Talk:Shehzad Tanweer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Needs to be reworded

I'm not going to slap a copyright violation on this article because it's an important article and I don't want to see it go through that whole process, but whole parts of the page are taken verbatim from pieces of this Guardian article [1]. I'm hoping someone who has time now will reword it so that it isn't a copyvio. Thanks. Moncrief 09:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is just to make clear that the above is talking about a previous version, not the current one. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Hi Sherurcij, could you discuss your objections here, please, rather than engaging in wholesale reverting? I'd be happy to go back and make changes, but the bulk of the copy edit (as I remember it) was an improvement, so we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Sherurcij. My responses are embedded below. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Alright...
  • -You changed "suspect in the London bombings" to "one of four men who blew up three trains and one bus, killing at least 55 people, including themselves, and injuring over 700." I feel that's a tad perjorative, first of all because it shouldn't be stated that he *was* one of the bombers, but that it is alleged, secondly because casualty statistics belong on the Bombing page, not on Tanweer's personal page, otherwise it just seems like trying to paint him in a more negative life. That said, I agree that the allegation *should* include the Eastbound Circle Line information you included
I've changed two sentences to "one of four men believed to have blown up ..." and "Tanweer has been named by Scotland Yard as the man who detonated a bomb ...," which makes the claims more neutral. As for not mentioning the number of dead, I disagree. That's what he and the three others are known for, and the only reason they have Wikipedia entries. It would be obtuse not to mention it in the introduction. I agree that we shouldn't be aiming to paint him in a negative light, but nor should be try to airbrush his image to make it seem better than it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
If you go to Nawaf al-Hazmi, you'll notice that they don't include the information of how many people died in 9/11 (Nawaf being one of the hijackers), that information is meant for the article on 9/11 itself. The "killing seven people" is even understandable since it's directly attributed to him, but the killing at least 55 people, including themselves, and injuring over 700. is unwarranted imho
Why do you feel it's unwarranted? He took part in a series of coordinated attacks. When he parted from his friends, he probably didn't think they were going to the pub for a drink. They all (it's alleged) knew that they were going to carry out attacks, so the number of deaths attributed to them as a group is relevant, because they acted as a group. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • -He went from "not holding a regular job" (Which is how newspapers reported it) to "unemployed" which rules out the possibility of a part-time job (Also remember he was University-age, so "unemployed" is perhaps a harsh term that again paints him as varelse, or "different"
My understanding is that he was in receipt of unemployed benefit. I'll check that and will either delete it or link to a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hrm, I can find reference to "a high unemployment rate among Pakistanis in Britain", but can't find anything specific to him. If you can however, by all means reference it.
  • -You changed his "graduated from Wortley High School" to "attended Wortley High School", which has a negative connotation of making it sound like the 22 year old did *not* have a High School diploma, which he did. (As evidenced by the fact he took a year of University as well)
People don't graduate from high school in England, or rather, that expression is not used. There are a number of different type of exams they can take, and different types of college courses. I don't know whether the course he took would be one that required what you're calling a "high school diploma" and what in England would be called A-levels, so we shouldn't assume it was. (It's a former polytechnic, and they offer more than the standard university degree courses.) If it's published anywhere that he took A-levels, we should certainly add it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
inititially reading over your edits, I thought you had deleted the part about University entirely, which I think was what ired me the most, so I apologize.
Thanks, no worries. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Still I'd think "completed Wortley High School" or something would sound better than repeating the "attended" term used for the University
The impression I get from reading the newspaper articles is that he didn't complete high school and didn't complete a course at university. If he had, they'd have said so. In fact, more than said so - it would have been in the headline: "A-level student with bright future" etc. We can't assume he completed anything until we see it published somewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • -the reference to the youth drop-in centre being a "recruitment point" for suicide bombers just serves to alienate 'these people' further in the reader's mind - who may now go home and rant that all Muslim schools are just suicide-bombing schools or something...it seemed better to simply point the reader to the article on the Drop-In Centre
The drop-in centre has been identified as having been used as a recruitment centre by Khan, the oldest of the four. I can link to a source if you like. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The source just states an official working elsewhere in the community, who did not want to be named, told the Guardian that he had reported the goings on at the youth centre to police after he became suspicious that it was a front for radicalising young men. which sounds like anonymous hatemongering to me personally...it doesn't identify who said it, it uses the vague "an official" which could be a Town Hall clerk or a Parking Meter Maid and it offers no evidence of the fact...again I'd appreciate seeing the drop-in centre a bit more NPOV
I've linked to a Guardian article that says a friend of Khan's made this claim. We're not supposed to judge what's published by reputable sources, just report it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • -Strictly from an aesthetic point of view, I felt it made the most sense to go from his pre-Hajj days ending with He attended Leeds Metropolitan University where he studied sports science before leaving for Pakistan. before the new heading Trip to Pakistan so everything was somewhat chronologically-based (Khan did not lead to Pakistan, from what we know Tanweer apparently didn't even know Khan until after his trip to Pakistan...he went from University to Pakistan, back home where he attended the drop-in centre.)
Sure, we could so that. Usually in WP articles, we talk about education in one section: schools, colleges etc. The problem with saying that he attended Leeds University before going to Pakistan, is that we hadn't said anything abou his going to Pakistan - that came later - so it looked a bit odd.
conceded, not a huge deal either way to me

SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • -I know this is a common argument amongst wikipedians, but I'm a strong supporter of putting the brackets around terms like Muridke or Colwyn Road (Which is a district, not a road) so that people come in and expand on them, creating new articles.
I personally don't like red links, because they make pages look neglected. I can't see anyone wanting to write an article about Colwyn Road. Perhaps you could start a stub on Muridke? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but those red links are the only thing that make people go and create the neccessary stubs...certainly nobody's going to create a "Colwyn Road" stub/article in the next week...unless they notice that it's the sole red link in a feature article :)
Point taken. It just looks so untidy. If you want to put it back, I won't object. In fact, I may even write it myself to get rid of the red, though all it will say is "Colwyn Road is in Leeds." ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • -Perhaps most surprisingly, you changed his "default" picture to one alleged to be him about to bomb the bus, rather than a more neutral and demure high school photo. I feel the CCTV image would be better suited later in the article. Sherurcij 22:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and I intend to change that as soon as we find a better photograph of him, but the current photograph is such poor quality, that I decided the CCTV image was better than nothing. What was the valuable information you said I'd deleted? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of my issues with this article

  • -unemployed, I'm editing to fit with the quote The 22-year-old did not have a regular job but sometimes worked in his father's fish and chip shop, South Leeds Fisheries, a few streets away from his home. found at www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441526/
  • -introduction should be much shorter, and not reference total casualties of the attacks, if at all, they should be under a seperate heading about what happened the day of the attack (and days leading up to?) under a title London Bombing or something
  • -First image on page should not be Tanweer on security tapes, should be a NPOV image - in lieu of any other, his yearbook photo would seem rather NPOV to me.
  • -a drop-in centre for teens, alleged to have been used as a recruitment centre by Khan. is still a little POV for a guy who influenced those around him, while working at a Drop-In Centre...I still would take issue with the term "recruitment centre" the same way I'd take issue with referring to David Koresh's "compound" - it gives an overtly militaristic tone to the piece that may or may not be deserved, but doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article.

btw, some sources give Lawnswood School as his high school, just a point of interest to come back to (www.lawnswood.info) Sherurcij 03:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing those details from the intro. It's absurd to write about him yet give no details of what he was involved in.
There were some other things in there I didn't follow.

On July 7, Tanweer drove the rental and other three bombers to Luton in Bedfordshire, then to Hyde Park where it's alleged they picked up the explosives from Magdy el-Nashar, and the group then headed to London by train. They were recorded on a security camera arriving at Kings Cross station, the London terminus serving Yorkshire, at 07:21 am.

First, I think the 07:21 recording is them in Luton, not London. And the thing about Hyde Park - you're saying they went from Luton to Hyde Park, and thereafter to London King's Cross, which makes no sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know English geography at all, so I'll take your word on the order of the cities visited, feel free to rewrite. However, I'll point you again towards Nawaf al-Hazmi or any of the other 9/11 hijackers - total casualty numbers do not belong in an intro, all bio articles should mention briefly their climactic event in the introduction, that's why it's an introduction, the actual event should have its own Chapter, since it's significantly more important than say "Trip to Pakistan" which already has one. Additionally, he was not unemployed, there's no reason for you to take wikilinks off things like 'butcher shop', you keep insisting on putting a POV image as the main image, when we already have a NPOV one you keep removing, and since we are an encyclopedia not a newspaper, we shouldn't be saying "Friends have told reporters...", but something a bit more literary like I had originally put. Sherurcij 19:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
"Friends recall" is journalese. If we know it because friends told reporters, we say "friends told reporters," or if it's not disputed or has otherwise been established, we simply state it as a fact. Regarding Hyde Park, where did you get this? I can only rewrite it if I know what it's trying to say. As for those who died, the way you had it, the number of dead and injured was in the last sentence as a sort of "oh, and by the way." The lead is meant to summarize why we're writing about this person. The number of people killed by the group he was part of is directly relevant. Are you arguing that the intro to Adolf Hitler shouldn't say his policies killed six million Jews? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Or did you mean Hyde Park, Leeds? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
(Not sure about Hyde Park, will look up later, or you can google)

I'm saying that Tanweer is not parallel to Hitler, but at best/worst to the 9/11 hijackers - I have no issue with "7 people on his train, as part of the larger london bombings" or something...but we don't put "The holocaust killed 6 million jews" in the introduction of every Nazi soldier...we put what they were directly responsible for, and what larger atrocities they may have been a part of. Lon Horiuchi may be another example to point out...he was a sniper at Waco and Ruby Ridge...but his introduction only deals with who *he* shot, not how many people died in the entire incidents. Reference back to Additionally, he was not unemployed, there's no reason for you to take wikilinks off things like 'butcher shop', you keep insisting on putting a POV image as the main image, when we already have a NPOV one you keep removing Sherurcij 19:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

First, the one from the yearbook is too poor quality for the main image, and secondly, how is the first image POV? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Delhi

Was there a particular reason for removing the part in bold, or changing madrasa to school? "Intelligence sources say the madrasa was located in Muridke, Pakistan, 20 miles outside Lahore, and is believed to be connected with Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, a banned militant Islamist group with ties to Al-Qaeda, which was implicated in the December 13, 2001 attack on the Parliament of India in New Delhi. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


The term Madrasa was introduced, after that it should pedal back into common vernacular language, which would identify it as a type of school. (Koranic school, possibly even) - as for the part in Bold, it was too much tertiary information when there's already an article about the group; just like we don't say "Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 3000 deaths in 9/11" every time we speak of them, we link to their article so people can read up on why the "banned militant group" is infamous. Still would appreciate you removing the part about him being unemployed , www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401912_2.html and www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/ news/news.html?in_article_id=355620&in_page_id=1770 make it clear he held a part-time job at his father's fish store at the time of his death

As for what's POV about using a crime scene photograph as his main entry, the same reasoning that sees Mohamed Atta using a passport photograph as his main entry, and the surveillance camera footage of him on the day of the attacks comes later in the article, in the section regarding the attacks. (Soemthing else you're stubbornly deleting from this article whenever I add it) Sherurcij 05:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War

Okay, I'm really starting to get sick of random reverts, I have pointed out that he wasn't unemployed and I have pointed out that the image you are using as the main image in not NPOV. I have shown reference to similar biographies about the 9/11 hijackers and how an introduction is meant to be short, with the details of the London Bombing under the appropriate heading. I put a lot of work into making this article better, in my most recent edit it was things such as italicizing flight names, finding and wikilinking the names of the airports he landed at, inculded a rough timeframe on the car rental, made the flights consistent, etcetera. Please stop mindlessly reverting, if you have a specific issue, address it. As it stands, I'm putting it back to the updated version, inviting you to address any specific issue citing other wikipedia articles about similar situations, and am putting in a mediation request so this doesn't just become a revert war. Sherurcij 19:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm prepared to concede on the issue of the photograph, but not your wish to exclude the number of dead from the intro, which I see as an attempt to sanitize what he did, and while we're not here to condemn him, we're also not here to minimize what he was involved in. When I last checked your version, you had the number of dead in the very last sentence. Also, some of the improvements you say you've made weren't improvements: for example, flight numbers aren't italicized, British people don't "graduate" from high school, Hyde Park in Leeds was written as though it was Hyde Park in London. As for him not being unemployed, I've asked you several times for a source to confirm that: that he helped out occasionally in his father's chip shop doesn't mean he had a job, and doesn't mean he wasn't in receipt of unemployment benefit. It would be helpful if you could supply sources for your edits. And could you say what you mean by "making the flights consistent"? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
(I already conceded that I appreciated your Leeds disambiguation, and the high school edits - and have left both of them intact throughout this. I also included the number of dead attributed to Tanweer in the introduction, which I believe was 7, and I pointed you towards every single 9/11 hijacker's article - details on 9/11 aren't given in their introductions, only to say they were involved, and which flight they were serving aboard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=355620&in_page_id=1770 Tanweer, who sometimes helped out in his father's fish and chip shop, undoubtedly had all the qualities that Muslim extremists would look for in a 'cleanskin' recruit

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1696094,00.html Lean, sporty and self-assured, he helped out by running sports activities for children at the local social club, and worked part-time in his father’s fish and chip shop.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/794 His father Mohammed, 56, who arrived in the UK from Pakistan 30 years ago, is a the owner of a chip shop, South Leeds Fisheries, just a short walk from the family home. Tanweer worked there part time.

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_2859464 His father owned a local chippie, a fish and chips place, where Tanweer worked part time.

Thanks for those links. The first one - militantislammonitor - doesn't look very credible, and the Knight Ridder News Service would take their news from the British press, so it's probably best to stick with the latter. I've checked most of the British stories on Tanweer, and I can't find any reference to him having a job. Some stories say he used to help out occasionally in his father's shop, but had stopped doing so, and others say he still did help out occasionally. As a compromise position between us, I've written: "There is no indication that Tanweer was employed at the time of his death, though he is believed to have worked occasionally in his father's fish and chip shop." Let me know if you're okay with this. I can find no reference to any high-school or college qualifications, so I've left that as it was.
Regarding the intro, Tanweer was engaged in an enterprise that killed 56 people and injured 700. It would be obtuse and unencyclopedic not to say this in the introduction, in my view. Introductions are supposed to provide a brief summary of the central and pertinent facts. You're therefore arguing that it isn't a central and pertinent fact about Tanweer that he was one of four suicide bombers who caused almost simultaneous explosions that day, and whose tube bombings, Tanweer's included, caused people to head for the buses, leading people to die on the bus that exploded who might otherwise not have been on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
NPOV/POV pictures should be re-arranged again, and you should put the wikilinks to Karachi Airport, Saudi Airlines and such back into the article. As per the employment, I can give the "worked occasionally at", but I still take issue with "no indication he was employed" How about a simple "...where he worked occasionally in his father's fish and chip shop." ? There's no reason to list how many people Osama Nazir has killed, since he has an article of his own, merely a quick primer that he was related to Jaish-e-Mohammed is needed. Thanks for the sports, and the holy warrior comments Sherurcij 00:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I've wikified Karachi airport and SAA; deleted unemployed (though I think you're wrong about this, and "no indication he was employed" is accurate); and I left how many Nazir killed as it wasn't just a grenade attack on a church that damaged a building. As for the first photograph, the image of him is of such poor quality, we'll make the page look bad using it alone, and we can't move the CCTV image to the London bombing section, as the section is currently too small, and the image will end up straddling the references section. As a compromise, I tried using both images in the intro. Let me know what you think of it. Also, his body should face into the text, so this image is better on the left of the page.
As for the intro text, are you still disputing it? I was about to ask for a third opinion, but won't if you're all right with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

It appears that Sherurcij and SlimVirgin disagree as to whether the number of dead in the London bombings should be mentioned in this article. My own opinion is that, if the number of dead is not mentioned, there is no real case as to why this young man should have a biographical article. Either mention the number of dead, or make the article a candidate for Speedy Deletion. I recommend the former, stating the number of dead. Robert McClenon 22:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

