Talk:2006 San Francisco SUV attacks

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Needs expansion

Could someone try to fill in the details on the attacks? It'd be great if we had them in chronological order, and maybe a link to maps. I'll do what I can, but I can't do anymore on this for a while. Thanks. Godfrey Daniel 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism or not?

As noted in the article, the police concluded "it wasn't terrorism" the same day he committed the attacks. Considering that it took a year for the FBI to determine that the attack on the El Al counter at LAX was, indeed, terrorism, it seems extraordinarily premature to reach that conclusion.

Furthermore, the attack clearly fits definitions of terrorism, so why are we having such difficulty in calling a spade a spade? Godfrey Daniel 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Current Status of Case?

I couldn't find any mention of Popal in the media in a long time. Did he plead guilty or was he acquitted or what?

See my edit for a link to recent news. The defendant was ruled competent to stand trial, and the case in in preliminary hearings at the moment (December, 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydub1969 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Definitions of terrorism"?

Godfrey: What, exactly, are the "definitions of terrorism" this case actually "fits"? I'm not sure this case does any such thing, unless the definitions of terrorism are so broad-based as to be synonymous with any definition used to described any act of violence whose victims are taken by surprise. I'm under the impression that a "terrorist" act has, as an important philosophical underpinning, some kind of social/political message. I don't say the message has to be "good," or "fair," or even that it has to make sense to the general public in the area of the act's commission, but I do think there has to be one, and that it ought to be pretty obvious. What was Popal's message? Does anybody know? I'm concerned about whether you are, in fact, calling this man a terrorist solely on the basis of his religion, and/or on the basis of whatever happy horse-hockey he may have been shouting while he was running over people with his car. Does any act of otherwise inexplicable violence committed by a Muslim have to be a "terrorist" act? Or are you judging his intent using only the alleged comments that witnesses say they heard him make as he drove? If he did, indeed, say, even one time, "I'm a terrorist," does that make him a terrorist? If I said "I'm a spaceman!" when all other evidence suggests I'm not the slightest bit from space, or even a man, am I automatically a spaceman anyway? If so, then I'm a millionaire, and immortal, and I can eat rocks!!

I just want everybody, especially in Wikipedia territory, to be super, super careful of opining -- and certainly not without supporting evidence of reasonably sturdy fact. Let's not call this man a terrorist until we have, at the very least, somewhere in the article, a link to another article about what "terrorism" is (although I must point out that even that article is the nexus of some pretty sparkly controversy in terms of neutrality issues). If we don't make some effort to define our terms in the same neighborhood in which they're used, we're basically just calling names at random, which is not, as they say, cool. Or even remotely smart or objective. N'est pas?

it's not terrorism but it's almost certainly a hate crime, probably in the same vein as tazeri, who left a note saying he did it for religious reasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 75.197.238.20 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omeed Aziz Popal → Omeed Aziz Popal SUV rampage — It strikes me that the article is about the "rampage" more than the person, and that the assertion of notability for a Wikipedia article comes from that event, so unless Omeed Aziz Popal was otherwise notable, I propose a move. —Artichoke2020 (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nominator. Artichoke2020 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.