Jump to content

Talk:Hafiz Saeed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


high quality photo

[edit]

Of much higher quality than current one is at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-04/hafiz-mohammad-saeed/3931348 I realize he doe snot look like a demon in that photo, but an encyclopedia should aim for accurate photos, the current one is a fuzzy hazy poor quality one. However I am not familiar with all the copyright "hoops" to jump through to add photo to wikipedia nor have much time so I leave it to others to use the above url and get a copy on wikipedia. (A second url, smaller version of the same photo is at http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3931338-3x4-340x453.jpg ) 01:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


== Copyright problem removed ==he is behind 26/11 attacks

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.pakistanleaders.com/profilesdetail.php?id=719&url=Profile%20of%20Hafiz%20Muhammad%20Saeed.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --MLauba (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Please remove this person from leaders of Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.29.238.52 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Hafiz Muhammad Saeed

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbcprofile":

  • From Jaish-e-Mohammed: "Jaish-e-Mohammad: A profile", BBC News, 2002-02-06, retrieved 2009-12-02
  • From Lashkar-e-Taiba: "Profile: Lashkar-e-Toiba". BBC News. 2008-12-04. Retrieved 5 December 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK computer program. Thanks for letting us know. Please let me look into it for you. Not immediately. But I will try to investigate the issue and do the needful in a day or two or so...OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC) I have tried looking into the issue, and am unable to find any error. My guess is that some other ed has already fixed the error.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CNN story in English and Arabic

[edit]

One story is about Saeed. It is in English and Arabic. If you want to write an Arabic article about this man, here's your source:

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


He is a brutal terrorist killer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.203.32.129 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not dead

Put him on our "List of Premature Obituaries".

[edit]

He was reported dead on April 16, 2015. It turns out, he is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.201.24 (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same person?

[edit]

Is this article about this person? (German) http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/afghanistan-is-anfuehrer-von-amerikanischer-drohne-getoetet-a-1043249.html --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias1984,no, thats different militant, thats why I requested semi-protection of the page, you keep watch on this page if any autoconfirmed user adds his "death". Thank you. --Human3015 knock knock • 21:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: I can't judge the notability of any of these two people, but maybe we need a disambiguation page need a link to this (Hafiz Saeed) disambiguation page and possibly add the one recently killed:

? --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias1984, yes, we can write the one who recently killed, but I think recently killed don't have any page, see message in above section, same thing was happened in April when one more Hafiz Saeed from ISIS was killed, you can see edit history of the article. We have to ensure that does Hafiz Saeed killed in April and today is same or not? Because many times fake news comes that some terrorist died in drone attack. Both Hafiz Saeed of April and recently died belongs to ISIS and held same kind of post. Moreover, this Hafiz Mohammad Saeed is highly notable, he is mastermind of November 2008 Mumbai attacks, what Osama bin Laden was for USA, same "stature" Hafiz Mohammad Saeed has for India, he is also declared terrorist by US and UN, so obviously he is notable and he is alive. --Human3015 knock knock • 22:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be this guy: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_Said_Khan S. Hager86 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Police

[edit]

@Faizan: I think you must use talk page, what issues YOU have, sources clearly mentions what I'm writing. Do read WP:IDLI. --Human3015Send WikiLove  19:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

==Source misrepresentation== Human3015, Stop misrepresenting the Declan Walsh's NYTIME source. The source says: "On a recent evening, police officers screened visitors at a checkpoint near his house, while other officers patrolled an adjoining park, watching by floodlight for intruders." So that's just for that "recent evening". Why do you insist on misinterpreting the source? First you were insisting on "Police regularly guards" and now the Police "Watches by floodlight"? Faizan (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are just against inserting this matter here. It is fact that Hazrat Hafiz Saeed gets police protection and other facilities. [1] , [2]--Human3015Send WikiLove  19:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about the source being quoted in the article after that disputed tag. Does that Declan Walsh source say that Pakistani Police "Watches by floodlight"? Faizan (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Faizan, Now what I can say, that source is clearly saying officers check people at checkpoint near Saeed's house and check for intruders by floodlight, you were given inline cite of said agency so it was in continuation in that line. --Human3015Send WikiLove  20:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ping me again and again. You are still not replying to me. As I quoted the line: "On a recent evening, police officers screened visitors at a checkpoint near his house, while other officers patrolled an adjoining park, watching by floodlight for intruders." That specific event is for "that recent evening". How does that mean that "police officers check people at checkpoint"? That implies they do it regularly, but the source does not say that. Faizan (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I propose: "On a recent evening, police officers screened visitors at a checkpoint near his house." - This complete line be added to the article to clear ambiguity, as a compromise solution. What do you say? Faizan (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

