Talk:Azzam Azzam

Plans for this page

A few rough ideas:

• Note that this could be a controversial article [here on the talk page].
• Ensure that balanced coverage is given.
• Provide some [other] external links [to provide a broader picture].

brenneman^(t)(c) 01:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't think it is balanced, or has external links? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! Well, just as an example, "In return, Israel freed six jailed Egyptian students who had entered Israel armed with knives and an air gun and been accused of conspiring to kill Israelis (the students parents maintained that they had gone to Israel to look for work)." has a slight taint of POV. Having come to this by way of my "Random page contribution" experiment, I had no prior standpoint on this. I'm currently doing some research, but as it is this article has a slant.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 23:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Which way do you think that sentence has POV? Just curious. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In a statement about an arrest, I'd prefer a blank factual account, "Noddy was arrested at the flowerpot train station and charged with importation of bad pixie dust. In a statement by Capatin Caveman to the press, he stated that Noddy had intended to distribute the dust to underage nixies." Thus avoiding any appearance of POV. In the example above, the statement "armed with knives" calls on facts not in evidence. We don't actually know they were armed with knives, we only know that someone said they were.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Somthing like: "John Wilkes Booth was found at the tobacco barn, and charged with assassinating Abraham Lincoln. In a statement by Capatin Caveman to the press, he stated that John Wilkes Booth had intended to..."?

In fact, yes. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Notice, for example, that this article's early paragraph has "Originally accused of industrial espionage, he was later accused of using women's underwear soaked in invisible ink to pass information to Israel's intelligence agency Mossad." (Emphasis mine.) If Azzam is "accused", so should others be.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

3 facts:

1) Assam was accused for a, b and c (by a totalitarian state). Azzam denied.

2) The students had entered Israel armed with knives and an air gun.

3) The students had been accused for a, b and c in a democratic state. The students denied.

Av.P 16:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarian state

We shouldn't be in the practice of deciding what accusations are valid and which are spurious. In the list above, where's the supporting evidence for statement (2) given? Why wouldn't statements (1) and (3) be enough? (With totalitarian / democratic taken out, of course.)
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sentence removed

This sentence is removed until justified with suitable citations: "However, he condemned Arab members of the Knesset, who had appealed to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, demanding that Azzam not be released from prison until all the Palestinians held in Israeli prisons were released." The links to Jerusalem Post articles before and after this sentence are dead and the 4-5 JP articles about Azzam Azzam's release I managed to find on the web do not contain this information. I found an indirect report (needs verification) of an older JP article that states this:

Ten [Arab] MKs signed a letter to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak nine months ago, saying that Azzam should not be released until the last of the Palestinian prisoners in Israel is set free," chairman Akram Hasson said, citing Egyptian press reports. He was speaking during a meeting between Azzam's family and the heads of the Knesset factions, on the fifth anniversary of Azzam's imprisonment.
Arab MKs strenuously denied the report, including Hadash leader Muhammad Barakei who called it "a wicked slander," and Taleb a-Sanaa (United Arab List), who said that such a letter would constitute "an interference in Egypt's internal affairs, which we respect Egypt too much to do."

--Zero 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the information in there myself, because I read it in the article, and your edit made the next sentence meaningless. I`m restoring it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But where is the article? You know that we need a verifiable source. Can you give the date of the article? The text here is unsatisfactory not only because no source is given but because it states the Arab MK's actions as a fact when they deny it (see quote above), so it can only be presented as an allegation and their denial should be mentioned. The two links in the paragraph are still dead. --Zero^talk 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An update on the short paragraph. I tried to verify the information, but I was unable to. I did however find that in 2001, the Chariman of the Committee for the Release of Azzam Azzam made such a speech to the Knesset. I think this is the incident the paragraph was referring to and someone mistakenly said that it was Azzam and not a supporter of his that made the speech. A reprint of a Jerusalem Post article is available here: [1] - search for Azzam, the article is in the middle of the page. GabrielF 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the article in the Jerusalem Post was from late 2004, documenting Azzam's release. Unfortunately when I wrote the article we didn't have the modern system for doing references, and the link has since died. I'll look again to see if I can find it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)