marks are used for quotations--words that other people have said.
As for whether or not he's a terrorist, well, that's an issue that is being debated. It isn't Wikipedia's place to make judgements; Wikipedia reports facts, as objectively as possible. It is a fact that there is a debate on whether or not he is a terrorist. It is therefore appropriate to include all sides of that debate in this article.
I'm sure you're right: I'm sure he won't be found to be affiliated with any terrorist network. However, do you have to be part of a network to be a terrorist? Experts in the field don't think so (follow the link in the article). You also call him a "nutcase." Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Until he undergoes a psychiatric evaluation, all we have is speculation.
As for whether or not he's a "fundamentalist," well, read his letter and the statements he made to the authorities, and decide for yourself. It's not Wikipedia's place to call him a fundamentalist--and the article doesn't use that word. However, if enough other sources call him a fundamentalist, then it will be appropriate to do so.
Finally, if you think the external links section is biased, please add balance with whatever you can find. Godfrey Daniel 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, hey, take it easy! I found a link that has quotes about the guy when he was in college. I think it's important to show what his fraternity brothers thought of him, and that site gives a quote. I find it unbalanced to present only those campus opinions that are positive when there are also negative ones. As for the source, www.terrorismunveiled.com is obviously POV, but the quote about him from that site has nothing to say about terrorism--it's only about his behavior when he was a student. The article that has terrorism experts calling him a terrorist is from a local paper, and that article is far more damning than the www.terrorismunveiled.com one. Also, it's entirely possible to use an POV source to write an NPOV article, and vice-versa: it's all in the writing.
I belive the best article is one that has more information, rather than less. This is why I will continue to put back that quote. How about letting people follow the link and decide for themselves whether the information is credible?
If you find some quotation marks ill-placed, remove them (as I believe you did).
I fail to see how it could be my responsibility to "fix" the external links section when I have only put one of them in there. Furthermore, if I had found any external links that presented a more sympathetic view, I would include them. I haven't. If you're talking about the references, well, I did put most of those in there, but look at the sources: ABC, LA Times, a local TV station, and a local paper. Do you have a problem with those?
Let's remember that Wikipedia is a group effort. This is no more "my" article than it is "yours" or anyone else's. I just want to have a balanced article. No one person can be perfectly neutral, so the more people we have working on an article, the better.
I don't recall removing external links, but I have rearranged them. Also, I'm not the one who linked it to the list of terrorist attacks wikipage. Could you at least get your facts straight before attacking me?
Also, remember the disclaimer on that page: Note: there is no single accepted definition of terrorism in common use. Incidents listed here are commonly called terrorism, or meet some of the commonly used criteria. Terrorism experts called his attacks terrorist, so his listing there is justified.
Finally, I prefer "Godfrey," if it's not too much trouble. Also, it might be nice if you were to disagree without being disagreeable—please see the talk_page_guidelines. Godfrey Daniel 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at this page right now and I don't see a "2006-3-14" print edition, maybe youn could help me out Godfrey. For now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though I'm going to continue to search for your citation. AlanzoB 14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this really constitutes as a serious source. It seems more like namedropping, in the end, as in "The Economist said Jihad". AlanzoB 14:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand that those who have no direct experience of living or getting involved with Middle eastern nations may find the event a very importnt example of religious violence. However, I think the guy was either mad, or wanted to attract attention. Or it may be that he wanted to put Iranian government under pressure by his gesture. His behaviour and his background does not look like an Iranian with extreme feeling about Islam. He looks like someone who is pretending to be an extreme Muslim. Please note that the word Jihad among Iranians, does not have the strong meaning that it carries in Arab countries and in the West. Jihad means simply "to work hard" and it refers to a "group work" in which thousands take part. As some one who had direct experience with Muslim community in Iran, I have found his rheotic very odd. Please read his letters! They are really funny. I personally think he suffred from delusional disorders. I have also read the reactions of Iranian extreme muslims inside Iran to this event: they all thought he is an opportunist and doubted that he is a practicing muslim (let a lone being a fundamentalist). Gorbeh 15:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Re - Just wondering, did you think Mohammed Atta pretended to be an extreme Muslim too? Was he a practicing Muslim? What do people in Iran think about THAT terrorist? Do you find anything funny about him and his 'colleagues' ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanzoB ( talk • contribs)
Just a suggestion, shouldn't some of this material be moved to wikiquote or wikisource?-- Sefringle 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The source mentioned for this letter is not a reliable source. If possible, we need to find a more reliable source for the letter.-- Sefringle 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This stuff is linked only to a blog and is in violation of WP:V#SELF
