Talk:Naveed Afzal Haq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Terrorist?

Prosecutor Norm Maleng: "Make no mistake, this is a hate crime." Greg Gilbert / Seattle Times: "...[Malang] said there is no evidence the shooting itself was an act of terrorism..." --August 3, 2006. "Haq allegedly shot woman, then chased her up stairs, killed her." The Seattle Times: A1. —Viriditas | Talk 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, and we can quote that and say who said so, but referring to the "July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting" (haven't sorted through to see who did this) is another matter. Wikipedia:Words to avoid is quite clear on this being a word to generally use only in the context of an attribution. Also, keep in mind: Maleng is the county prosecutor. Of course he will make the biggest deal of this he can. But have other citable sources (e.g. reporters Josh Feit and Brendan Kiley of The Stranger) who simply view this as the act of a disturbed young man who chose to give his act a thin political veneer. And I don't intend to push that view into the lead paragraph, either. - Jmabel | Talk 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, rather than calling him a terrorist in Wikipedia's narrative voice, I have presented the evidence so readers can decide for themselves. 24.55.107.138 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of years ago an African Mosque in Springfield, MA was burned down. The Media rushed to say it was a hate crime. It was big news that "arson was suspected" and police were looking for suspects. Turned out it was an accident. But now, some Muslim shoots up a bunch Jews and It is not nation wide news? I did not even know about this. Stop defending Jihadist, it's what they want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.88.77 (talk • contribs) 4 March 2007.


[edit] Family

We mention that his fatehr Mian Haq helped found the local Islamic Center, but we don't mention how unequivocally his parents expressed sorrow and regret over what occurred. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another useful source

For those working on this, another useful source: Josh Feit and Brendan Kiley, Waiting Period: Jewish Federation Shooting Suspect Naveed Haq's Lost Summer, The Stranger, Aug 3 - Aug 9, 2006. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Certain users are adding Categories to this entry related to Islam, including Converts to Islam (which he very clearly wasn't; in fact, he converted to Christianity) and Islam and Antisemitism (the act was antisemitic, but the perpetrator wasn't Muslim). Haq might have still identified with Muslim causes (like Israel/Palestine), as a cultural Muslim, though he wasn't religiously Muslim. Much the same way Salman Rushdie, an agnostic, identifies as a "cultural Muslim", though doesn't follow, believe, or even like the religion. Similarly, a cultural Jew might identify with and care about the politics surrounding the state of Israel, but disbelieve Judaism. In this sense, Haq, as all of the evidence and investigative work shows, was motivated by political happenings (the Israeli bombing of Southern Lebanon in Summer '06), but not for distinctly religious reasons.--Kitrus 08:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I will start with Converts to Islam. If you read the source [1], the article clearly states Yet in the midst of his shooting spree in Seattle Friday, he declared himself an angry Muslim. The article states he converted to Christianity, but by the time of his shooting rampage, he was a muslim again, thus he converted. As for Islam and antisemitism, he was a muslim, so the arguement that he wasn't is incorrect. SefringleTalk 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood the entirety of my argument. Which is that while he may have identified as a Muslim, he neither followed nor knew much about Islam. The reports regarding the months and weeks before his murder spree describe no religious transformation (or any religious involvement at all), rather they describe psychological descent and drug abuse. From one profile:

Indeed, Haq spent an idle summer in a studio apartment flirting with women on the internet—not in a radical mosque reading Sayyid Qutb. Despite his Islamic upbringing, Haq didn't even consider himself a Muslim.

While Haq's violence exploded inside a political context—the Jewish Federation, Israel's war in Lebanon—his motivations were those of a frustrated man, who, according to Renner, didn't fit in anywhere and felt persecuted and embarrassed by his parents' Pakistani background. Haq is not a jihadi, nor a radical Islamist; his anti-Semitic rhetoric seems more like a veneer of politics on a man disturbed by feelings of inadequacy and rejection.