recent means how recent? at least it should be "sometimes, police officers screens visitors at a checkpoint near his house and check for intruders by floodlight". And we can get more sources for his police protection on different ocassions, I have already provided some above that how Pakista government supports Hafeez, we should see is there mention of "train" incidence in article when government started special train for his supporters. --Human3015Send WikiLove  20:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes means how sometimes? That's not covered by this source. Faizan (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be another case of source misrepresentation. If you have another source, which says that the Pakistani police gives security to him, please quote. Faizan (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fazain, as of now I will tell you to self revert to pre-dispute version when you removed "guarding", that will be better for us regarding current edit warring case on admins board. You have already tagged it with "disputed" tag. It will not be good when we wake up tomorrow we will find ourselves blocked. Anyway, "huge police protection" was present in Hafiz saeed's anti-India rally in Lahore. Dawn. So need to be so "protective", police protection to him is common thing. I can give more sources. --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I will tell you to self revert" - No you cannot dictate me to do that. Now that the article is fully protected, you should pursue your case instead of ordering me. You ought to present those references before blanket-reverting me. What were you waiting for? "will be better for us regarding current edit warring case on admins board"- You took us to that admin board yourself just after "5 minutes of your posting at this talk page" and "2 minutes after my reply". Why you did not bother to reply here? Faizan (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also seem to ignore my above comments "How does that mean that "police officers check people at checkpoint"? That implies they do it regularly, but the source does not say that." - "Sometimes means how sometimes? That's not covered by this source." You have not replied to those till now. Faizan (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizan: I started this discussion, you were just edit warring following policy of WP:IDLI. Anyway, admin warned me regarding edit war, but he also said that my "opponents" will also get blocked for long period along with me. So be aware about this fact. Edit war is not one way process. Moreover, you can not twist the fact to favour your version. Your such reverts and editing on topics under sanctions will only provide fodder for people who want to file case on WP:AE. Anyway, just to close it, I'm agree with your last version, "On a recent evening, police officers screened visitors at a checkpoint near his house.", we can use "at one evening" instead of "recent". As protecting admin said if dispute is resolved you can ask for un-protection, so now you ask for un-protection to that admin and write this version. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  04:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Oppose'
  1. This is not a notable event. Checkpoints are setup in Pakistan All the time. Portraying this as a special event gives undue weight and distorts the event.
  2. This event happened more than 2 years ago in a 17 year timeline of events. Calling it "RECENT" is beyond ridiculous.(the article cited was written in early 2013 and even then the writer says that this event occurred "recently" not that the event occurred "yesterday" or "today". Therefore the outer margin can be almost mid 2012)
  3. We do not add day to day occurrences in any article as far as I know. this is just a day to day occurrence.
  4. If you read the article by Mr. Walsh you will see that he has given more than a dozen statements by different people concerning Hafiz, so do we now enter them into the article too just because "they are sourced"?I'm sure we wont. Therefore, we should add only that which is "notable". And this "incident" is not notable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeatlastChitchat: Your research looks more like emotional personal opinion without attaching any source or Wikipedia policy. Me and Faizan are agree on this. Read Faizan's proposal above. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  17:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: I really don't care about what you think about my state of mind. I gave my reasons about opposing this insertion. As to your comment that I have not attached any sources or policies , well that can be easily remedied(Although I'd like to point out this is a bit childish, but then again that is my personal emotional opinion about this childish and ridiculous edit war you have started).

Here are the relevant policies and sources

  1. This is not a notable event. Checkpoints are setup in Pakistan All the time. Portraying this as a special event gives undue weight and distorts the event. You will go to this page to read that Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.You can also click here to read that according to policy Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
  2. This event happened more than 2 years ago in a 17 year timeline of events. Calling it "RECENT" is beyond ridiculous.(the article cited was written in early 2013 and even then the writer says that this event occurred "recently" not that the event occurred "yesterday" or "today". Therefore the outer margin can be almost mid 2012)I'll just leave it upto you to figure this one out. This may get your neural juices flowing.
  3. We do not add day to day occurrences in any article as far as I know. this is just a day to day occurrence. This clearly states that.
  4. If you read the article by Mr. Walsh you will see that he has given more than a dozen statements by different people concerning Hafiz. I will leave this up to you too, seeing that we both can read english and the source is clearly accessible to you.

