Talk:Turkish Islamic Jihad
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Baristarim in topic Image is OR
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkish Islamic Jihad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Opdire657 (talk · contribs) on 8 June 2015 with the comment: Not notable It was contested by Necrothesp (talk · contribs) on 10 June 2015 with the comment: deprod; looks like they might be notable |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Image is OR edit
Editor attempting to connect a picture of a soldier in WW1 holding a flag with an organisation in the late twentieth century. Unless editor can prove the article and the image are linked (through an authoratative source) then i'm going to remove it. --A.Garnet 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can fine the book here, [1] Artaxiad 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. No relevance between a supposed flag with a 90s organization. Do not confuse the notion of jihad in the religious sense with the specific name of a group. Baristarim 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- There the same thing. Artaxiad 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, they are not. From an academic point of view, you have to establish the direct relationship with that flag that Turks supposedly flew in WWI and a 90s terrorist organization. If you look at it that way, Turkish Hezbollah would be the same as Hezbollah of Lebanon. Just because somehow they carry the same name doesn't mean they are related, even if that flag was a banner commonly used by Turks in WWI, which is still some speculative OR. Jihad in WWI and the 90s didn't have the same meaning either. That's all. Baristarim 01:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- So are you saying a separate article is better? Artaxiad 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, but what exactly would be on those articles? We already have so many underutilized articles that it might be better adding stuff into the existing ones, unless they are about a specific and seperate topic. Baristarim 01:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)