I still strongly feel that a photograph of a crime scene as the main image on the page is vastly POV and unfair, as I discussed on the talk page at the time, not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers, Bali bombers, US embassy bombers or USS Cole bombers has such an image serving as the "main" image. Such images belong on the article, but they belong in the section of the article dealing with the crime. Charles Whitman would be another good example, while there are photographs of him in the tower with a sniper-rifle, they are not NPOV enough to serve as the main image greeting users who enter the page. Instead, images of the crimescene are put in the specific sections dealing with the crime - which in both Tanweer and Whitman's case, served as their death, and therefore climax, at the end of the article.
As per mentioning the total number of dead in the attacks, again I defer to the articles on the 9/11 hijackers, Bali bombers, US embassy bombers or USS Cole bombers, and specifically note the article Lon Horiuchi as an example that when mentioning a single member of a concentrated attack, you should list the people killed by them in the opening sentences, but total deathtolls should be put later in the article. (Also as mentioned, we don't open every Nazi's article with "was a Nazi who fought on D-Day, where 110,000 Americans were killed" or anything). I believe at the time you had something like "one of four men who blew up three trains and one bus, killing at least 55 people, including themselves, and injuring over 700.", and I wanted more like "blew up the eastbound bus, killing 7 people as part of the larger 7 July 2005 London bombing"
I believe I immediately bowed and caved to you on several issues where I agreed you were correct (The high school, Leeds/London geography and some others) - but I also believe that I fairly and adequately addressed the issue of his part-time employment on the talk page, while you continued to argue the article should state unemployed.
Also, on the issue of not labelling/sourcing the photographs I uploaded, I admit that was a mistake, and my only (weak) defence is that we weren't having the ((fairuse)) crack-down back in July so I kinda skated on thin ice. That I definitely do realise was a mistake, and have learned from; I currently have 139 uploaded images I believe right now, all of them tagged/sourced. :)
Also, on issues like referring to him as a 'suspect' initially, I agree that the article should definitely not say that anymore, but at the time it was a fair edit as information was still pouring in. See the articles on Adnan Bukhari, Ameer Bukhari and Amer Kamfar, all three were officially announced by the FBI to be hijackers on 9/11, and all three were quickly cleared within a week of the attacks. Lotfi Raissi was criminally charged for being a conspirator in 9/11, and the authorities and media both claimed there was no doubt about his guilt...except it turns out he's completely innocent and now sueing the government for $20 million. Mistakes happen, and when writing an article on an event that still unfolding, it is best to err on the side of caution and simply label them "the suspected bomber".
I guess I can sum up my frustrations with that article with a quote from the talk page The photograph is the largest sticking point for me, there's no way you can claim an article is NPOV when the first picture you offer readers is "Here's the guy about to blow up a Subway station!"
So in answer to your question, have I 'learned' since then? Yes, most definitely. Do I still maintain that there is a large degree of POV in the article, definitely. I don't want to whitewash anybody, Tanweer is clearly a bad guy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't present the information about him in a concise and fair manner. Sherurcij 05:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
You know, you're right. Don't fucking bend the knee just to get accepted. You're up against editors who think that the rules are there to protect their POV adn to deny anyone else's. Don't surrender what you think is right just to get a couple of extra buttons. Grace Note 14:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I still strongly feel that a photograph of a crime scene as the main image on the page is vastly POV and unfair, as I discussed on the talk page at the time, not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers, Bali bombers, US embassy bombers or USS Cole bombers has such an image serving as the "main" image. Such images belong on the article, but they belong in the section of the article dealing with the crime. Charles Whitman would be another good example, while there are photographs of him in the tower with a sniper-rifle, they are not NPOV enough to serve as the main image greeting users who enter the page. Instead, images of the crimescene are put in the specific sections dealing with the crime - which in both Tanweer and Whitman's case, served as their death, and therefore climax, at the end of the article.
As per mentioning the total number of dead in the attacks, again I defer to the articles on the 9/11 hijackers, Bali bombers, US embassy bombers or USS Cole bombers, and specifically note the article Lon Horiuchi as an example that when mentioning a single member of a concentrated attack, you should list the people killed by them in the opening sentences, but total deathtolls should be put later in the article. (Also as mentioned, we don't open every Nazi's article with "was a Nazi who fought on D-Day, where 110,000 Americans were killed" or anything). I believe at the time you had something like "one of four men who blew up three trains and one bus, killing at least 55 people, including themselves, and injuring over 700.", and I wanted more like "blew up the eastbound bus, killing 7 people as part of the larger 7 July 2005 London bombing"
I believe I immediately bowed and caved to you on several issues where I agreed you were correct (The high school, Leeds/London geography and some others) - but I also believe that I fairly and adequately addressed the issue of his part-time employment on the talk page, while you continued to argue the article should state unemployed.
Also, on the issue of not labelling/sourcing the photographs I uploaded, I admit that was a mistake, and my only (weak) defence is that we weren't having the ((fairuse)) crack-down back in July so I kinda skated on thin ice. That I definitely do realise was a mistake, and have learned from; I currently have 139 uploaded images I believe right now, all of them tagged/sourced. :)
Also, on issues like referring to him as a 'suspect' initially, I agree that the article should definitely not say that anymore, but at the time it was a fair edit as information was still pouring in. See the articles on Adnan Bukhari, Ameer Bukhari and Amer Kamfar, all three were officially announced by the FBI to be hijackers on 9/11, and all three were quickly cleared within a week of the attacks. Lotfi Raissi was criminally charged for being a conspirator in 9/11, and the authorities and media both claimed there was no doubt about his guilt...except it turns out he's completely innocent and now sueing the government for $20 million. Mistakes happen, and when writing an article on an event that still unfolding, it is best to err on the side of caution and simply label them "the suspected bomber".
I guess I can sum up my frustrations with that article with a quote from the talk page The photograph is the largest sticking point for me, there's no way you can claim an article is NPOV when the first picture you offer readers is "Here's the guy about to blow up a Subway station!"
So in answer to your question, have I 'learned' since then? Yes, most definitely. Do I still maintain that there is a large degree of POV in the article, definitely. I don't want to whitewash anybody, Tanweer is clearly a bad guy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't present the information about him in a concise and fair manner. Sherurcij 05:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
You know, you're right. Don't fucking bend the knee just to get accepted. You're up against editors who think that the rules are there to protect their POV adn to deny anyone else's. Don't surrender what you think is right just to get a couple of extra buttons. Grace Note 14:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)