Biography Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

The article currently states:

Talovic was a legal permanent resident who emigrated to the United States in 1998 from Bosnia with his Muslim family after surviving the Srebrenica massacre.

There seems to be disagreement on this point in the cited sources. The CNN story says:

On the other hand, this source states:

-- Opelio 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC states that

[1]

--PlatinumSerb 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page has been copied to Sulejman Talovic, as that is the correct spelling of the name, per a SL Police Department press release published on the Salt Lake Tribune's website. Abinidi 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, all the articles I can find now are listing his name as Sulejmen Talovic (an e in "men" not an a). SL Trib, CNN, Fox News, CBS, KSL, etc. When do we consider changing the name to the "e" spelling? - Abinidi 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're all repeating it from one mistake. Give it 48 hours, then we'll move it. Don't lose hope. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant that he has a mullet? Therumor 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mullets are inherently notable. TS3 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say zap the mullet. At least for now. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's notable and verifiable. TS3 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's questionably notable. Either way it's not relevant to the event that makes him notable. Therumor 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit which I hope alleviates your concerns. It now places the mullet in the context of the garb in which he conducted these murders. TS3 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it probably exacerbates them more than alleviating them(I'm annoyed by the self-satisfied trotting out of the ol' trenchcoat/mullet combo by the media whenever something like this happens)but I cede that he was wearing them. Thanks for your effort. Therumor 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, early media accounts used the term in describing the shooter. 63.166.224.67 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to use the term "bemulleted". TS3 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian founding father Sulejman Pasha, for whom Talevic was likely named, was a native of the city of Mullet. Coincidence?

I don't think so! :P TS3 01:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Love the username![reply]

I'm sorry, but the mullet thing is ridiculous, particularly in the introductory paragraph. Other than TS3's (sarcastic?) assertion that mullets are inherently notable, no editor has given an actual reason why this should be here. This is the kind of thing that makes people not take WP seriously as a source of information. I'm not going to assume good faith as a matter of habit, while the person arguing to keep the info is making up terms like bemulleted. I'm taking the reference out, until someone give a reason it should stay other than some variation of "it's notable because it's notable." --Djrobgordon 10:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If, after asserting notability, someone adds this back, could we use a word other than "sporting?" This is an encyclopedia, not a J. Crew catalog. --Djrobgordon 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If his hair and fashion sense is relevant to this article so is his faith. By casting aside his Muslim background you leave off a possible motive for his attacks. I realize not all Muslims are terrorists, however you can't deny there is a fanatical wing of Islam currently working towards the mass murder of the West, and if Talovic was recruited or persuaded to commit these acts as part of a blind devotion to this corrupt sect of Islam it is not only relevant, but headline news.

The reference cited for this does NOT describe the shooter as Muslim. I'm removing this descriptor for now.63.166.224.67 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat ya! :P TS3 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I support the change because of the need for proper documentation in this type of discourse, Sulejman is a name of Arabic origin, the name of a dozen or so Muslim notables. Local radio news in Salt Lake City (KNRS-AM) is reporting that Talovic was Muslim. I hope that once documentation is established on this fact, that the possibility that he is Muslim will be recognized as relevant.

--His religious background is completely irrelevant to the shooting. If he were a Christian, you would not hear anything about his religious affiliation. Having his possible affiliation as a Muslim stated in the article only makes it look as though Islam was a factor in his crime.

His gender is completely irrelevant. It is politically incorrect to mention his gender in this article. I will remove it.72.73.206.175 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)FaroukAbese[reply]

