Talk:Sirhan Sirhan (murderer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] talk from old page

[edit] "Terrorist", "Massacre" Is POV

Why is the Palestinian Sirham Sirham responsible for killing 5 settlers labled as "terrorist" and the attack a "massacre"?

If there are no objections "terrorist" should be changed to "militiant" or "activist" and the conclusion drawing "massacre" to "battle" or something similar. - Greenguy

Here's why. Because both are inherently POV. To ignore the fact that this guy killed 5 innocent civilians (Don't tell me that people building houses are threats to Palestine; its absurd) by calling him simply a "militant" and certainly an "activist" (unless you mean actively pursuing murder as a reasonable course of political action with no moral justification, which, if you make clear, I'm ok with) you degrade what he did and insinuate in some way that it isn't vile and despicable. The same goes toward "battle" because that implies that say, the people he killed were armed, or were commiting acts of violence which they were not (see Mother and her two CHILDREN ages FOUR and FIVE). Both suggested changes are completely unacceptable.--TheGrza 08:20, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

" Because both are inherently POV. " Militiant or activist is the term that the mainstream media uses. There are countless sources. Terrorist is a Israeli or Zionist POV. "Don't tell me that people building houses are threats to Palestine; its absurd) " It doesn't matter what they were doing specifically that is not why they died. What they were doing doesn't change the context of the act which happen as part of the overall Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And that has to be respected to maintain a neutral POV. If every murder of Palestinian children and unarmed civilians by IDF is labeled a massacre there would be a massive protest and cry of anti-semitism. Not to mention the significance of the word is decreased. Greenguy

This wasn't every act of aggression, this was the slaughter of 5 unarmed people, including two children. "Militant" has been used, but almost never for those who kill innocents. See the Iraq War coverage; Militants attack U.S. Troops, Terrorists blow up innocent people even though they are the same people. Sirhan Sirhan's attack was a purely terroristic one, designed to strike fear into the hearts of settlers, making him a terrorist by his own motives.--TheGrza 01:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)


Try the Google test. Terrorist attack civilians brings up a page of rightwing, zionist and Israeli sites. "Militant Attack Civilians" Brings up a much broader range of American, British and world sources. "Militant Sirhan Sirhan kibbutz" as well brings up more diverse sources than "Terrorist Sirhan Sirhan kibbutz" which returns Pro-zionist and Israeli sites. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22sirhan+sirhan%22+kibbutz+militant&btnG=Search

Finally, Sirhan Sirhan was a militant of Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, a militant group recognized as a terrorist group only by Israel at the time. Not to mention the US recognized it as a terrorist group only later when they began attacking Israeli cities in response to Israel's occupation. --Greenguy 01:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


    • Just to try mediating a truce before the flames start flying - I've got to say I see both your points. By all means, I think blowing up innocents is a terrorist act, and this might well be labelled terrorism. However, using the term 'massacre' is taking it much too far. For one, Greenguy has a very good point when he brings up how Palestinian children and innocents are being slaughtered by the IDF, which is never referred to as massacres (unless you're moving around in the palestine-scarf waving communities). Second, 50 people is a massacre. 5 is a multiple murder. I suppose Fox News would use the term 'massacre', but that's because 'massacre' sounds more dramatic, thus raising their ratings. So:
    • This was a "terrorist attack", if we're to be somewhat neutral. It was not a "militant massacre", as that sounds ridiculous. Nor was it a "militant battle", as that would imply, wrongly, as TheGrza already brought up, that the 5 dead Israelis were armed. Further, it was not a "terrorist massacre", as not only can it be interpreted as a lot of terrorists getting killed, it is also inherently pro-Israel POV.
    • If this is acceptable to both parties, which it really should - it is, after all, as close to middle ground as any flame war could get it - then you just go ahead and change it. I'm just a self-proclaimed negotiator in this particular case. --TVPR 16:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MOve

I realize the large problems with (militant) as the sub name to differentiate... feel free to change it but I didn't know what was better and I felt this deserved to be separated and not just shoved at the bottom of the other article. gren 05:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and paste move from Sirhan Sirhan (terrorist)

Here's the history for GFDL:

  • (cur) (last) 05:14, 22 September 2005 Aaron Brenneman (Copy edit, NPOV changes)
  • (cur) (last) 05:13, 22 September 2005 Jwissick m (Do not remove the db. This page is redundent)
  • (cur) (last) 05:09, 22 September 2005 207.195.255.158
  • (cur) (last) 05:06, 22 September 2005 Jwissick
  • (cur) (last) 05:03, 22 September 2005 207.195.255.158

(unsigned edit by brenneman(t)(c))

[edit] Messy

Which I now realize was a cut and paste from this, or perhaps just a page move without moving the talk page or something else I don't see.

Here's a short answer: quit stuffing around! Leave the page here, argue the content here, and quit with the {{d}} tags which reference the totally irrelevant Sirhan Sirhan. Grrr.
brenneman(t)(c) 05:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged

Who called him as such WP:RS need or else this stub is WP:OR and the word should be removedRaveenS 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal blogs are not WP:RS it is not correct to use such referencesRaveenS 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The referenced blog says ->Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.) Clearly not a WP:RS But any way moving on 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/r/Talk%7ESirhan_Sirhan_%28murderer%29_9ab5.html"