This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Said Ali al-Shihri article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I am going to request a move back to the original name. Another contributor renamed this article, to a name that had a vague resemblance to the original, based on some recent news reports. Unfortunately, they seem to have gotten the wrong guy. Captive 372, "Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri was repatriated on 2007-11-09.
The New York Times article they cite, about the other guy, says he was repatriated in September. These are the individual repatriated in September 2007. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a difference of two months, something understandable in regard to these generally secretive and vague circumstances. According to WP:V, we must follow reliable sources. The New York Times is a reliable source, the United States Department of Defense is not.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was keep at current name. -- Aervanath ( talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
|
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
|
I reverted this edit because it broke links, and contained inaccuracies.
the "name=" part of a <ref> tag can't contain blanks, unless it is enclosed with quotes. I use CamelBack names, to avoid using quotes.
The Salim al Shihri referred to in the Worthington article was repatriated in September 2007, and, according to Worthington, was about 20 when captured. Our guy was born in 1973 -- eight years earlier.
No explanation was provided for the removal of the WOT infobox, so I am going to restore it. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the {{ WOT infobox}} that was previously removed without explanation.
There is no point re-inventing the wheel. The infobox has an "alias" section. I put the aliases there.
There is no point re-inventing the wheel. I am mystified as to why another contributor replaced the perfectly adequate ref names, without explanation. Most problematic, the renamed the ref name for al-Shihri's 2004 CSRT Summary of Evidence to "summary of evidence". This contributor seems to have overlooked that four Summary of Evidence memos were produced. Each needs, and already had, an unique and unambiguous ref name.
Collaboration requires cooperation. I am going to suggest that when the refnames another contributor has picked are adequate that contributors refrain from arbitrarily unilaterally renaming them. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
WRT to this edit -- I suggest we both take a break, and, when we return, discuss our proposals for changes on the talk page first.
You removed a lot of material form the article, without explaining why. Perhaps you can start by explaining those excisions.
I have no problem with fully and fairly covering reports that former captives engaged in terrorism, or supported terrorism, after leaving custody -- provided that coverage is well referenced, neutral, and otherwise complies with policy. This is all you want too -- correct? Geo Swan ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The allegations prepared for Al Shihri's 2004 CSR Tribunal were removed from this article.
I am looking at the press coverage of Al Shihri, like this one from the CBC, which says:
"Guantanamo military tribunal documents allege al-Shihri was an al-Qaeda travel facilitator and trained in urban warfare at Libyan Camp, located north of Afghanistan's capital of Kabul. He allegedly guided extremists on how to enter Afghanistan and provided money to other fighters, the documents say. In the past, Al-Shihri has denied any links to terrorism."
I suggest that some readers are going to want to know what the allegations in the Guantanamo documents were, and are going to look to the wikipedia to find out. These allegations have been removed on the very day they would be most useful.
I suggest they should be replaced, as soon as possible. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Al Shihri's medical records show periods of wild fluctuation. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
While people with Arabic names, who live in the west, or have been influenced by western study, may have adopted the western style of name, where a child inherits the last name of their father as their own surname, this is not the case with the overwhelming majority of people with Arabic names. There are actually two separate, parallel styles of naming traditionally used by Arabic speakers.
Anyone whose name starts with "Abu" is using a naming style that would translate as "Father of Solomon", or "Father of Adam" -- "Abu" means father of. This is somewhat similar to the patronomics used in Russia.
In the other naming scheme, also used by Pashto speakers in Afghanistan, an individual uses their father's first name as their last name. This is more like the tenth century Viking explorers Eric the Red and Lief Ericson. Just as with an Arabic style name, Lief's son presumably would be named something like "Joe Liefson".
Since there is no surname inherited from grandparent, to parent, to child, it is completely pointless and confusing to shoehorn the name into the European inherited surname style. It is confusing, and I suspect the accidental release of some of the captives who were dangerous was the result of the Guantanamo clerical staff's inability to master the Arabic name system. We should learn from the DoD's mistakes.
