Talk:2006 UNC SUV attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Aftermath

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)

Politicians run and represent the state and our goverment; whether it be the national state that is USA or the local state that is North Carolina. I find your comparison to plumbers, clergy, and teachers to be a little unfounded. Do you honestly think there is no difference of notability in the public reaction by politicians and that of plumbers? When a leader publicly condemns something, isn't the same leader making just as much of a statement by choosing not to publicly condemn another thing? AlanzoB 00:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On this page, I keep encountering the idea that politicians are somehow experts on terrorism, and that their pronouncements—or lack thereof—on the subject are somehow sacrosanct. Politicians generally know about as much about terrorism as plumbers do: they get what they know from the news.

Here's the Wikipedia definition of terrorism:

...a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong.

Another quote from the same page:

Acts of terrorism can be carried out by individuals, groups, or states.

Even though some organizations have decided, a priori, that terrorism is, by their definition, a group activity, I think that we can allow for some lattitude here. After all, the FBI isn't going to get much value from an investigation that leads nowhere but back to the same person who perpetrated the crime, so it makes sense that they don't waste their energies on lone wolves. Still, Taheri-Azar's assault on innocents on the UNC-CH campus clearly fits the broader definition, and the article quotes experts who call his attack terrorism.

Let's quit relying on the non-pronouncements of uninformed politicians, shall we? Godfrey Daniel 23:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming polticians are experts on terrorism, but they do carry far more weight than plumbers both in what they address and what they chose not to address. Whether it be "agenda-setting" or "talking points", the choice of course by politicians carries significance. Therefore, it is very notable that while this very well could be a terrorist incident on American soil it went completely unaddressed by politicians. AlanzoB 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

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)

Blowing Kisses

"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."

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)

Take it out. It sounds like middle-school gossip anyway. AlanzoB 14:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Godfrey Daniel 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

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)

NPOV tag

Probably time to take that down. Thoughts? Godfrey Daniel 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Nobody else has weighed in. AlanzoB 01:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has stated an opinion, the tag goes. Godfrey Daniel 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Although personally I dislike calling him a terrorist, it does seem there is some support (in the form of cited op-eds) for reporting a controversy about the label. Thus the decision to include it should not be based, at least in my view, about the politics of the situation (I'll agree that, from my perspective, calling him a terrorist is motivated by a poltical environment), but rather on the encyclopedic value of the section reporting the dispute. I oppose the NPOV tag, since the section seems to mostly just report the controversy. I am not, however, opposed to removing the section entirely, if others find it to be non-notable or unencyclopedic. Maybe we can discuss it further here... (Full disclosure, if you read above, I was strongly opposed to the labeling of this article "Tar-heel terrorist," as it once was. But I consider that a seperate discussion from whether the controversy should be reported.) --TeaDrinker 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that it's non-notable. If we remove the politics of the situation this whole incident would fade from immediate memory, save a couple hundred of UNC students. If, however, we call this a "Terrorist Attack on American Soil" I can see how it is notable. I just don't beleive that this is a 'terrorist attack' by colloquial definition (A vast majority of people I know around here refer to the incident as 'when that guy drove a jeep through The Pit' and not 'the terrorist attack in The Pit'--it's people like Daniel Pipes who want the latter phrasing to stick and it simply isn't).... therefore it's apolitical and non-notable. AlanzoB 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article, and the debate here, and I just don't know what the deal is. It looks pretty NPOV to me. Terrorist? I dunno. But I followed the link to that newspaper article that's in the entry, and those security dudes think he's a terrorist. SOme journalists think so too. Why not let it stay in? Besides, I think Wikipedia is better with more information, not less--don't you hate it when you look something up and it's a stub? KimoBoy 20:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, TeaDrinker and KimoBoy.

The controversy seems to be mainly on the UNC campus, where some students, for whatever reason(s), don't want to call it terrorism. But what does the rest of the world call it? Michelle Malkin is definitely to the right on the political spectrum, but Daniel Pipes is a noted expert on Islam. The Economist is one of the most level-headed publications on the planet. They both think it's terrorism. So do the terrorism experts refered to in the article.

