Talk:The Looming Tower

changes to 'minor mistakes'

I deleted the following entry in the 'minor mistakes' section, since it was unclear/uncited:

• The gun carried by Bin Laden is repeatedly described as a "Kalikov" AK-74 instead of a "Kalashnikov"

I found several references online to Bin Laden carrying the AK-74, and to the this weapon being referred to as a "Kalikov" (Not a "Kalashnikov", which seems to refer specifically to the AK-47). If someone wants to put this back in as an error, then I think they need to cite their source.--Cheakamus (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Same. http://www.feeverte.net/archive/messages/4672/4888.html suggests "Kalikov" is a diminutive of "Kalashnikov." http://books.google.com/books?id=6cOIqzAf72YC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=kalikov+kalashnikov&source=web&ots=hIpXU6AAxR&sig=6gkNgbznS-bLAzRH4wJ-YtEQ3iM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result uses "Kalikov" as a subtype of "Kalashnikov" (to my reading). http://www.askthebrain.com/74_ak-.html also suggests "Kalikov" is a variant or cousin of "Kalashnikov," as does http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefaaabidkhan0908.pdf. I'm going to delete the entry. S. Ugarte (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is actually still sort of a mistake. I found a link to a palestinian telling a peace guard about the difference between the Kalikov and the Kalashnikov, the text is in Danish though http://modkraft.dk/spip.php?article5053. Nevertheless any google search in Russian on the term Kalikov (Каликов or Калыков) comes up blank, so at least it doesn't seem to be a Russian nickname. Neither the Russian, nor the English Wikipedia articles on the AK-74 mention any nickname.

At the very least, it's misleading when Wright writes for instance "He habitually carried the Kalikov AK-74 that had been awarded to him..." it ought to have been "the Kalashnikov AK-74 nicknamed Kalikov." I'd still call it a minor mistake, even if he just repeats someone else. (JoakimLemche (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

This edit has deleted the entry, with the comment: "Removed "Kalikov" claim. "Kalikov" appears to be correct terminology." See the comment above dated 04:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC) - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This edit has removed the "Minor mistakes" section because the mistakes identified lacked citations. For an article to include criticism, it needs to be done fairly and cite reliable sources. Sections devoted to criticism are discouraged as they may " ... be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy ... " and in this case also appears to be original research. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

2009 comment

If someone is going to take the extraordinary step of asserting that a certain set of words appears in the Qur'an, at the very least the verse should be properly cited. The words "looming tower" do, not, to the best of anyone's knowledge, actually appear in the Qur'an. This is in fact an urban legend which has been debunked. If indeed they do, it should be properly cited and not thrown in there. It is outrageous to make the allegation that this passage was an inspiration for these attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relmeligy (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If one reads the cited source one finds it is the interviewer, Harry Kreisler, quoting Lawrence Wright's book, who is quoting, in English, what he alleges Osama Bin Laden said 3 times at a wedding, presumably in Arabic. To me it looks like something has been mis-translated. It strikes me that this whole section about the book title smacks of original research. If one reads the full interview transcript, Kresler's question isn't about the title, and Wright doesn't even explain the title when he responds to the interviewer's question. If the article is going to identify which verse was cited, and say the title appears in that verse, then one needs another source, or sources, to draw that connection. See WP:SYNTH. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

About the title

The grammar in "about the title" is ridiculously awful. Does anyone know what a comma is anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.168.96 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

With this edit the section title was changed to "Quran reference in title" - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Writing Quality of this article

The quality of the grammar in this article is horrendous. Also the Overview section lacks detail. Can someone revise this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.32 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead section has extra information

I tagged this article that the lead section as having extra information. See MOS:LEAD for purpose of the lead. It provides an accessible overview. Information in the lead should be in the body of the article too. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The statement that Wright is ... a journalist for The New Yorker ... only appears in the lead. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)