Talk:Shehzad Tanweer

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Rafting

message: 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)
replies: text: Good idea, Sherurcij. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I should have provided a reference. . 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)
thread_title: Shrine

message: 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)
replies: text: Also, any reason we use Germaine Lindsay instead of just a direct link?  Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hrm, anybody?

message: 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)
thread_title: Links to al-Qaeda

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Shehzad Tanweer.jpg

message: "Three years to the day of the July 7 attacks, Pakistani relatives of Tanweer held a feast to 'celebrate his life' and 'remember him as a martyr,' causing outrage among the victims."
Is there any other source for this? Daily Mail articles like the one linked are quite controversial and potentially unreliable. Blankfrackis (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrating his life / Daily Mail 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shehzad Tanweer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305001358/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/image-gallery/images/rez-high/trakernet-3-high.jpg to http://tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/image-gallery/images/rez-high/trakernet-3-high.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shehzad Tanweer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930192421/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article298806.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article298806.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it worth broadcast this propaganda on this page? Maybe just a summary would do. I don't believe it's good to give this a platform on wikipedia.Oxr033 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  video statement