| Revision as of 21:00, 16 May 2008 editTom Ketchum (talk | contribs)412 edits →Not terrorism?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:36, 26 May 2008 edit undoIronDuke (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,087 edits Undid revision 212913128 by Tom Ketchum (talk)removing post by banned userNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| This article seems biased toward the official story. For example, it says that the men traveled to China with the intention of going to Afghanistan to help the Taliban. According to who? The men? The authorities? There is no source. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | This article seems biased toward the official story. For example, it says that the men traveled to China with the intention of going to Afghanistan to help the Taliban. According to who? The men? The authorities? There is no source. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == Not terrorism? == | |||
| This page is listed in a number of "terrorism" categories, but looking at the references, it does not appear that any of them were convicted (or even accused) of terrorism-related charges. They were convicted of a variety of crimes involving attempts to fight for a foreign power in Afghanistan. I think we should clean up the categories. -- <font color="blue" size="1">]</font> 21:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:36, 26 May 2008
Merger
There are now seven articles, one for each of the conspirators -- aside from Mike Hawash, they contain an essentially duplicate paragraph, and at most one unique sentence per individual. I would suggest that a merger into this article, with redirects, would be a better solution. -- BlindVenetian 12:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- No Merge - I think that a merger would be short-sighted. The articles might have been largely duplicates, differing in only one or two sentences, at the time the merger was suggested. But this is not because there is no room for the articles to grow more distinct. I added several details to the Patrice Lumumba Ford article. I am sure that similar details could be added for the other individuals. -- Geo Swan 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother to cast a formal vote here. Geo, just FYI, BlindVenetian is an account that was created to stalk me. I'm going to try to add more info in the coming days, but I just wanted to get the stubs in place before I do. But thanks, Geo, for adding to the article. I'm going to be making some changes, so please let me know your thoughts as I do. IronDuke 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll look forward to taking a look. -- Geo Swan 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not stalking you. If you can get an admin to declare me a sockpuppet or whatever your favorite recrimination is, you may re-delete the tags you deleted. Until then, calling me name is simply a personal attack. -- BlindVenetian 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- BV, I will pass on some advice, which you can feel free to ignore. I checked your contribution log. Your very first edit is to the administrator's noticeboard. No brand new editor is going to start with an editor to the administrator's noticeboard. But, there are legitimate, non-sockpuppet reasons why someone would start a new userid. I know some people who created userids that are slight misspellings of their original ID, which they use (1) to make it easier for people to find their user page and talk page, by redirecting to their main page; (2) to prevent the accidental or malicious creation of userids that would confuse people because they were too similar to their original userid. But those people have done this transparently. If you had a legitimate reason to establish a new ID, have you considered offering that explanation on your user page(s)? -- Geo Swan 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)`
Proposed deletion of related article
Deletion of Religious conversion and terrorism is proposed.
For discussion see: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_conversion_and_terrorism
--ISKapoor 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This article seems biased toward the official story. For example, it says that the men traveled to China with the intention of going to Afghanistan to help the Taliban. According to who? The men? The authorities? There is no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.86.95 (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)