Talk:Dilpazier Aslam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was 'NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE.

I've removed the sentence: 'Many people saw this as attempting to justify the July 7 bombings'. It begs the question of how many's many, who the 'many' are - right-wing bloggers, newspapers with an axe to grind, 'all right-thinking people', 'any Daily Mail reader worth his salt', 'the liberal consensus' etc etc.

I would have perferred to have simply linked to the article at that point and say: 'Read it for yourself'. I'm not sure of the etiquette of that - or how to do the link. Perhaps someone would help.

I'm also reinstated 'right-wing'. I believe that would be a fair description of his position. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

--Charlesp 14:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I've now worked out how to insert the link so that the reader can read the article for her/himself.

And put a link to the Khalifah site. How could we have overlooked this?

On reflection, I've also reverted to the original idea that the article is mainly concerned to show that the younger Muslim is at odds with the older generation and not 'mainstream opinion' in the UK or anywhere else.

--Charlesp 14:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence ought to go back in. I don't know how many many is, but it was enough for the Guardian to sack him - that is unusual in and of itself. Presumably it even offended Guardian readers (the Daily Mail ones are simply taken for granted) or there would have been no pressure. The Guardian page has a link to the original article so you could copy that. I think the main idea is that Aslam caused offense by justifying the bombings and did so by trivialising the attacks (the bombers weren't "sassy" after all). But as this will be read in the main by those notorious muesli eating G readers I doubt it will fly. Lao Wai 15:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] 'justifying the bombing"

I will happily reinstate this sentence if Lao Wai can point to anything in Aslam's article that points to this. It proves nothing that the Guardian doesn't usually sack journalists. Surely that's why the whole affair is interesting and the article needs to be as dispassionate as possible. How often does the Guardian ask a a journalist who belongs to a perfectly legal non-violent political party to resign or face the sack?

--Charlesp 15:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Points to what? That people saw it as justifying the bombing? I can find a few articles which claim just that (within the confines of the libel laws of course). What was Aslam's argument if not that the Second and Third generation younger Muslims were not sit back and take it any more? And take what if not the actions of the British government? He seemed to be saying that young Muslims like himself were outraged by Falluja for instance, and the bombings were a predictable (if not justifiable) response. I may be doing him and his argument and injustice, but I think not. It proves something that they sacked him. I know of no other case where they have sacked someone for belonging to a perfectly legal non-violent political party. They have published people with ties to Sinn Fein before so the parties don't even need to be all that non-violent either. So something happened here and presumably it was outrage from the G's readership. But I am happy enough with the way it is now. Lao Wai 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
There are loads of articles out there demonstrating that many people felt Aslam's article was rationalization for the bombing. The "Sassygate" link at the bottom of the article is one of them. Burgess's website has links to plenty others. Babajobu 19:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise revisions

Wikistyle is normally to avoid putting external links in the body of the article. I put an internal link to khilafah.com; at present it's a red link. I don't see how persecutions of Hizb ut-Tahrir members in Uzbekistan is relevant to L'Affaire Aslam. I've moved that material to the main Hizb ut-Tahrir article. I've redescribed Burgess as a "conservative American blogger", rather than "a right-wing American". I did a rather inadequate rewrite of the section on Burgess's "application" to The Guardian. But it needed to be changed to more clearly emphasize that this was a tongue-in-cheek application (promising to restore appreciation for Yankee virtues, etc.) posted on Burgess's website as a piss-take. Other changes. Babajobu 19:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Dbiv's changes are much better. :) Babajobu 19:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Getting There!

We're making progress, guys. I've taken out one of the 'gulfs'. Again. If you actually read the article you will see that Aslam is not suggesting the ‘gulf’ between young Muslims and ‘mainstream’ anything. He's talking about a Generation Gap within his own community. As far as 'mainstream' goes, he’s saying: 'even the former head of the Metropolitan police said there’d be an attack. Why are we all acting ‘surprised’?’ And, for anyone unfamiliar with former heads of the Metropolitan Police, you can’t get more ‘mainstream’ than Sir John Stevens.

