Talk:Faisal Shahzad

Infobox criminal?
From Infobox criminal: "This template is generally reserved for convicted ... notorious criminals". There are BLP issues in calling him a criminal, aren't there? Shahzad is as of now a suspect, not convicted, right? I don't know the appropriate infobox for this, but criminal probably isn't it. Staecker (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no one sees this "criminal" designation unless they are editing the article, and statistically speaking a very small percentage of all the people who read Wiki articles actually edit them. I do understand your concern about trying and convicting people on Wikipedia before the courts do. If you or no one else changes the infobox to "person" today, I will do it tomorrow. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Has he ever been convicted of any criminal offenses? Jim Michael (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Switched it to infobox person- Staecker (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good move, I completely agree, especially since more parameters are allowed in the person infobox. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

American Sunni Muslim category
I haven't seen any sources which say that Shahzid is presently a Sunni Muslim. He may certainly be one, but per WP:Verify, I have removed the category and do not think it should be restored unless and until a source is provided and text is added to the article indicating that he is still a Sunni Muslim. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Source first, then add. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

American Muslim category
How do we know he's even a Muslim at all? He's still under the "American Muslims" category. We know he was sympathetic about the Middle East, but that hardly means he's a Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.191 (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although it is very likely he is a Muslim, I still haven't seen any source that says that he is. I saw one source that says he was religious as a child, but then, I know a lot of people who are that way as children and who are atheists as adults. I will remove the tag, again. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Muslim in infobox
I have no objection to the infobox entry religion=Muslim - but first we need a reliable source that says so. Nuclear Warfare who has added it, says say that the source is "iffy" but "clear enough". That is not the standard required by WP:Verify. The source contains an iffy statement that requires an inference. The statement is by one person and it is contradicted by other statements in the article. We should be following WP:Verify and WP:RS, especially since the is a BLP. That means no inferences and burden of proof on the person seeking to restore the previously deleted info. I am sure reference will turn up that meets the standards, but until then, I am removing the entry.209.44.123.1 (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another source did turn up, and I think it is better than the NPR story. However, both are not perfect, as the former only mentions his religion as he described it ten years ago. However, combining the two references I do not think would be original synthesis, and would be enough to definitively say he is Muslim, as the NPR story says "When he was here, he was not religious-minded. But he was when he came back from the United States," said Nasir Khan, a relative in the family's ancestral village of Mohib Banda in northwest Pakistan. He said he remembered Shahzad talking about the problems of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan." NW ( Talk ) 11:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, others have noticed the issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the claim that he is muslim from the infobox, because one of the sources was a dead link and the other merely stated that his documents from 2000 said "muslim" on them. i don't think expired documents from 14 years ago are enough to come to the conclusion that he is in fact a muslim. if you find a better source, let me know and we can reinstate the information.GoGatorMeds (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for a way to make this article cooler ...
I just created Faisal_Shahzad, with external links to the statutes he's charged under. Problem is, the links drop you to the top of the page containing the statute.

Wikisource is the only source I know that supports HTML anchors allowing you to drop the reader onto the line of statute being cited. Problem is, we don't have these sections in wikisource yet.

If someone has some spare time, they might create the wikisource pages for the sections of statute that I've cited in this new section, so that we can have html anchors in our statutory citation, making it clearer for people to understand the legal saga that's about to unfold ...

Thanks, 160.39.221.164 (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see how this section as it is, is useful in understanding "the legal saga that is about to unfold", so I have changed itdiff. First, the current charges listed in the complaint are only preliminary; Shahzad will be charged somewhat differently by the grand jury. Second, as you say, there are problems because the links go to the tops of the pages, rather than to specific subsections of the statutes. I believe this is can be confusing to the average reader. And, even if you were able to direct the links to the specific statutory language, it still would be confusing to people who are not schooled in the law. I think that a summary of the descriptions of the charges provided by journalists would be more enlightening, so I am including one.  I have moved the in line external links you had added to the external links section. Per WP:External links, external links should not normally be used in the body of an article. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Many names
Is it really ok to have all those names of his familymembers in the article? Seems a risk to inconvenience innocent people. Also, the sectiontitle "Prelude to the crimes" should perhaps change to something like "reported preparations", presumed innocent and all that. Impressive work on this article, it´s so detailed it´s scary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree reported preparations sounds better; it is more accurate, and less POV. Will make the change. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also moved Faisal's father's information from the lead. It is not that relevant, and I agree, his father's name and/or his wife's name probably shouldn't be in this article. For one thing, his wife is a private individual - whose name isn't notable, by any stretch of the imagination at this point. 209.44.123.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC).

