Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 1

message: Between March 1 and March 22, this article got approximately 160 hits. Between March 22 and today, it has gotten (approximately) 84,800 hits. It also jumped from #3 on google to number #1. Impressive. →Raul654 07:50, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
:But in the meanwhile, with the photo flipped, we get quite an unusual face for Ahmed Yassin to be presenting Wetman 17:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Behold the power of Wikipedia

message: Ed, don't you think it's worth stating in the intro that Hamas, the group Yassin led, is a Palestinian Islamist group? Why did you remove that? Everyking 17:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Hamas 

message: Title says it all. Does anyone know how many women were mothers to his 12 children? Godfrey Daniel 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't his wife always Christian? AFAIK she never converted... In any case, I suspect most of them would be happy if his wife and daughter are able to live their lives in peace and relative happiness, unlike most Palestinians (thanks in no small part to Israel) Nil Einne 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 children—how many wives? 

message: A very minor "revert war" has been going on for the last few days, with User:Freiheit94 and User:68.84.56.191 on one side (against inclusion), and User:Humus sapiens and myself on the other side (for inclusion). I find this a bit silly, and I think we sould try to come to some form of understanding here. OK?
My view: To be included in :Category:Terrorists, a person must fulfill these criteria:
#Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
#Targeting civilians.
# Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes
#Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).
As far as I can see, all of these are covered in the article. The article may possibly be insufficiently sourced and referenced, but that's not the point. As the article stands right now, Yassin must be included in :Category:Terrorists. 
Oddly enough, him having been the co-founder and leader of a designated terrorist organization, does not (in itself)  seem to qualify him for inclusion in :Category:Terrorists! This makes me think that the definition of the category is faulty. 
BTW: :Category:Terrorists is currently a candidate for deletion, along with many other "terrorist categories" (link). 
All comments are welcome. --Wasell 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[Ahmed Yassin]] be included in [[:Category:Terrorists]] or not? 

message: I read over the histroy of edits on this page. I totally agree with Freiheit94 and that other user that Ahmed Yassin should not be labeled a terrorist. You explicitly state that the definition of terrorist is YOUR own, Mr. Wassell. Wikipedia is not about OUR views, it's about objectivity. Terrorism itself is a realtive term, and there should not even be a category for terrorists. Ahmed Yassin in other cirlces is viewed as a resistance fighter. Second, according to YOUR definition of terrorist, Nelson Mendalla would have fit the bill some 30 years ago. Do you dare call Mr. Mendalla a terrorist? I am not trying to attack your personal views, for you are entitled to regard anyone as you please. However, this is not the place to share our POVS. This is a place to showcase knowledge objectively. Thanks Aljazzera44 16:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that definition of terrorism is not my own. It's the definition stated in :Category:Terrorists. That's why I refered to that category umpteen times. And if you want to add that category to the article on Nelson Mandella, feel free to do so.  --Wasell 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmed Yassin should not be labeled a terrorist. 

message: The article currently states he is paraplegic. However he is listed in the tetraplegic article as tetraplegic... Which one is correct? Nil Einne 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paraplegic or tetraplegic 

message: Is it really fair to put up such an unflattering picture of Ahmed Yassin in his article? If someone knows where to find a nice picture of this great Palestinian hero, please replace the old one with it. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.56.191 (talk • contribs).
:I fully agree. Actually, "unflattering" is too mild a word; this picture makes him look like a blithering idiot! The article would probably be better off without it. A much better picture is used on ar: and eo:, but that one doesn't seem to be properly licensed. Does anyone know where we can get a good free picture? --Wasell 10:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is an even better picture, but appears to have license problems, and will probably soon be deleted from the severs. Dang! --Wasell 11:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should we strive to have a flattering picture of Yassin instead of an accurate one? You may think that he looks like a "blithering idiot", but he was merely an elderly man confined to a wheelchair - real people look like real people regardless of the idol worship or antipathy directed towards them. As far as licensing issues are concerned, the current pic is not licensed but sourced. The Associated Press pics hosted at the .ar & .eo Wikis are watermarked but unsourced, and have no detailed rationale. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a more flattering picture but a less unflattering one! This kind of wiesel tactic is being used all over Wikipedia and it's quite pathetic... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had one for ages before it was changed, even Mel Gibson did for quite a while too. So can someone please find a normal photo with proper licensing like this one this, that would be much appreciated by everyone. Yas121 00:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleging the use weasel tactics is somewhat less productive than producing a sourced alternative or drafting a fair use rationale. I wish you luck in finding a flattering picture of a disabled geriatric. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a more flattering picture than the current one?