His religious background is no more or less relevant to the shooting than his ethnic background, age, or sex. To arbitrarily exclude a religious reference in this particular case is to admit a personal emotional bias, and intent to manipulate (or mediate) the opinions and beliefs of an uninformed reader by picking and choosing which facts you choose to, and not to, share. If we are to have any claim to objectivity, the reader should be freely formed of all verifiable facts of the case, including the religion of the perpetrator, as long as no unverifiable claims of relevance to this particular case are made (no faith-based leaps of the imagination, if you will, ala, "he killed those people BECAUSE of his Muslim beliefs"). Let the individual reader come to an individual determination of the relevance of the fact. You are not God, and are in no better position to judge the relevancy of the shooters religious affiliations than anyone else is at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.140.134.244 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If he were a Christian, and if this were a shooting at an abortion clinic, his religious would indeed be mentioned in reports, as it might (though not necessarily ) provide information on motive. Similarly, the fact that the shooter grew up in a war-torn country might provide information that can be useful in establishing motive. In the same vein, until more information comes out, the fact that the man belonged to a religion which some of those who believe in it interpret as requiring violent struggle against non-adherents--and in which those some attempt to recruit young men into a loose network, often using only pamphlets and web sites for contact, making for difficult tracing--is a possible source of information on motive, and should be mentioned for this reason. If his religion is not mentioned, his background in a war-torn country shouldn't be either. Neither is known for sure yet to be a motivating factor. Also, unless Wikipedia is interesting in adopting a policy by which no mention of an abortion clinic shooter's religion is to be made until the motive is fully researched and understood by the police, this is only fair. It isn't right that Islam is protected where Christianity isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.250.248.193 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

--You cannot be sure it is irrelevant to the shooting UNTIL the motivation is actually examined. By UNILATERALLY deciding it is irrelevant makes this a case of censorship based not upon fact, but personal emotion and conviction. I would hate to think that ONE person can decide what is actually a fact in regard to internal motivation based upon no actual evidence.

-- If his background is completely irrelevant to put into this article, as FaroukAbese states, this seems to me like it is equating any mention of the word muslim as a terrorist by default. I mean, why should we only mention him as a "muslim" if he has terror ties? I guess that's how it works, though. Eric Rudolph's wiki article certainly mentions his christian ties.

His gender may be relevant if his high testosterone level influenced his behavior. His religion may be relevant if the holy men and his holy book have encouraged himto kill infidels.72.73.206.175 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)FarouksEvilTwin[reply]

-- Why the need for everything to be politically correct? Who decides what is correct and what is not? It is up to the individual to decide what is PC and what is not, rendering it completely useless without some objective standpoint to judge it. The man was Muslim; that is a fact of the case, and therefore it belongs. Why is everyone so damned liberal here!?! 134.210.89.39 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)surfinbrant[reply]

Being liberal is being progressive. Being conservative or moderate is being reactionary. Haven't you read Charles Marx?71.125.146.32 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Moomad[reply]

If the right is reactionary, why is it the left that knee-jerk reacts to remove any references to this person's religious background? If the fact has been established that yes, Sulejman Talovic was a muslim, then include that information. Trying to censor information is rarely, if ever, a good idea. The article should be as complete as possible, including all of the information that is known. Cherry-picking what information you deem approipate only shows your own bias. Put all of the information out there, and let people decide for themselves what they consider approipate. Anything less is your trying to tell others what they are allowed to think. 75.39.195.35 02:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Edited 75.39.195.35 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is with some of you douchebags and your desire to label everything as left and right? There's more than left and right and black in the world, ignorant americans

According to his aunt, he was indeed a Muslim:

“We are Muslims, but we are not terrorists,” the boy’s aunt, Ajka Omerovic, said Wednesday at the family’s house. She rejected any religious motive for the shooting and said the family can’t explain it. http://www.glenwoodindependent.com/article/20070214/FRONTPAGE/70214004

If anyone here is better at editing the Wiki article, this is fact, and it is as pertinent as any other demographic fact about the shooter. A.V. 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Her statement is well-sourced and clear on the matter. The Monster 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--His being Muslim is very pertinent to the apparent randomness of this attack. Radical Islamic websites do instruct likeminded persons to engage in the Jihad of the One if necessary as part of the Muslim obligation to respond to the call of Jihad.

Excerpt Quote: "Written by Al-Hakaymah, the "Guide for Individual Jihad" suggests ways to kill the enemy when one is fighting alone. The recommended methods include stabbing, feeding overdoses of cocaine or heroin, injecting air via needles, assassination with guns, burning down homes, putting poisonous snakes in cars, tampering with car brakes, planting explosives in vehicles, running over people, and luring people and then killing them." http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2454022.0881944443.html

VP1974 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)VP1974[reply]

Al-Hakayamah's religious instructions were written by a holy man and should be understood in the context of sacred Islamic teachings. To construe them in any other way is an affront to the exalted and devout imam.Lestrade 16:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Maghmuod Hesayn[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of 'context' is needed to understand incitement to murder. Doesn't sound like much of a holy man to me.A.V. 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I order the book? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kazi.org Good luck in your devotional studies.Lestrade 18:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)MihamidAli[reply]

