Talk:Abu Izzadeen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Stub

This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

1 Possible violations of Neutral POV, reliable sources guidelines
2 Video link
3 Deen parenthetical definition
4 Section title
5 Feb 2007

[edit] Possible violations of Neutral POV, reliable sources guidelines

The article states that Izzadeen "claimed to have attended terror training camps in Afghanistan", and cited two links, neither of which indicate that he made any such claims. Can some verifiable sources be provided for these claims?

Also, the statement that he "has openly stated that he wishes to die as a suicide bomber" is cited back to the claims of an anonymous undercover reporter in a piece by the Times of London. The Times, however, failed to provide any kind of direct quote from Izzadeen. This, to me, is troubling. Did Izzadeen say, for example, that Iraqis / Afghanis dying while trying to kill occupiers were, essentially, holy warriors, and that he wished that when he died, he could die as well as they did? If so, this has a very different meaning than a direct quote that he wants to actually be a suicide bomber.

As the Times article doesn't provide any such direct statement, and given the anonymous nature of the reporter, it seems to me that what was said wasn't entirely "openly stated", as claimed. For this reason, I am editing the article to say that "An undercover reporter claims to have heard Izzadeen state that he wished to die as a suicide bomber."

[edit] Video link

This link entitled, "British Islamist parasite defends London bombings" is problematic due to BLP concerns. Is there another more neutral link for that video? (→Netscott) 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of a source is irrelevant. You cannot source to a blog under any circumstances, so if the content is re-added it will need to be either from Youtube or a non-blog source. KazakhPol 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you're only half correct... blogs that are under the editorial control of reliable sources can be cited. What cannot be cited is personal blogs, etc. (→Netscott) 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deen parenthetical definition

I've been trying to keep from the quote of this man being dumbed down by referring to "deen" simply as "religion". There's no reason to not include a fuller explanation of this word particularly when the very sources cited for it describe "deen" as "Muslim code of life". Hugedummy (talk · contribs) appears to think it is essential to not provide a fuller understanding of this word and I'm left wondering, why not? (→Netscott) 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are linking to the term then the level of detail in the description on this page is moot. 'Religion', and 'Muslim code of life', are both incorrect, so that may have been why Hugedummy did not want that definition. Islam is deen. Communism is deen. Deen is not the Muslim code of life. KazakhPol 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello KazakhPol, welcome to the talk page. I suggest we use the very cited article for the quote per verifiability and just use "Muslim code of life"... Otherwise can you provide another reliable source that has the quote and is using the world "ideology"? To be perfectly honest despite having studied this for quite some time I've never seen the term "ideology" used to as a translation for "deen". (→Netscott) 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Taqiudeen an-Nabhani, in The Islamic State, defines deen as ideology. KazakhPol 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest if we do not simply use the cited source (as is the typical Wikipedia convention in this type of case) we use a well recognized and neutral source for the definition. I must admit that any one word attempt at specifying what "deen" is appears very problematic knowing what I know about the term. (→Netscott) 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be uncivil, but if you know so much about 'deen', why did you suggest "Muslim code of life" when the article on deen says it's also used by Christians, Jews, and ancient Persians... KazakhPol 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Again that is the convention on Wikipedia, we utilize the wording as it is used in our cited sources. (→Netscott) 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked by Scott to give my opinion on this matter. Well, i got to illustrate three points but first let me give here an etymological background of the Arabic term:

Deen (root D-Y-N د ـ ي ـ ن) literally means a debt. In a religious context it means obedience to some authority.

The term Deen is not solely restricted to Islam in particular.
It is often translated as religion for convenience since there is no equivalent single satisfactory non-Arabic words.
The term Deen covers not only the religious aspects but also morality, practices and everything related to a belief. It deals with all aspects of human life; belief, intellectual, moral and practical. In fact, it is a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

So, in our context, Izzadeen refered to the Muslim code of life according to Islam's teachings. Maybe a footnote should be added to clarify those points. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section title

I propose that we change the section title of "political activities" to something a little more descriptive. Honestly, that seems to be majorly sugar-coating the article as the individual openly supports terrorism. There are much less controversial figures that have more descriptive titles. I really think something like "alleged support of terrorism" or at the very least "controversy" would be more apt. I'm looking for some feedback on this. MezzoMezzo 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)