Talk:Flying imams incident

message: I have a little trouble with the suspicious behaviour section.  The section refers to references 3 through 7, but inspection of those references shows that except for the praying, none of the other suspicious behaviour is refered to except in opinion pieces.  Although the opinion pieces list some of the behaviours they do not source it, except for this passage (actually in reference 2):
"A passenger on that flight - I'll call her "Pauline" - has inadvertently publicized some facts via a much-forwarded e-mail; she gave me more details in an interview this week. The airport police report confirms some of her claims and holds more revelations of its own. And U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader also confirmed much of Pauline's account. "
Does anyone have a link to the interview or what specific facts were confirmed by US airways?  I don't think an "anonymous much forwarded email" should count as source material.  Unless a better source can be provided, I think that several things from this section should be removed.
Also the reference Washington Times links are broken.66.168.28.42 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HI, Please read the refs again.  They support all of the various susp behavior aspects, as do three evaluations now.  Elizmr 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: wp:or.  Elizmr 07:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and "Pauline"

message: I've read the original police report.  Nowhere in it is there support for the contention that the Imams "refused to sit in their assigned seats."  The seats that they were actually sitting in according to the police report were 1B, 9C, 9D, 21B, 25D and 25E.  No mention is made whether these are their assigned seats.  21B is an exit row seat, 1B has a closet between it and an exit, and the other 4 seats are a good distance away from any exit , so the contention that they were systematically blocking the exit rows is false on its face.  I am removing these claims.  If you wish to reintroduce these assertions, please back them up with the actual assigned seat numbers, a statement from a witness saying that they refused to sit in their seats, and a documentation showing that either the police report or the seat map is in error.
69.49.165.251 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assigned Seats

message: The source for this is an uncorroborated forwarded email attributed to a "Pauline" and quoted in an opinion piece in the New York Daily Post.  It is not supported by the police report or any other eyewitness reports.  I assert that it is not a WP:RS.  Furthermore, even if the report of praying twice is true, it is wrong about Sharia requiring only one prayer around sunset: the Salat prayers Maghrib and Isha'a can occur at sunset and dusk, one right after the other.  Removing. --69.49.165.251 09:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I see some evidence otherwise, I'm pretty sure an opinion column in a major newspaper by a well-known journalist counts as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Korny O'Near 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praying Twice 

message: Can someone please explain to me how not having checked baggage is suspicious?  I used to fly for business frequently, week-long trips, and I never checked baggage.  Am I a terrorist?--69.49.165.251 09:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By itself it's not very suspicious, but in conjuction with other pieces of data it can (and did) add to the suspicion. Korny O'Near 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing, though.  None of these things separately are suspicious.  I've done all of them together (except for praying) in a group - the difference being it was my manager up in First Class and us peons scattered in pairs throughout the cabin.  I'm pretty sure Northrup Grumman wasn't intent on blowing up the plane, though.  Not suggesting an edit change, just yakkin'--Javance 02:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the article says that these were the behaviors felt to be susp by the passengers and airline crews.  There is no judgement in the article about whether they were or in fact problematic.  Elizmr 06:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the behaviors were "felt to be" suspicious, others were clearly misreported, still others may not have happened at all.  Regarding seatbelt extensions, I watched one of the CNN videos from the first day, and got a clear look at Shahin and Sadeddin.  If Shahin's 6'1" as stated in the police report, then he certainly doesn't weigh 206 lbs.  280 is more like it.  If he doesn't have a 46" waist, then it's pretty close.  Standard airline belts will accommodate up to a 46" waist.  There was a side shot of Sadeddin and he's got a big belly too.  Regarding the seating assignments, you'd think  if they really did switch around as claimed in the Washington Times piece, then somebody would have published their assigned seats and compared that with where they were reported to be sitting in the police report.  Of course, all this stuff can't go into the article, but the more I've looked at this, the more the media coverage stinks.--Javance 09:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's true; I changed it to the correct data. Korny O'Near 12:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious Behaviors? 