--I think it is important to not simply state that the FBI ruled out islamic terrorism. The article referenced makes no mention of any alternative motive as being a possibility other than Islamic Terrorism. The FBI can't delcare Islamic Terrorism ruled out unless they come up with at least 1 other possible motive. Therefore, I think making mention that the FBI has not delcared an alternative motive other than ISLAMIC TERRORISM is worth mentioning in this article. Also, due to inclement weather, their investigation was delayed. This means they aren't even done investigating much less do they really have reason to rule out any motives at this point.

--The FBI has not declared an alternative motive to ANYTHING at all. So if we're going to state Islaminc Terrorism as a motive due to lack of opposing evidence, then let's throw in "and his girlfriend broke up with him yesterday" too. The point is that while there are people who do horrible things in the name of Islam, there are also many Muslims and Muslim websites that promote charity and unity. Making it news that this person was a Muslim, when there is no link between his belief system and his crimes, only makes good Muslims look bad in a time when all Muslims are already under attack for what a few terrible people have done in the name of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims believe that all of the terrorist attacks are horrible and do not stand behind them.

--The linked article that claims the FBI has ruled out terror editorialized by using that wording in its headline. The actual quote from an FBI representative within the article was less clear. This more recent article (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5230906) also paints a different picture. They simply state:

FBI spokesman Patrick Kiernan said Wednesday the bureau is trying to help police determine why Sulejman Talovic killed five people, and agents have looked into whether religion or terrorism were factors. "We're working closely with the Salt Lake P.D. and we're obviously aware that that [terrorism] is a potential issue out there," Kiernan said. "We've not seen anything that this is terrorism or an act against the government."A.V. 18:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article said his coat was tan—very un-Trenchcoat Mafia. Thought it was worth mentioning. -Dan 22:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! TS3 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the category citations removed? From the history I can't tell why they were all removed. I think that spree killings or spree killers categories especially appropriate. - Abinidi 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! TS3 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am betting he lost the diacritic mark when he moved to America. Is there a source for "Talović"? - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this will make the article difficult to find. Also, news sources aren't using the diacritic mark; does the mark reflect original research or is there a reilable source on how this person spelled his name legally? - Abinidi

I think that we should use diacritic because it is definitely used in his native language. Loss of diacritics is technical problem -- legally, he still carry name Talović. - Djido 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean you're not happy with Talović? Is there even a single last name in all of the Balkans that's "Talovic"? His last name is Talović. There are certain things on wikipedia that i think people should just accept as the truth even though there isnt evidence to support it. My last name is Zahirović, but since ive been living in Canada for the last 15 years, my last name is technically Zahirovic, but i know what my last name is, and i think it's more than SAFE to assume his last name is Talović Zlatko 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Zlatko Zahirović: Talović had a legal name here in America for the majority of his short life, and I bet it did not contain a "ć", irrespective of the linguistic realities of Bosnian language. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Baboon. Have a look at this: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/14/utah.mall.gunman.reut/index.html Have a look at the name of one of his uncles "Redzo Talovic", the name Redzo is actually Redžo, as there is no such name as "Redzo" in my country, just like there is no "Talovic", not to mention the fact that a news site already made it CLEAR that it is infact not just "talovic" http://www.avaz.ba/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=459&z=12&isasp= Zlatko 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Talovic. Gene Nygaard 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no batter how good Zlatko's admitted guesswork is, no matter how great the likelihood that it would be spelled Talović in Boania, that is not determinative of what we should use under either our naming conventions for the article's name, or our Manual of Style for general usage. Gene Nygaard 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a move and move-protect. This is a recurring problem on this article, but I think it's rather clear that since coming to America he has not been using the diacritic. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just dont understand why this makes you so mad. Im just trying to credit the man's proper name for everyone to see. I understand the limitations of the English 26 letter alphabet just fine, but the man is of Bosnian descent, his last name should be credited properly. Zlatko 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling it as Talovic clearly erroneous. "Ć" is pronounced as "ch", as in Talovich, not "k" like Talovic. So clearly, although he left out the diacritic due to limitations of english alphabet, I highly doubt he ever pronunced his name as Talovic (with a "k"). --Dr.Gonzo 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any report on how he purchased the weapons? Were they purchased legally? Yesyoudid 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---The only weapon that was illegal for Talovic to possess is the Handgun. The shotgun is legal for 18 year olds to purchase in Utah. The P.D. is still investigating to see who gave/sold the handgun to Talovic.