This shoehorning is further a mistake because individuals with Arabic names append disambiguating name like components to their name, which are not surnames -- but could look like a surname to the uninitiated. Sometimes the appended disambiguator is the town or region where they are from. Abu Musab al Zarqawi's apparent surname is just the town he is from, Zarqa. It is not his surname. Other times the appended disambiguator is their tribe, or occupation. These are also not inherited surnames.
And, in Al Shihri's case, the last component of his name, which is not an inherited surname, has been variously transliterated as: Al Shari, al Shehri and Al Shihri -- which, obviously, all sort differently.
So I removed the "default sort". Geo Swan ( talk) 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I re-installed the "war on terror" infobox. Brewcrewer's assertion that the infobox is not appropriate, because he is no longer a captive is inconsistent with how the infobox is used elsewhere. The infobox has fields for when the captive was released, or died -- clearly showing it was designed for both current and former captives.
The same for Category:Saudi Arabian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, routinely used for former captives.
Some famous Jazz guy said that the most important thing about Jazz was not the notes, but the spaces between the notes. Something similar is true for the wikipedia. It is not the raw text that is important, it is the links between articles, and the other mechanisms we have for organizing information that is important. Removing relevant categories is a mistake. Removing more closely focused infoboxes is a mistake. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I expanded the space on the allegations Al-Shihri faced in Guantanamo.
Brewcrewer has argued that his alleged role as a leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is more important than his detention in Guantanamo. He has gone on to argue that, therefore, the article's coverage of his Guantanamo detention should not be longer than the article's coverage of his recent alleged leadership of the militant group.
I have no problem with expanding the section on his participation in the Yemeni group, when we get more sources for it. We don't have that press release yet.
So, he gets caught, he is named in another press release, he defects, he is accused of involvement in another attack, coverage of any event like this will provide what is needed to expand this section.
It is a current event, after all.
As I wrote above, some famous Jazz guy said that the most important thing about Jazz was not the notes, but the spaces between the notes. And as I wrote above, something similar is true for the wikipedia. It is not the raw text that is important, it is the links between articles.
The allegations link Al-Shihri to other topics, making the wikipedia a richer, more useful resource. Hamud al-Uqqla, how important was he in providing support and drumming up recruits for al Qaida? The allegations against Al-Shihri state al-Uqqla instructed Al-Shihri to assassinate a writer. This is significant.
Read closely, the allegations could be seen as inconsistent. Did he enter Afghanistan from Iran? Or a thousand kilometers away from Pakistan? Did he escape Afghanistan, to Kuwait, as the informant who was the source the al-Uqqla claims said? Or was he wounded, and captured near Pakistan? Was he captured at a Pakistani border crossing, or from his bed in the Red Crescent hospital in Quetta?
Commenting on the inconsistencies, or editorializing about them, would be a mistake. And I have attempted to avoid that. But I would like our readers to have the opportunity to make up their own minds about the allegations. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As we progress in time, the article must be updated accordingly. The article violates WP:UNDUE, if it places a greater emphasis on one part of his life for which he is not notable instead of the parts of his life for which he is more notable.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has recently unilaterally changed the whole article into an article about the legal proceedings against him. This is wrong. An article about a person should not be focused on and should not come from the point of view of a government's charges against the subject, at one point the government claimed this and at what point the government claimed that, why a government chose to charge the subject one way instead of another way. This article must be focused on the subject's life story. It should tell a chronological life story. I have corrected the focus of the article. Please don't make such drastic unilateral unsound changes to the article. Thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A listing of his aliases in the infobox does not suffice. Most readers don't read the infobox. Indeed the infobox is intended to be a quick capture of what is already in the main text. Unless, there's a normal way of listing all his alternate names in the lede, the list at the bottom of the page will have to do. This is not a new idea. See Ajmal Kasab, a similar terrorist with a bunch of names. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This article violates WP:NPOV because instead of focusing on the person who is now an Al-Qaida head honcho, the article focuses on the proceedings against him in Guantanamo Bay. Formatting this biography in the proceedings against him is intended to focus on the lack of rights he was given while in custody instead of focusing on the murders of multiple civilians he arranged after he was released. The most egregious part of the article, which is indeed a microcosm of the whole article, is that his Guantanamo Bay detainee number (which I obviously tried removing) is given prominence in the infobox years after he was released. None of the Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors have a infobox with their concentration camp numbers.