wtf? Why on earth would it be a candidate for speedy deletion? I'm not proposing we not mention the London bombings, obviously that's what the kid's known for, I'm merely suggesting that a picture unrelated to the crime be used as the main photo, and total casualty numbers for the complete event not be put in the introduction of the individual members (Though I have no problem listing Tanweer's 7)...as you'll notice is how it is done with Fayez Banihammad, Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ziad Jarrah, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Ahmed al-Nami, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Marwan al-Shehhi, Mohand al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Waleed al-Shehri, Satam al-Suqami, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Jamal al-Bedawi, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, etc
  • (Those being the 9/11, Embassy Bombings, Bali and USS Cole terrorists) Sherurcij 00:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
You're not naming the titles where it's done the other way. What do you mean by a "picture unrelated to the crime"? It's directly related! Look, I've spent a lot of time dealing with your objections. Please help to expand the article if you want, but going over and over the same issue is fruitless. User:Zappaz also agrees that the information and image are fine in the intro. And please take the point that people died on the No. 30 bus who would not have been on that bus had it not been for the tube bombings, so to conclude that Tanweer's deaths are a neat seven flies in the face of the facts. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The article looks straight and noncontrovercial to me. Another argument is that conspirators such as this are always charged with the entire crime, not just who might die by their hand alone. But even more, the article only makes sense this way. --Noitall 01:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point. Had he lived, he'd have been charged with murder and conspiracy to murder. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
It's not a question of what they're charged with, see the many examples I posted before. If you look up Lon Horiuchi it only tells you about what *he* did at Waco, not what the Bradley Vehicles did. If you look up a Nazi Lieutenant, it will tell you what he was directly responsible for - not the total number of deaths in the Holocaust. Sherurcij 01:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
If the Nazi lieutenant had directly conspired to cause millions of deaths, he'd have been charged with them. These four had a common purpose. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a simple issue. I noticed in the Eric Robert Rudolph article that somebody wanted to make sure the article said "Rudolph murdered" when I was trying to technically describe what happened as "the bomb killed ...". He thought it was appropriate due to Rudolph's conviction, but I felt we said it was murder quite clearly in other parts of the article. It was fixed through rewording. In this case, I personally feel it's sufficient to say "Tanweer yadda yadda <wiki>7 July 2005 London bombings</nowiki>", because (among other things) the death toll may yet change again and it's a bother to keep updating it more than one place, and (among other things) most people know what happened that day now. When somebody wants to put all those numbers in, it's almost like making sure the reader knows he was a bad man, to me, even though I personally do think he was a bad man and I'm not trying to hide that. I just think those numbers represent a kind of article clutter that doesn't necessarily belong in an introduction paragraph. Others certainly feel that it's, well, factual and you can't argue with putting facts in, can you? That is to say, you can't claim that putting in the number of deaths is by itself POV. I just think it's better not to have it there almost precisely because of arguments like this. Why isn't it sufficient to say he was involved in the terror attacks on that day? So I really do vote for keeping it out, on grounds of esthetics and informativeness. A summary is a summary. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dhartung. I also think Sherurcij has a good point. It doesn't serve anything to put the number in, and in any case, there is no trial, there are no charges, and we don't know what exactly he knew about the others and their intentions. What we do know -- or will know -- is how many he personally killed, and I think if any figure is included, that should be it. Grace Note 06:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't know that he did it at all. We don't know that he was a part of a conspiracy - it might have been a coincidence that he and his friends all decided to explode bombs on the same day. But, if we think we know any of those things, then it is relevant to mention that police say he was part of a conspiracy that killed X number. The only thing I'd change is the order, putting his personal death toll first and adding the toll for all of the day's bombings later. Hopefully the number will not grow any more, but we shouldn't hold off adding info just in case it may change someday. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with quoting the police saying he acted in concert with other bombers somewhere in the article. Where I do agree with Sherurcij is that we ought not to say he killed 56 people, just as we do not claim that the individual militants involved in 9/11 killed everyone that was killed. I think it's reasonable to say that we know that he killed however many in his particular incident -- why not? There is no doubt that he did it, is there? By which I mean, of course, that our reputable source -- in this case, the police, as reported in the news media -- say that it was him and no one is contradicting that. Grace Note 08:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Tanweer is alleged to be part of a unified group that committed one co-ordinated act of violence, killing over 50 people, and wounding over 700. This information is relevant, important, and helpful to the reader. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

But you don't say he was "alleged" to be part of anything, Jay. You say that he killed seven of at least 56 in "the attack". You state as a fact that it was a coordinated attack in that sentence, and you imply by doing so that Tanweer was a conspirator in the other attacks. The intro is still POV. It's subtle, yes, but we are definitely taking a stance that we ought not to. -- Grace Note
Because as I pointed out, that's not how an encyclopedia article works, it points the reader to details on the co-ordinated attack, but only lists the individual's contribution to the 'tragedy'.
See; Fayez Banihammad, Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ziad Jarrah, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Ahmed al-Nami, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Marwan al-Shehhi, Mohand al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Waleed al-Shehri, Satam al-Suqami, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Jamal al-Bedawi, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, (Those being the 9/11, Embassy Bombings, Bali and USS Cole terrorists, all who acted as part of a cohesive whole to carry out an attack, but don't list total casualty numbers in their introduction, nor do they carry POV photographs). The photograph is the largest sticking point for me, there's no way you can claim an article is NPOV when your picture you offer readers is "Here's the guy about to blow up a Subway station!" when you have more benign photos to offer instead.
Good edit, Jay, that makes it much clearer. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I concur. Kudos to Jay. I often say that Wikipedia conflicts can usually be solved by restructuring the problem text or article. The rewording is good enough that I propagated it to the other three articles. --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate the photo-switch, I feel it does much more justice to the matter. Just a niggling point with the reword (Still not ideal from my POV, but I'll live if you can all live with the photos this way), do we know it's *over* 56? I haven't heard a concrete number yet, but I'm just curious if we're certain it's over that number. Sherurcij 04:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I've rewritten the intro to reflect the plain facts. It hasn't been established that the four men acted in concert or knew exactly what each other was doing and I don't think we should suggest that they did. I still feel that we should not give overall casualty figures, for the reasons expressed by Sherurcij, but I think the formulation I put makes it factual rather than an implicit expression of blame. BTW, "at least 56" says "56 that we know of and perhaps more" and is far superior to "over 56", for the obvious reasons.Grace Note 04:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Find a source that casts doubt on their having acted with a joint purpose. As you know, there are thousands of sources that say they did. You argue below that we mustn't insert our own views. Therefore, you have to produce a reputable source that casts doubt on the joint-purpose claim. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, please stop reverting improvements, having more than one intro photo sandwiching the introduction is not "better", especially not when one of those photos is very clearly POV and belongs in the section ABOUT the bombing. Sherurcij 04:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's POV to include a picture of him and the other four suspects at the top? How so? Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's me. I just don't get it. I don't get what is controversial about the intro by SlimVirgin and Jayjg and the picture showing the 4 of them in the act of killing over 50 people. --Noitall 04:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've explained the problem with Jay's intro. It states as a fact that Tanweer was involved in killing "over 56" people. This is not a fact. It's an opinion, and it's not even sourced. Sherurcij's point about the photo is, I believe, that it is neutral to put a photo of him not in the commission of the bombing at the top of the article. I think he's right and such a minor point could probably be conceded by those who want to vilify Tanweer. Grace Note 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
So let me understand your question Noitall ...you don't see how it doesn't fit NPOV guidelines to have your introductory photo be "of them in the act of killing over 50 people"? Do you know what NPOV is?
Essentially it's why Hani Hanjour's introductory photograph is not this photo Sherurcij 05:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, they are IN THE ACT. The knife is about to plunge into the heart (of more than 50 people) so to speak. And you can't have a better source: it is in the picture you keep objecting to showing all 4 bombers with their bombs just before killing over 50 people. A picture tells a thousand words. --Noitall 05:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think you can take that as a "no" to your last question. I'll be back tomorrow to revert to an NPOV version. It's unacceptable that POV pushers simply revert without bothering to discuss the merits of the version they want and I have no compunction in reverting them. Grace Note 05:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems there is a lot of discussion and nothing new. I copied more discussion from my talk page:

Tanweer is, with little doubt, the Aldgate bomber. However, there is as yet no evidence that he knew what the others planned. There is no evidence that he worked in concert with them on their attacks. He could simply have been handed a rucksack that morning and made his own mind up what to do with it. They might all have done so.
Oh, come on Grace Note. Their bombs all went off at 08:50. That was no cooincidence. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
How does that go to show that he knew what they planned or where they planned it? How does it go to show that he did not simply turn up on the morning, be handed his rucksack and be told "go bomb a train"? You are so keen on his having planned the deaths of all that you ignore that there is not a shred of evidence or any suggestion even that he did not do exactly what I suggest. In fact, it is nothing but your POV. -- Grace Note
No, it is the POV of Scotland Yard, Special Branch, MI5, and the British government that it was a series of coordinated attacks. If you have a better source, by all means produce it, and we can insert that doubt into the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The targets were not necessarily chosen with any particular care. So, frankly, that makes it a matter of opinion that Tanweer bears responsibility for any of the other killings -- something that we could discuss in the article but that has no real place in a statement of the facts at the start of the article.

The word responsibility is not mentioned. He was one of four men, who did X, which resulted in Y. These are facts. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
There is a strong implication of responsibility. Compare "Leutnant Schmidt served in the Wehrmacht through 1943. In that year, the Germans killed a million Jews." Hello? -- Grace Note
There is no comparison unless there's evidence to show that Schmidt was directly involved in the deaths, as there is evidence to show that the four London bombers were engaged in a joint enterprise. It's hard to believe that anyone is questioning this. You're the only person on this page, and perhaps the only person in the whole of Wikipedia, to do so. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Remember, we are not here to put simply what the Western media suppose, or what we feel ourselves is the case.

No, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR say that we must present majority and significant-minority published views, and as this is the English Wikipedia, our published sources are English-language ones, so in reality we do present the views of Western universities, publishing houses, and the media. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear. Your reading of those policies leads you to feel that you can use any source to back your claims. So if the Sun newspaper or its counterparts elsewhere print some antiMuslim trash, you think it is fit for this encyclopaedia. I disagree with you, and I don't think your reading of those policies was intended by their framers, nor do I think it actually does have any consensus. What is particularly notable about your stance is how often sources that do not support your POV can be dismissed as "not reputable". Frankly, most of the media is about equally as "reputable" as your run-of-the-mill Islamist hate site. -- Grace Note
Where do I argue that the Sun is a reputable source? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV involves more than that. Some editors feel it is okay to be a bit loose with NPOV with subjects who are particularly vilified, but I hope you'll agree that those are the subjects where we ought to be most careful. I'll ask you to review your revert and return the article to the more neutral formulation that I suggested, or at the very least to defend the edit that you are so keen on reverting to, which subtly pushes an opinion about Tanweer and, subtlety notwithstanding, is not entirely neutral. Grace Note 05:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument. If there are specific doubts as to some culpability, then analyze such info down below. But they have excellent info already, tracking his movements and beliefs. I don't think Wiki needs to be held to Johnnie Cochran standards for assessment of blame. And I greatly object to a POV accusation that is clearly not the case, when tons and tons of evidence, including that picture, has been presented. -- Noitall 05:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
As an additional point, I have not seen cited any of the arguments you make in any source. Making up arguments on your own is POV. --Noitall 06:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't made up any arguments, and you're welcome to challenge me on any of them, I believe SlimVirgin already challenged my claim that Shehzad was employed part-time and I posted two reputable UK newspapers backing up my claim. I'm not denying that Shehzad did this, but that's not what NPOV is about. Lon Horiuchi definitely shot a mother and baby, but that's not the image we would use of him to introduce readers to the article. Sherurcij 06:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
You haven't posted a single source showing he had a job. You found a source saying he helped out occasionally in this father's fish and chip shop. That's not what it is to have a job. You've tried from the start to improve his image: for example, inserting that he had graduated from high school, when you couldn't possibly have had a source for that, because British newspapers would never have used that term. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=355620&in_page_id=1770 Tanweer, who sometimes helped out in his father's fish and chip shop, undoubtedly had all the qualities that Muslim extremists would look for in a 'cleanskin' recruit and www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1696094,00.html Lean, sporty and self-assured, he helped out by running sports activities for children at the local social club, and worked part-time in his father’s fish and chip shop.. I already posted both of these for you on this discussion page, both of which make it clear that he was not "Unemployed" or "There was no indication he was employed", but that he was holding a temporary or part-time job. I already acknowledged that my wording on his education was sketchy coming from a North American school system that requires high school graduation before one can attend college as Tanweer did. Sherurcij 07:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Since the question of his education comes up, actually check it out, I wasn't lying, I really did see it written Growing up, Shehzad Tanweer seemed full of promise. He graduated from high school and was scheduled to receive a degree in sports science later this summer from a local community college. [2] from the Washington Post, a fairly reputable newspaper. Sherurcij 07:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
You've found this after the fact. You had no source at the time. You deduced it from his having attended college, which is what is meant by "making up an argument." We're sticking to NOR and NPOV here, which say we represent majority and significant-minority published views. If you feel that the four may not have acted with joint purpose, produce a credible published source that says that. There are thousands of sources that say they did. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I haven't said they didn't act together, quite the contrary I personally believe it's quite clear that they did. But that doesn't mean the introductory photo should be related to the disaster, nor should the introduction be giving the death toll for the entire incident. It should include a link to the incident, and give the details of what tube Shehzad was riding, how many people died as a result, etc. I have provided the articles on each of the Bali bombers, each of the 9/11 hijackers, all of the USS Cole bombers, all of the Embassy bombers...100% of them support my interpretation of what an NPOV introduction is. Sherurcij 07:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Please stop the sophistry. One hundred per cent of the articles you chose support your POV because you wouldn't have chosen them otherwise. If you accept that they acted with a joint purpose, then you have to come up with an argument against opening the article with a description of that joint purpose and showing a photograph of part of it. You can't just keep repeating that it's POV and referring to other pages. Say why it's POV. It doesn't make him look worse than he was, or better than he was. It just says and shows what you acknowledge he did and what he was a witting, willing part of. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's worth taking a look at your version of the article. [3] SlimVirgin (talk) 07:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this; Tanweer would be completely non-notable were it not for his involvement in the London bombings. There would be no article, and any article that was created would be quickly put on VfD and deleted. Therefore any article about Tanweer should focus on what exactly it is that makes him notable, worthy of an encyclopedia article. Versions of the article like this: [4] are absurd; most of it deals with non-notable trivia about the fellow, and at the very end a sentence is thrown in that he might have been part of the bombing. The reader of the article is not coming here to find out about a British lad who worked part time in his dad's business; there are millions of those. Rather, the reader is coming here to find out about the bombing, Tanweer's involvement in that, what led him to it, who he was involved with, etc. The article should reflect the reader's interests in finding out about Tanweer's part in the bombing, not the author's intent in denying or downplaying that involvement. Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, you'll notice that the reason for that early edit ten days ago was listed as "(rewriting copyright violations)", all I did was run through the article as it was presented and change sentence structure - ten days ago I knew next to nothing about Shehzad. As per claiming that I only chose Fayez Banihammad, Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ziad Jarrah, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Ahmed al-Nami, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Marwan al-Shehhi, Mohand al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Waleed al-Shehri, Satam al-Suqami, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Jamal al-Bedawi, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Lotfi Raissi and Lon Horiuchi because they fit my argument...well like I said, that's a complete list of everybody comparable I can think of...given that they're 9/11 hijackers, embassy bombers, al-qaeda agents, Bali nightclub bombers, etc. If you want a non-Muslim entry, see Patrick_Arguello - a Nicaraguan who hijacked a plane in the 70s. People know that Shehzad was one of the bombers, why they come to his Wikipedia article is because they want to know more about him, who he was, what possible motivations he may have had, what his life was like...it's no different than any other biographical article. If you go to Charles Manson you'll see that he was in foster homes as a child, that his son later commit suicide...all sorts of details gathered from various sources and brought together to be a definitive source on him, his life and his crime. If you check the edits, I've probably added more damning evidence about Shehzad than either of you two - but I've worded it in a NPOV way that lets the reader make up their own mind, I'm not here to exonerate him, and I haven't removed a single fact about him - rather I've pushed that this article remain focused on him, and not just saying exactly what the 7 July 2005 London bombing article already says.
Now, on to a slightly more civilized tone...can anybody find the name of the Bengali mosque he is said to have worshipped at, I've seen several sources hinting that it was his main mosque, not Stratford Street. Sherurcij 15:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't added any "damning evidence about Shehzad" to the article. However, pretending that you are adding rafting trivia, while you are simultaneously reverting, is a no-no. So is saying "please don't revert, use talk page" when you have reverted yourself without using the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rafting

Could you please explain why you removed the rafting information and image? Sherurcij 16:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Partly because it was trivia, partly because it was inserted into a reverted version of the page using a false edit summary. Feel free to add it to the current version of the page. Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

