Talk:Colleen LaRose

Picture made of Prophet Mohamed removed
There is no discussion needed about keeping such a picture, Wiki does not allow any sort of discriminating pictures of anyone even if its supposedly their best piece of work. End of discussion! K4L Killaz4life (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true. As with the Danish cartoons controversy, etc., Wiki reflects such pictures where they are relevant to the story.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Vilks drawing
With the understanding that it is offensive to many, is it necessary to the article to have the drawing of Muhammed in this article? I do not believe it is essential to the understanding of LaRose or her actions, and it is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.143.147 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's key to the article, and wikipedia's approach is to reflect such things (same with the Danish cartoons, for example).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would remove boyfriends name as it might be embarrassing and he does not seem to be notable or important to the affair
I would remove boyfriends name as it might be embarrassing and he does not seem to be notable or important to the affair. Geo8rge (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be concerned. Aside from the fact that people reported in the press are reported in Wikipedia, he has chosen to speak to the press on camera, and offer his views about her, addressing IMHO both the issue of whether he is notable (his views are quoted, making him so for this limited purpose) and whether we should worry about him being embarrassed by people knowing his name--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Another editor has suggested that the infobox be deleted because the template says it is "generally" to be used when there is a conviction. I would suggest that this is a circumstance where the exception implied to the rule (by use of the word "generally") is appropriate. The subject is notable only because of her criminal charge, and the related plot. The infobox here serves the goal of infoboxes generally -- to give the reader a quick skim as to the essence of why the person is notable. To delete it is, IMHO, to negatively impact the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably the majority of the people this infobox is used for are only notable for the crimes they've been accused or convicted of, so making an exception for someone on those grounds wouldn't leave much of a rule. I don't care that much if the infobox remains, but I am really bothered by the "motive" parameter; talking about someone's motive without "alleged" in front of it really does imply that they're guilty.Prezbo (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll add alleged. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Islamist leanings???
Supporting the Palestinians and being against zionism, which, incedently, the UN considers to be a form of racism, is hardly 'Islamist leanings'; if it were then 90% of the people on the UK would be a potential terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.43.240 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes but conspiring to kill somebody over a drawing of Mohammud IS Islamist! Angrybeerman (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Angry.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, anti-Zionism is a form of racism, since Zionism is the liberation of the Jewish people from Islamic oppression. Supporting "Palestinians" is also racism because they are Arabian colonists and imperialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.16.153 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

COATRACKS
I am troubled by the huge sections of non-biographical material which is in the article, and the insistence that it remain. The first paragraph being about the Lars Vilks controversy. The article is indeed relevant is already linked to, and a brief outline already exists. I see little need to copy a huge chunk of same into this article once a brief overview is made. The reinstatement of the 'women in terrorism' section is equally troubling. The section is ENTIRELY non-biographical, and attempts to draw a link through several cases with the a connection, labelled 'terrorism'. I'm not saying the subject cannot be covered by a WP article, provided RS exist to draw that connection, analysing or commenting on the commonalities, but a biographical article is not the place for it, IMHO. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've conducted a coatrack audit. And found that none exist.

1. This reflects the RSs. First, what we do on wikipedia is mirror what the RSs do. If the RSs discuss x, in relation to y, then it is perfectly appropriate to do so. In fact, failure to do so would be to throw off the balance of the article, which is supposed to reflect that in the real world. Here, we do exactly that. The articles themselves discuss the other woman terrorists. No editor made that connection, and synthed it here. It is also of obvious interest. The same goes for the fellow she is accused of killing, and why he had a price on his head. The articles about her are replete with this same summary information. That by no means should trouble any one of us. The very articles that discuss her discuss what is in these two sections -- this is not a situation where an editor is "drawing a line"; it is a situation where the RS is drawing a line. Its not incumbent upon us to assert that we are smarter than the RS, so we will undo what they do. Rather, we should reflect it.

2. Assumption. The already-linked-to argument has in it an implicit assumption that the reader is not reading the hard copy printout of the story. That, of course, may not be the case.

3.  Readability. These two issues of course could be linked to and left as that, but that would leave the reader having to go to the other articles to get an overview of the issue that they should rightfully be able to get in one place, without running about the wiki. Its not as though we have massive discussion of the history of cartoons in the Scandy countries, or the derivation of the phrase al-Qaeda, and how mistaken definitions of the phrase led to missed chances at gathering intelligence in the past. No -- this is highly germane information. And the article is nowhere near the 100K that require one to see what one can spin off into a separate article.