--Kitrus 07:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not necessarily for us to determine how much of a muslim he is. The point is he identified himself as a muslim by the time of the shooting, and he wasn't trying to defame islam, so for all practical purposes, he was a muslim. This is by his own confession. SefringleTalk 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that he converted from one to the other and then arguably back again, so we should list both categories or list just the Christian one since we have a good source for that by itself. I do agree that he seems to be more of a disturbed loner than a religious crusader of any part, and it would be nice if we could say that in the article but I'm not aware of a reliable source for the statement. JoshuaZ 03:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle/Yahel Guhan, can you provide any evidence that Haq converted back to Islam? Yelling "I'm Muslim" in the middle of a shooting rampage doesn't constitute a conversion (unless a reliable source says so).Bless sins 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

yelling "I'm muslim" and having it reported by reliable sources (which is what happened) does imply that he is muslim. Yahel Guhan 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked you a simple question: which source says that he "converted" to Islam? Please provide me with the source, and I'll verify it. If I yell "I'm the king of the world" it doesn't make me the king of the world.Bless sins 03:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This source[2] states he said he was a muslim. And second, your analogy is a fallacy. If you say you are a member of a religion, and reliable sources state you said you are a member of that religion, it means (as far as wikipedia is concerned) you are a member of that religion. Yahel Guhan 03:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please state the part of the source that says he "converted" to Islam. I couldn't find any such instance. Yes, if reliable sources says XYZ is a king, then XYZ is a king. But if only XYZ claims to be a king, and that claim is not confirmed by reliable sources, then XYZ will be not be considered a king.Bless sins 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
He said ""He said, 'I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,' before opening fire on everyone," said Marla Meislin-Dietrich, a database coordinator for the center. "He was randomly shooting at everyone."" Do you deny that the above link is reliable? He is a muslim because he said he is a muslim, and the sources say he is a muslim. He is a convert because although born muslim, he converted to Christianity, but declared himself a muslim by the time of the shooting. The problem with your analogy is that being a king is independent of ones personal beliefs. Being a muslim is a belief in something which can only be confirmed by word of the speaker. If reliable sources say X says X is a muslim, X is a muslim.Yahel Guhan 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I know the above link is reliable, but the above link does not say "Haq converted to Islam". "He is a muslim because he said he is a muslim" And if Bin Laden says he's a peacemaker, then he's a peacemaker?
Yahel Guhan, I'm tired of your games. Please, spare both of us the trouble. Please find a reliable source that discusses "conversion", and I'll be satisfied. If he truly "converted" then surely you are not the only one on earth that believes this is so?Bless sins 04:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
And if Bin Laden says he's a peacemaker Well he didn't so thats a mute point. But if he did, I'm sure that comment would find its way into his wikipedia article; thats kind of how wikipedia operates. Yahel Guhan, I'm tired of your games. And I'm tired of yours. Please quit playing lawyer. [3] This source states it pretty clear: " had told the group's leader that he seen too much anger in Islam and that he wanted to find a new beginning in Christianity. - Yet in the midst of his shooting spree in Seattle Friday, he declared himself an angry Muslim. " Thus he was a muslim again. He went from Christian to muslim, by definition, he converted. Yahel Guhan 04:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that the only person in the world to say he "converted" is you (and maybe some other wikipedians). How come media outlets, newspapers have not said he "converted" to Islam?
"He went from Christian to muslim, by definition, he converted." Do you know the definition of "converting to Islam"? It requires a person to declare aloud "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God". (Source: Nigosian, S. A. (2004). Islam. Its History, Teaching, and Practices. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 102. ) Since when did "I'm an angry Muslim" become the profession of faith?
I have asked you to merely show a reliable source that says "Haq converted to Islam". If you want to go into the definition of conversion, then I have provided a universal one above.Bless sins 08:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, let me get your argument straight. A convert to Islam is only such if the source specifically says "convert," or the person says "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God." That is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard, and is evidence of your attempts to play wikilawyer. If the sources imply he converted, which they do, even if they don't specifically say one of the above two lines, it is still a conversion. As for your second point, Since when did "I'm an angry Muslim" become the profession of faith? the answer is since we began speaking English. "I'm a Muslim" means "I'm a Muslim." He is professing to be a Muslim Unless you can provide some evidence that Haq was trying to defame Islam, he was a Muslim when he shot those Jews. Yahel Guhan 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The source can say "converted to Islam", "embraced Islam", "became a Muslim", "changed his religion to Islam" etc. But the source does need to specify that he changed his religion.
Yahel Guhan, why is it that you (and some other possible wikipedians) are the only person on earth to state that he converted to Islam. Why is it that not one reliable news report says he "converted"/"embraced" Islam? Not even one!
There can be many motivation behind saying "I'm an angry Muslim", one of them, as you mentioned, could be trying to defame Islam. It is you who needs to find a source that clearly says he converted to Islam.Bless sins 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Media/news organizations don't write articles so that their words can be quoted on wikipedia to survive your strict scrutiny over their meaning. We must analyze the meaning of the words and report that, and the source makes it perfectly clear that he converted to everyone who isn't trying to push a POV by attempting to create reasonable doubt when there isn't any. They write them for a more general audience, to present the news to a larger audience. Second, we are not the only people on earth to say he is a convert. I can probably remove half the converts on the List of notable converts to Islam list by using the logic of your strict scrutiny, many of which probably are indeed muslims. In fact here is another source that makes it perfectly clear he was/is a muslim [4]. If you are so sure he is trying to defame islam, or has some other agenda in his actions, please provide some reliable source which proves it. Yahel Guhan 20:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>*Sigh* Does the above source say he "converted to Islam" or "reverted to Islam" or "affirmed Islam" or "embraced Islam" or "changed his religion to Islam" or "became Muslim" or "adopted Islam" or any other synonym? The source you quoted is a primary one. According to WP:PSTS (from WP:NOR), you and I can't make any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." I further put this question on the policy talk page, and the response seemed to agree that its best we avoid making such calls.