The segment is called letter to the Daily Tar Heel but does not even mention the Daily Tar Hill. If you can find a real source for this information please re-post the info then. As of now by wiki-standards it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.140.81 ( talk • contribs)
If you type Jihad Watch into Google it is listed as a blog: Jihad Watch - Blog dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, correcting popular misconceptions about ... See WP:V#SELF
Please find reliable sources for these claims and add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.140.81 ( talk • contribs)
Image:Mohammedtaheriazar.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We do not normally includes long quotes showing the opinions of the subject of an article. We link to them. DGG ( talk) 16:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently listed at AfD, mainly because I think that the article may be more about the event that Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar is known for, than a biography. Therefore, should the article be renamed to reflect this? It may be best to keep the discussion all on the AfD page, but I thought I'd mention it here too. Thanks. Artichoke2020 ( talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was, since there seem to be no objections, move (non-admin closure) Artichoke2020 ( talk) 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar → Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack — There was some discussion on changing the name of the article during an AfD to reflect that the article is about a particular event, not a biography of the person responsible, but no conclusion was reached as to what the new title should be. This is my proposal. Several sources used "SUV attack" at the time. — Artichoke2020 ( talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Following a suggestion by TeaDrinker, I have renamed this section to the more-neutral "Aftermath." I also removed the sentence about "no comment from local or national politicians." There was also no comment from clergy, plumbers, teachers, and any other number of groups, locally or nationally. So what? Finally, I expanded the description of Daniel Pipes ever so slightly. Hope this meets with approval. Godfrey Daniel 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This section is unnecessary, as the single article referenced in it is also in the References section. However, this section keeps reappearing after I delete it. Please justify its presence, or let it go. Godfrey Daniel 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently hidden; will be removed soon. Godfrey Daniel 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed. Godfrey Daniel 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"In footage used on WTVD Channel 11, he appeared to be blowing a kiss to the camera as he was led from the Orange County Courthouse." citation needed
What is this doing here? Why is it in the Debate over Terrorism section? Someone keeps restoring it. If it's important enough to be in the article, it needs to be in an appropriate section, and really ought to have a proper source cited. Godfrey Daniel 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed. Godfrey Daniel 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article has several unsourced statements, flagged with "citation needed." Perhaps someone can find the sources for these? Godfrey Daniel 07:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Probably time to take that down. Thoughts? Godfrey Daniel 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody has stated an opinion, the tag goes. Godfrey Daniel 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user (192.154.54.14) restored the NPOV tag without justification. If he wishes to state his reasons, he may do so; otherwise, the consensus here is that this tag is no longer necessary, and it will be removed. Godfrey Daniel 20:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Tag removed. Godfrey Daniel 17:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
While Godfrey Daniel continues to ignore and refuses to address my contributions and input on this matter, I do not feel we've reached a consensus on the NPOV element and I've replaced the NPOV tag. Please do not remove it again. AlanzoB 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge with all deliberate speed. "Tar Heel Terrorist" is inherently POV (many people, myself included, view the events as the actions of a disturbed individual--calling him a terrorist gives him too much credit). -- TeaDrinker 02:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Title says it all. Godfrey Daniel 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The subjective nature of this article is obvious. Would one of you RightWingerxxx's please trim the article to maintain objectivity? Putting opposing viewpoints in "quotations" makes it seem like they are "outrageous". AlanzoB
Hi, AlanzoB,
How about toning down the rhetoric? Name-calling doesn't help further the dabate, or improve an article.
As far as I can see, the quotation marks are used for quotations--words that other people have said.
As for whether or not he's a terrorist, well, that's an issue that is being debated. It isn't Wikipedia's place to make judgements; Wikipedia reports facts, as objectively as possible. It is a fact that there is a debate on whether or not he is a terrorist. It is therefore appropriate to include all sides of that debate in this article.
I'm sure you're right: I'm sure he won't be found to be affiliated with any terrorist network. However, do you have to be part of a network to be a terrorist? Experts in the field don't think so (follow the link in the article). You also call him a "nutcase." Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Until he undergoes a psychiatric evaluation, all we have is speculation.
As for whether or not he's a "fundamentalist," well, read his letter and the statements he made to the authorities, and decide for yourself. It's not Wikipedia's place to call him a fundamentalist--and the article doesn't use that word. However, if enough other sources call him a fundamentalist, then it will be appropriate to do so.