That would be better. Also the name of the woman who sold the car seems unnecessary.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree as to the woman who sold the car -- the others I would continue to reflect.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No rush. I would argue to remove the names of wife, father, and man claiming to be fathers cousin. WP:BLPNAME gives me some support in this. The names are obviously not secret in any way, and have by now been "widely disseminated". But the policy also states "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability."

Based on this i would remove the names.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

History merge tag
A tag was placed at the top of the article page - and I am moving it here I do not see how the tag or the proposed merger of histories serves much of a purpose. A very short article with one reference was apparently begun which had the first and last names of the subject reversed. Shahzad Faisal The article was then changed to a redirect to the 2010 Times Square car bomb attempt, and I changed it to a redirect to this article. Considering the fact that there is very little history, I do not think it is worth the risk, or worth having the huge tag at the top of this article. I think we should reach a consensus on the necessity of this tag and the history merge before making any further changes. I would like to
 * oppose the risky history merge because it might delete this well-developed bio with over 30 sources in favor of a one source bio, and I oppose the tag for the reasons given above.  209.44.123.1 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed. Talk:Faisal Shahzad always has talk-page-type contents. Shahzad Faisal is always an ordinary article. They are not parts of the same edit history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list
In 1999 he was placed on a Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list called the "Traveler Enforcement Compliance System."