The NPOV tag will most probably be removed by User:Sherurcij but it is my token edit to this article. For now, I am removing myself from editing this article. Now that User:Sherurcij has joined User:Geo Swan they can do whatever they want in the name of "consensus." If another editor comes across this article and decides to help me deal with this POV problem I would be glad to collaborate with him or her in creating a proper neutral article. The article will remain on my watchlist but I won't touch the article if the only editors involved are us three.
This is really not the correct forum for this issue, but I think WP is done a great disservice by this tag-teaming of User:Geo Swan of User:Sherurcij. Any changes an editor would like to make an article about Guantanamo Bay or the detainees therein must go through these two editors who are single-mindedly interested in focusing all GB article on the lack of rights given to the detainees. I hope one day this problem can be resolved, but until then - God Bless America!-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The image that i have removed from the article violates the basic rules of Wikipedia. It is the own work of a Wikipedia editor who took a primary source combined it with other sources and then interpreted them. This is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that these are mostly primary sources has also further problems as it does not comply with the policies of BLP's of living people. So i see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn ( talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
...Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy...
"The source is a low quality primary source that does not have the potential for creating a meaningful not possible misleading graphical representation of this table of number by any Wikipedia editor as i have explained already."
I reverted this edit because I think redirection is more useful in an instance like this than actually changing the article.
There is no standard procedure for picking a transliteration of Arabic names into English. No transliteration is more correct than other transliterations. When we suspect various transliterations are to the same individual it is better to use redirection for various reasons.
What if the contributor who decided that the two transliterations are to the same individual turns out to be mistaken? What if there are two individuals after all? If the contributor used redirection it is trivial to fix that by replacing the redirection with a new article about the second individual.
Creating a redirect will address similar problems in other articles.
But when the contributor who decides there is just one individual goes and changes every instance of the second transliteration with an instance of the first transliteration, it is very difficult to unroll the changes.
In addition using redirection makes it possible to count how many times each different name is used. This could be helpful for those who argue the base name of the article should be changed. Geo Swan ( talk) 12:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Two pieces of evidence:
First: "Contradicting previous media reports, US intelligence officials and an Arab diplomat have told The Long War Journal that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's deputy leader is not thought to have been killed in an explosion while assembling a bomb in Yemen."
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/02/aqap_deputy_emir_sai.php#ixzz1YhC5SNcG
Second: Here's a very recent AFP article on targeting al-Shihri in a recent drone strike. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGb-HbMAhncAYxfIBB3n2Q7d9juQ?docId=bd7ef17abd4b42ab813549781c1d7c9a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.79.251 ( talk) 15:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
source: http://www.thememriblog.org/iran/blog_personal/en/41860.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 ( talk) 08:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Asharaq Alsawat did not back the claim made by the Yemen Post until today and the Saudi source did not confirm he was alive. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 16:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You are pathetic. The Yemeni source clearly said he is alive. Get over yourself.-- Zhoban ( talk) 18:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Read Tariq Alhomayad's profile on Wikipedia for yourself. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 17:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Which you just happened to post moments earlier. Once again, Ad Hominem arguments means crap when it comes to DNA evidence. Shihri is alive. Get over it. -- Zhoban ( talk) 18:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are incorrect Zhoban. The newspaper is quite controversial. I also recommend you not rudely tell people to "get over it" JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 00:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I did add to Tariq's article was his stance on Syria. I did edit the page, but almost all of my edits were already on Tariq's article. Both US and Yemen officials confirmed his death and already did forensic testing on his body to confirm his identity. I have already sent a dispute notice and I expect this matter to be resolved soon Please, stop this childish behavior. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 01:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, your dispute notice sure didn't last long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
Also, Yemen officials have "confirmed" his death and capture multiple times before only to be proven wrong. Only two anonymous U.S. officials have claimed that al-Shihri is alive. If the White House confirmed al-Shihri's death, that would be more reliable. If you bothered to read the Asharaq Alsawat article, you would realize that there's a big difference between forensic testing and DNA testing. Al-Shihri was mistakenly identified due to a similar leg wound.
