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)

Muslim entries

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".[1] 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[2], 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)

If you're looking for a way to make this article cooler ...

I just created Faisal_Shahzad#Charges_filed_in_Federal_Court, 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)

History merge tag

A tag was placed at the top of the article page - and I am moving it here {{db-histmerge|Shahzad Faisal}} 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)