trivia is important, people don't come here to see "Tanweer is a murderer", they come here to learn the trivia about him, who he was, what he did, how he met the others, whether he was a fundamentalist, whether he was a convert, how close were he and Khan. As one of perhaps only a dozen facts known about Tanweer's life, I would think that the fact his mentor appears to have taken him rafting a few weeks before they blew themselves up, would be fairly important information. And I'll point out that I didn't revert anything, I undid your revert to Grace Note's independant changes to improve the article. She wrote, you reverted, I put her writing back. Sherurcij 17:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I never reverted Grace Note's changes; I myself made only one edit to this article. It was my edit which was an "independent change to improve the article"; the edit differed from every previous version, and was complimented by more than one editor on its being a solution to an edit war.[5] It was Grace Note who subsequently modified my edit, then involved herself in yet another an edit war. I wrote, Dhartung modified, Grace Note modified and reverted SlimVirgin and Noitall, you reverted Noitall, and I finally restored my version. Please get your facts straight next time, please do not use misleading edit summaries, and please do not insist that others follow Talk: protocols that you refuse to follow yourself. Jayjg (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to use Talk: protocol, I have stated I'm sure half a dozen seperate times on this talk page why I feel that a strongly-POV image should not be used, and other than "But they killed more than 50 people!" have seen no rebuttal. Sherurcij 17:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Others, in fact, have given rebuttals. Moreover, you didn't simply move the image down, but reverted to an entirely different version with a misleading edit summary. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Please list the logical NPOV rebuttals Sherurcij 18:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I see, now you're qualifying the rebuttals? You get to decide which are "logical NPOV" and which are not? Read above, I don't have to repeat things for you. And if that's not enough, a picture of him along with 3 other people in the process of committing the act for which he is most infamous, the only thing that makes him worth a Wikipedia article in the first place, is an incredibly important picture, perhaps the most useful one on the entire page; certainly vastly more important than a rafting image. And I note that you again fail to respond to all the other issues with your edits. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This is the only one of the four bomber's articles that is at all contentious, and it's getting out of hand now with personal attacks, dredging up of week-old edit states, and accusations of stealth reverts. (Really, a 25K discussion of his employment?) The next step has to be either finding our way to a consensus, or bouncing this up to a Request for Comment.

For my part, I supported the improved wording that Jayjg came up with for the introduction. I still think it's excessive detail to have that information all up front, but I can accept the clear, accurate wording that he came up with, and I especially commend his desire to rework in order to reach consensus. I do not, however, support Jayjg's move to have the "crime scene" photograph up at the top, instead of where it belongs, alongside the discussion. Not only is it unnecessary (what? people aren't going to believe it unless we, Wikipedia, make sure they do?), it clutters up the page something awful.

This is not the article on the bombings; this is the article on the suspect. We are not prosecutors. I fully accept having the photograph in the page (even if the other pages haven't needed it); I don't see the importance of having it at the top. I think the first question requires a rather low bar ("why not?"), and the second question requires a higher bar ("why here?"). What is the serious necessity that this photograph be placed there, and only there? Why is it not acceptable to have the photograph accompany the detailed discussion below, where it illustrates what is being discussed?

And, putting this into perspective, assuming we are all capable of acting like adults, why is having it there worth a pointless edit war that is damaging goodwill?

The experience on similar articles, as Sherurcij pointed out, is important; it shows not only Wikipedia precedent, which is worth following, but also demonstrates broad consensus.

As for this rafting trivia item, it's only news because it's the latest thing they found out; it doesn't seem very important in the larger scheme of things. --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about the position of the 4 bomber image; I certainly wouldn't have reverted over that alone. And, as I said above, if Sherucij had just inserted the rafting junk, even though it's meaningless trivia, I wouldn't have reverted that either. However, when the entire article was reverted using a deceptive edit summary, all for the claimed reason of inserting the rafting trivia, I was not going to let that stand. The current version is certainly better than the version Sherucij reverted to/created. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is only "contentious" because a few editors have chosen to make it so without any real justification. Most arguments are clearly pushing a POV to sanitize this terrorist. As for Dhartung's argument, your only argument regards the placement of the photo, which is actually a minor "Wiki-style" argument. Since that is a very minor reason, then as you said, "Please end this" and leave the photo where it belongs, at the beginning. --Noitall 21:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
No, I made a very serious argument that the insistence on placing the photo at the beginning is damaging goodwill and inviting an edit war. That is not a "style" argument, although I would like it if people shared my concern for that as well. I can see that neither of you is ready to give up your personal attacks and ridiculous imputation of motives, and I find that disappointing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Dhartung, if you look through Sherurcij's edits here and to the article, you'll see numerous attempts by him to keep out anything that he sees as damaging to Tanweer's image, and the insertion of errors of fact, and revert warring over them. The employment issue is typical, and there was the high school graduation issue, and Sherurcij's apparent belief that the bombers picked up their bombs from Hyde Park in London. He's been given his own way on almost everything, except the introduction. Look at his version, which I posted a link to above, and now look at the current version, which is clearly an improvement.
The reason I put the CCTV photograph at the top is because the only image we have of Tanweer is very poor quality and it makes the page look bad to have that image alone in the intro. This is an aesthetic judgment, not a political one. My intention is to move the CCTV image when a better image of Tanweer becomes available, but there is absolutely nothing POV about the CCTV one. Saying a thousand times that it's POV won't make it so. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
You are seriously suggesting that you think the CCTV picture is of high aesthetic value? *kof* -- Grace Note

I think you could equally have suggested that Sherurcij is simply trying to achieve a neutral and fair presentation of Tanweer. In times when antimuslim sentiment is running very high, it's not easy. -- Grace Note

Sherurcij, I've added the rafting information with more details. It would be helpful if you could supply sources for your edits. Also, you'll need to tag the image and include the source on the image page, or it's likely to be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Same with the Tanweer image you uploaded. It needs to be tagged and sourced. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


