Talk:Germaine Lindsay

message: DaveBurstein (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindsay as a terrorist 

message: The reports linking Samantha are from the Daily Mail (not a reliable source) talking about twitter comments from an unverified account, and rumours from other people. The Mail claims she was shouting orders in Arabic, yet the attackers were Somalians, some speaking English. see here. Please do not re-add rumours until and unless there is a reliable account linking her to the attack, or it is discussed here first.Martin451 (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewthwaite was already wanted by the Kenyan authjorities long before the Mall attack (in which she may or may not be involved). It seems somewhat remarkable that with the creation of the separate page for her, we have gone from detailing her alleged terrorism-related activities after 7/7 (which certainly throws a different light on her claimed reaction to 7/7) to... nothing. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other reports, but the daily mail coverage of her in Nairobi is just rumour.Martin451 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which doesn't change the fact of the first sentence in my post above. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I have personally removed the bit about her being wanted prior to this month, it was moved by another person, and that is not the material I have a problem with. What I think is very questionable are the claims she actively took part in the Nairobi massacre sourced from the Mail, or where other papers copied that content. The BBC and Independent both put doubts on her direct involvement. I have not problem with the reinstatement of the earlier material (properly sourced).Martin451 (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samantha Lewthwaite 

message: Article has less than 20 sentences, 8 very short paragraphs, and 10 cited sources. The information presented is extremely scant - particularly given the event for which the individual is notable - and requires additional citations for verification. A B-class article should be "mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards... Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher." I would argue that even in 2006/2007 this didn't meet the criteria for B-class, but in 2013 it definitely does not. A generous re-assessment would be C-class: "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.... Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." BlackberrySorbet 12:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality scale re-assessment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Germaine Lindsay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628022052/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/16/nbomb216.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/16/nbomb216.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified