Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorists of Pakistani origin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Discounting socks and newbies, the consensus seems fairly solid. As Jayjg points out, lists of this sort implicate fundamental questions of NPOV; at the very least, selectively permitted some "terrorist by nationality" lists and not others is problematic. As suggested also, imprecise definitions of "terrorist" and "Pakistani" call into question whether the list is meaningful and maintainable. Xoloz 15:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists of Pakistani origin

[edit]

Article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists and is presently used by User:Robcotton for original research and crystal-ball gazing. Attention closer, please see the discussion about sockpuppets on the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is not about Pakistani terrorists operating within Pakistan. This is about terrorist of Pakistani origin (most of them not Pakistani citizens), operating outside of Pakistan. Viriditas has been vandalizing the article, he has been removing the contents withought justification. This is an article containing a list and not a category. The information used for the article is widely published and readily available. Just click on the Wikipedia and external links provided.--Robcotton 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list you created is original research which duplicates an already existing category. Your definition of who is or isn't Pakistani is subjective and open to interpretation, and in the case of Haq, you list him as a terrorist based on your beliefs and not on reliable sources. Furthermore he was US-born, so how does that make him a Pakistani terrorist? Ramzi Yousef's nationality is disputed, Hasib Hussain was born in the UK, as was Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammad Sidique Khan, and Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. The article as it stands is not based on objective criteria and reads as original research. You've also added speculative content to the article; Wikipedia does not engage in forecasting the future, as the "Yet to be named" news section you've added implies. And, who are the "Murderers of Indian diplomat Ravindra Mhatre", and if they can't be named, how do you know they are Pakistani terrorists? Also, the external links you provide do not seem to substantiate the article you created. Just because a UK-born terrorist might have a Pakistani father, does not imply that such a person is a "Pakistani terrorist"; that is your original research. More importantly, Wikipedia convention appears to categorize terrorists after their place of birth, not by the ethnicity or nationality of their mother or father as you are doing. —Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Question of nationality ;Viriditas's text justifies why the article is called "Terrorists of Pakistani origin" (and not "Pakistani terrorists"). There is a common thread among them, and yet most of the persons listed are not Pakistani citizens. This is an useful article with an appropriate theme.--ISKapoor 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We use nationality for categorization for the sole reason that it is verifiable. How do you even begin to verify "descent"? This is completely absurd and serves no useful, informative, or encyclopedic purpose other than to push POV and original research. What does it mean to be of "Pakistani origin" and how do you verify it? We don't list occupations in this way for that reason. What's next, List of engineers of Indian origin? Category:Indian engineers exists because it is verifiable and helps sort the engineer category. Why is "descent" notable, and what usefulness does it impart? —Viriditas | Talk 05:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice as a manifest violation of WP:NPOV. In its present form it pushes a POV that "descent" is a notable feature of a person being a terrorist. Those members of this list that are of British origin (i.e., born and raised in the British Isles) belong to Category:British terrorists per the categorization guidelines (see also: 1, 2), not Category:Terrorists of Pakistani descent or any such ad hoc category. Similarly for the others. Also echo Viriditas's reasons above regarding original research and speculation. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a notable list and one that shouldn't be hard to source. If it is not possible to source the ethnicity then it's OR and will have to go but otherwise there do not appear to be any reasons to delete. Ethnicity is a valid descriptor, the US for instance would describe Pakistanis who are American citizens as Pakistani-American. The article does not duplicate category:Pakistani terrorists as that only refers to those with Pakistani citizenship. MLA 11:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The catagory doesn't seem to be as extensive as the list Zr2d2 13:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a good reason to expand the category then. The list is longer since a lot of it seems to be crystal ball gazing, and who counts as "Pakistani" or even a "terrorist" is ill-defined. --NinjaCharlie 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Viriditas's well-reasoned explanation. -- Merope 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA--Bandyopadhyay 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viriditas--NinjaCharlie 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA -- LeoO3 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Viriditas's well-reasoned explanation. Zr2d2 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. It is interesting to note that all these well-known individuals have something significant in common. That can help in figuring out the reasons people become terrorists.--Whitesurf 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. Zelse81 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further information added:Viriditas had asked who are the "Murderers of Indian diplomat Ravindra Mhatre"? . Mhatre was murdered at Birmingham, UK in 1984. I have the answer which took me a while to find: Mohammed Riaz and Quayyam Raja. They were among the six convicted by a British court in 1985. [1]. Raja Abdul Qayyum was expelled by UK upon his release in 2005. They belonged to the same Mirpuri (They are considered to be "Kashmiri", but speak Mirpuri, a dialect of Punjabi)community as some of the other individuals from UK in the list of terrorists.--Robcotton 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also request the readers to see People's Justice Party (UK). Note that there is a whole group in Birmingham, UK, who supported Mohammed Riaz and Quayyam Raja.--Robcotton 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. nicesai 19:18, 11 August 2006 (EST)