I’m reinstating the link with Khilafa.com. There seem to be plenty of precedents for links to external sites within Wikipedia. I can’t find the precise articles that Aslam wrote. however. If he wrote them, as is claimed, when he was a teenager - and he’s 27 now - then they would have appeared more than eight years ago - before 1997. Maybe some of the more advanced ‘netsperts’ and seekers after the truth might care to track them down - and do a link. See what he wrote. After all, aren't we meant to be enriching people's knowledge and revealing information - so the Wiki-reader can judge for hu’self. It's ok. I”ve looked at the site, by the way, guys. It's safe.

I’ve taking out the Hizb ut-Tahrir section. There’s a perfectly detailed article about it already in Wikipedia which we can edit if we're unhappy. And we already link to it.

Fearing that the edits are getting too Americo-centric, I've reinstated Yorkshireman.

Having had some opportunity to do a bit of research over the last few hours, I've also alluded to the inaccuracy of the blogging campaign. I hope this won't turn into a fifteen-rounder, but I wouldn't have raised it without believing I can make the case...

--Charlesp 10:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually while he does not say there is a gulf with the mainstream, it is strongly implied. Not only between younger Muslims and the mainstream, but between all Muslims and the mainstream. It is just that the older Muslims are too cowardly to say anything. You misunderstand his comment about Sir John Stevens. It is an admission there is a gulf between the Muslim community (or sections thereof) and the rest.
He was writing for Kh.com in 2004 - I have a copy of his article condemning nationalism and loyalty to the nation state in front of me so he did not just do it as a teenager. Have a look at http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=9724&TagID=2.
I think you ought to discuss the HT removal because you are doing more than just the group.
I'm all for the Yorkshireman and after all what is so appalling is that these bombers, and DA, are British born and bred. The blogging campaign wasn't anyone's finest hour, but really, that article was awful and anyone who approved a description of suicide bombing as "sassy" ought to have been fired. Lao Wai 10:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Lao Wai. Where does he say that THE BOMBERS are sassy? please read the article. It's your opinion that the article was awful. It's my opinion that the article was giving the point of view - yes, an angry one - from the point of view of someone who was from the same religion, age group, background, education - town even - as the bombers. Please keep it cool - and don't scrub out a whole morning's work of mine - particularly as I have tried to justify every edit. --Charlesp 11:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

His entire article is to contrast the ideas of the younger Muslims ("sassy") with older Muslims ("don't rock the boat"). Into which category do the bombers fit? As he says "Perhaps now is the time to be honest with each other and to stop labelling the enemy with simplistic terms such as "young", "underprivileged", "undereducated" and perhaps even "fringe". The don't-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn't mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more." Clearly the bombers were rocking the boat. It is my opinion and I have not tried to hide that - but I have also not tried to put it in the article. I agree about the point if view thing. Not only the same religion but more or less on the same fringe of that religion as well. It is hard to work out what the deceased thought about the UK but presumably, like Mr Aslam, they did not think they should be loyal to Britain either. I am fairly cool about this. I don't mind changes, but please discuss them first. If you come along and delete a whole lot of work without justifying it first you will upset people and they will revert your edits. I will go with the HT deletion, but the gap with the mainstream belongs there. I am not unreasonable about changes, but to avoid trouble you ought to discuss first and see what the consensus is. Lao Wai 11:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lao Wai. Thanks for providing that link. Now maybe we could do a little rewrite to say that Aslam was writing for Khilafa until quite recently. So how come the Guardian 'didn't know'? I note that the article - while not how I would see things exactly - is not a 'fanatic's' take on Football!

--Charlesp 11:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I agree with the rewrite. I would like to know how the G did not know. And whether DA was publishing in both at the same time. It is not a fanatic's take on football although it is odd to condemn Britain based on the actions of a few thugs. I wonder about the sense of condemning all Muslims on the basis of a few suicide bombers. I am sure the G would not approve of the latter. It is, however, a specific and clear denounciation of the idea that British Muslims ought to be loyal citizens - and that they should feel more in common with their fellow British people than with their fellow Muslims. But the issue is the date. Lao Wai 11:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course the G knew. It chickened out. The editor commissioned the article and - as far as I can see - in the days after there was absolutely no response from the readership - one way or the other (in the letters column, for example). It was only when Burgess started to run with it and other newspapers started picking up on it and saw a way to present the paper as pro-bomber that they caved in. But that is only my hunch. I have tried not to reflect that in the article, contenting myself with 'the narrative' in, hopefully, an objective sequence.