There is a problem with this sentence. The Department of Homeland Security wasn't formed until 2002 so they couldn't possibly have put him on a list in 1999. Mrbusta (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * True. However DHS was formed by merging agencies which did exist previously.  I'll change it to "US government" for now.  Thundermaker (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who added that to the article. Since I made the addition, the source has been edited to say, "Editor's Note: an earlier version of this story referred to Shahzad's name appearing on a Department of Homeland Security travel list from 1999 to 2008. That list was part of the Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS), which was managed until 2003 by the U.S. Customs Service which become part of the Department of Homeland Security." Learn something - read a book today! (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the followup, I added a short summary of that info to the article. Thundermaker (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is claiming to be a subject-matter expert on this has the major emphasis of the article wrong- your "TECS" acronym is incorrect- I would caution you against trying to put too much inaccurate info out there on this, especially if you're getting info from a misinformed federal employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.219.193 (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody here is claiming to be an expert; Wikipedia depends on reliable sources instead. I searched for "Traveler Enforcement Compliance System" and came up with this, straight from dhs.gov.  Are you saying DHS is mistaken about the meaning of its own acronym, or that Shahzad was not actually on that particular list?  Thundermaker (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Can somebody please try to find out his ethnicity? An IP editor who is editing Pakistani related articles is insisting that he is an ethnic Pashtun but the news report he/she cites doesn't clearly say he or his family being of Pashtun ethnicity. There are many non-Pashtuns living in Peshawar and in the bigger Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province but yeah majority are Pashtuns in these places. So far it only hints that he may be Pashtun but it doesn't say clearly what his ethnicity really is. Some believe that he is Kashmiri or at least half Kashmiri but I don't know so please help solve this issue.Ahmed shahi (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See this report which includes an interview of the mayor of Mohib Banda, the ancestral home of Faisal Shahzad. The article says: ... Ahmed is the former mayor in Mohib Banda and a close friend of Shahzad's father, retired Vice Air Marshal Baharul Haq. Ahmed says the case of Faisal Shahzad is a shame on the village, and tragic for the family. "This is a tragedy for me and every Pakistani, every Pashtun," he says. ... Tajik (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's only a hint but we need clear evidence. The mayor of Mohib Banda may be Pashtun but we want to know the ethnicity of Faisal Shahzad.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Except for you, for everybody else with at least medium knowledge of the English language, the message of the quote above is clear. Tajik (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Forbes identified him as Pashtun, and the article now reflects it.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * An additional source is needed, something better than the one you have cited. "Pashtun extraction" is not the same as saying his ethnic background is Pashtun or his ethnicity is Pashtun. Pakistan is a multi-ethnic nation.Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Pashtun is an ethnicity, so it is fine to support that is of that ethnic extraction.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All I'm asking is for a reliable source to say he is Pashtun, now what is wrong with that? If he is Pashtoon there is nothing we can do about that, but what if he isn't really a Pashtun? This is why we need this to be verified.Ahmed shahi (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The source -- which is without doubt an RS -- says he is of Pashtun extraction. That is precisely -- the very words -- what the source is being used to support in the article.  You've not given any reason for tag-bombing the article.  There is no reason I can imagine for doing so other than some POV.  --Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't jump to conclusions and calm down. In most articles someone's ethnicity is stated without using the word "extraction". I'm not claiming Shahzad to be of any ethnicity, and so far only one (1) source (Melik Kaylan in an article he wrote on Forbes.com) states:The accused wannabe car bomber, Faisal Shahzad, is a naturalized U.S. citizen, a Pakistani immigrant of Pashtun extraction with roots in the frontier city of Peshawar. Peshawar is a crumbling, ornate warren of Pakistani Taliban activity teeming with violent tribesmen, opium smugglers and radical mosques. Pakistan proper ends at the city's outskirts, and the Tribal Territories stretch out towards the Khyber Pass to Afghanistan in one direction and al-Qaida-dominated Waziristan in another.