UNC students don't call it terrorism? So what? Are they experts? The truth of something has nothing to do with how many people believe it. I'm not saying I'm an expert on terrorism, but the article cites experts who do call it terrorism. Read the linked article, and you'll see that some terrorists are lone wolves, and that Taheri-azar fits that profile. I think that is an important fact, and under no circumstances should it be removed.

Still not convinced? Please try reading the letter Taheri-azar wrote. He wanted "to take the lives of as many Americans and American sympathizers as I can in order to punish the United States for their immoral actions around the world." What actions would those be? According to the letter, "the killing of other believing men and women" (i.e., Moslems in Iraq and Afghanistan). Violence directed at civilians in order to "punish" a country sounds like terrorism to me.

It seems to me that if anything, the word debate ought to be removed and the section retitled something like "Aftermath," since it talks about what happened in the wake of the attack, and how it was analyzed in the press and dealt with on campus. Godfrey Daniel 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So now it's just students who don't consider it terrorism? I referenced the way it is referred to by students, I made no claim to the "sides" on this argument. If you think this controversy is only "on the UNC campus", you are mistaken. Michelle Malkin's opinion is not proper here, as you noted. Daniel Pipes' job is to write about terrorism/Islamic issues, should we really be surprised that he's writing on this topic? Why haven't Senators Burr and Dole condemned this terrorist attack? You can scour the nation and find plenty of people who support the viewpoint that MHTA is a terrorist, but I, for one, am at least curious by the silence displayed by North Carolina's Republican Senators. That there is a debate, therefore, is obvious. That local politicians don't think this is an issue of terrorism is even more apparent-. North Carolina's governor also hasn't mentioned it--and this is supposed to be a terrorist attack?? You might scoff at local opinion regarding this incident, but I think it's those who are most attached, and not detached, from this ordeal that should speak the loudest. AlanzoB 22:13, 1 June 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)

I have replaced the article {{POV}} with the section pov note {{POV-Section}} (and made a few minor Manual of Style revisions to section headings). As I have noted previously, I lean towards removing the section, and letting the actions speak for themselves. I suggest revising the article to include a section describing Malkin (et al)'s reaction to the events, but not specifically in a framework of "there is a debate over whether this is terrorism" framework. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done in regards to the NPOV. I couldn't quite figure out how to do that myself. 69.134.216.246 02:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I ignore a certain editor because of his immature ad hominem attacks and inability to conform to Wikipedia norms of interaction. I therefore consider his modifications to this page to be of little value.

TeaDrinker, you've made another fine contribution. Like you, I think that the "debate over terrorism" heading is inappropriate. I also believe that some sort of aftermath/reaction section is appropriate. I think it's important to note that despite the attack and the attacker not fitting many conventional notions of terrorism, that experts do call what he did terrorism. I can only imagine how people at UNC-CH felt when their sense of on-campus security was shattered by this would-be murderer. If that's not terrorism, what is? Anyway, maybe you would be so kind as to make your proposed changes and put it here, on the talk page, so we could come to a consensus without an edit war. Godfrey Daniel 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It just occured to me to check jihad expert Robert Spencer's site; he has about 60 articles that talk about Taheri-azar, and, not surprisingly, he calls the attacks terrorism, and called the attacker a jihadist, so I added that to the article. Expert opinion is piling up on the terrorism side; where are the experts who explicitly deny that it was terrorism? Godfrey Daniel 23:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though Godfrey ignores me, the rest of the world should know this: "The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true." AlanzoB 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Godfrey is making an argument based on multiple sources of information. He's reached a reasonable conclusion based on evidence, you've resorted to an ad hominem attack implying that he has made some fallacious argument. A man deliberately tries to kill college students because of his anger over U.S. foreign policy towards Muslims. It's odd to see people talk about needing experts to confirm that it is in fact terrorism to intentionally harm civilians and attempt murder as a way of punishing and terrifying people for the actions of their government. You don't need a neurosurgeon to diagnose a headache.

