Jump to content

Talk:Ramzi Yousef

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.108.103.172 (talk) at 16:00, 22 June 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconReligion: Interfaith Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Adding References

I see this all over Wikipedia, and it's frustrating: The same document referenced over and over without proper ref name tags. Thus, the references section is clogged with the exact same references repeatedly. Please, if you're going to reference the same thing more than once, give the initial reference a name as follows: <ref name="MyRefName">Here's my reference details</ref>. Then, when you ref it again, you just have to type: <ref name="MyRefName" />. Scarletsmith (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Removed article from Rutgers University alumni

After going to the Rutgers Unievrsity alumni website and searching, I could see no reference to Ramzi being an alumnus of the university. Therefore, I have removed this article from that Category. -- Jalabi99 22:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ramzi Yousef's statement

Anyone here knows where I can find Ramzi Yousef's statement prior to his sentencing? It would also provide a good reference to the article.Maziotis (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lavish Times?

The entire section labeled "lavish times looks as though it was written by a non-native English speaker. In fact I will go so far as to say that it is very poorly written. I believe that it should be stricken from the page until it can be re-written properly with correct grammar and syntax. I am doubtful about removing an entire section, but this section makes the rest of the article look bad. Radiooperator (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the entire section. The text is unreferenced and the edit history looks suspicious. Unable to verify the information from online research. --Vsion (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full of Grafitti

This article is full of grafitti and inconsistancies. It is a prime candidate for an overhaul. Statements by Bin Laden made about 9/11 in 1997 just don't add up.208.254.130.235 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken some steps to clean up the section on the Philippine Airlines bombing. That should be a start, at least. Scarletsmith (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mastermind"?!

"He was the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks and Yousef's uncle." I'm a non-native English speaker either, but yet I feel "mastermind" sounds too positive. Does anyone have anything against he pulled the strings behind the...? At least it applies more to what he did to 6 people in 1993 and to 5,000 eight years later. -andy 92.229.125.250 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Objectiveness

This article is extremely problematic. Please look at this statement: 'The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced device[11] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[12][13] It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.' "killing thousands of people" is an assumption as a result of "bringing both towers down". The next statement contradicts itself, by claiming that it "failed to do so". Are we to describe possible scenarios? Also refer to the other statement that he was the "mastermind". This is again an assumption. Who was writing the article in such a way? The wording should be redone, with a more neutral, objective collection of facts, rather than simulate partaking in a specific insinuating context. Quite honestly, this article needs to be reworked heavily, and those emotionally laden statements reworded - it sounds like right-wing propaganda. Cant the article be more neutral and focus on the facts, rather than on "(would have) killing thousands of people"? 80.108.103.172 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]