 * I have come across news sites in the past where they gave people the wrong ethnicity. For example Suhaila Seddiqi was labelled as an ethnic Tajik by the BBC News in 2001 but she turns out to be an ethnic Pashtun according to USAID and a number of other sources.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahmad shahi, there is a complaint about you at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. And despite the discussion there, and despite the many users that have already warned you, you continue your nonsense. Now stop destroying this article as well. Your stubborn ambitions to establish POV and to remove valid information is absolutely disturbing. Now you are even inserting factually WRONG information. What has the Persian language to do with an article which is about a PAKISTANI PASHTUN?! This is a violation of WP:POINT, because your only ambition is to push for ethnocentric POV. Tajik (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you reminding me of that complaint at this point? And, that writing in the beginning of the introduction (فیصل شہزاد) is not Pashto language, that is Persian language. Bring someone who can understand Persian alphabet and they will help explain. Urdu (the national language of Pakistan) is closer to Persian but Pashto is different from Urdu and Persian.Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You have no valid argument, Ahmed shahi. Faisal Shahzad is a Pashtun from a Pashto-speaking region. And his name has exactly the same spelling in Pashto, because all of these languages - Persian, Pashto, and Urdu - use the Persian alphabet with few modifications and differences. Persian has nothing to do with this articles. The person is Pashtun, Pashto speaking, and Pakistan's national and official language is Urdu. Tajik (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @, you have been placed on one revert per page per week limitation and you still continue to disrupt Wikipedia, pushing your POVs, stalking me, and spreading lies, disturbing other editors. I wish you go away and not disturb me anymore. By the way Urdu is not the official language of Pakistan, it's actually English. See Pakistan

Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Kashmiri descend
Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An article in Time states:Pakistani government officials told TIME on Tuesday that Shahzad is of Kashmiri descent and the son of a former top air force officer. On his most recent Pakistani passport application, he gave his nationality as Kashmiri — a fact that some analysts suspect might tie him to militant groups based in Pakistan that originally formed to fight Indian control of the divided territory. An official in Islamabad said Pakistani authorities are investigating whether he had ties to any Kashmiri jihadist groups. During his latest spell in Pakistan, Shahzad was said to have spent significant time in Peshawar, the capital of the North-West Frontier Province, where Islamabad has waged a fierce war against Taliban militants.
 * ‘Suspect was of Kashmiri-origin’ "He is Kashmiri by ethnicity," a source familiar with the investigation said in Washington. (source: REUTERS)
 * I'm not sure why either need be dubious. Perhaps he is both, for example one on each side of his parents.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case we must rely on the governments, because ethnicity is recorded in government documents. Pakistani government officials, who are assisting the US government, have interrogated all the family, relatives and friends of Shahzad and it turns out that Shahzad's ethnicity is Kashmiri. US government officials in Washington, DC, have also confirmed that he is Kashmiri by ethnicity. There are sources to verify all this so no need to add the dubious tag for the Kashmiri claim.
 * On the contrary, the Pashtun claim becomes dubious because of this finding. There is no evidence except one person (Melik Kaylan) describing Shahzad as "a Pakistani immigrant of Pashtun extraction with roots in the frontier city of Peshawar".
 * If you believe he is both, for example one on each side of his parents, then you must cite a reliable source which states this, but until then you cannot say in the article stuff like "perhaps he is both" because that is OR.Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true. I have an RS that says he is of Pashtun extraction.  So I can see it.  It is not dubious, because it is not contradicted by anything you point to.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case your source (Melik Kaylan) is not RS because Mr. Kaylan is clearly contradicting US and Pakistan's government officials.Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wrong. If RS 1 says you are of British descent, and RS 2 says you are of Chinese descent, of course you can be British-Chinese.  There is no contradiction at all.  That's absurd.  I think you are bright enough to understand that.  The categories here are not by any means mutually exclusive, as it is not that he has only one ancestor.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why Ahmed shahi tags that source. In fact, unlike the Times article which claims the author has been informed by Pakistani government workers, the "dubious" source actually includes an interview with the suspect's family (including his cousin) as well as the former mayor of his ancestral home who is also a good friend of the suspect's father. This is a far more reliable source than the one presented by Ahmed shahi because it is a PRIMARY source (suspect's family and home). Tajik (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Epeefleche, I understood your point the first time but you're not understanding mines. If his father belonged to one ethnic group and his mother belonged to another, as you assume, then the US and Pakistani government officials would have stated this. Maybe both his parents are Kashmiris and he may have some relatives or friends that are Pashtuns, and in that case he is a Kashmiri only. More information will be revealed about this individual in the near future as US authorities proceed with their investigation.Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are refusing to understand.