Thank you very much for your comments. May I suggest that you make an account for yourself? It's easy, and then you can sign your comments with four tildes. In any case, it looks like we can get rid of the NPOV warning, since there's only one user who thinks that it's appropriate. Godfrey Daniel 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Godfrey was claiming that because no one was stepping up to "defend the anti-Terrorist act side" it proves that "his" opinion is right: argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's interesting that you have chosen to edit this page and the List of terrorist incidents in the United States page (both in which Godfrey and I have disputed each other) and not much else. I would like to second Godfrey's notion that you gain some accountability by registering, to remove all doubts that you are a sock puppet. AlanzoB 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger

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)

Merging is a good idea. However, he spells his name "Taheri-azar." He spells it out in the 911 call he made (linked on the Tar Heel Terrorist page).

There is also a "Debate over Terrorism" section on the Tar Heel Terrorist page. There, three terrorism experts are cited, all of whom call his actions terrorism. The bigger question is, what evidence is there that he is "disturbed"? While we normally think of seemingly random acts of violence as "disturbed," is there anything else in his background that marks him as "disturbed"? If you know of something, please add it.

On the other hand, if his actions are seen in light of the history of Islam, then perhaps a different picture emerges. Muslims are commanded by the Koran/Qu'ran to convert the infidel. The infidel may convert voluntarily or may be coerced--it doesn't matter. Read the later (i.e., post-Medina) suras (chapters) of the Koran/Qu'ran, and parts are downright bloodthirsty, with exhortations to slaughter the infidels. The hadiths, too, are full of such examples. Islam has expanded into the countries where it now exists primarily through military conquest. Seen from this perspective, Taheri-azar's actions are not "disturbed," but part of a centuries-old pattern of behavior, behavior that began in the time of Mohammad, behavior that contiunes to the present day. That behavior is the use of violence to spread Islam, and terrorism is an acceptable tool.

I predict he will be found competent to stand trial. By definition, that seems not "disturbed" to me. However, by all means, keep the debate section in. Godfrey Daniel 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite so, I perhaps chose my words without enough care. My point was that since there was dispute about whether this was terrorism, it is necessarily POV (as well as being a determination of fact before a trial). No problem with the redirect here from "Tar-heel terrorist" however. --TeaDrinker 20:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Merged

Title says it all. Godfrey Daniel 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved talk page as well. --TeaDrinker 20:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

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

I'll go further with my point. There seems to be a debate on campus, raised predominantly by the College Republicans, as to whether this guy was even a terrorist. I'm pretty sure it'll be proved that he wasn't affiliated with any terrorist network and that he did in fact act alone. He did say that he was acting on religious motives; does that mean anyone can qualify themselves as a terrorist? If I say I'm Superman, is it your job to prove me wrong? Or do we rather look at the evidence at hand to make our decision? Despite what he has said, he's not a terrorist. He is indeed a "nutcase". I'm sure the college republicans love giving him (and themselves) noterity by having this Wikipedia entry say he was a fundamentalist terrorist, but I beleive the facts indicate otherwise. And take a look at the "External Links" the previous authors thought they'd contribute to this site. Got an agenda boys? AlanzoB 17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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 Dan. Thanks for the response. I find it contradicting that you would say "Wikipedia reports facts, as objectively as possible" in the debate over whether Taheri-Azar is a terrorist and then use "terrorismunveiled.com" as an attempt to purport "objective facts". Yet, it's not as contradicting as "It is therefore appropriate to include all sides of that debate in this article"; is it also "appropriate" to put opposing viewpoints in "quotations" to indicate their "absurdity"? How about doling out external links that only support your point of view? For the record, it's not the responsibility of me--or anyone else but you-- to "fix" the external links section. Follow your own advice and try to represent both viewpoints when you want to throw out external links. Oh, and way to list this whole ordeal on the list of terrorist attacks wikipage. It's good to know you're not rushing to judgement or anything! After all, "Maybe he is, maybe he isn't", right? AlanzoB 17:16, 1 April 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.

Not when you quote a try to purport a line from a POV article as fact. I'd be fine if you said "TerrorismUnveiled, a website that has judged Taheri-Azar to be a terrorist, quotes a former fraternity brother saying...." AlanzoB 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But that's going out of your way to smear the source, and is inappropriate. Godfrey Daniel 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Of course, my wording wasn't flattering but I think you get the idea. It'd be no different than saying "Kennedy (D-Ma), an outspoken liberal opponent, expressed ________". AlanzoB 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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?