message: I have added the following text (to the Criticism of the Imams section), based on Debra Burlingame's piece in the The Wall Street Journal (6 December 2006), entitled On a Wing and a Prayer (Grievance theater at Minneapolis International Airport):
Denouncing "the provocative agenda of these imams," Debra Burlingame opined that "it is nothing short of obscene that these six religious leaders (…) chose to turn that airport into a stage and that airplane into a prop in the service of their need for grievance theater."  Shouting "Allahu Akbar" several times at the gate for their flight "was just the opening act," continues Burlingame, the sister of the pilot of the plane which was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. "After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats but dispersed to seats in the first row of first class, in the midcabin exit rows and in the rear--the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams. The head of the group, seated closest to the cockpit, and two others asked for a seatbelt extension, kept on board for obese people. A heavy metal buckle at the end of a long strap, it can easily be used as a lethal weapon. The three men rolled them up and placed them on the floor under their seats. And lest this entire incident be written off as simple cultural ignorance, a frightened Arabic-speaking passenger pulled aside a crew member and translated the imams' suspicious conversations, which included angry denunciations of Americans, furious grumblings about U.S. foreign policy, Osama Bin Laden and 'killing Saddam.'"
Asteriks 23:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions to the Criticism of the Imams section

message: On Nov. 26, 2006 this controversy was the topic that led radio host Jerry Klein of WMAL 630 AM, Washington DC to gauge his audience’s reaction to the suggestion that all Muslims in America be forced to wear "identifying markers. ...I'm thinking either it should be an arm band, a crescent moon arm band, or it should be a crescent moon tattoo. ...If it means that we have to round them up and do a tattoo in a place where everybody knows where to find it, then that's what we'll have to do."[31] To his shock some suggested they should be sent to "encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans".[31]
:could someone explain why this section is notable enough to be in the article?   Elizmr 07:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerry Klein

message: "Flying Imams Controversy" gets the point across, but I think it could be better worded.
Suggestions:
Flight 300 Imam Controversy
U.S. Air Flight 300 Imam Controversy
Fortune4260 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely love the title.  Please don't change it!  :=) Elizmr 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New title? 

message: Can someone figure out where the formatting for the references went wrong? Right now in my browser, all the footnotes seem to appear in the text of the article, but the References section at the end only shows 5 total, the last one having a bunch of unparsed wikicode. I tried to edit the page, but I can't tell what or where the problem is. Nathanm mn 05:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Formatting 

message: This article carries a heavy bias against the Imams that is founded on shaky references.  For example, Ann Coulter is used (in the article quoted here, she writes "profiling Muslims is like profiling the Klan"), as is Katherine Kersten, a right wing pundit here in the Twin Cities.  Investor's Business Daily seems to be a major source for much of this article, but it's editorial page lives out on the extreme right wing and there's no way one could be asked to take their opinion on a group of Muslim religious leaders as unbiased or objective.  In short, I believe this article needs a strong rewriting using true journalistic news pieces instead of outrageous punditisms.  71.220.53.241 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might not be aware of it, but almost all of the references you're citing are in the "Criticism of the imams" section, where bias is appropriate. Korny O'Near 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References are a bit unsettling. 

message: I've added a mergefrom Flying while Muslim.  This looks like the larger and better referenced article.  
However, could people also note my comment back at that article's talk page, Flying while fill-in-the-blank ?  These are really part of a larger problem.  Is there an article which discusses the larger issues of heightened sensitivities and rejection of 'difference' as intolerable in 'certain' situations?  Note that someone put a mergeto Racial profiling on that article back in February, so it is kind of obvious there's a larger issue.  Shenme 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, although I support could support redirecting it to racial profiling as well.  I could make a case for either I think, however this article is an expansion of the issue FWM, while racial profiling is a little more generic. Dman727 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Flying while Muslim]] mergefrom 