Yahel Guhan, you have yet to answer my question: If Haq converted to Islam, then why is it that not one reliable source on earth says he "converted [replace with appropriate synonym]" to Islam? You said: "I can probably remove half the converts on the List of notable converts to Islam list by using the logic of your strict scrutiny". Go ahead. I challenge you to do that. Find me one person on that list who is not appropriately sourced and I'll remove him/her myself.

What I find most disappointing from all this are your double standards. On Talk:Arabs and antisemitism, you demanded that the source (Lewis) be quoted almost verbatim, and wikipedia should make statements made explicitly by the source itself. Indeed you were correct to maintain such standards, and thus I complied. Why settle for something lower?Bless sins 06:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEAD

The lead should not be used for pushing a particular POV. His descent and religion are irrelevant to his notability and should not be mentioned in the lead.Bless sins (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

they most certianly are relevant. The sources do all mention that he said he is a "muslim American." I moved it out of the lead though. Yahel Guhan 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The following statement is redundant: ' "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel." Haq announced he was a Muslim during the shooting. ' According to you saying "I'm a Muslim American" is the same as "he was a Muslim". Then why state it twice?Bless sins (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is the same. It is stated twice because the first time is to identify his religion, the second to identify the timeline of the event which he is notable for. Yahel Guhan 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You can identify both from the first instance.Bless sins (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you respond to me, Yahel?Bless sins (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, can you respond??Bless sins (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In my version. But not in yours. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You are also removing sourced content: "he later disavowed Islam, converting to Christianity."Bless sins (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
His baptism is mentioned. No need to state that he converted to christianity (at least temporarily) twice in a row. Yahel Guhan 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Baptism" doesn't necessarily imply conversion (atleast not to someone who isn't a specialist in Christianity). Nor does it imply that someone has "disavowed" Islam, which Haq did.Bless sins (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Response?Bless sins (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you respond to me, Yahel?Bless sins (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Response, Yahel?Bless sins (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why did you put "He self-identified as a Muslim," in the "Background" section? He allegedly self-identified during the shooting. Thus it does not belong in the "background" which talks about events prior to the shooting.Bless sins (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It goes in the "background" section, because he did self identify. The only "alleged" part about his self-identify as a muslim is in your head. Because he self-identified as a muslim, after his "conversion" to Christianity, he is therefore a muslim. That is why it is in the background section. The background tells us who he is as a person, not just what happened before the event. Yahel Guhan 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the background tells us of his early life. Please see other articles. Also, we need not repeat that "he self-identified as Muslim" all over the article. It is like you are trying to make a point.Bless sins (talk)
What does being pakistani have to do with "early life"? Absolutely nothing. He was pakistani then, and he is now. The section tells who he is. I think it is you who is trying to make a point here, not me. Yahel Guhan 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Pakistani has to do with the nationality of his parents, to whom he was born (that's the first thing that ever happened to him). Bless sins (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