-- Zhoban ( talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
How much do you even know about forensic testing? Part of it includes DNA testing. The story is not reliable at all and needs to be removed. Read a recent article that was published today about a Congressional protest against drone strikes. It talks about the reports of his death but not the reports of his "survivial." [1] 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the Yemen Observer, no DNA tests were done. The United States has reportedly requested that the Yemeni government wait until an American team of examiners can administer the DNA tests. As far as I know, the Yemen Observer is not known for making false claims.
http://www.yobserver.com/front-page/10022292.html
The people that claimed forensic testing was done were Yemeni officials. They are known to be inaccurate. Shihri has been reported killed multiple times. Also, the article you posted only "reports" his death. It doesn't confirm it. The only news agency that says Shihri's death was confirmed is the Associated Press. The fact is we don't know who to believe. There's too much contradictions. Some say DNA tests were done. Some say forensic tests were done. Some say neither were done. -- Kirbytoo ( talk) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This article written by Iona Craig [2] is poorly written and makes accusations that are not true. For example, Craig claims Al-Shihri was killed in November, when other other sources state he was died in January after being wounded in an airstrike. The Al Arabiya article also clearly stated his family told them the airstrike took place "in the second week of December." JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Your Ad Hominem arguments also fail because you insisted that Shihri died last September. He didn't. The Yemeni articles were correct about his survival back then too. When it comes to famous al-Qaeda leaders, their deaths are only confirmed when we have access to a corpse or the group makes an official marytrdom statement or "rahimahullah" comment like with Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti respectively.-- 151.236.17.86 ( talk) 14:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, his survival has not been confirmed. This is the reason why the media is forced to note that it was not clear when the message was recorded. The AFP source referenced in the article about the recent audio message also contradicted a claim made by the Associated Press's Cairo office that al-Shihri was referring to a February protest by making it clear that he mentioned "protests by Islamists in Saudi Arabia demanding the release of Al Qaeda-linked prisoners without specifying a date" and that "such demonstrations have been taking place sporadically in the kingdom over the past year," [3] also contradicting another claim by the AP's Cairo office that "protests are rare in the conservative kingdom." [4] Both the February anti-terrorism conference in Riyadh and the meeting of foreign Arab interior ministers in March where long planned and the issues debated, such as reforms to ensure more women's rights, were quite known to those who followed the preparations.
The DNA test report also was not accurate, as was later reported that no such tests ever took place. It took a video message of al-Shihri denying his death in October to officially convince the media he was still alive; though a part still thinks that it may have been as fake as a 2002 bin Laden video, and that it should've been noted that some news articles discussing it also stated it's authenticity wasn't independently verified, it is only my opinion and I can't present it as a fact. It is also known that the Al Qaeda also has a long history of trying to deny reported deaths of senior leaders and do not issue such martyrdom statements until they find replacements. They even released a video recording of Abu Yahya al Libi last summer and hinted he was still alive, but did not confirm his death until September. You should also look up the terms yellow journalism and sensationalism. Many journalists do not always report with the intent of being completely honest and intend to focus mainly on attracting audiences by creating curiosity. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, you were still wrong about DNA proving Shihri was dead. This guy is a vampire. I'll believe he's dead when we find his corpse. Anyway, looks like terrorists attacked Boston. Jesus. -- 173.169.84.59 ( talk) 20:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
In July 2012 another contributor
left 2 tags -- {{
condense}} and {{
undue}}
-- which probably should have been explained here on the talk page.
That contributor left hundreds of tags that I think similary required an explanation on the talk page in July 2012, and then left the project in August 2012.
I will wait a reasonable period of time, and if no one else steps forward who can explain why these tags are appropriate, I will remove them. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Said Ali al-Shihri. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Said Ali al-Shihri. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Said Ali al-Shihri. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Said Ali al-Shihri article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I am going to request a move back to the original name. Another contributor renamed this article, to a name that had a vague resemblance to the original, based on some recent news reports. Unfortunately, they seem to have gotten the wrong guy. Captive 372, "Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri was repatriated on 2007-11-09.