• • This is the first thing that popped into my mind when I read that he was a foreign national. The previous poster is correct, he may not own a handgun, but also if he had any felonies on his record he should not have passed a background check. I'm not sure how a jouvinile record is factored, but IMHO it might be reasonable for the government to consider any jouvinile criminal record as a disqualifier till age 25 or something like that. - AbstractClass 07:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 8 and 6 are the same; this should be corrected.

Done Abinidi 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see that this has come up in discussion, and being a Bosnian-American myself, I'd like to clarify some things regarding Talović's background..

I'm sorry if I seem to be nitpicking, but I just wanted to provide a Bosnian perspective on some of the issues that have come up. I'll let you guys deal with my concerns in the article as you wish. Cheers. Live Forever 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bosnian Muslim" does not specify Muslim faith

The fact that he's been described as a "Bosnian Muslim" in American media doesn't necessarily say anything about his religious beliefs. "Bosnian Muslims" is the most popularly used term in the west for a specific balkan ethnic group, but not every member of this group is actually a Muslim. The situation is similar to that of Jews in the United States, in that someone can be described as "Jewish" or having a "Jewish background" while actually being an atheist or otherwise. In part to deal with this confusion, the official term for these people used in Bosnia-Herzegovina today is "Bosniak" - however, this term is not popularly known in the United States, and using it for a Utah-related article would be a little out of place. In this context, I would suggest calling him "Bosnian-American", as that is the accepted term used by both outside observers and within the community itself. Whether he's a Muslim himself we can't know for certain, and unless it was directly related to this crime I don't think his religious orientation even really deserves mention.

Oh, yes, regarding his Muslim background, in the Balkans, religion is VERY important in identifying one's nationality. The entire Yugoslav Civil War was about religion. During the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, entire villages of Christians were slaughtered not because they were Christians, but because their priests owed allegiance to the wrong bishop. User:Scott_Adler 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His first name makes it almost certain that he is descendant of Muslim parents. "Sulejman" has all but Muslim connotations and traditions. If he hasn't converted (he was 18, so it's unlikely) he's still of Muslim faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.74.129.42 (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In response to both of you, I never denied that Sulejman Talović was of "Muslim" religious background; the point is that this doesn't necessarily mean anything. There are hundreds of thosuands of "Bosnian Muslims" who are only nominally Muslim, if at all. With in this mind, I also question the appropriateness of the article insisting on Talović's religious background - particularly in the opening sentence. Do the articles on various other teenage gunmen begin my mentioning their Christian background? Live Forever 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling members of that specific ethnic group "Bosnian Muslims" is considered rude and ignorant. They have a proper name, Bosniaks. Not all Bosniaks are practicing muslims, infact, Bosniaks are very relaxed about their faith, being a "westernized" society. I wouldn't be suprised if Talović wasn't a practicing muslim at all. --Dr.Gonzo 10:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee?

Along the same lines, I'd like to question how accurate it is to describe Talović as a refugee. For one thing, the overwhelming majority of Bosnians in the United States today would qualify as refugees, regardless of how integrated they are into American society; in the context of Bosnian-Americans, him being a refugee hardly makes him some noteworthy anomaly. Perhaps more importantly, if he came to the United States in 1998 as the article claims, then he would have arrived three years after the end of the Bosnian war.

Article title should redirect

I can understand why American editors would prefer the article to be named "Talovic" rather than "Talović", but I myself would argue for the later. For one, Talović with the accented c is the authentic Bosnian spelling; regardless of what country he imigrated to or what the language is like there, Talović is the correct original spelling of his name. Using the accented letters is also standard throughout wikipedia for biography articles on people from this region, and simply redirecting "Sulejman Talovic" would avoid pretty much all confusion.