message: There have been multiple reversions to the claim that CAIR is"(an organization with documented ties to designated terrror groups [3] Hamas and Al-Qaeda[4][5][6][7][8][9])".
References four through nine are:
# A WorldNetDaily article by a man named Joe Kaufman, who runs an organization called Americans Against Hate. The centrepiece of their website is a big graphic that says "Fifth Column Imam Flyers".
# A WorldNetDaily article by a WND editor, which factually reports that a senior member of CAIR was convicted of transferring money to an Arab politician, whose political party the State Department has designated as a terrorist group (and which also forms the legitimately elected government of Palestine).
# A WorldNetDaily article by Daniel Pipes which has nothing to do with the question at hand; simply reporting that an out-of-court settlement was reached in a defamation suit launched by CAIR, and then going on to make sweeping and bizzare allegations "...declined to answer whether it aims to convert American Christians to Islam..." in classic McCarthyian style.
# A Delco Times article which mentions the financial-crimes convictions in the context of conservatives criticizing CAIR.
# A WorldNetDaily article by the Center for Security Policy, which is a neoconservative / Likudnik think tank with an axe to grind and members like Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.
# A National Review Online article which claims that CAIR grew out of another organization called the "Islamic Association for Palestine", which the article alleges was Hamas-linked, and further alleges that CAIR accepted donations from "Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development" which was subsequently classified by the US Treasury as HAMAS-linked.
One, three, and five we can dismiss out of hand as reliable sources, because they were all written by highly controversial people, deeply involved in the controversy and not "generally regarded as trustworthy". The Delco article is fine but it just reports what conservatives are saying. The other sources, while they at least make some factual points, also editorialize and speculate extensively and ought to be replaced with normal mainstream news organizations.
Talk about "documented ties to Hamas" is vague and unfair. The article should instead say (and probably not in the lede), that some of CAIR's founding members previously worked for an organization which was alleged to support HAMAS, a political party which the US has designated a terrorist organization, and that a senior CAIR member was convicted of sending money to a member of this political party.
Talk about "documented ties to al Qaeda" is completely scurillous, reprehensible, unsupported even by the highly biased sources given, and probably defamatory in nature.
Continually restoring such obviously biased and incomplete sources strikes me as not only bad editing, but bad faith.
Eleland 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are obviously strong emotions on both sides, let me interject here before this turns into a big argument about WorldNetDaily or any other source. I agree that the statement about CAIR doesn't belong in the article (and I tried to take it out at one point myself), though not for the reasons you cite. It doesn't belong because it's just not relevant to the article. If there were criticism of the imams that specifically mentioned their connection to CAIR, and stated that that was a strike against them for reasons X, Y and Z, then that could be included - in the "Criticism" section. As it is, the current statement about CAIR is just a "gotcha", and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Korny O'Near 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are other sources in the Wikipedia article about CAIR.  The Wikipedia article can not be a source but the sources can be reused here.  The preceding "previously worked" sentence is incorrect, as one of the CAIR founders was president of the other organization after CAIR was founded.  (SEWilco 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of certain sources 

message: At least one of them is a resident of Bakersfield, California.  This was stated on local radio a couple months after the incident. 
In particular, one resides in Bakersfield, California and at least one resides in Tucon, Arizona.  Here's a link: http://www.hannity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-246074.html.  Google for "bakersfield "flying imams"" for more info.
Frotz 01:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not all imams resided in the Phoenix area 

message: w  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.228.131 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: terrible article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.178.217 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrible article 

message: Please Capitalize The Words In The Title
66.207.216.102 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was gonna say because every other article has all the title words capitalized -- but its not true.  False alarm, sorry  66.207.216.102 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix The Title 

message: The presentation of the article in connection to the references and various other factors, is very poor. Unorganized, vague, and lacks consistency. There are lots of opinions inserted into the article. Opinion is not fact or verification. For example somewhere in this article, the opinion of a "federal air marshal" is listed. Opinion does not mean fact. Just pointing out one of the few things that make this article poor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.179.61 (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poorly presented article 

message: Like the Flying Nun, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.204.25 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sitcom? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flying imams incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130064604/http://www.startribune.com/587/story/833707.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/833707.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flying imams incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013184049/http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified