Talk:Zachary Adam Chesser
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Zorkohiro in topic Article description editorial stance
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Terrorist Ties?
editThe 1st sentence states that Chesser has terrorist ties. The link that supports the claim is a blank page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickschuyler (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- The page loads for me. -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Was this all just a joke?
editHe looks like just a random broseph, not a Muslim.--216.41.252.224 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- He converted at 18, apparently because of a Muslim girl in his high school. The Washington Post interviewed her (see the ref), but they didn't get much. Thundermaker (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Fairfax Times said he was interested in Islam, but never converted. Look at all the attention he got as an Islamist activist - an article by Brachman in Foreign Policy magazine, writing to Fox News, being interviewed by a Senate Committee. Sad, as he hasn't done anything else in his life.Parkwells (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Article description editorial stance
editThe article description says "Just a stupid goat shaker". That sounds both libelous and unhelpful to the purpose of conveying information. However, I am reluctant to change it without discussion and understanding Wikipedia editorial principles about it. Zorkohiro (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)