We would be using his official American name, which I am guessing no longer has the diacritic - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As non-citizen, he doesn't have 'official American name' -- his only legal name contains diacritic. - Djido 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully sympathetic with those who wish to see names properly spelled -- Allende was "Ajendey" with the J and Pinochet was "Pinochet" with the T -- This isn't a Bosniak or Croatian service. He moved here, he should use out alphabet. I don't know any Chinese-Americans who use symbols for their names. If he wants the diacritic, he should move to a country where they are commonly used.

Excuse me? This isn't a United States service either - it's wikipedia. The standard across the site is to use diacritics in people's names (to pick but one example René Descartes), so I don't see why this should be any different. Your example of Chinese-Americans doesn't work either; Bosnian, unlike Chinese, uses the latin alphabet. Live Forever 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Sulejman Talović now redirects to Sulejman Talovic. So I guess this concern has been addressed. 71.103.86.44 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be vice-versa -- Sulejman Talovic should redirect to Sulejman Talović. - Djido 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to decide on a spelling here. The title of the page and the first sentence have different spellings of his name! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.166.117.16 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.- Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Nominator. See above for reasons. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Whether he "lost" the mark when he moved to the United States is a red herring. It's also essentially original research to attempt such guesswork. What matters is what reliable sources are using as his name. Apparently, they are overwhelmingly not using the diacritic, per the sources mentioned on this talk page, in the article, and a Google news search. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Best known in English. And only known for what he did after being in the United States for half his life. Gene Nygaard 18:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. per User:Jersyko - no hits using the diacritic in Google news search. — Zaui (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support — it's what a supermajority of sources use, otherwise is quite possibly original research. Cool Hand Luke 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support — US Newspapers are only using the Americanized version, and it is a news story being reported in the US press, so US usage should take precedence. Yaf 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support — All US sources use the Talovic spelling. Those are our sources for information. It doesn't make sense that we can reference 8+ articles in the References section of the article, but then spell the name differently than it is spelled in every single one of the 8+ references. I believe that changing the spelling is tantamount to original research, as stated by others. Abinidi 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. As explained above. Djido 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. There's no proof that he's an American citizen. Is his legal name "Sulejman Talovic"? As for the OR claims, here's your source. Khoikhoi 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Being an American citizen is irrelevant; there is, in fact, quite adequate proof that he is not an American citizen–he was a permanent resident with a "Green Card" (BTW, what do you suppose the spelling is on it?). But a foreign language news story using a different spelling than all the English sources is at best some evidence to justify inclusion of a variant spelling in the intro. No more than that, and probably not sufficient by itself even for that. Certainly not anywhere near changing the fact that he is not only "best" known in English as "Talovic", but as far as we have seen, only known as "Talovic". Gene Nygaard 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There are sources that say he's not a citizen. Still, it's hard to imagine that his American identity papers spell his name with this kind of diacritic. The source you cited in a Bosnian sources that uses phonetic transliteration for all names, like "Hemond" for "Hammond" - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. Regardless of the spelling in U.S. newspapers, it's clearly erroneous. Ć is pronounced "ch", not "k". --Dr.Gonzo 09:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   First of all, you are assuming facts not in evidence, on more than one point. Second, the C does not imply a different spelling pronunciation (nor would a "Ć" guarantee that the way you would pronounce it would be correct). Third, it is most clearly and definitely not "erroneous" to choose to use the English alphabet when writing in English. Gene Nygaard 10:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) corrected with strikeout 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not assuming anything. I am 100% certain that his surname is Talović and not Talovic. Many Ex-Yugoslav names are unfortunately transliterated without the diacritics due to limitations of ASCII. And I assure you that ć is always pronounced as "ch" as in "Talovich" - I should know since I speak the language. --Dr.Gonzo 02:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Correct name - Sulejman Talović.--Húsönd 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. In Talović's native language and related languages, "ć" is not just a variant of "c" with a diacritic, it is a completely different letter with significantly different pronounciation. Using "c" for formal documents is un unfortunate necessity, due to the limitations of ASCII. Talović was a citizen of B&H, and I bet that the name in his passport was spelled with a "ć". Taking the Internet (1M monkeys with 1M typewriters) and US media as an argument in this discussion is just plain ridiculous. To people who are not happy with "ć", I can provide a list of US citizens or permanent residents whose Wikipedia pages contain too many diacritics. --69.242.39.157 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Anonymous contributors to these discussions shouldn't count anyway, but: "Passport"? What exactly is it that you don't understand about the word refugee? He didn't come here under a passport. And since you are such a great diviner of what imaginary documents say, could you do as well with divining what the documentation which actually exists, the green card he got after being in the United States for several years, actually says? Gene Nygaard 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose. There is little left to add to the above comments. This man's name is Sulejman Talović. Live Forever 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose There is little doubt he was born Sulejman Talović. Are those of you that are so eager to change this guy's name also ready to move the articles for Amer Delić, Alija Izetbegović, Ante Jelavić, Nebojša Radmanović, Haris Silajdžić, Sulejman Tihić, Beriz Belkić, Mirko Šarović, Dragan Čović, Ivo Miro Jović, Živko Radišić, Branko Mikulić, Raif Dizdarević, Stjepan Mesić, Borisav Jović, Dobrica Ćosić, Zoran Lilić, Milan Milutinović, Nataša Mićić, Zoran Đinđić, Vuk Drašković, and last, but not least, Slobodan Milošević? Try a English language Google lookup of "Slobodan Milošević" – It will return about 1,000,000 hits, nearly all of which (judging from the first 100 or so) spell the name "Milosevic". That doesn't make it so. -- Opelio 05:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Slobodan Milosevic didn't move to the United States, either, so let's not be throwing out red herrings. And don't be lying and misrepresenting what our Wikipedia:Naming conventions are; there are thousands of people whose names can sometimes be written with diacritics but which are not under our policies and guidelines. Just because some damn fools think an American who spelled his name Arpad Elo for 80 years should be squirreled away under some foreign name of a country his parents were glad to leave when he was a mere child, and try to tell us that this now-dead guy was such a fucking idiot he didn't know how to spell his own name, doesn't mean that's where it ends up in Wikipedia. Nor does the fact that Ho Chi Minh can be spelled with squiggles stacked a mile high mean that that is where we put him according to our policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Nor does the act that Oscar Nunez has sometimes been credited with squiggles in his name, nor that Jennifer Lopez should have any in her article's name.