  • Delete: per nom. --Ragib 05:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article poses some serious questions like the fact that many terrorists will be of different nationalities and should Wikipedia serve as a listing of Terrorists of each nationality/region? There are nearly 200 countries and dependencies in the world and I'm sure many will have terrorists from their country being involved in incidents. I don't think this should exist. If anything meaningful is there it can be salvaged and put into Terrorism in Pakistan as a side note. Idleguy 05:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA.--amit (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. canadaolympic989 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC) (This vote was originally made by User:142.167.235.126 [2])[reply]
  • Keep per MLA. SC (There is no user by this name. This edit was made by User:68.98.133.49 [3] who at the time of this vote had only one edit, consisting of only this vote)
  • Delete per comments of Viriditas and Kaustuv; inflammatory, non-encyclopedic, OR, by its very nature violates NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Terrorism and social groups: Many criminal groups, gangs, terrorists, crime groups rely on social networking to recruit members. Thus there is Sicilian Mafia,Tamil gangs, Mexican Mafia, Irish Gangs, Korean Gang Gangpeh, Russian Mafia, Chinese triads List of Triad Societies, Criminally Influenced Tongs and Chinese Gangs etc. To know how such groups work, ethnicity needs to be considered as a common factor. Discussion of crime and terror will be very hard if references to ethnicity is considered non-PC. That will amount to prohibiting a candid discussion of terror and crime. --ISKapoor 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by several of us.--Robcotton 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Terrorism: random or correlated? Kaustuv Chaudhuri has claimed that it is a random event that some individuals of Pakistani descent are terrorist. Please see the following.
    Articles
    Terrorism pipeline flows to Pakistan, Chicago Tribune, August 13, 2006 [4][5]
    Pakistan missing link in extremist battle, Sydney Morning Herald, August 14, 2006, [6]
    Just whose side is Pakistan really on? The Sunday Times - Britain, August 13, 2006 [7]
    Pakistan’s Help in Averting a Terror Attack Is a Double-Edged Sword, New York Times, August 12, 2006[8][9]
    Books
    Book: Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, The Army, And America's War On Terror, Hassan Abbas, Jessica Stern [10]
    Book: Pakistan: Eye of the Storm, Owen Bennett Jones [11]
    Book: Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military, by Husain Haqqani [12]
    Other
    Congressional Briefing: Rep. McKinney 9/11 Congressional Briefing[13]
    --Robcotton 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I also suggest another article. "The history of Britain's Mirpur population may help to explain why some became suicide bombers", Madeleine Bunting, Guardian, July 18, 2005 [14]
      --Robcotton 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not claimed anything of the sort. I have, in fact, expressed no opinion on the nature of terrorism. If you want to argue that terrorism has ethnic causes, you might find your view already expressed adequately in terrorism#Perpetrators. That article could use several more pairs of eyes in any case. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! this article i am afraid more slander than truth. If you want to talk about research in these matters, why don't you follow the research being done that shows that none of the people mentioned by the CIA and US Govt had anything to do with it, you can look at Loose Change video for a very very thorough treatment of 9/11. The term Pakistani origin is v v much debatable, you can also say the person was from an Indian origin as Pakistan used to be part of India, you can also say British empire origin as India was a colony, you can also say more. I'd rather stick to the present nationality and beleifs of the person. Thank you!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.14.91.146 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 05:20:44 (UTC)
  • Keep. Both a category and an article would be useful in this case. Batmanand | Talk 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jayjg and RJH. Article is very POV and inflammatory. Hate to say it, but even the term "terrorist" is POV and not worthy of a real encyclopedia. No legitimate purpose is served by listing perpetrators of violent acts by ancestral origin. How is this "useful" for research or understanding? The lists, sadly, could be endless, and we could spend endless hours debating who should be on the list and who should not, instead of doing real writing with context and history, which is what an encyclopedia should be in the business of doing. Bruxism 09:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is a place for a balanced perspective on terrorism. You can find articles on terrorist groups as well as on what some call "State-sponsored terrorism". This article addresses a significant subject that is being addressed by newpapers, books and formal studies. It is a very useful article.--Coffeesuds 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep - A large, very large % of terrorists come from PakistanBakaman Bakatalk 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review WP:LIST. A list is only justified as: (a) an information source, (b) a navigational aid, and (c) a development aid. We can safely discard (b) and (c) as purposes for this list. This leaves (a), but the list is not informative. Every one of the linked articles already mentions the ethnicity of the related individual. If there is a link between terrorism and ethnicity, that case needs to be made in a different article such as terrorism. A list is the wrong format. This is in addition to my NPOV comment above. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article looks worthwhile. --Nearly Headless Nick 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE 90% of the people mentioned in this link are non-Pakistanis (British and American citizens by birth). Its like calling Timothy McViegh as a German terrorist (if his forefathers had emigrated from Germany). Baseless Indian propaganda to malign Pakistan once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.163.4 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Baseless Indian propaganda? Take your racist attacks to [www.chowk.com Chowk.com]. We are building an encyclopedia not a mouthpiece for Pakistani grievances.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do believe that there is a corration between ethnicty and terror. This article is not simmalar to "terrorist who like hotdogs" which would not make any sence. While the exact criteria of who is "pakistani origin" can be debated since newpapers do not hesitate to discribe people as such there is no reason that we should. Jon513 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MLA and others. Dev920 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but shouldn't the uk pak be removed until they are convicted of terrorism? Innocent until proven guilty?--D-Boy 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: It is sad to see that even on wikipedia, people argue without facts. Some of the 'keep bullets' do not justify the invalid and weak sources of the article, but rather say that 'keep' because terrorists are from this country. This is hardly an academic argument, and I am strongly opposing existance of such articles, that would tarnish the reputation of wikipedia, as a well informed site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - A whole skew of delete votes (not the good faith ones like Chaudhuri etc.) are coming from IP addresses with little contribution history.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: It is sad to see that even on wikipedia, fundamentalist elements and their sympathizers (sockpuppets?) are trying to revise the facts and whitewash the situation in discussion here. While the phrase 'of Pakistani descent' is questionable and may point to a certain bias, it cannot be denied that a causal connection exists between the fine folks listed in the article vis-a-vis their nation of origin.Netaji 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: This is another attempt to link nationality to vocation, in this case terrorism. This seems to be specifically directed towards Pakistan. There is no basis for implying/ emphasizing terrorists of Pakistani nationals as that is a racist tendency in itself. Any such attempts to come up with categories with an illicit agenda is regrettable and this page needs to be deleted in that respect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.18.77 this is said users 4th edit. (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and merge into appropriate preexisting categories, per Viriditas and Kaustuv. Anirvan 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kaustuv Chaudhuri, Idleguy, Jayjg, and Bruxism. This list serves absolutely no useful purpose, and occupations such as that of Terrorists, are best served through WP:CG. Category:People by ethnic or national origin is entirely separate from Category:Nationalities by occupation and Category:Occupations by nationality. This article sets a dangerous precedent, using poorly defined and unverifiable terms such as "descent" to argue for occupational notability. This is unencyclopedic and does not conform to any current guideline or policy and only serves as a springboard for OR. —Viriditas | Talk 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pakistan is the source of a huge percentage of all terror attacks in the world today, together with Palestine, Syria and Iran. I do not think there is anything wrong with this article. If you're Pakistani and you don't like it, I propose you start eliminating the need for pages like these from your society. --Daniel575 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you define a Terrorist of Pakastani origin or any occupation by descent? You can't, which is why we use nationalities to categorize occupations. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for propaganda, which is exactly what you are supporting. —Viriditas | Talk 01:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viriditas. As he said, there's already a category for Pakistani terrorists Category:Pakistani terrorists, so this is about ethnicity not nationality. Are we going to start tracking the ethnic origins of other terrorists and criminals too? Will we have a category "terrorists of Anglo-Saxon descent"? Deuterium 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is what the UK, US and others have called them. I have heard this phrase numerous times when referring to this terror incident. There is no point in deleting this. Why should it be deleted? It is true information. Shamir1 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a racist, hate-inciting page Elizmr 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR per nom, TewfikTalk 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete At what point do you stop saying someone is of Pakistani descent? One Pakistani parent? One Pakistani grandparent? Two Pakistani great-grandparents? Etc. We do not have, for very good reasons, List of criminals of African origin, and we should not start going down that road by allowing this page. Clayoquot Sound 04:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete I completely agree with Clayoquot. Clay4president 05:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These articles are divisive by nature, most often rewquire original research, and are not really capable of being NPOV (both sides being represented equally) This is the type of information that, in my opinion, is better served by having a discussion in the articles of the respective people. Avi 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be truthful information in the article. I agree with MLA. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ;Viriditas had written: "Article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists and is presently used by User:Robcotton for original research and crystal-ball gazing.".