Because the quote is stupid; so ONE former fraternity brother (who I'm guessing has a low opinion of him since they all kicked him out) says he smoked a "lot of" marijuana? Would that be admissible in court? AlanzoB 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, I think you'd agree that "the quote is stupid" isn't a valid point in an argument.

Here's the thing though...the quote is actually, in fact, stupid and completely out of place for an encyclopedia entry. AlanzoB 21:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that you're blowing things out of proportion. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and does not have the same standards for evidence. However, as long as you ask, eyewitness testimony is given great weight in court, and here we have the words of one of his former fraternity brothers. Also, I think that a former fraternity brother is much more credible than the Chancellor (who is also quoted here), because—let's face it—who spent more time with him?

I'd like to point out that you don't seem to have any problem with the quotes that portray Taheri-azar in a positive light, yet those quotes are just as POV as quotes that portray him negatively. (Incidentally, I put in the positive quotes, too, so I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down your attacks on my lack of neutrality.)

Let's take a look at the NPOV Tutorial:

"Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them. One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view."

I'd say that someone who lived with Taheri-azar is an expert on his daily habits. I'd further say that this disputed quote is highly significant in light of Taheri-azar's new-found devotion to Islam. Why? Because Muslims are forbidden from drinking alcohol, yet an eyewitness says he "drank heavily." This, I think, gives the thinking reader an important insight into what may have motivated him. Does he want to punish himself for his past transgressions? Is he "proving" to the world the sincerity of his faith? We can't know, but by including this quote, we can start to know more about this person in the news.

Incidentally, it's because I put information like this in the article that I started to doubt his mental state, even though I immediately thought "terrorism" when I learned more about this attack. Godfrey Daniel 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you find some quotation marks ill-placed, remove them (as I believe you did).

It'd be better if you didn't put them there in the first place--that was my point; I think you know what you did and what you were trying to portray and just don't want to admit it. AlanzoB 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

This reads as a defense to your subjectivity. Why not just try to be objective in the first place? AlanzoB 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming objectivity? I'm not. All I'm claiming is that I'm trying to be as objective as I can, while admitting that I am not completely objective. Yes, I think he's a terrorist, but no, I should not put my opinion in the article. However, if I can find experts who also think he's a terrorist, than am I justified in putting that information here? Absolutely--and so I did. Godfrey Daniel 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's cute the way you answer your own questions. AlanzoB 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What fails to be endearing in any way is your attitude. I have been civil to you all along, while your name-calling and condenscension continue to be, quite frankly, obnoxious. I think you have made some quality edits, and I had hoped to work with you to continue to improve the article. However, since you have clearly demonstrated your inability to uphold the writers' rules of engagement on etiquette, I consider this "conversation" with you finished. Godfrey Daniel 06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't debate with me the terrorists win. That is... unless you are a terrorist. Then.... you win. AlanzoB 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That's the funniest—and stupidest—thing you've written so far. If you're joking, you can restart the dialogue with me by apologizing (including the infantile name calling on another page). If you're serious, you're further gone than I thought. Grow up, little boy. Godfrey Daniel 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm joking. You are truly dense. Since I'm not you're monkey, I don't think I will be apologizing to you. AlanzoB 01:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

<humor>Oh, you were joking? Gee, I guess I didn't have my mind-reading software activated so that I could tell.</humor>

When you wrote something funny, I thought there was a glimmer of hope, in spite of your track record of immature behavior. Sadly, I was mistaken, and I was wrong to respond to you.

Maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you, as you have clearly demonstrated your inability to follow basic Wikipedia principles, like being civil, avoiding personal attacks, and not being a dick. Anyway, thanks for your work on improving this page. Goodbye. Godfrey Daniel 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Christ. Don't dish it out if you can't take it homeboy. You are very welcome for my continued efforts on this page. Let's try to keep the "TerrrorismUnveiled" links to a minimum, k? Thanks Godfrey! AlanzoB 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I like to "cruise" Wikipedia by using the random article button, and that's how I found this article. Y'know, you probably both need to chill, but AlanzoB, dude, you really were being a dick to Godfrey. Maybe he's a little uptight--so what? That's his problem. You really shouldn't call people names here, man. Next time you feel like that, just chill! Turn off the computer and go outside, talk to real live person, whatever. Aloha! KimoBoy 20:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should ever be necessary for one to feel the need to justify why they decided to contribute to a page, but I welcome you nontheless. I don't see where I called him a name, aside from calling him a terrorist which was of course a joke. And yes, he is a little uptight. And yes, so am I. I just get a little fed up with people with clear political and idealogical agendas translating their beliefs onto wikipedia articles. Taheri-Azar was a devout Muslim who also drank and smoked pot all the time? He committed a clear terrorist attack in the state of North Carolina yet local politicans haven't wasted any of their time addressing it? It just doesn't add up, and I'm not going to just roll over because some journalists in random parts of the country have it out for this issue. Thanks again though for coming. AlanzoB 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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?

I didn't say you were the who "linked" it, I said you were the one who "listed" it, thus revealing your hypocrisy since you said "maybe he is, maybe he isn't [a nutcase]" while labeling him as a terrorist attacker on another page. AlanzoB 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood you at first, but, after following the link, now I see what you mean. Yes, I listed him there. Sorry for the misunderstanding. While I am no expert on terrorism or Islam, I'm guessing that I know more about both than you. Start reading the Koran, the hadiths, and analyses by security and terrorism experts (as I have), and maybe you'll come to a different conclusion.

I suggest you read the DTH special feature from Tuesday regarding the labelling issue for a clarification of the viewpoints. One side says, "by definition this could be called terrorism" while the other said "we don't have all the facts to judge yet". I agree with the latter side though I am fully aware that the facts could end up proving Taheri-Azar a terrorist. AlanzoB 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

A disclaimer does not remove the fact that you have a point of view that was clearly trying to be expressed, all while trying to appear like you weren't being judgmental on this talk page. AlanzoB 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you please clarify something for me? How is my calling him a "terrorist" any worse than your calling him a "nutcase"? Godfrey Daniel 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't edit an encyclopedia entry saying he was a "nutcase" attacker. You, however, added his name to the "list of terrorist attacks" article. My POV was expressed in the talk page, yours in an article. I hope you can realize the difference and that this is now clarified. AlanzoB 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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 apologize Godfrey. AlanzoB 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you—apology accepted. Godfrey Daniel 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Economist Quote

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)

Full quote:

There remain serious weaknesses, of course. America's borders are still porous, its chemical plants vulnerable, and it is a long way from winning the battle for Muslim hearts and minds, as a young man named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar demonstrated last week by allegedly driving a Jeep Cherokee across a college campus in North Carolina running down students.

Since Mr Taheri-azar was born in Iran, his one-man jihad has strengthened the hand of those who think that America's chief national-security problem is unassimilated immigrants. This view is most common among Republicans. The Senate Judiciary Committee was trying this week to cobble together an immigration bill that combined stricter controls with a guest-worker programme, as Mr Bush wants. But Republicans on the committee are divided, and if they cannot agree, an enforcement-only bill might pass.

United States: Macho moms and deadbeat dads; The politics of national security / The Economist. London: Mar 11, 2006.Vol.378, Iss. 8468; pg. 50

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)

The significance of the event

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)

I agree. Most people, including many on this page, will tell you that because he said he was an extremist Muslim, he's a terrorist. Everything he did, though, seemed to be him saying "I'm going to do what the terrorists do!" instead of "I'm a terrorist." I just think he's a nutcase. AlanzoB 15:44, 1 December 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)

wikiquote

Just a suggestion, shouldn't some of this material be moved to wikiquote or wikisource?--Sefringle 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Letter to the Daily Tar Heel

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)

Also, prehaps some of this stuff should be moved to wikiquote--Sefringle 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is linked only to a blog and is in violation of WP:V#SELF

(Emphasis added) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

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)

First, to whoever made the last comment, please sign. And second, I found an actual source for the letter. [1]--Sefringle 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jihad Watch is a blog and therefore not up to wiki-standards

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

(Emphasis added) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Please find reliable sources for these claims and add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.140.81 (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mohammedtaheriazar.jpg

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)

longh quotes

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)

Name of article

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)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

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)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

• Support as nominator. Artichoke2020 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.