   Furthermore, you are absolutely right that the American tennis player whose own fan site says "Welcome to Amer Delic Online" and which uses the "Delic" spelling thoughout should be under that name. Every other source cited in the article also spells his name Amer Delic. So I'm not even going to bother looking at the rest of your list above; I strongly suspect that you have just pointed out a whole series of improperly named articles. Naturally, just because a whole slew of other articles may be misnamed on Wikipedia, that does not mean that this one should be. Those haven't been discussed yet; this is the proper one to discuss here.

   Note that the Amer Delic article was moved to the diacritics form without references and without discussion, and that Talk:Amer Delić remains totally empty except for two of those ubiguitous templates about something or another. Gene Nygaard 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose per appove. Bendono 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Does the opposition have any argument for why the diacritical—which doesn't seem to have been used in a single English language new story—is consistent with the naming conventions. We should use "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." Furthermore, does the opposition have any evidence whatsoever that the subject actually used the Bosnian form of his name? Is there any reason that "correcting" press reports is not original research? Cool Hand Luke 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this video clip of the incident Talovic can be heard shouting very fast "Allah Akbar Allah Akbar Allah ... my name is Sulejman".Its right in the middle of the clip , right after what appears to be a cop shouting to him to put his weapon down.The exact location in the clip can be heard if you place the clip slide position marker under the S of the word Shooting and press play , when the slide gets to the first letter O of the word shooting , that is where you can hear Sulejman shouting very fast Allah Akbar Allah Akbar Allah, the final Allah Akbar is interrupted by a gun shot --CltFn 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain? Personally, I'm not convinced that what is being yelled, and there's really no way to prove whoever yelled what is being yelled was Sulejman himself. This is verging on original research to me. Crunk 06:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not convinced, the sound has too much echo, can't hear it clarly. Besides, we can't know if that's his voice. Also, I didn't catch the supposed second part (...my name is Sulejman) at all. --Dr.Gonzo 09:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to identify it with only internet feed audio as there is alot of audio loss from encoders. I hear sulejman on 2:00 of the youtube video And "Allah Akbar" on 1:25. the transcript would be:

[1:37 Police] ODP ODP *got it from the news cast on youtube*

[1:39 Sulejman] Allh Akbar Allah Akbar

[1:43] ?????