My apologies for excising the HT bit without consultation. I think we must have both been editing article and discussion at about the same moment. I did the edit first and it took me a bit of a while to put my reasons down clearly. Maybe this is why you thought I'd done it unbidden. It's actually because I'm a bit new to this game and a bit slow with all this stuff being an old-timer. --Charlesp 11:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dbiv Mystery

Being new to this game I've just noticed that Dbiv keeps reverting stuff with no explanation at all. Could someone explain this to me? Perhaps Dbiv hu'self? Thanks.

--Charlesp 11:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Simply that I considered that no justification was given for your removal of a paragraph about Hizb-ut Tahrir and why people considered it objectionable, and that your edit expressed your point of view on the blogger campaign by saying that some of it was inaccurate. See WP:NPOV for why no article should endorse anyone's opinion. David | Talk 14:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] To google someone

It's not appropriate to use this form of words. Google themselves actively discourage it and the verb 'to google' is a neologism which is understood by too few people. David | Talk 15:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] googled

Not sure why Dbiv removed googled from the original text, I don't know anyone who doesn't commonly use this verb. For Dbiv and any future readers who don't understand it I have included a hyperlink to Wikipedia's own definition.

[edit] Neologisms

It's not appropriate to use this form of words says Dbiv.

It is in fact more than appropriate to use this form of words in Wikipedia, particularly as the second line of Wikipedias own definition says 'Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context.

Wikipedia is intended to be a forward looking information source, open to all. Although there are clear guidelines as to how articles should be constructed, there is no intent that Wikipedia becomes unnecessarily stuffy from either its creators or its vibrant community, that is the preserve of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and those it is replacing.

The American Dialect Society chose the verb to google as the most useful word of 2002 for good reason, it is an efficient (allows the usage of less words) and precise verb. Three years on which is an age in the evolution of worldwide English the word is in universal usage.

To remove this from an posting indicates a lack of research (not having read Wikipedia's own articles on googled and neologism) a mistaken understanding of the current status of the word googled and a misunderstanding of the spirit of Wikipedia.

Please re think this kind of unnecessary correction as it sends out the wrong message to other users.

It is good to see that arguments over such an important issue ultimately boil down to the use of a neologism or not. Makes yer proud to be British! Could people please sign their bits with three or four tildas (~) so that everyone else can see who said what? And in passing the Guardian published an article today by John Lloyd claiming "These pages have been host to several pieces arguing, in essence, that we British had it coming (it being terrorist attacks by those acting in the name of extreme Islamism). Such arguments blur, at the very least, the essential nature of democratic societies. That is, that opposition is necessary to their health and it is that which must carry the burden of anger and protest. As long as that is the case, we don't have to accept terrorism as our guilty due; we have to entertain argument as our responsibility, our privilege and our patrimony." Isn't it nice to see the G can recognise the obvious stupidity of their stance and try to balance it? Lao Wai 15:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Apropos the earlier conversation, which I missed while away from the comp for a few days, Aslam's Guardian article *absolutely* did suggest that the bombings were an expression of the unbridled sassiness of this generation of young Muslims. Souds too dunderheaded to be true, so I sympathize with Charles for wanting to disbelieve it, but it's really not Lao Wai who needs to give the article a more careful reading. Babajobu 20:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pressure for American readers

I've removed the comment at the end of the article asserting that "it has been suggested" that pressure from American Guardian readers resulted in firing of Aslam. I'd like to see a reasonable sourcing for that. Sounds dubious to me...the idea that the American viewers of the Guardian website, virtually none of whom are paid subscribers to the paper, were able to force that kind of decision. Many people would "suggest" that The Guardian shows little evidence of being moulded by its American readership, and that this case is unlikely to be a sudden exception. Regardless, would like to see a source for the comment if we're to put it back in. Cheerio, lads! Babajobu 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Mainstream'

Here's the 'sassy' sentence from Aslam's article:

"Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."