Finally, if you think the external links section is biased, please add balance with whatever you can find. Godfrey Daniel 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, hey, take it easy! I found a link that has quotes about the guy when he was in college. I think it's important to show what his fraternity brothers thought of him, and that site gives a quote. I find it unbalanced to present only those campus opinions that are positive when there are also negative ones. As for the source, www.terrorismunveiled.com is obviously POV, but the quote about him from that site has nothing to say about terrorism--it's only about his behavior when he was a student. The article that has terrorism experts calling him a terrorist is from a local paper, and that article is far more damning than the www.terrorismunveiled.com one. Also, it's entirely possible to use an POV source to write an NPOV article, and vice-versa: it's all in the writing.
I belive the best article is one that has more information, rather than less. This is why I will continue to put back that quote. How about letting people follow the link and decide for themselves whether the information is credible?
If you find some quotation marks ill-placed, remove them (as I believe you did).
I fail to see how it could be my responsibility to "fix" the external links section when I have only put one of them in there. Furthermore, if I had found any external links that presented a more sympathetic view, I would include them. I haven't. If you're talking about the references, well, I did put most of those in there, but look at the sources: ABC, LA Times, a local TV station, and a local paper. Do you have a problem with those?
Let's remember that Wikipedia is a group effort. This is no more "my" article than it is "yours" or anyone else's. I just want to have a balanced article. No one person can be perfectly neutral, so the more people we have working on an article, the better.
I don't recall removing external links, but I have rearranged them. Also, I'm not the one who linked it to the list of terrorist attacks wikipage. Could you at least get your facts straight before attacking me?
Also, remember the disclaimer on that page: Note: there is no single accepted definition of terrorism in common use. Incidents listed here are commonly called terrorism, or meet some of the commonly used criteria. Terrorism experts called his attacks terrorist, so his listing there is justified.
Finally, I prefer "Godfrey," if it's not too much trouble. Also, it might be nice if you were to disagree without being disagreeable—please see the talk_page_guidelines. Godfrey Daniel 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at this page right now and I don't see a "2006-3-14" print edition, maybe youn could help me out Godfrey. For now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though I'm going to continue to search for your citation. AlanzoB 14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this really constitutes as a serious source. It seems more like namedropping, in the end, as in "The Economist said Jihad". AlanzoB 14:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand that those who have no direct experience of living or getting involved with Middle eastern nations may find the event a very importnt example of religious violence. However, I think the guy was either mad, or wanted to attract attention. Or it may be that he wanted to put Iranian government under pressure by his gesture. His behaviour and his background does not look like an Iranian with extreme feeling about Islam. He looks like someone who is pretending to be an extreme Muslim. Please note that the word Jihad among Iranians, does not have the strong meaning that it carries in Arab countries and in the West. Jihad means simply "to work hard" and it refers to a "group work" in which thousands take part. As some one who had direct experience with Muslim community in Iran, I have found his rheotic very odd. Please read his letters! They are really funny. I personally think he suffred from delusional disorders. I have also read the reactions of Iranian extreme muslims inside Iran to this event: they all thought he is an opportunist and doubted that he is a practicing muslim (let a lone being a fundamentalist). Gorbeh 15:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Re - Just wondering, did you think Mohammed Atta pretended to be an extreme Muslim too? Was he a practicing Muslim? What do people in Iran think about THAT terrorist? Do you find anything funny about him and his 'colleagues' ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanzoB ( talk • contribs)
Just a suggestion, shouldn't some of this material be moved to wikiquote or wikisource?-- Sefringle 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The source mentioned for this letter is not a reliable source. If possible, we need to find a more reliable source for the letter.-- Sefringle 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This stuff is linked only to a blog and is in violation of WP:V#SELF
The segment is called letter to the Daily Tar Heel but does not even mention the Daily Tar Hill. If you can find a real source for this information please re-post the info then. As of now by wiki-standards it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.140.81 ( talk • contribs)
If you type Jihad Watch into Google it is listed as a blog: Jihad Watch - Blog dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, correcting popular misconceptions about ... See WP:V#SELF
Please find reliable sources for these claims and add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.140.81 ( talk • contribs)
Image:Mohammedtaheriazar.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We do not normally includes long quotes showing the opinions of the subject of an article. We link to them. DGG ( talk) 16:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently listed at AfD, mainly because I think that the article may be more about the event that Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar is known for, than a biography. Therefore, should the article be renamed to reflect this? It may be best to keep the discussion all on the AfD page, but I thought I'd mention it here too. Thanks. Artichoke2020 ( talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was, since there seem to be no objections, move (non-admin closure) Artichoke2020 ( talk) 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar → Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack — There was some discussion on changing the name of the article during an AfD to reflect that the article is about a particular event, not a biography of the person responsible, but no conclusion was reached as to what the new title should be. This is my proposal. Several sources used "SUV attack" at the time. — Artichoke2020 ( talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.