Having cleared that up, I'd like to say that Faizan may have compromised out of courtesy as there were only two of you. I'm sure he will be able to re-evaluate the insertion now that I have pointed out its ridiculousness. Lets see what he says and go on from thereFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p@FreeatlastChitchat: You can't deny Faizan's proposal, he is far more experienced than you. I have made improvement in that which you didn't read, we can write "at one evening" not "recent evening". --Human3015Send WikiLove  05:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015:"You can't deny Faizan's proposal, he is far more experienced than you" What is this supposed to mean? Please explain in detail. Just because an editor has more edits does not mean that we accept everything he has to say. AND I ALREADY TOLD YOU that he may change his opinion after having read my comment. Changing the wording to "one evening" makes it even more laughable. these are not fairy tales you know. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!: can take a neutral decision.Aero Slicer 05:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeatlastChitchat: Same applies to you, why we should accept your original research? specially when no one is supporting you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: we shall leave it upto Faizan and others. Lets see what they have to say. How about dropping the stick? here tbh. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I were a Pakistani, I would have supported your stand, I would have removed name of Pakistan from articles of all terrorists, I can understand you feelings, but I'm not Pakistani, I'm neutral editor, we write according to sources. You should read WP:IDLI, some people don't want some text in any article Just because they don't like it. --Human3015Send WikiLove  06:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: Perhaps my earlier comments were not clear enough. let me rephrase. I do not give a single damn or a fuck about what you think about me, my being a pakistani or my being emotional. Similarly the number of fucks that I give about you being a neutral editor as opposed to me being a Pakistani(Which I think means that you live in a country called neutral whereas I live in Pakistan) are NIL, ZILCH, NADA, ZERO. What I would love for us both to do is that we just write our opinions about this insertion and then let others decide something. You are jumping a gun by a mile here. Why the hell are you saying that my opinion will not be accepted my Faizan when he has not even commented on it? Why are you saying that you "understand my feelings"? In short 'Can you please shut up about my personality and my country of origin and my feelings and my emotions'? Talk about the article. The next time you discuss me I'm reporting you. Have a good day. Reply to my comment about the article if you wish to discuss that , other than that consider yourself ignored FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat: I will not mind if you talk in more civil manner and don't do any personal attack. Faizan can be a inspiration for you because he is from your side but he never do any personal attack and he always try to be sensible. Anyway, I'm supporting Faizan's version. --Human3015Send WikiLove  08:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: Then Please be kind enough to give replies to the four points I raised. You can use a list to create four replies numbered 1 to four corresponding to my four comments. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My regrets, I was busy in real-life. And I do agree to the four points raised above by FLC. The compromise version that I proposed, now has been contested by third-party, non-involved user, so it cannot be used. I also agree that this particular recent event that took place "years ago" is not that notable. Faizan (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Faizan: Thank god you came back. Anyway, lead also says that "Hafiz helps to identify other militants" which is a 3 year old news, is it notable or not? --Human3015Send WikiLove  20:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment again (As English is your third language) - "this particular recent event that took place "years ago" is not that notable". I did not say that being two years old makes this even non-notable for inclusion but simply that that particular event was not that notable. The Pakistani Police makes routine raids and search-operations everyday. Faizan (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Faizan: Kindly answer my question without citing original research. Kindly answer "Hafiz helps to identify other militants" is notable or non-notable? or Terror attack done by Hafiz "7 years" ago 2008 Mumbai attack is notable or non-notable to mention in this article? --Human3015Send WikiLove  20:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: What you just said is so laughable I think I cracked a couple of ribs. Dude what is wrong with your understanding? Just use google translate if you dont understand english. Hafiz Saeed's birth is pretty "unrecent" I think you want that removed too lol. It is almost 2 AM where I live and thanks to you I will be laughing the whole day tomorrow, thanks man. No hard feelings btw, its just the language barrier i think. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DRN will be futile too if you think that the comments of other users are "nonsense". Stop this insulting behaviour or I will report you to ANI. Faizan (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Faizan: Will you ever answer my questions or only interested in non-sensical things? --Human3015Send WikiLove  20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India never banned Jama'at-ud-Da'wah

[edit]

It is mentioned in the first paragraph that Hafiz saeed's organization is banned in India. India has not banned Jama'at-ud-Da'wah nor classified it as terrorist organization. List published by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as on 31-03-2015 is published in their website http://www.mha.nic.in/BO . So that point should be removed from the first paragraph. Irfannaseefp (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar or terrorist?