A key sentence in the article. From the title on, Aslam's talking about the cultural gap between younger Muslims and their parent's generation in the UK. It is a common phenomenon, after all; a similar tension existed between the 'Windrush' generation of Afro-Caribbean migrants to the UK in the 50's and their children. It's understandable. When you first arrive in a new country you don't 'rock the boat'. You don't want to. But the second and third generation don't feel the same 'gratitude' as their parents did (though, with all the material benefits, anti-discrimination laws and opportunities 'logically' they should feel MORE).

In reality the Windrush generation had little to be grateful for. They had the most menial work, the worst pay, and when they went looking for somewhere to live, they were greeted with signs saying; No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs. The kids ended up blaming their fathers and mothers for being 'grateful', rebelled and, in turn, earned the anger and disappointment of their parents...

Aslam is pointing to the same phenomenon in his community. But there's one big difference: the culture of deference in the Muslim community; to parents, leaders and 'elders'. So there’s not the same opportunity to rebel. And there lies the danger. These elders are not doing that job, according to Aslam and, as a result, young Muslims have no safety valve for their (political) anger and frustration.

It's not a particularly original idea. It's been expressed quite a bit on TV and in the newspapers lately - certainly in the UK. But what was really interesting about the Aslam article was that is was the first one I'd read - and I remarked upon it when it first appeared - FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH. And not from some white guy pundit, expert, psychologist, weapons expert, anti-terrorism professor, Johann Hari - or older Muslim. Aslam wasn't one of the Usual Suspects . Yes, Aslam is angry. But that's the point, isn't it? That's what he's saying: his generation is angry. And what's interesting - and, surely, the real point of the whole business - is that the Guardian, bleeding heart liberal newspaper par excellence, allowed that voice to speak but - being that self same bleeding heart liberal newpaper - at the first whiff of cordite, got scared and sacked him. Thereby compounding the frustration.

Do you think the Dilpazier Aslams of this world are more or less likely to be rocking the boat now? With Richard Littlejohn plus every smart-arse left or right-wing blogging nut crawling out of the woodwork to crow? This isn't diffusing a situation. It's putting a match to it. And axiomatic.

That's why I really believe that the Wiki-DP article as stands is not reflecting, neutrally, what HAPPENED . Not neutral in the way that any self-respecting Vulcan would understand that word. Much of the so-called neutral comment is angry too. And reverts to a false dichotomy between 'The Mainstream' and 'people who hate' our freedoms/Dilpazier Aslam/any young Muslims who don't feel grateful to the UK/the bombers/ anyone who doesn't subscribe exactly to what The Mainsteam believes. Please read the article - dispassionately. Before Burgess 'outed' Aslam, no-one gave a damn. The Guardian's letters page, as far as I can see, didn't have a single response - outraged or otherwise. So, Aslam is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir? The Guardian has staffers who are members of the Labour Party. Even one's who, in print, supported and still support, the invasion of Iraq which led to the deaths of between 15,000 to 100,000 innocent people. Is the Guardian going to sack them too?

And I'm not being a smart alec. I'm trying to get at the truth. I'm angry too. We're all angry - and scared. I don't take the Tube any more. But we owe it to ourselves to try to conquer that anger with calm reason. In the next few days I will try another edit on the article to reflect what I’m attempting to argue here. I won’t do it yet so we can all try and calm down a bit. However, I'd welcome help and feedback - from Mamaloucos, Dbiv, Babajobu, Lao Wai and anybody else who's interested. Thanks.

