|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2||Archive 3||Archive 4||Archive 5||Archive 6||→||Archive 10|
Removed comment about members of family
I removed "That said, it is likely that members of the family continue to feel an obligation to help their relative." because I felt that it was speculation and pointing out the obvious in way that is not appropriate for an encycolpedia article. If the person who is so committed to it was prepared to discuss it we might get further. Just calling it "silly" and restoring it isn't especially productive, I feel. The reason I think it should go is that it's obvious to a fault, and indeed you could add this sentence to any article about more or less any person, like saying it is likely that they eat meals or use the telephone. It is not interesting, has no basis in facts offered in the article, and adds nothing to it. Now suppose you added it back in and said "That said, it is likely that members of the family continue to feel an obligation to help their relative. This article from [name of journal] contains an interview with his brother who said how difficult it is now he can't send money to help, and the family is in crisis becase blah blah etc", yes, that would be interesting. But as it is, I just don't see what it is doing there. It has no cause, effect, or evidence: as it stands, it is just a guess. Make it more than that, make it interesting and useful, and I won't remove it again. Nevilley (dated November 15, 2002)
Removed part about origin of Al Qaeda in first para
I removed the part about the origin of Al-Queda in the first paragraph for several reasons. First not all American supported Afghan guerillas became part of al-Queda - most are part of those lovely private warlord's armies and many members of al-Queda have no connection to the Afghan war or American support. Also Carter was not the only American president who supported them and $40 billion was probably much less than was spent there; and al-Queda was not formed until long after the Afghan war was over. I am not convinced my new wording is the best though. --rmhermen
Dated December 7, 2002 by User:Rmerhmen
Zippy thinks "US sponsored" is a key element with regards to bin Laden's participation in the mujahedeen. Why? That the mujehedeen was US sponsored is a key element to be mentioned on the mujehedeen page. What does that have to do with bin Laden in particular? If the US government ever had any close connection to bin Laden in particular, that should be explained in the article. But if the relationship was tenuous, trying to highlight it smacks of an agenda.
Dated January 28, 2003 by User: 18.104.22.168
I think that "US sponsored" is key to understanding bin Laden because, if we're going to talk about his negative connection to the US on this page, we ought to mention the other aspects of the relationship as well. Putting the "sponsored by the US" info only on the Mujahedeen page would be like removing the bit about "supported terrorism in the US" and relegating it to the Al Qaeda page. --Zippy
Dated January 30, 2003 by User:Zippy
- Despite these moves, members of the family might continue to support bin Laden financially (a sister-in-law is on record as saying this is likely. See external links below).
I removed this for 2 reasons, though it's getting better. 1) It's speculation. The fact that his sister-in-law speculated is not speculation, but the idea that he "might still be getting money" is speculation. 2) tense. It's not clear from his sister-in-law whether he got money before or after he was disowned (and beside, she doesn't know anyway, she's only speculating that it's possible). Plus, avoid statements that will age quickly. Better, "...the family might have continued..." DanKeshet 17:11 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)