Here is how it works. If we have an RS saying x, we can reflect x in the article. If x conflicts with what another RS states, you can add dubious tags -- to both statements.

This does not conflict with what another RS says. It is certainly, unquestionably, ineluctably, and without doubt the case that both can be true.

Your assumption as to what the government officials would know/state is just that -- an assumption. It is an unsupportable one, that I reject completely. You have no basis for it.

We have an RS saying something that does not conflict with anything in the article. Future reversions by you will constitute intentional vandalism as far as I am concerned. I don't appreciate your acting as though you "don't get it", when it is now clear that you are just a POV vandal. I've had quite enough conversations with you, patiently, before coming to the conclusion that you are simply jerking my chain.

Have a nice day.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This dispute is ridiculous. Why is his shoe size even relevant to readers who are not shoemakers? Uh, sorry, I meant to say: Why is his ethnicity even relevant to an international English-speaking audience? That sort of stuff is used to fill up news stories and give the impression that the reporter found out something about the subject. It's also the kind of information that gets routinely removed as irrelevant when summarising a story. And remember, summarising things down to encyclopedic brevity is what we are supposed to do here.
 * Moreover, if one source says his ethnic background is A, and another says he is of B descent, then it's not quite a contradiction in the strict sense, but it produces a cognitive dissonance that is not present when one sources says his ethnic background is A and he is of B descent. If we report both claims in this way without also conveying a sense of this cognitive dissonance, then it's improper synthesis. The reason is that sources are often wrong, especially initial newspaper reports, and if the second report was actually meant as a correction of the first, then we are cementing an error by claiming both are true.
 * The fundamental, underlying problem here is that part of the article apparently tries to report all information in all sources. A source that just says: "X is a C" is inherently less reliable than one that goes into great detail about how X grew up in a C context, and the background of X's parents. That's the kind of information which we would normally transform into an encyclopedic statement: "X is a C". Hans Adler 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * US government (Homeland Security) and Pakistan's government (interior ministry) have told Time magazine that Faisal Shahzad is Kashmiri by ethnicity. On the contrary, 2 non-famous people wrote articles online in which they put Shazad as Pashtun. We have no idea where these 2 got their information from. Epeefleche is not being civilized here, he wants to fight with me. Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand how you got that impression. I guess that Epeefleche got into "defend Wikipedia's integrity against a nationalist POV pusher trying to keep his ethnicity out of the matter" mode. I guess this, because I also tend a bit towards that reaction. But it is true that there seems to be a bit more detail about the Kashmiri claim, and it appears to be more recent. (Correct me if I am wrong, as that would change things.) That it is made without repeating the Pashtun claim (which is of course prima facie plausible, but might have been the extrapolation of a journalist or source who actually didn't know what they were talking about) makes the Pashtun claim less likely.
 * Given the uncertainty and the relative lack of relevance, I suggest leaving both out completely. "From Pakistan" is just about the right level of detail for the overwhelming majority of our readers anyway. Hans Adler 13:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur - at the very most the article could mention that sources conflict about his ethnicity but this is hardly necessary. Ronnotel (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the no mention of ethnicity or we quote the sources that speak about the ethnicity. Can we also agree not to mention "Muslim" right after the subject's name in the intro? And, I haven't told anyone my own ethnicity or nationality so please Hans don't give me an ethnicity or a nationality. Also, why are you calling me a "nationalist POV pusher"?Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that he shouldn't be singled out based on his religion. I think the question goes to verifiability and relevance. Is it established that he is Muslim - undoubtedly. Is it relevant to the article? On balance, it probably is since many of his activities have been allegedly linked to a fundamentalist Islamic group. Ronnotel (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you and it was certainly not meant as an accusation. I only wanted to explain what I guess is the reason for this conflict. It looks as if you inadvertently pushed certain buttons in Epeefleche. I can tell because I instinctively I have the same reaction. Sometimes I cause similar reactions myself in other people, who will then think that I believe in all sorts of nonsense just because I insist that certain sources are not sufficient to make certain disparaging statements about that nonsense.
 * As to dropping "Muslim": I am sympathetic to the idea, since it's sort of redundant. But it should be present somewhere in the lead, and it would require a new purpose-made sentence to put it into a later lead paragraph. On balance, I think it should stay in the first sentence unless someone finds an elegant way to move it further back. Hans Adler 17:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it wrong to start an article of a person with his name and then his religion, especially someone who did not even live his life as a Muslim. For example, he went to college to study non-religious subjects then adopted America (non-Muslim nation) as his nation, he mortgaged a house, he most likely dated girls, drank alcohol, ate non-halal foods, and so on. These are things forbidden for Muslims, I'm not even sure if he went to the mosque and pray.Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "more religious" reference using the third source actually shows a /bias/ in American reporting against Islam and not his real religious nature. There's this inference that "he started praying 5 times a day and BAM next think you know he's bombing Times Square". People become more religious for various different reasons, e.g. a child dying. I don't think someone who was planning on killing innocent civilians (a direct violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah) could be called "religious". Too lazy to make an account, just wanted to add my $0.02 72.161.160.160 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * His ethnicity is relevant in a region that is being plagued by fundamentalism and nationalism-inspired separatism (Pashtuns, Kashmiris, Baluchs, etc.). It is also important, because the US and international mission to neighboring Afghanistan is mainly centered in Pashtun areas - a people who feel strongly insulted by the presence of foreign forces and the many "collateral damages". Time also explicitly points out the possibility that he spoke Pashto (which is very likely), and that this is important in regard of the many Taliban camps in northeastern Pakistan (a side-note: the Taliban are almost entirely Pashtun and represent a strong nationalistic fraction within the Pashtun community). Ahmad shahi's claim that "two unimportant people claim" a Pashtun ethnicity for Faisal Shahzad is totally wrong and proves his lack to understand and evaluate sources. At least in one of those sources, a family member (the suspect's cousin) was interviewed, as well as a good friend of his father (the former mayor of his ancestral home). These are primary sources and by no means inferior to "official data" provided by the US and Pakistani governments which are - at best - only secondary. Tajik (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree w/Tajik, who has explained it articulately above. Admittedly, one can best appreciate the relevance if one has familiarity with the subject matter, and the fact that the Pakistani Taliban are generally Pashtun.  The above comment was a good flag for the importance of reflecting that in the article, however, which I've now done.  For those familiar with the subject, as Tajik clearly is, it is relevant.  The Pakistani Taliban is not a group of people of similar shoe size.  Furthermore, as those familiar with the region will tell you, much as with certain nations in Africa people often identify largely with their tribe -- sometimes more than with their citizenship.  The issue is relevant, and we shouldn't assume that because people are English-speaking they are unaware of its importance, though in some cases that will undoubtedly be true.


 * Furthermore, the way we avoid POV on the issue of "what is notable", is we look to see whether it is reflected in RSs. His shoe size seems not to be mentioned -- I gather from that that it is not notable.  And it is therefore not reflected in the article.  The references to the Pashtun, in all manner of cases (from it being his ethnicity, to charges that this is a bad day for the Pashtun, to assertions that this is an effort to bomb the Pashtun) reflects its notability.