--Charlesp 23:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually he is not talking about the gap between generations. From the first sentence he is talking about the gap between the Muslim communities and the rest - the distinction between older and younger Muslims is a minor one. The "sassy"ness comes with how they deal with the gap with the mainstream, not with how the younger Muslims deal with the older ones. I think everyone really expects Muslims to feel gratitude, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether they ought to deal with whatever problems they see by murdering innocent fellow British people. To describe that as "sassy" is offensive. Aslam shows no signs of being deferential to his elders of either race and your point is just wrong. Regardless of how frustrated the younger ones feel they should not murder innocent people. Aslam, and you, seem to overlook that point. That was what was offensive about his argument. Aslam is going to be one of the Usual Suspects now. I certainly hope police are looking at his phone records. No it is not the point. Aslam might be angry but there is no sign his generation is. And if some Muslims are angry there is no reason to express that by murdering innocent people. And if they do there is no reason to justify that, or at least appear to, in the G. There is something very interesting going on at the G - they are part of that Red-Green alliance that has taken George Galloway so far so naturally they would employ someone like Aslam. But for once they seem to have woken up to the fact they have gone too far and sacked the guy. Perhaps people at the G were upset because those "sassy" young men murdered a Guardian trainee. I think that if Aslam was thrown in jail for an indefinite period fewer young men would be prepared to blow themselves up. Muslim extremists say the West is weak and the G simply proves their point. They blow people up and the G publishes extended apologies from the bombers' sympathisers. A little intimidation would probably go a long way about now. There is nothing false about the chasm between those younger Muslims who do and defend this and the mainstream. The G has chosen to put itself on the wrong side of that gap, but that gap exists. The page as it is now is fairly dispassionate. This talk page is not but that is OK. The G clearly refused to publish most letters - I think they published some because I am sure I read some. But I know a few people who wrote in and were not published. Ask them how many letters they got. I would think it was a lot. If they justify the murder of innocent people I would think they would get the sack. I notice that David Aaronivitch has left. Lao Wai 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article about the controversy or the man?

Is this article about the controversy or the man? It appears to me that most of the article either gives details about the controversy, or small details about the man which are only relevant due to the controversy.

It follows then that this article should be titled "Dilpazier Aslam-Guardian controversy", or something similar.

There is certainly some argument for documenting this controversy in a more-detailed way than is practical in the main article on The Guardian.

What I don't understand is the need for an article about Dilpazier Aslam, which this article should be, given its title.

Dilpazier Aslam isn't a figure of historical, artistic, scientific, journalistic, or influential (e.g. editor of The Guardian, etc.) importance, as far as I'm aware. The controversy over his dismissal hasn't changed much in the world, except, perhaps, the egos of certain bloggers.

A small article on Dilpazier Aslam, the man, is perhaps useful. But it wouldn't read "Dilpazier Aslam is 27 years old": it would give his birthdate, his birthplace, and other facts of his life, like any other Wikipedia article about a person.

So why not move this article's content to something like "Dilpazier Aslam-Guardian controversy"? This could then be linked from the History section of The Guardian's main article.