4. '''POV. ''' If we reflect what the RSs do, we avoid POV. If we diverge from them, censoring what they say, that introduces POV as surely as engaging in synth introduces POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

All IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove both. They are simply off-topic. The fact that sources discuss more than this person is not reason for us to do so. Newspaper stories often move into editorialising, or discussing other related things. This is a biography of an individual - any information not directly pertinent to that individual doesn't belong. Yes, the reader may be interested in related things, but that's what hotlinks and "see alsos" are for.--Scott Mac 08:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already removed the "women accused..." section which is a very clear COATRACK. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is customary that the lead summarises what is in the body, so you might want to write a couple pof sentences on Vilks a little earlier in the body of the text, in the same way he is introduced in the lead as the Swedish artist who caused a controversy by caricaturing Mohammed. As it is, you suddenly drop 'Vilks' into the body, without his full name or brief explanation about his apparent 'offense', and only develop it in that whole section, much later. It should be mentioned as her motive to plot and to kill him. Copying the whole lede section of the Vilks controversy article to provide that context is entirely unnecessary, and inappropriate. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed with above. That content is cited by reliable sources (which is itself debatable) is most definitely not a rationale to mention it in every article that is only tangentially related. See WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. --causa sui (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Geography
It's very misleading to say that Pennsburg is a suburb of Philadelphia. There's a good forty miles between the two; I live in between. Pennsburg is, in fact, a suburb of Reading, PA. 164.156.231.55 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

no article on Jamie Paulin-Ramirez
We have no article on Jamie Paulin-Ramirez but information on web such as that at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364520/Jamie-Paulin-Ramirez-admits-aiding-Al-Qaeda-terror-group-faces-15-years-jail.html

http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=Jamie+Paulin-Ramirez&x=36&y=14&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=date&intl=false

Should an article be added and linked?

CNN quote: "Paulin-Ramirez pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists in March." http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/20/justice/pennsylvania-terror-charges/index.html?iref=allsearch

SEE: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/08/pennsylvania.woman.terror/index.html?iref=allsearch

Why would Jamie Paulin-Ramirez redirect here - it is not an alias, these are two separate individuals and this article is about onlu one of them.

G. Robert Shiplett 23:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem was the reference in this article used "Paulin-Ramirez" while the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Paulin_Ramirez) has "Paulin Ramirez". Sources are ambiguous as to which is correct, but I've unhyphenated it to fix the link.

- wkalt 2017-12-23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8200:6FEE:0:0:0:19DB (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"Notorious" or "notable"?
What is the sense of listing her as "notable" in all the articles about every single town she ever stayed - longtime or short while, relevant to criminal career or mostly not? - Could somebody - please, please, please - take care of that spattering her name almost everywhere and bring it down to a more meaningful dimension by WP-standards. -- 46.115.20.44 (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. Parkwells (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the other's who are barely mentioned?
From about 2008 through July 2011, Mohammad Hassan Khalid, aka 'Abdul Ba’aree ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Hassan Al-Afghani Al-Junoobi W’at-Emiratee, a Pakistani citizen and U.S. lawful permanent resident who resided in Maryland, helped Rose to provide material support and resources, including logistical support, recruitment services, financial support, identification documents and personnel, to a conspiracy to kill overseas. Khalid, on May 4, 2012, plead guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.

I suggest we add something about her co-conspirators or create articles about them. Please discuss. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Passers-by's comment WP:BOLD. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Photograph
This article is one of the few instances where a fair-use photograph of a living, detained subject is justified. So much of her notability has to do with the fact that she is a white, blonde, American. "The terrorists believed that her blonde hair, white skin and U.S. passport, even her Texas twang, would help her to get close enough to the target... when U.S. authorities revealed the plot, they repeatedly described the Jihad Jane case as one that should forever alter the public's view of terrorism.... [according to a U.S. official, 'it] shatters any lingering thought that we can spot a terrorist based on appearance'... At least at the outset, authorities had no way to be certain how much of a threat LaRose might pose, given her resolute conviction and her unique attributes - primarily the way she looked." Shrigley (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Breckham101 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Colleen LaRose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100830160132/http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2010/apr/paulin_indictment.pdf to http://www.justice.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2010/apr/paulin_indictment.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colleen LaRose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911232139/http://conversations.psu.edu/episodes/mia_bloom to http://conversations.psu.edu/episodes/mia_bloom/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colleen LaRose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314165925/http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/jihad_jane_indictment.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/jihad_jane_indictment.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314055638/http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/mar/10/indicted-terror-suspect-left-faint-trail-in-san/ to http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/mar/10/indicted-terror-suspect-left-faint-trail-in-san/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713004711/http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18226938/jihad-jane-has-texas-ties to http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/18226938/jihad-jane-has-texas-ties

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

semi-colons
this article is strangely written - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EB0:E800:B154:9000:236B:FAC9 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)