[edit]

I tend to side with the edit by 5.31.226.205 , in that he is in fact a scholar, with strong links to terrorist organizations. The current revision strikes me as inflammatory. I don't wish for the article to downplay his criminal activities. Other similar WP articles will not go straight into the subject's terrorist identity in the first sentence unless the subject has established no other identity. WP is better with a NPOV as far as emotionally-loaded language is concerned. The remainder of the article is available to elaborate on his terrorist connections and activities. Let's discuss this.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings on this after just reading the lead is its quite clear he is terrorist. He has sanctions from the UN for his organisation, as well as US, UK, EU, Russia and Australia banning it. US and India consider him a terrorist and is listed on the NIA most wanted list. I think it shows he is more well known as a terrorist than as a scholar. The article doesn't even really talk about any scholar stuff but more about his terrorist activities. NZFC(talk) 22:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Making a decision after just reading the lede is not really helpful for Wikipedia's aims. If the article doesn't talk about his academic work, is there a reason for that? Have we exhausted all sources that talk about the subject? What searches have you made, and which sources have you examined? WP:BLP is relevant here. A read of the lede of the article about Yassin Kadi, who was designated as all manner of things by much more numerous authorities, may be instructive. MPS1992 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MPS1992 so I worded that wrong, but really the whole article points to them being a terrorist and nothing about them being a scholar compared to the other article you point too which does show that in the first section after the lede. Saeed doesn't appear to be notable for being a scholar either but as co-founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba and the chief or amir of Jama'at-ud-Da'wah, both known terrorist organisations. Sure if there is more information that exists that hasn't been added to their article that could change that, I can assess it off that but there isn't. What is written on the article at the moment makes it, what I feel, correct to call them a terrorist at this stage. NZFC(talk) 03:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP says that we should go off reliable sourced content, not on "what I feel", unless there is absolutely solid evidence for name-calling of this nature. On that basis, I will be removing the disputed label unless there is consensus to reinstate it. See also WP:TERRORIST. Also please read WP:BLPREMOVE -- editors who persistently restore problematic material in defiance of Wikipedia's BLP policy are liable to be blocked. MPS1992 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was using "feel" in the context of why I thought calling him a terrorist is appropriate but him being one and called one is sourced as per the first source here and a number of others in the article. I also don't appreciate that you have made a change without reaching consensus and then threatening blocks. NZFC(talk) 07:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that, as a happy compromise, I think going with militant is a good compromise until such time as more information can maybe be provided to prove evidence of them being a scholar. NZFC(talk) 07:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these considered words. Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on circumstances which often vary -- BLP rather specifically does not allow for consensus being reached before removal. MPS1992 (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find "militant" to be a reasonable and useful term to describe Saeed, in the absence of any details about his scholarship.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of a new infobox

[edit]

Hi Auric, I reverted you recent edits. You added a new infobox for military service and removed the mention of JuD from the infobox. Can you please explain this? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were intended to remove the page from Category:Pages using infobox Muslim leader with unknown parameters. The parameter |organization= is not currently supported. I thought that |commands= would be more fitting than |occupation=. Also, the page Jama'at-ud-Da'wah is currently a redirect to Lashkar-e-Taiba.--Auric talk 16:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Auric I understand your concerns now and also had a look at some other pages to get a better perspective of what they use. What is your opinon on replacing this with the officeholder infobox? There we can utilize the "order" parameter to replace the role played by command here. I also agree with you that LeT and JuD are essentially the same organizations and thus redirect to the same page. But JuD was floated with the purpose to bypass the ban imposed on LeT. A simple solution to this effect would be to state him as a leader of LeT/JuD in the order parameter. Thoughts and suggestions? Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can use {{Infobox officeholder}} with the |module= parameter to accomplish the same thing.--Auric talk 17:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Auric That also sounds okay to me. I think this will be a better fit. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to lock the page to prevent vandalism

[edit]

It has come into my notice that this page is frequently vandalised by people due to political motives, rage and for fun. Thus, I request that this page to be protected to prevent further vandalism Aditya Mishra H1N1 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I request to lock this page. 

Abdullah92131 (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writings

[edit]

@Arslan-San: read WP:NOTCATALOGUE and stop creating section for listing the non-notable books. ML 911 14:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hafiz_Saeed&oldid=1252607389"