User talk:Suraj rajiv
Susan Rosenberg
[edit]The first sentence of this article, as is standard for WP:BLP is in the present tense. Adding the "terrorist" label to the first sentence makes the statement untrue, as the article goes on to explain; Rosenberg abjured terrorism more than 25 years ago. The lede paragraph in no way whitewashes her "career" (in the 1980s) in that regard. I don't see why the assertion should be in the first sentence, nor how it can be, given the verb tense. Please respond and justify your edit. Pending your response, I will leave it for now. PDGPA (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, where in the article does it say she denounced terrorism? Suraj rajiv (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it was there; I know I've read it, perhaps in her book. (I did not say "denounced," by the way; I said "abjured," as in "renounced.") But that is not the central point of my question to you. Certainly the Smithsonian article you cite (which seems to be based on the Rosenau book that is already cited) does not support a contention that Rosenberg can be described in the present tense as a "terrorist." Have you read the lengthy discussion of this issue on the article's talk page? And the same goes for your identical alteration of the first sentence in the David Gilbert article, where it is even less apt. PDGPA (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rosenberg can be described in the present tense as a terrorist just as any currently imprisoned serial killer's article begins with "...is a serial killer" despite the fact that they are not (and cannot by virtue of being imprisoned) currently killing people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Ables
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo
- Additionally, whether Susan Rosenberg has 'abjured' terrorism since is irrelevant to whether she can be described as a terrorist in the present tense. Serial killers who have since abjured violence and murder are still presently referred to as serial killers, regardless of their present proclivity or ability to kill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz Suraj rajiv (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it was there; I know I've read it, perhaps in her book. (I did not say "denounced," by the way; I said "abjured," as in "renounced.") But that is not the central point of my question to you. Certainly the Smithsonian article you cite (which seems to be based on the Rosenau book that is already cited) does not support a contention that Rosenberg can be described in the present tense as a "terrorist." Have you read the lengthy discussion of this issue on the article's talk page? And the same goes for your identical alteration of the first sentence in the David Gilbert article, where it is even less apt. PDGPA (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Janaury 2022
[edit]
Hi Suraj rajiv! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at David Gilbert (activist) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to David Gilbert (activist). Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)