 * As to reflection of him being Muslim, this is a discussion that has been had before at similar articles. In short, they go as follows.  1) We don't generally reflect religion or ethnicity in the lede.  2) But we do generally reflect date of birth--in the first sentence, and (with recent changes) also follow, or can follow, the typical encylopaedic approach of reflecting place of birth in the first sentence.  3) We also typically reflect citizenship in the lead -- again, in the first sentence.  4) We reflect religion and ethnicity in the lede if it is relevant to the notability of the person.  Examples include people committing terrorism in the name of Islam.  As here.  5) In such cases, the natural place to reflect it is in the first sentence, alongside their citizenship.  As in "Muslim American".


 * As Tajik reflects, our colleague is seeking to delete all manner of RS-supported material, for reasons of synth and OR and POV.


 * Our job, and the best way of keeping out POV, is to reflect the RS sources. Not construe contradictions where none exist.  This is also a basic approach taken towards statutory construction, by analogy.  Where two documents cover the same issue, and can be read so as not to reflect a contradiction, that is the way to read them.  That concept was developed over centuries of jurisprudence, and makes good sense.  We should, IMHO, do the same here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
I reverted User:Ahmed shahi's most recent edit as he was removing referenced material. He listed this material as irrelevant, but since when is biographical info irrelevant to a biography? In addition, to raise a fuss as to the ethnicity of Shahzad and claim there is not reference supporting his being Pashtun and then remove referenced info clearly stating him to be Pashtun is hardly an act of integrity.--Supertouch (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Supertouch, I didn't remove referenced info clearly stating him to be Pashtun. US and Pakistan's governments both have said that he isn't a Pashtun but you still refuse to accept it. This is what I removed: I found all this ethnolinguistic information irrelevant because a) Pashto is the official language of the entire area (NWFP). B) a former mayor commenting on the arrest of Shahzad by saying "this is a tragedy for every Pakistani and every Pashtun" is his POV and a ridiculous statement. It's not like Shahzad was murdered by someone in America, he committed a crime and so he must do the time. And, c) Kifayat Ali's statment "conspiracy so that the [Americans] can bomb more Pashtuns..." is also untrue and dumb because the Americans are not bombing Pashtuns in particular, in fact the Americans are assisting the Karzai administration which is led and dominated by Pashtuns who are at least 42 million people and the Taliban are only few thousand.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Time opined that his family's background in the northwest meant that he likely spoke Pashto, a rare asset in the training camps compared to other Western volunteers.[24]
 * Faiz Ahmed, a former mayor in Mohib Banda - Shahzad's reported ancestral home - and a close friend of his father, said in this regard in an interview with National Public Radio: "This is a tragedy for me and every Pakistani, every Pashtun."''
 * Kifayat Ali, a man who said he is a cousin of Shahzad's father, insisted that Shahzad's family had no political affiliations, adding that the arrest appeared as a "conspiracy so that the [Americans] can bomb more Pashtuns," and "He was never linked to any political or religious party [in Pakistan]."[30]
 * You are replacing the view of the various RSs as whether it is relevant with your POV. The way wikipedia works, that is not appropriate. Your view that Time is wrong to treat it as relevant for example, and that the statement reported by NPR of the former mayor of his ancestral home is his POV and ridiculous, and what a cousins of the subject said is untrue and dumb misses the point.  It is quite fine for the people quoted to make statements that (if you were correct in your assertion) reflect their POV, and are ridiculous, and are dumb.  What is not OK is for you to introduce your POV by deleting such statements from RSs.  That is why, quite properly, the other editor termed your deletions disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're making up things as you go along. Every editor has POV, including you and editor Supertouch. You say everything you want is ok in the aritlce but anything I want is not ok. Have it your way, I'm not going to edit this article anymore. It's just a waste of time for me.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did someone remove the detailed information regarding the specific charges?
Look at these difs, under the ==Arrest and charges== section. I put in a really helpful summary of the charges (working from a different IP address) and I don't understand why they were removed. -user:Agradman working as 75.104.120.160 (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The editor who did it posted an explanation in this section. Thundermaker (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

