Talk:Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents 1 Anti-Pakistan 2 Protected 3 Why the article expanded form is NOT acceptable 4 Name in Arabic: Request for Edit 5 Edit dispute 6 Early Life

[edit] Anti-Pakistan

This article is definitely written in an anti-Pakistan environment and some of its editors ‎have tried in every way to connect this guy with ISI. The ‎fact is big part of the article has been built with the quotes from different "news sources" ‎which have tried to connect this guy to ISI and 9/11 terror ‎attacks in one way and another.‎

If you do a little googling on Net, you will clearly notice that all ‎news sources connecting Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh to ISI (and 9/11) are somehow ‎connected to India. In today's information-crazy time, journalism is another way of ‎propaganda.‎

I do not want to add any content to this article without any credible source and ‎research.‎

However, kidnap and murder of a journalist is not very hard in today's war-stricken ‎world. You don't need to have links with Osama bin Laden, 9/11 or some kind of military ‎intelligence to do this. All you need is dedication to extremism, resources (money, a bunch of ‎‎local devotees as man-power, etc.) and weapons.‎ Szhaider 04:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is changed and looks better now. I hope that it will stay good and will not be reverted back. ---- Faisal 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the older version with references.Bharatveer 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Any referenece related to Pakistan by Indians (Newspapers or authors) are not accepted as neutral. They are just like Israil 's references about Phalistine article. --- Faisal 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think there are such restrictions in wikipedia. Moreover almost all the news article cited are either british or american.That being the case, I dont think you should remove the whole content of the article without discussing it on the talk page. I am goin to revert it to the earlier version. Bharatveer 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be a propaganda machine and its articles should not be compilations of ‎biased newspaper stories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should give information ‎without any bias or prejudice. If the information is doubtful, refrain from putting it on this site. Almost all British or American newspapers, that you have ‎referred to, refer back to Indian sources in one way or other. Discussion for discussion ‎has no meaning. Let's be honest and refrain from making Wikipedia political war ‎machine. If you refuse to do so, then you are vandalizing Wikipedia.‎

I don't think Bharatveer is trying to vandalize the article, just trying to include noteworthy information. I think the current version is too brief in omitting mention of ISI and 9/11 speculation. I would suggest to Bharatveer that he compose a couple of well chosen sentences to summarise these points, then add supporting references to the 'External links' section. As Szhaider points out, extensive quoting of media speculation is not encyclopedic - Crosbiesmith 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I still do not think wikipedia restricts citing or quoting indian sources.The fact is that for a person like Omar sheikh, almost all his biography can be known only through Newspaper articles. The argument that CNN is unreliable since it quotes indian sources is not logical .

In 1994, Omar was arrested for kidnapping three foriegners and was arrested and sentenced for life in India.Later in 1999, he was released in exchange for the civilian passengers of Indian Airlines aircraft.In this case , All the newspapers will therefore quote Indian sources,But that does not make it unreliable.

I also see that the reference of the book "Bernard-Henri Levy's book “Who Killed Daniel Pearl?" is also blanked out.

I am going to revert it to the former version.Bharatveer 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC) We can discuss what ought to be deleted before going in for endless reversions. My objection is about the blanking of a major part of a referenced article .Bharatveer 08:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please decide first what we write on this page, which should not be POV. We can’t link anybody to any thing just by using some news reports (which may be untrue). Please make sure that what we write is correct. There are many people, who are not happy with what is written, and what they are saying is correct, and we follow it on wikipedia. So, please decide first and write after it. In external reference section, all the links are added, so if some one likes to read, he can refer to external links. So please don’t revert. We don’t follow this pattern of writing anywhere else in wikipedia. --Spasage 09:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a particular problem. The article said "This newspaper said that this person... " so there is always a probability the article is wrong. It wasn't saying "This person did this...". Also I disagree with the fact the links were blanked. They were from US and UK papers. Anyway, it is biased to prevent Indian sources because that cuts out a few sides of the argument I feel. Do we then remove all sources/commentary from a muslim source? Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The article in the present shortened form excludes many events in his life like his kidnapping of four foreign tourists, his arrest in India and subsequent punishment, his release from the Indian jail etc ... Bharatveer 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've locked the page till all disputes have been sorted out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the article expanded form is NOT acceptable

Note that anyone can prove India a terrorist state using Pakistani Newspapers and anyone can prove Pakistan a terrorist state using Indian Newspapers. Like it or not but it is a fact (because of on going Kashmir dispute). The article use Indis sources and used to say something like that ISI give money to Sheikh, who give money to Atta. Atta perfom 9/11 and hence CONCLUSION: ISI (PAKISTAN) had conducted [9/11]. It is simply not acceptable espacially when India sources are used to make such a big claim. I hope that wikipedia is not used for this kind of propoganda against Pakistan otherwise, I use my all legal powers to fight against it. --- Faisal 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot quite follow the logic in your argument. You must understand that he was in prison in India for his crimes and therefore all the news reports will essentially cite indian sources for reporting the news.I can see only One or two Indian Newspaper being quoted in the article , rest all others are western sources.Bharatveer 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name in Arabic: Request for Edit

I know that this article has been protected due to some disputes. However, I would like to request the admins for a minor edit.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh's name in Arabic has been misspelled. Real spellings of his name in Arabic are احمد عمر سعید شیخ. His second last name is سعید not سید.

Reasons

1. سید is a family name but Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh's family name is شیخ. A person cannot have two family names at the same time. سید and شیخ are two entirely different families.
2. سید and سعید are too often confused with each other because of almost same spellings and pronunciations.

Szhaider 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit dispute

I am restoring to the longer version, and will edit for NPOV. Much of what was removed is objective, not propaganda. Kaisershatner 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

There are small flaws in this section: "Forest School Snaresbrook" should really be linked to the school and use its correct name Forest School, Walthamstow. It is not called "the Forest School", but "Forest School". If you agree I'll make these minor alterations. 86.147.5.23 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I managed to post this without being signed in. Sorry. Mhmaudling 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)