Comments welcome. Robertbyrne 04:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the man is important. The controversy may go but I am afraid we may be stuck with Mr Aslam for sometime to come. The G's page doesn't want this controversy so it is best to put it here. I think that DA is a figure of historic importance. A couple of dozen people are murdered in London, including a G staff member, and the G publishes a series of articles claiming, in effect, the British had it coming. I think that will be a turning point. But if the whole thing blows over the article can be deleted. If it becomes more important it would be good to have a basis to build on. If you can track down his birthday I'd be happy for the change. It is linked to the G's page. Lao Wai 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
But Lao, Wikipedia isn't here to predict who might be important in the future. Your comments here border on libel, as if "Mr. Aslam has more in store for us". This kind of personal disgust isn't a good attitude with which to approach an encyclopedia article (a newspaper column, maybe). As for the question of whether "the British had it coming", there are plenty of comments and articles written by people other than Aslam, and written in media other than The Guardian (e.g. Financial Times, BBC) that question whether the invasions the UK has participated in over the last five years have "made Britain a target". None of these writers would claim that terrorism is justified. They would all condemn it, as would you or I. But a "controversy" isn't created because they aren't members of Islamic organisations, and they aren't writing in the Guardian, the paper that upsets so many conservatives. So while I accept the inevitability of an article on this episode existing for a while at least, I find your personal disgust at Aslam disproportionate to his actions. From everything we know, he seems to be far from a violent or dangerous man. And we shouldn't be afraid of the free speech of free, law-abiding men, however successful certain people are at embarrassing a newspaper through the rather dubious tool of tabloid outrage.
Either way, I think this article would be improved by the removal of the sections on Hizb ut-Tahrir and "The Guardian and the Blogosphere", both of which discuss broad topics which are not specific to Aslam. Robertbyrne 10:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
It should not predict what will be important but DA is important now. So is the controversy. Border on libel - of whom exactly? I am not sure I said Mr Aslam has more in store, but it is a reasonable guess he will be writing more things on these subjects. Perhaps for HT's website once they have moved it offshore. I think strong feeling is an excellent basis for an article as long as it is kept professional and hence out of the article. Obsessives make Wikipedia work. There is probably a sensible way to discuss whether Iraq made Britain more of a target but that was not what DA was doing. His argument was that outrage among the younger British Muslims was building and this was the inevitable result. That is different. No doubt there are foreign Muslims who want to kill British people, but there is no reason for British Muslims to do so. I do not agree that all the writers for the G would condemn all terrorism. It is noticable that the IRA does not and yet the G publishes members thereof. The MAB does not and the G published them too. This act of terror is another matter. So there is a little difference there. The Guardian has a track record and their articles were, as I said, different. He is a member of HT, just how dangerous can you get? I agree we should not be afraid of free speech. Which is what the blog-sphere did. Tabloid outrage? Nice. I think that the HT is necessary for context but the G&BS bit should go into the G's article. Lao Wai 15:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The controversy is notable. Aslam is primarily notable for his involvement in the controversy. I think keeping the article under his name is fine; perhaps set up a couple redirects from "Sassygate" and "Dilpazier Aslam controversy", etc. Babajobu 11:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The man & the controversy he created ?

Hi Robert, I thought the beauty of Wikipedia and one of the key advances away from physically printed material was the sheer scale of information it can accomadate. Its ability to host the most obscure and even unpopular information is one of its strengths. If someone wants to write 5000 words on a subject only they are interested in, which no one else ever looks at, then that to me is still the point of Wikipedia. The page seems to be fairly busy at the moment. The first thing I type when looking for information on Dilpazier Aslam and his sacking from the Guardian is Dilpazier Aslam, it seems natural to therfore have a page with that name. When he becomes well known or interesting for reasons other than this incident, then his page could be broken down into sections relating to each area of interest. Perhaps the discussion of the Guardian incident should be a heading within the DA page. You're probably right about the date of birth. Mamaloucos

[edit] Removing subsections on Hizb ut-Tahrir and Guardian and the Blogosphere

I support both of these proposals from Robertbyrne. As I've said elsewhere on the Talk page there is a perfectly good - or detailed and ongoing - Hizb ut-Tahrir article in Wikipedia and we are already linked to it. HT is itself currently a highly contentious organisation - have a look at the W article if you want any proof of that. If we're trying to be neutral it's better that the subject isn't treated skimpily or partially here, unless, of course anyone thinks we should cut and paste the whole of the HT article into the DP one...

As for the G and B article. This was originally a sentence from a very early draft (of mine, actually) that was blown up into a subsection by someone else. It was merely to say that the Guardian's reaction to the blog campaign may have been because it has traditionally been sensitive to American sensibilities - particularly after the Clark County debacle. However, after the article's promotion to a subsection, a later editor felt there was little proof of an 'American Connection' and removed the concluding sentence. The subsection, as it now reads, therefore no longer has much, if any, connection with the DP affair.

Removing these two sections would also have the beauty of shortening/simplifying the article which a number of contributors have asked for. --Charlesp 10:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that's fine; maybe add two sentences in the main body of the text providing the basic gist of those subsections. Babajobu 11:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited quote

Someone has added to the "kill them wherever you find them" quote, for which a Guardian citation was supplied, the words "and expell [sic] them from where they have expelled you," which isn't in the Guardian article and therefore remains uncited. Could we have a source please? I've removed it in the meantime. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)