Talk:Operation Arabian Knight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Comment

This is international front page news (New York Times, of course it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

I, for one, am open to a renaming of the article. Possibilities:

Others are welcome to indicate whether they favor re-naming, and if so whether they approve of any of the above or have another thought as to the best new name.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular name used by sources? As a start, I'm going to take the capitals out, that's a no-brainer.
11 03:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Please fix the rescue tag so that it directs to the AfD again, then, or undo your change (until the AfD is over). That's not a good result, during the AfD. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Operation arabian knight is weird, the names with jihad in them are pejorative. I recommend naming it after the federal case. If anything interesting emerges out of this, it will be legal discussion of the appropriatness of charging men going off to fight in a foreign war that the US is not involved with with "terrorism" offenses (when they hadn't even fired a shot).
talk) 14:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi. Some thoughts. Jihad isn't pejorative (certainly to those who favor it). Its like Zionist. Some are in favor, some are against, and those in favor don't view it as pejorative at all. We routinely use jihad and jihadist, and many use it proudly. I think we are best off not using the case name; first of all that is not convention for these matters, and second of all it is not the only case of U.S. v. Alessa.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me it's not apppropriate here. Yes "jihad" in general is not going to be acceptable in this case. A. Some people say "jihad" is just a struggle to be good or whatever bullshit, and they'll be offended; B. in a US courtroom, judges, juries and prosecutors see the word and anything connected to it and see red. Just guessing, but i doubt these men's defense will focus on the word. Have the neutral appropriate title, the case name. It's what a real encyclopedia would do.
talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't have a firm view as to which one is best, but I think we should follow one of the (four) conventions used in this area, rather than create a new (fifth) one, with a non-unique case name. We already, as indicated above, use jihad in one similar matter. But we have options that don't use it as well (the first two above). As far as your "its weird" reaction to naming it after the Operation, I'm not sure why. Wikipedia has many, many articles named Operation X. I find it weird to name it after the casename, and that doesn't have any precedent in the most similar cases as far as I can see. The first one might work. Would like to hear from others as well, especially the two editors who suggested renaming in addition to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.  This is tough. I can’t think of a name that everyone is going to like. But I would propose to get the word “Somalia” into it somehow as that was a key element of what these two bone-cones were up to. I’m thinking something along the lines of Somalia-bound New Jersey jihad plotters. Greg L (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible for Operation Overlord
  • I would go for Operation Arabian Knight, personally. I haven't seen any news coverage giving them any clever nicknames, at least not one that has caught on. I think this is more notable as an FBI sting operation, then an attempted terrorist plot. Movementarian (Talk) 12:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless anyone objects (if they do, pls feel free to change it back), I will change the title to Operation Arabian Knight. I do that recognizing that there are good reasons to consider other names--but that is the only one that over six days has received full or partial support from more than one editor. Also, if another name gains more fullsome support, I would not be against the title of the article being changed yet again to that third name. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck. Whatever. Operation Arabian Knight, I think, rides the coat-tails of other “operations” and affords it undeserved stature because of military planning like Operation Overlord (D-Day). How about Those two New Jersey nincompoops. Those two guys just don’t seem as bright as Winston Churchill. Note that the AP repeatedly gives articles on this subject titles like “NJ men accused in terror plot”. Double-yuck to anything that starts with “Operation…”. Note too that while I certainly followed this story, I haven’t been active in writing anything about it and I never even heard about “Operation Arabian Knight”. So I am assuming that is what the two nut-wads called their, uhm, *plan*. I suspect some here have become too close to the subject matter.

    With that in mind, I am quite certain that very, very few people recall the name these two New Jersey guys were using between the two of them to refer to their plan. Besides, the article isn’t really about *their plan* (Operation Arabian Knight), it is about the men, their failed, plan, and the circumstances of their arrest and the events that will follow. I think any article name harking to just their plan is inappropriate. This point might be better seen if we were to call the article The jihad plan of the two New Jersey men who were arrested before they could go to Somalia and carry it out. Clearly, the articles is about much more than their plan. Greg L (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I don't think the (nice) bum in the thong is the intended image?

The section [[1]] has a bum.

Regards, 203.214.44.199 (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion sought

Al-Shabaab's beliefs are way out of the scope of this article and are better covered in the groups article. The flag is also out of date and unnecessary. To many concerns to list.

Qwertyus 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The beliefs of the terrorist group they were alleged to be joining? That's core to the charge of terrorism that they are subject to. And is covered in the RSs about the very same subject, as reflected in the refs to this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
third opinion request
:
The
3O page advises, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." If you would like a third opinion, Marcus, I think it would help if first you did list your concerns, and then let Epeefleche respond to those concerns point-by-point. If there are then any issues that remain unresolved after you have both made good faith attempts to resolve them, I would be happy at that time to give my opinion on those issues. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: dispute seems to concern the content of this diff. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 06:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Operation Arabian Knight. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Arabian_Knight&oldid=1209528142"