Talk:Sajeel Abu Ibrahim

Associates and alleged associates
According to The Telegraph, at his trial in 2006, Mohammed Babar, an individual who pled guilty to terrorism related offenses, described Shahid as a senior figure in the transfer of British muslims to Pakistan to participate in jihad. He testified he met Shahid and the two other founders in Pakistan. He testified that Shahid's associates met him at the airport when he returned to the UK. He testified that Shahid gave him 300 British pounds.

According to the BBC in a 2004 interview with Asharq alawasat Sajil Shahid described his friend Muhammad Nai'm Nur Khan as an informant. According to the BBC the two became friends while imprisoned in Lahore, and "Nur Khan deceived all the fundamentalists in prison and informed on fundamentalist cells around the world.".

ELs
Moved for the article - on investigation none of these look specifically related WP:EL in regard to this living person - Please make a case here for investigation if you disagree -   You really can  21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mitchell D. Silber,The Al Qaeda Factor: Plots Against the West University of Pennsylvania Press, 09-Dec-2011 Cloth 2011 ISBN 978-0-8122-4402-1 Ebook 2011 | ISBN 978-0-8122-0522-0 Ebook Page 94
 * U.S. Department of Justice
 * The Aim, A Muslim State From Spain To Indonesia
 * Militants call bin Laden tape U.S. fabrication

Clarify
Removed abducted and put detained as per NPOV as it had been done by the Government of Pakistan and was acknowledged later and the suspect released. Further added BBC newsnight it also says he was the head the head of Al-Muhajiroun it addition to what the other sources say.Now it clearly WP:RS. .Further the BBC article quotes this "According to his witness statement "Q" sent Mohammed Sidique Khan (MSK) - the leader of the 7/7 bombers - and Omar Khyam - the leader of the Crawley plotters - to Pakistan. There they trained at a terror camp set up by Sajil Shahid. They fired various weapons including pistols, rifles and rocket-propelled grenades and Omar Khyam was shown how to make bombs." But have not added this at this moment. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged?
I disagree with this recent edit. The edit summary said: "suspected and alleged does not = a fact to present this as a fact is shady a a clear BLP violation."  However, the original sentence did not represent the claim as a fact. The original sentence merely echoed court testimony. It did not assert it was a "fact" that Sajeel Shahid set up the training camp. That the Daily Mail "reported" this court testimony is a fact. The allegedly added in this edit is unnecessary. This was not a BLP violation of any kind. Geo Swan (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Daily Mail and BBC reported that the training camp in Pakistan where the cell's leader they trained had been set up by Shahid." That is a misinterpretation.


 * "is alleged to have set up a terror training camp in Pakistan." Daily Mail. Same for the BBC two witnesses allege that he had set up a terror training camp. Clear BLP violation to leave out "allegedly".


 * BLP policy is not a joke.


 * -- 41.202.238.142 (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the "allegedly" introduced by User:41.x.x.x triggered the dubious tag added by User:Nomoskedasticity (discussed below). Could you please make a greater effort to use full sentences?  It will make it easier to give meaningful responses to your points if others can be sure they understand what you are trying to say.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Take it to Biographies of living persons 41.202.238.142 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Werzit not an WP:RS?
In this edit User:41.202.238.142 removed a reference to a site called Werzit -- characterizing it as a "hate site".

I looked at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to see if Werzit had ever been discussed. It hasn't. We cite the reports from the Rand Institute, the Hudson Institute, The American Enterprise Institute. That a report is written from a strong point of view is not a reason to remove it.

I don't know Werzit. Perhaps User:41.x.x.x can make a case as to why it should be considered unreliable. In the meantime this reference should be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed werzit.com again based on WP:BLP and i urge User:Geo Swan not to add such "crap" to BLP's. Every editors have to comply with BLP. If he can not see that this is by no means RS he should stop messing with biographies of living individuals. 41.202.238.142 (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that werzit.com likely does not meet WP:RS. Particularly for a situation where it would be used to support contentious material in a BLP, once doubts have been raised it would be incumbent on those wanting to use it to gain support for it from WP:RSN.  Geo-swan, I suspect you're actually familiar with WP:BURDEN, and I can't imagine why you would be pretending otherwise.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I urge User:41.x.x.x, whoever they are, to use more moderate language. Their assertions that Werzit is a "crap" site and a "hate site" can not be defended.  Werzit is a site similar to The Longwar Journal or Evan Kohlmann's Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation site -- Or the Federation of American Scientists' Global Security.  Since 2001-9-11 a demand has sprung up for third party intelligence and counter-terrorism analysts, like that at the The Longwar Journal and the NEFA Foundation.  Personally, it seemed to me those sites fanned the flames of alarmism, and decline to mention information I am sure their authors are aware of, that would tone down alarmism.  However, journalists who are WP:RS cite their works, so I decided to swallow my own reservations, as I am not an RS, and cite them.  Werzit, from the look I took at it, since I made the comment I made above, seems fairer, and more balanced.  The information that User:41.x.x.x has objected to, was widely reported elsewhere, so Werzit's reporting of it is not hate speech.  Kohlmann has sponsors, and employs a staff of researchers and writers.  His Foundation is financially quite successful  Roggio's Long War Journal, also seems to be sufficiently funded, and he seems to employ at least one other writer.  Werzit seems to be the work of a single individual, who may be paying for the site from his own pocket.  This would not preclude it from being considered an RS.  However, the site is relatively lightly visited, with one exception, it is not cited anywhere, and the sole author has nothing else to establish himself as an authority.  So, I am not going to cite Werzit.  But I reject User:41.x.x.x's accusations.  Werzit fails to be an RS, because a lack of citations means no one else has placed trust in it.  Since the reporting there is as responsible or possibly more responsible than that of other independent counter-terrorism analysts we do cite I reject the criticism that I was "messing" with the project to have first cited it.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Take it to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard 41.202.238.142 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Guilt by association?
Another contributor added a dubious tag, with the edit summary:

I made two requests to this contributor.

Compliance with WP:NPOV requires not placing explanations in articles that aren't in the articles we cite. Individuals who pled guilty asserted that Sajeel Shahid set up a training camp where bomb-making was taught. Is it possible that they exagerrated his role, as part of their plea bargain? While it is possible, it would not comply with our policies to insert this speculation. Similarly, is it possible that he really did set up a training camp where bomb-making was taught? Similarly, I don't think it complies with policy to state he set up the camp. Our coverage should go no farther than what our references assert, and the assertions should be properly attributed. I think I did this. Geo Swan (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)