Talk:The Looming Tower: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Relmeligy - "→changes to 'minor mistakes': " |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. |
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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Relmeligy|Relmeligy]] ([[User talk:Relmeligy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Relmeligy|contribs]]) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 23:46, 8 January 2009
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)
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))