[2:00] ??? Sulejman ???

If any Bosnik fellow could help? 62.149.114.19 10:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what we think we can hear. What matters is what a reputable source knows they can hear. Crunk 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is basically the definition of original research. If a reliable source claims says this we can cite it, but we cannot analize the video on our own. It's really not clear (and therefore not confirmable to the average person) what he says here, and the comment above demonstrates it. Cool Hand Luke 13:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make the Muslims angry here. They may come and cut our heads off, you know.72.73.201.113 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)CrusaderRabbit[reply]

You're kidding me? I can't hear anything. And if he really did say this, do you really think the police would have forgot to mentiot it. Live Forever 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, "CrusaderRabbit". The Muslims you are talking about that will "cut your head off" are the extremists. Do not attack anyone, even if it is more than one person at the same time.   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 02:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make generalizations against an entire religion...--

Excuse me. Let's not make the extremist Muslims angry here. They may come and extremely cut our heads off, you know.71.125.155.169 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)CrusaderRabbit[reply]

Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, on the subject of the YouTube video, you can't really hear anything clearly so I can't really translate all the parts where he (supposedly) is speaking Serbo-Croatian (or whatever you want to call it). If I heard it clearly, I could easily translate it though. Regards,   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 02:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, that will be counted as WP:OR--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you listen to the video clip section discussed above , with headphones you will clearly hear Sulejman shouting Allah Akbar Allah Akbar Allah ... --CltFn 04:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm still not sure that's whay he's saying and find it extremely doubtful. 2. If he was saying it the way he (as a Bosnian Muslim) was probably raised to, it would be "Allahu ekber". 35.11.130.168 05:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place the clip slide position marker under the S of the word Shooting and press play , when the slide gets to the first letter O of the word shooting Sulejman can be heard shouting "Allah Akbar Allah Akbar Allah... " He is saying this very fast and the last one is interrupted by a gunshot. If you listen to it with good headphones , it is unmistakably what he shouts.--CltFn 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry friend, this is original research. If what you say is true, I'm sure someone will pick up the story. If no one ever does, it's quite manifest that Wikipedia is not to be the source of original researcch. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that little song and dance about original research but wait oh , could there actually be signs of intelligent life on this planet , others Earth people seem to have also picked it up here or here --CltFn 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Sulejman was indeed shouting Allah Achbar. However, he was merely expressing a tautology. The name Allah means Achbar. By definition, the god Allah is Great. Otherwise, he wouldn't be Allah. Thank you, Sulejman, for the brief and concise definition.71.125.155.169 21:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)CrusaderRabbit[reply]

Now the Allah Akbar issue has hit the blogosphere as you can see here or here . For the record I first noted the Allah Akbar calls when I first listened to the video , without being prompted by any source at all, its interesting that many other people who have watched the video and listened to it also noted the Allah Akbar calls.--CltFn 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you conducted original research. I commend you. Perhaps you should get a blog yourself, but we should not add it here until a reliable source discusses it. Cool Hand Luke 23:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose some would call it original research, but I would argue that I just listened to the video and reported what I heard. The video itself is a source , so I would argue that it was not original research since I had cited the video as a source, but rest assured that I will wait for a reliable source to insert what anyone with a good pair of earphones can hear for themselves.--CltFn 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above prove that not "anyone" can hear this for themselves. That's precisely why it constitutes original research: anyone can not verify that the "passage agrees with the primary source". Whether you think your follow editors are intellegent or not, our policy forbids us from drawing this conclusion in the article, but thanks for your patience. Cool Hand Luke 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must protest against User:Cool Hand Luke's employment of original research on this talk page. The supposition that any reader can understand the words "anyone can not verify that the 'passage agrees with the primary source' ", is a unique, personal opinion and has never, to my knowledge, appeared in print before. I, myself, cannot understand why anyone can not verify whether the passage agrees with the primary source. Wikipedia policy forbids User:Cool Hand Luke from drawing such a conclusion on the talk page. AllaAckvar.71.125.155.213 00:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)CarlChilders[reply]

I added his date of birth as being October 6, 1988. Source http://www.sltrib/ci_5230906 T.E. Goodwin 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]