    1. The article does not duplicate Category:Pakistani terrorists. It is not about terrorists operating in Pakistan.
    2. The article using only well known sources, articles with similar theme have been published in newspapers. The topic has also been addressed in books. It has been widely discussed that ethnic links are often used for recruiting.
    3. There is no crystal-ball gazing. Only facts that are reported by publications.
    Please check Google news: Google News for usage of "Pakistani origin" (573 CURRENT articles use the term) 640 CURRENT articles use the term "Pakistani descent").
    --Robcotton 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists, as we categorize terroists by nationality, not by ethnicity. It appears you created the article to attack Muslims and people of Pakistani descent, and this is not acceptable, nor encyclopedic. For the most part, the article consists of original research, since many of the terrorists you list cannot be accurately described as "Terrorists of Pakistani origin", either because their nationality is disputed, their ethnicity cannot be verified, or in some cases they may have dual nationalities and multiple ethnicities. You have engaged in crystal ball gazing many times, the most notable being your repeated inclusion of Naveed Afzal Haq on the list, even after it was explained to you that he is not officially classified as a "terrorist". There is absolutely no reason why this article should exist as it does not adhere to any known Wikipedia policy, and only serves your personal agenda. —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Viriditas: You speak with authority with a we'"we categorize terroists by nationality, not by ethnicity". Terrorism is not longer contained within the borders of individual nations. We are considering aspects of international terrorism here. Pakistanis in UK often marry their relatives from Pakistan, they visit Pakistan frequently (nothing wrong with those), but these ties are exploited by recruiters. Many UK Pakistanis also interact with militants in Pakistan when they are there. Ethnic ties in criminal groups are common too, many of them are discussed in Wikipedia. --Robcotton 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are engaging in original research; please stop. See WP:NOT. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Original research? Please read and decide for yourself.
            • Terrorism pipeline flows to Pakistan, Chicago Tribune, August 13, 2006 [18][19]
            • Pakistan missing link in extremist battle, Sydney Morning Herald, August 14, 2006, [20]
            • Just whose side is Pakistan really on? The Sunday Times - Britain, August 13, 2006 [21]
            • Pakistan’s Help in Averting a Terror Attack Is a Double-Edged Sword, New York Times, August 12, 2006[22][23]
            • Pakistan: Eye of the Storm, Owen Bennett Jones [24]
            • Pakistan: Between Mosque And Military, by Husain Haqqani [25]
            • "The history of Britain's Mirpur population may help to explain why some became suicide bombers", Madeleine Bunting, Guardian, July 18, 2005 [26]
            • Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism by Vamik Volkan[27]
            --Robcotton 02:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Like I said, original research. Those links say very little of substance, if anything at all, mostly concerning themselves with terrorist groups and nationality, not ethnicity. Please take your discussions to the talk page, where it belongs. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment (or more like a question) With all of these references Robcotton has cited, how is this original research? JungleCat talk/contrib 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Er, did you even bother to look at the links? Just because Rob adds so-called refs, doesn't mean they support his case. Why don't you look at them? Rob claims that Pakistani ethnicity is an important component of terrorism, but this pet theory is not supported by any one reference he has posted, nor can those who have emigrated to other countries be accurately described as Pakistani in all cases. Since when has Wikipedia become a platform for Rob's pet theories? There are many things that have contributed to terrorism, and ethnicity does not happen to be one of them. —Viriditas | Talk 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, agree with others.--Spasage 07:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I think enough reasons are cited above to keep the article. I can help if more reasons are required and somebody finds them not enough.nids 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about giving one good reason? —Viriditas | Talk 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you not satisfied with the above comments. do you want more?nids 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Viriditas, I think this user meant the ones “cited above”. If this user would have said “Keep” with noting else, I might understand your wanting the discussion of why keep this article. Badgering these users who want to keep is not going to help your cause to get the article deleted. Remember, this is not a vote. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, asking a relevant, topical question is now considered badgering? That's very interesting. Call it whatever you like. Nids explicitly offered more reasons for keeping this artice. I'm taking him up on his offer. Question for nids: Why should we keep articles composed of unverified original research related to racial "descent"? The page lists Hamid Hayat as a terrorist, although he's never been one. The page lists the Heathrow ammonium nitrate case, although this is a case of suspected terrorism, not actual, with the suspects coming from Muslim family originally from Pakistan. Ramzi Yousef says he was born in Kuwait, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed says he spent time in Kuwait as well, so why are they listed as Pakistani terrorists and not Kuwaiti? Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was born in the UK, and details about his racial "descent" are not mentioned. How is an article composed of original research and unverified information useful to an encyclopedia? —Viriditas | Talk 20:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • viriditas, you are right in saying that unverified claims should not enter the articles. But are you also rejecting the verified claims. And what about the books mentioned above. Are you saying that all are racially motivated. I feel that reasons cited above are enough. If you can be particular that why are you against this page, that shall be helpful. Even i will support you if you say that no original research shall be there. but what about documented claims, and the books noted above.nids 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How 'bout I answer one of these myself: Hamid Hayat, of Lodi, Calif., was convicted in April of providing material support to terrorists after training with militants in Pakistan [28] Viriditas, you are not even checking the references yourself. This is very disturbing. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Viriditas, here is another reference for Hamid Hayat [29] and yet he never was a terrorist? I found this with a google search. Are you POV pushing??? JungleCat talk/contrib 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Where does it say that Hamid Hayat was a terrorist? I don't see that. Perhaps you should read it again. In any case, this merely demonstrates the subjectivity of Category:Terrorists and the fluidity of the definition you are using. In other words, this is not objective by any stretch of the imagination. —Viriditas | Talk 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Viriditas, you write "Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was born in the UK, and details about his racial "descent" are not mentioned". The linked Wikipedia article Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh mentions "is a British-born terrorist of Pakistani descent" right in the beginning. The BBC profile [30] states "His father, Saeed Ahmed, was a Pakistani clothes merchant from Wanstead" in the second paragraph. In both cases his descent is prominently mentioned. Check association of "Omar Saeed Sheikh" and "Pakistani" on Google [31] and see how many hits are there (I got about 27,200). --Robcotton 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What is the nature of Sheikh's "descent" and how is it applicable? You are arguing that ethnicity is an important part of Terrorism, so surely you should be able to provide details, such as the name of his particular ethnic group and a citation showing a clear correlation. You can't and you haven't, except for posting a link to a book that mentions the word "Pakistan" once, and a link to an article in The Guardian about the relationship between ethnic groups and religion. You're very good at original research; perhaps you should publish your own article outside of Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is arguably an attack page. NPOV and fact-research problems in an article are not usually grounds for deletion. You have grounds for deletion when these problems are intrinsic to the nature of the article. News reports on individual terrorists certainly do discuss their ethnic origins. However, have any reliable sources actually conducted an analysis of the relationship between Pakistani origin (as opposed to nationality or social affiliation) and terrorism? If not, this entire article is original research because it is the first to conclude that there is such a relationship. If there is a non-original argument for a relationship between descent and terrorism, counter-arguments should be presented as well under a neutral title. E.g. Ethnicity and terrorism, analogous to Race and crime (the latter is currently no NPOV-prizewinner, but it does have hope of becoming one). Clayoquot Sound 06:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Robcotton has a plethora of sources to back this statement up.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The definition "operating outside of Pakistan" is essentially unverifiable. I also see votestacking on this one [32]. -- Steve Hart 16:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The header for this AfD starts off with If you came here because somebody asked you to... I believe if someone "spammed" to get additional discussion on this issue, I would assume good faith on the reason why. That user might not have known. Besides, isn't it better to get the community involved to resolve these issues? JungleCat talk/contrib 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Steve Hart writes: The definition "operating outside of Pakistan" is essentially unverifiable. I am not aware of any disagreement about the World Trade Center or the London Underground being outside of Pakistan. --Robcotton 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to say that Viriditas is skilled in arguing and sophistry. Let us look at what Viriditas has been trying to do.