(yawn) So what? He is still of pakistani descent. It is clear your real intention is that you don't like what he did, so you deny he is muslim. Just say it so we can move on, rather than argue about something trivial. Yahel Guhan 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ofcourse he is of Pakistani descent, when did I deny this? I was explaining this to you. And yes, he was a Muslim before his baptism, (although I can't seem to find a source that explicitly says this). BTW, you haven't responded to my points above.Bless sins (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Which of your points have I not responded to? Your repeated denial that he isn't a muslim in spite of all the sources? Yahel Guhan 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
See above, I've repeatedly asked your response. Also, which sources say "Haq is a Muslim"?Bless sins (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources all say that Haq said "I am a Muslim American." If a person says they are a muslim, they self identified as a muslim. It is that simple. Yahel Guhan 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No we say what the sources say. If the source says Haq yelled "I'm a Muslim American angry at Israel". Then we say this well. We should not be interpreting this comment. I'll restore exactly the sources. I also note that you have not yet responded to my concerns above.Bless sins (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources say he said he was a muslim. Self-identify means to say. Since the sources say he was a muslim, he was a muslim. There is no interpritation here. Which comment have I not responded to? Yahel Guhan 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the source that says "he was a Muslim". Also see this diff where I have indicated your repeated lack of response.Bless sins (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This source (along with the others) states: "Haq made his motivations quite clear when he told a 911 operator during the attack that he was a "Muslim American." If you can't see that him saying that means he is a muslim, than you must not understand basic english. Yahel Guhan 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
And when did this 911 call happen? It didn't happen during his early years. Rather it happened during the shooting. Finally you still haven't responded to me.Bless sins (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It happened during the shooting (which was after his "conversion" to Christianity. That means between the two events, he mush have converted back. And I did respond. Yahel Guhan 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses needed

Yahel I need your responses to the following. You have avoided the issues long enough.

  • The article already says "At the time of the shooting, it was reported by witnesses that Haq stated, "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel." " Why does this need to be repeated?
  • "Baptism" doesn't necessarily imply conversion (atleast not to someone who isn't a specialist in Christianity). Nor does it imply that someone has "disavowed" Islam, which Haq did. Thus, you shouldn't remove content that is sourced directly from reliable sources.

Bless sins (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. Why does this need to be repeated So that people don't get confused and start thinking he is a Christian. If you want it removed, make it clear that he is not a practicing Christian.
  2. Baptism does mean Christian. How many muslims get baptised and remain muslim? Even if he did "disavow" islam, he apparently reverted back to Islam, as evident by his comments when he did the antisemitic shooting. Yahel Guhan 05:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
1. When did I want it removed? Infact, I have included it in my version. Once again, I repeat, my version says: "At the time of the shooting, it was reported by witnesses that Haq stated, "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel." " I have made it clear what Haq said during the shooting. The reader can make his/her own decision.
2. No it doesn't. In any case, a reliable source says explicitly that he converted to Islam. Also, a reliable source says he "disavowed" Islam. That is what he did during his baptism, what he did later is well-documented in the article.Bless sins (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. You removed it when you enthesized his christianity, and removed all references to Haq's self-identify as a muslim.
  2. stop trying to game the system. The timing of his admission to being a muslim proves that his baptism didn't last long, and that he is a muslim, which needs to be emthesized in the article. We aren't resolving this, so I'm fileing an RFC. Yahel Guhan 02:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Note to third party, I have a request: do you see the following sentence in my versions ([5][6][7]):

At the time of the shooting, it was reported by witnesses that Haq stated, "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel."

