Talk:The terrorists have won/Archive 1: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 1:

{{Talk archive nav}}

{{oldafdfull|date=19 July 2006}}{{oldafdfull| date = 9 March 2010 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = The terrorists have won }}

==Comment==

"On September 19, 2004, Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert asserted that he believed that a new bombing in Spain was intended to urge US voters to vote for John Kerry. His implication was that al Qaeda's goal was to displace George W. Bush, and that a Kerry victory would be a victory for terrorism. This view was roundly criticized by news sources as alarmist and absurd."

Line 130:

In its current form, this article is really nothing more than a paraphrasing with very little context. I would like to begin adding back some of the content that had been removed, but I am sensitive to the criticisms that the article had been nothing more than a bulleted list of instances where the phrase/meme had appeared. I would like to look at other articles on rhetorical phrases that have been used, such as "[[stay the course]]", "[[cut and run]]", which focus more on the political context of the original iterations of the phrase, and then later on go into the migration of the phrase in to wider pop culture. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] ([[User talk:DropDeadGorgias|talk]]) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

:Please add more material if well-sourced. What's the worst that can happen? Someone takes it off. [[User:Kitfoxxe|Kitfoxxe]] ([[User talk:Kitfoxxe|talk]]) 05:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

::I hear that. Go for it - I won't stop you. [[User:Outback the koala|Outback the koala]] ([[User talk:Outback the koala|talk]]) 08:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

:::If we are afraid to add material to an article, well then.... [[User:Kitfoxxe|Kitfoxxe]] ([[User talk:Kitfoxxe|talk]]) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

== Should it be called "The Terrorists have Won?" ==

To me at least, the name doesn't seem right. When I first went on this page, it almost felt like someone had vandalized it. It could be changed to "Then the terrorists win," because that could give a viewer a clearer idea of the subject. --Joshua H-Star-R 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joshua H-Star-R|Joshua H-Star-R]] ([[User talk:Joshua H-Star-R|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joshua H-Star-R|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I was not sure on this topic if the politicians have been brain conditioned to news and news paper. How can they think in anger and drama? This used to be an intellectual land, let it stay. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.230.193.101|98.230.193.101]] ([[User talk:98.230.193.101|talk]]) 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Photo? ==

The current photo seems inappropriate to the context of the article. It's about how "allowing Muslims to do X means the terrorists have won" whereas the rest of the article seems to be about "not allowing right Y to continue means the terrorists have won". If anything I'd say the photo contradicts the usage of the phrase in the article. [[User:Faceless Enemy|Faceless Enemy]] ([[User talk:Faceless Enemy|talk]]) 05:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)