Jump to content

Talk:2005 Amman bombings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Type of bomb

I'm watching TV news and there's claims that it may have been a suitcase bomb; no citations of this online yet. Can anyone find anything? Janet13 21:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A search for Amman suitcase doesn't yield anything on Google News, and no site seems to be reporting it yet. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have neither heard nor seen no mention of a suitcase bomb, though if they were, they would be bombs - plural. freestylefrappe 21:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I read (on the CNN ticker) that Jordanian police were saying (as of 4:17pm EST) that "lobby explosions happened when suitcases detonated" 67.165.87.40 21:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Flux vs Current

No. It doesnt - it's a similar tag but they're actually different. However, the "rvv" edit summar was in regard to the anon who changed the death count from 58 to 23. freestylefrappe 21:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Flux redirects to Template:Current - it's the same thing. violet/riga (t) 22:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

While trying to remove some obscenity, I could have mistakenly removed the map of Jordan from the article. Sorry about that. And watch for vandalism, somebody amuses himself showing he confuses Amman with his genitals...

Thanks for removing the vandalism! The map has been replaced and protected (as it's shown on the Main Page). Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

9/11 on Muslim calendar?

This particular calendar has nothing to do with muslims, it is widley used by people outside USA.--220.238.70.149 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That came across my mind as well. Also, isn't the Islamic calendar lunar rather than solar? --Bletch 03:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I've taken the initiative and remove the paragraph in question. If anyone can shed some light on this, I'm all ears. --Bletch 03:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The discussion is currently taking place on this page under the section "Hmm...". If I may offer, I believe the paragraph I wrote is better suited for the article. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 05:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Responses

Removed the trollish line 

   hopefully not referring to American guided weapons bombing a weapons celebration in Afghanistan
without ever apologizing nor innocent civilians who have been targeted by U.S. bombs since the
firebombings of WWII.

While the first half may be funny when used by The Daily Show, it has no relevance here. The second half is just flame bait. Cfpresley 19:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...

While watching CNN, Jack Cafferty pointed out that this happened on November 9th. That written in shorthand is 11/9. In Europe, it's instead 9/11. Could this be put in? Pacific Coast Highway 22:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Too much of a coincidence, I think. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I just removed the following from the article:
In American shorthand date notation, the month number is followed by the day number, i.e. 9/11 corresponds to September 11. However, elsewhere in the world, the month number follows the day number, thus, November 9 would be notated in most nations, including Jordan, as 9/11. It has been speculated that this may constitute a parallel between the two dates (and thus to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks).
What do people think about its inclusion? violet/riga (t) 22:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wrote it. What's the problem with including it? It's the sort of subtlety trademark to such terrorist groups. I'm not, in the article, offering any speculation on its significance, thus not infringing NPOV. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's too speculative, and more likely to be a coincidence. violet/riga (t) 22:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Until(and if) it becomes widely accepted, this would count as original research. See WP:NOR. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
What is this nonsense about original research? If Jack Cafferty mentioned it then it's perfectly acceptable. freestylefrappe 22:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)\
Agreed, taken directly from the NOR policy page, it defines original research as "original research by editors of Wikipedia." This is speculation now mentioned on multiple cable news networks, considered reputable sources. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
No web sources are saying it yet. violet/riga (t) 23:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

(back to left) But that's exactly what it is — pure speculation. Just because an analyst mentions that as a distinct possibility doesn't constitute that the fact is either reliable or widely-accepted. In the days following an immediate event, there will be many cases of speculation. Until the views become widely accepted (i.e. more than commentaries by reporters on the day of the event) or notable, they will constitute original research. Anyone can make a postulate at this point; until given evidence or credence, it's not encyclopedic. Thanks. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 23:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

However, if we are simply more specific, and say who it is that is speculating, then it is encyclopediac. We just need to be more specific. freestylefrappe 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to restore it, due to the fact it's coming up on Google. Pacific Coast Highway 23:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't edit other people's comments. I've removed the paragraph, because it looks like original research. Google search is not a credible source. --Yodakii 01:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
It'd been cited on multiple news shows, including one that showed photographs of Jordanian protestors holding up "9/11" signs. --Delirium 04:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Mustapha Akkad dies...

The acclaimed arab film director died two days after the tripe hotel bombing in Amman, Jordan, the doctors said that he had a heart attack and sever blood loss... May he rest in peace... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.87.255.132 (talk • contribs) .

Users need to actually look at the page history before they edit, or vandalism will continue to go unnoticed. I added a reference to his death earlier and somehow it got deleted. freestylefrappe 21:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia: The encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize. There should be more granular security in place, especially on front page items. Maybe only grant read access to IP's.Cfpresley 13:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Israelis vs. Israeli Arabs

Is it really necessary to refer to the Israeli casualties of this bombing as Israeli Arabs? We don't due this with any other country. Obviously Israel is in a very different situation politically from the rest of the world, but still we're listing the nationalities of the casualties. GabrielF 01:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Amman_bombings/Archive_1&oldid=1135343047"