I have a hard time believing that an image taken at a Wilderness Adventure Land is likely to be contested - for it to be in the media requires either the family or the Establishment to have released it, and neither would have transferred the copyright. My article clearly labelled the yearbook photo as such, and again no copyright can exist that I'm aware of on a yearbook photo once it's been published. (Hence why you always seem them used places). Beyond that, I really don't have the faintest idea of the various codes and tags for photo copyright, but you're welcome to look into it and complete the task if you're so worried.
No, I'm not trying to whitewash the kid, but I'm trying to ensure that we're fair and don't paint a worse picture of him that we would if he were not Muslim. A CCTV picture released of criminal premeditation prior to a terrorist attack is POV, look again at the complete list of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists I've linked you to, not a single one of them has a photograph related to the crime scene in their introduction, even Osama bin Laden has a nice NPOV image to greet readers. As per the three issues you mention, I've proven conclusively over and again that I was right about the employment issue, I already ceded and thanked you for correcting my knowledge of British geography concerning Leeds and never once voiced criticism over your edit, and similarily acknowledged my unfamiliarity with the British Secondary School system that led me to use the term "Graduated High School" instead of "Finished", or whatever the difference is that I still don't understand, but do not contest. You'll also note the version of mine you linked to, was my first draft of the article well over a week ago - and I've improved it greatly since then, in large part thanks to the contributions of the rest of the WP community. Sherurcij 01:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
You just keep repeating yourself, and I'm sorry, but I disagree that you've improved the article. You've mostly reverted and argued on this talk page. Also, he wasn't a kid; he was two years older than you, which made him a young man responsible for his actions. Those actions are being described in this article: not minimized and not exaggerated, just described, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with him being a Muslim. I'm currently being accused on other pages of being overprotective of Muslim issues, and you can rest assured that this page would look exactly the same had he been a non-Muslim. As for the images, when we upload images we're supposed to tag and source them, so please do it. You can claim fair use for the Tanweer one. I'm not so sure about the rafting one as I believe a tabloid newspaper may have purchased it, so you'll have to check into whether the other newspapers that published it paid for it. You can do that by seeing whether they acknowledge the copyright of another news organization. If they do, it may not be useable under fair use, as that depends in part on the photograph having no monetary value. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please tag and source images

Sherurcij, your images will be deleted if not tagged and sourced. The chip shop image has already been flagged. You can claim fair use, but I don't know where you got it from, so you'll have to do it yourself. If you don't know how to tag it, let me know. Or look at the images I've uploaded for this page and copy what I did there. If it's the copyright of the British govt (e.g. anything released by Scotland Yard), you write Crowncopyright; otherwise fair use. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Really have no idea of copyrights, so I assume Fair Use would be what we have to go with. As per your latest revert, lol, I think we can both agree that one was needed...how does one bribe a suicide bomber anyways? :P See, there are some things we can agree don't belong in the article ;) (Though working in the mention that I believe his birthday gift this year *was* a used mercedes - might be noteworthy...though I'm not sure if that was true, why would he rent a Nissan when he has a Mercedes? =\) Sherurcij 20:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Sherurcij, yes, that was a pretty weird edit. Perhaps we can use our agreement on that one issue as the basis for agreement on others. :-) If this birthday gift was a Mercedes, that would certainly be worth adding. I suppose the reason for taking a hire car is that he knew he wouldn't be coming back to drive the car home, so maybe he didn't want to leave a care in Luton car park that he cared about, or that his family cared about. That's just my speculation though. As for the images, if you can remember where you found them, just put the links here on this page (the links to the websites you took them from), and I'll put them on the image pages with the tags. I know it's a real nuisance but the WP image "police" are getting stricter by the week. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shrine

I know several media outlets have labeled his burial site as "the shrine of an Islamic saint", which seem to trace back to the BBC. 95% of the reports don't mention who this saint is, and the only name I've found is Pir Barkat Ali Shah...unfortunately google turns up your search - "Pir Barkat Ali Shah" -tanweer -bomber -london did not match any documents. Similar searches rearranging the names, or dropping the Pir or Shah turn up similiarly empty results that don't reference any Muslim saint by that name.

My concern is that this gives the reader the impression that Tanweer was glorified after his death by the Muslim community, and gives a sense like saying Timothy McVeigh's body was then placed beside the body of Mother Teresa or something. (No, I don't think there's any truth in that, it's just an example.) -- There is a good chance that the "Pir Barkat Ali Shah Shrine" in Chhotian Kota is just like the "St Andrew's Presbyterian Church" in my hometown...and to be buried there is no honour or glory, simply a standard way of treating any body, criminal or not.

For a similar reason, I'm wary of using the word shrine which makes it sound like his body will become venerated, which I don't think there's any evidence of, but gives a completely maligned view to somebody reading the article with prior prejudices. There's always the fear that the word's been misinterpreted, and really the building is more of a 'church'. Hearing that McVeigh was buried at a church isn't really inflammatory...hearing that he was placed in a shrine, is.

For the moment, I'm going to remove the reference to the "Islamic saint" until somebody with more knowledge in the area can confirm there is such a saint (and hopefully shrine) in Chhotian Kota - though I'll leave the reference to the shrine itself as a compromise.Sherurcij 21:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Sherurcij. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have provided a reference. [6]. I got my info from The Guardian, which described him as being buried next to the shrine of an Islamic saint. But if we have reason to doubt the Guardian and BBC, then obviously keep it out of the article. Babajobu 21:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

After looking over the various mentions of the shrine, I think it is unlikely that the claim that Tanweer was buried at the shrine of a local saint originated with the BBC. Both Pakistani and Indian papers say the same thing, and the most detail is carried in those South Asian papers. Pir Barkat Ali Shah is sometimes named as the saint, but more often he is just referred to as a "local Islamic saint". I'm going to restore the info without the name of the saint, as he seems rather obscure and just mentioning that he is a local saint should be enough. I'll provide an inline link to the Pakistani Daily Times article mentioning the burial and the shrine. Babajobu 15:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hrm, anybody?

According to forensic experts, the bombs provide evidence of a direct link between Tanweer and his accomplices and the July 21 bombers, whose devices failed to explode. I thought this was outdated, and hadn't been claimed since then? Anybody know for certain how things progressed? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Also, any reason we use [[Jamal Lindsay|Germaine Lindsay]] instead of just a direct link? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Links to Al-Qaeda

The video released today is inevitably going to lead to the conclusion that Khan and Tanweer had contacts with Al-Zawahiri and other Al-Qaeda figures whilst in Pakistan. It's worth waiting until the security services have had their say on it (whether the video merely came into Al-Qaeda's posession or was actively produced by them), so for the time being I've just linked a Times article which discusses the subject. JF Mephisto 21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg

Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg

Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg

Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)