D's?
Is "In high school, he received Ds in English composition and microeconomics" really a necessary line? I don't understand what it is supposed to be bringing to the section or how its important at all. Silver seren C 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

citizenship
I put a on "Pakistani" -- I'd like to see a source saying he didn't relinquish his former citizenship, or some explanation as to why he could/was allowed to do so, or what the circumstances were. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Huffingtonpost says he's not a Pakistani citizen. Thundermaker (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Americans are not bombing Pashtuns but terrorists, regardless what their ethnicity is. In fact, Pashtuns are bombing each others if you follow all the news reports. And Shahzad was in fact linked to a politcal/religious party. He himself claimed so: "Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan... I… with them, I did the training to wage an attack inside United States of America... The whole thing: how to make a bomb, how to detonate a bomb, how to put a fuse, how many different types of bombs you can make."--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the infobox putting "Kashmiri / Pashtun" for ethnicity is a problem. Kashmiri is Dardic ethno-linguistic group while the Pashtun is Iranic. Government documents show his ethnicity as Kashmiri but he identifies himself as a Pashtun. He grew up in a region that is predominantly Pashtun and the Kashmiris are one of the many minority groups in the area. To me it appears that he and his family are Kashmiris but were Pashtunized through a process called Pashtunization.
 * I propose that we add The Government of Pakistan stated that Shahzad is Kashmiri by ethnicity, which is mentioned in his Pakistani passport that he secured in 2000, but on trial day he told the judge that he is Pashtun ethnically in the "Background section" and delete the current way it's written.
 * I want to remove these POVs: Time opined that his family's background in northwestern Pakistan meant that he likely spoke Pashto, a rare asset in the training camps compared to other Western volunteers.[26] Faiz Ahmed, a former mayor in Mohib Banda – his ancestral home – and a close friend of his father, said in this regard in an interview with National Public Radio: "This is a tragedy for me and every Pakistani, every Pashtun."[27] Shahzad comes from a wealthy, well-educated family in northwest Pakistan. I want to say that they may be wealthy according to Pakistani standard of living but not to others. How is his arrest a tragedy for every Pakistani, every Pashtun?
 * I also want to remove this nonsense: ''Kifayat Ali, a man who said he is a cousin of Shahzad's father, insisted that Shahzad's family had no political affiliations, adding that the arrest appeared as a "conspiracy so that the [Americans] can bomb more Pashtuns", and that Shahzad "was never linked to any political or religious party [in Pakistan]".

Background
I organized this section by rewriting it because it was very poorly written. The article is about one individual who became mad while living in the United States due to personal problems, his father and family were not involved in what he was doing. Therefore, the article should focus on him only and not on his relatives or the NATO war with al-Qaeda.--182.177.26.39 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

child removed out of Shahzad's news picture?
On Broadway.com Jon Kern says the regular pic had Shahzad's child removed from the picture. If correct, which it almost surely is, I think that would be notable enough for the article.198.189.194.129 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Faisal Shahzad. 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/20120619031833/http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/05/times-sq-plotter-a-lone-wolf--.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/05/times-sq-plotter-a-lone-wolf--.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner:Offline 01:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Faisal Shahzad. 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/20100507190851/http://www.newstimes.com:80/news/article/Exclusive-Documents-found-near-bomb-suspect-s-473608.php to http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Exclusive-Documents-found-near-bomb-suspect-s-473608.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100509163857/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/daily_detail.asp?id=237595 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=237595
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100510025544/http://www.npr.org:80/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126524232 to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126524232

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Faisal Shahzad. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120113012209/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6989257.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6989257.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Faisal Shahzad. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/04/2010-05-04_times_square_family_photo_shows_accused_bomber_faisal_shahzad_posing_near_scene_.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606004805/http://www.hindustantimes.com/americas/Taliban-s-suicide-bomb-trainer-tutored-NYK-bombing-suspect/540098/H1-Article1-540060.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/americas/Taliban-s-suicide-bomb-trainer-tutored-NYK-bombing-suspect/540098/H1-Article1-540060.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512174654/http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/news/times-square-suspect-contacted-radical-cleric-dpgonc-km-20100506_7411371 to http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/news/times-square-suspect-contacted-radical-cleric-dpgonc-km-20100506_7411371

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) 08:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Faisal Shahzad. 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 tag to http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/failure-banality-shadowed-shahzads-pakistan-past/19466041
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130115184607/http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/05/04/13819271-ap.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/05/04/13819271-ap.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130115184607/http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/05/04/13819271-ap.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/05/04/13819271-ap.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622074944/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013081926_bomber06.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013081926_bomber06.html

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) 16:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)