Thank you.Bless sins (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding to the RFC. I would say it is appropriate to show Haq's religious history since he claims Islam was his motivation for the crime, and his conversion to Christianity and subsequent return to Islam has received substantial treatment in published sources. Although Baptism does imply Christianity, I don't think there is anything wrong with also stating explicitly in the article that he converted. I also don't think there is anything wrong with saying that he was a Muslim as he self-identified as one, and implied that it was his motivation for the crime. On another note, I think that the shooting section needs a lot of improvement, as it skips right from a list of wounded to his bail, without mentioning how he was apprehended. I also think that this article should be removed from the terrorism category as says in Seattle Jewish Federation shooting that the FBI said it was not an act of terrorism.--Asmodeus Samael (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to say that I agree with the removal of unsourced statements, as these are explicitly banned in WP:BLP. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you respond to the point above, whether or not you see the sentence in the article?Bless sins (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the sentence. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with mentioning that he recanted his conversion in the Christian Baptism section as well. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don' think so. Firstly, there is no source that says that he "recanted his conversion". Secondly, I think that mentioning the same fact over and over again can be considered as pushing a POV. For example, should we mention his conversion to Christianity in the shootings section? That would also be not a good idea.Bless sins (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What POV is it pushing? --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That the Seattle Jewish Federation crime is somehow inspired by Islam. See Talk:Naveed_Afzal_Haq#Categories where Yahel Guhan uses this to argue that Haq's alleged crime was an example of "Islam and antisemitism". I don't know why we have to make such a big deal out of him yelling "I'm an American Muslim". It violates WP:UNDUE.Bless sins (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We are only using what reliable sources say;

Considering that he used Islam as an explanation for the crime, I don't think that it is pushing an Islamophbic POV to say that he was Muslim, as long as other possible factors, such as bipolar disorder, are also mentioned. I don't think you can ignore that Haq used religion to justify his actions any more than you can ignore that the Crusaders did not use Christianity as such. There were other motivations behind the mask of holiness in the crusades, but we cannot ignore that religion was used to justify it. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
But we are not ignoring religion. Did you not verify that the At the time of the shooting, it was reported by witnesses that Haq stated, "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel." quote is included? I agree that it is not pushing a POV to say that he was a Muslim. But it is pushing a POV to say that he was a Muslim over and over again many times in the article. He only said "I'm a Muslim" once, which is how many times we should include it.Bless sins (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 06:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already included in the article. His mother is saying that Islam is opposed to such actions. Ofcourse he was raised a Muslim. That's how he "disavowed Islam". How can you disavow something that you don't identify with?
Arabs? Anti-Zionists? People who want justice in the Middle East? Ofcourse Muslims also fits, but as I just showed there can be other possibilities.Bless sins (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If

If he reverted back to submit to the will of God (Islam), then why he is still counted as a convert to Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.145.66 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


He is counted as a convert to christianity because he once converted to Christianity. The fact that he is now a muslim is irrelevant. Being classified as a convert to christianity in no way concerns his present belief system.

Also, please dont use nonsensical phrases like Submitting to God's will, and other psychobabble on this website. This is a free encyclopedia, not a religious or a partisan missionary website. You can use all your inflammatory garbage in Radio Islam, Hizb ut-Tahrir forum or through any other hate filled medium. No one gives a damn.

As for your calling Wikipedia a "Zionist and Christian controlled network" in your recent vandalism edits because anyone can edit it. Please keep in mind that this website is just as susceptible to vandalism and skillful manipulation by primitive medieval Islamist bigots with a pathetic narrow minded personal agenda like yours.

I am completely sure that the fact this psychotic maniac killed an innocent Jewish woman who was somebody else's mother or wife does not concern you in the least bit. After all, she was Jewish right and not of your religion. You must also be having the opinion that it was Allah's will that Naveed Afzal Haq should go over to the Seattle Jewish Confederation and kill innocent Jews. People like you are a disgrace to ordinary Muslims and contribute to the negative perceptions of Muslims by non muslims such as myself.

You also think that his reversion to Islam makes him someone great, while disregarding the cruel and inhumane acts commited by this moron in the name of Islam. Also, sympathy for a dead Jewish woman does not make me a Zionist, but a human. Please read the article to find out what exactly a Zionist is, since this "Zionist controlled encyclopedia" will be dishonest about everything, except what a Zionist really is.

Given the chance to make a decision between choosing you or a Zionist for managing this site, I would certainly choose Ariel Sharon or Shimon Peres rather than a terrorist sympathizing nut like you, because they would certainly be more honest and do less damage.

P.S: Please stop vandalizing articles and making a fool out of yourself. Anyway, whatever edits you make wil be automatically presumed to be vandalism and thereby, removed. Get a life ! SantiagoMatamoros (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)