    • Right at the beginning (near the top of this page,) he argued: "definition of who is or isn't Pakistani is subjective and open to interpretation" . cleverly conflating individual of "Pakistani origin" and those of "Pakistani citizenship" by using the term "Pakistani". Then he goes on to argue whether some of individuals can be called "Pakistani" because of their being born in UK etc. Note that the article is clearly named Terrorists of Pakistani Origin, it is not Pakistani Terrorists; and I had clearly referred to that right before his note.
    • Also note that he made a suggestion about the article which is incompatible with his objections. A classic technique Catch-22 (logic). He wants the article to be merged with the category "Category:Pakistani terrorists" ( see article with the tag he placed) and however then then goes on to argue that the people listed are not "Pakistani".
    • Note that I have added a couple more refereces. For those who have access to today's Wall Street Journal, read the detailed article "Terror plot exposes flaws in how UK tackles extremism", Aug. 18, 2006. It also includes a map of London area showing Walthamstow (see [33]).--Robcotton 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tell us then, how you determine someone is of Pakistani origin and why it is an important part of terrorism? Take a look at Ethnic groups in Pakistan, too. The category mentioned above covers Pakistani terrorists, and guidelines specifically mention how to categorize people. Occupations such as "terrorist" are not categorized by ethnicity, but by nationality. You are trying to make the case that ethnicity is a notable part of terrorism, when in fact, there is no evidence that it is. You are doing this because you read the words "of Pakistani descent" in an article about a terrorist, not because there is any relationship between the two: that's where your original research comes in. If you want to make the case that there are Pakistani terrorist organizations, you can add them to List of terrorist organisations, or you can describe the roots of the problem in Terrorism in Pakistan and related articles. You cannot, however, create an article based on ethnicity and then claim there is a notable relationship. You have not posted one single, credible source that directly makes this claim about people of Pakistani origin. You have, however, added citations that describe the relationship between ethnicity and religion. Your thesis has nothing to do with people of Pakistani descent, and everything to do with Pakistani Muslims. Perhaps you should create an article entitled Pakistani Muslims as an offshoot of Islam in Pakistan, or add referenced information to Islam in the United Kingdom. There is no need for this article, but categories such as Category:British Muslims could be expanded. If you know the particular Pakistani ethnic group that the person you are writing about belongs to, I don't see any reason why you can't add them to a subcat within Category:Ethnic groups in Pakistan. As it stands, the term "Terrorist of Pakistani origin" is meaningless and uninformative. You need to quantify exactly what you mean by the term, and categorize accordingly. If you feel a list is needed or required by the list guidelines, then there is nothing stopping you from adding notable people of those particular ethnic groups to ethnic group lists if the category doesn't already suffice for your purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 21:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, your last edit fell into the area of WP:ATTACK. Personal attacks are not allowed. It will be documented here for the record: [34] JungleCat talk/contrib 05:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Viriditas's comment looks like a personal attack to me. He is critical of the logic behind the creation of the page, which is what an AfD debate is for. Could you be more specific about what part(s) of the comment you consider a personal attack rather than a criticism? Clayoquot Sound 05:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call this? Is this specific enough? JungleCat talk/contrib 05:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I call it a reasoned criticism. It's exactly the same diff you referred to before I asked whether you could point out something more specific. Clayoquot Sound 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the phrase It's exactly the same diff... Doesn't sound right. JungleCat talk/contrib 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the term "diff" in the sense of "a link to a page that shows the difference between versions of an article." In your earlier comment your referred to: [35]. In your later comment you referred to: this?. These links are identical. Clayoquot Sound 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, just this edit here. JungleCat talk/contrib 07:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serves me right for having a slow connection. It is the ONE EDIT BY THAT USER. Understand? JungleCat talk/contrib 07:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am on the same page as you now. Are you looking at the difference between edits? This is the reference! JungleCat talk/contrib 07:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for the love of Jimbo, what are you talking about? Please stop making spurious accusations which distract us away from the discussion at hand. If you have any interest in this topic, you will move your alleged allegation to the talk page. For the record, no personal attack has been made, nor will you find any administrator who agrees with you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.