The New York Times article they cite, about the other guy, says he was repatriated in September. These are the individual repatriated in September 2007. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a difference of two months, something understandable in regard to these generally secretive and vague circumstances. According to WP:V, we must follow reliable sources. The New York Times is a reliable source, the United States Department of Defense is not.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was keep at current name. -- Aervanath ( talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
|
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
|
I reverted this edit because it broke links, and contained inaccuracies.
the "name=" part of a <ref> tag can't contain blanks, unless it is enclosed with quotes. I use CamelBack names, to avoid using quotes.
The Salim al Shihri referred to in the Worthington article was repatriated in September 2007, and, according to Worthington, was about 20 when captured. Our guy was born in 1973 -- eight years earlier.
No explanation was provided for the removal of the WOT infobox, so I am going to restore it. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the {{ WOT infobox}} that was previously removed without explanation.
There is no point re-inventing the wheel. The infobox has an "alias" section. I put the aliases there.
There is no point re-inventing the wheel. I am mystified as to why another contributor replaced the perfectly adequate ref names, without explanation. Most problematic, the renamed the ref name for al-Shihri's 2004 CSRT Summary of Evidence to "summary of evidence". This contributor seems to have overlooked that four Summary of Evidence memos were produced. Each needs, and already had, an unique and unambiguous ref name.
Collaboration requires cooperation. I am going to suggest that when the refnames another contributor has picked are adequate that contributors refrain from arbitrarily unilaterally renaming them. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
WRT to this edit -- I suggest we both take a break, and, when we return, discuss our proposals for changes on the talk page first.
You removed a lot of material form the article, without explaining why. Perhaps you can start by explaining those excisions.
I have no problem with fully and fairly covering reports that former captives engaged in terrorism, or supported terrorism, after leaving custody -- provided that coverage is well referenced, neutral, and otherwise complies with policy. This is all you want too -- correct? Geo Swan ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The allegations prepared for Al Shihri's 2004 CSR Tribunal were removed from this article.
I am looking at the press coverage of Al Shihri, like this one from the CBC, which says:
"Guantanamo military tribunal documents allege al-Shihri was an al-Qaeda travel facilitator and trained in urban warfare at Libyan Camp, located north of Afghanistan's capital of Kabul. He allegedly guided extremists on how to enter Afghanistan and provided money to other fighters, the documents say. In the past, Al-Shihri has denied any links to terrorism."
I suggest that some readers are going to want to know what the allegations in the Guantanamo documents were, and are going to look to the wikipedia to find out. These allegations have been removed on the very day they would be most useful.
I suggest they should be replaced, as soon as possible. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Al Shihri's medical records show periods of wild fluctuation. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
While people with Arabic names, who live in the west, or have been influenced by western study, may have adopted the western style of name, where a child inherits the last name of their father as their own surname, this is not the case with the overwhelming majority of people with Arabic names. There are actually two separate, parallel styles of naming traditionally used by Arabic speakers.
Anyone whose name starts with "Abu" is using a naming style that would translate as "Father of Solomon", or "Father of Adam" -- "Abu" means father of. This is somewhat similar to the patronomics used in Russia.
In the other naming scheme, also used by Pashto speakers in Afghanistan, an individual uses their father's first name as their last name. This is more like the tenth century Viking explorers Eric the Red and Lief Ericson. Just as with an Arabic style name, Lief's son presumably would be named something like "Joe Liefson".
Since there is no surname inherited from grandparent, to parent, to child, it is completely pointless and confusing to shoehorn the name into the European inherited surname style. It is confusing, and I suspect the accidental release of some of the captives who were dangerous was the result of the Guantanamo clerical staff's inability to master the Arabic name system. We should learn from the DoD's mistakes.
This shoehorning is further a mistake because individuals with Arabic names append disambiguating name like components to their name, which are not surnames -- but could look like a surname to the uninitiated. Sometimes the appended disambiguator is the town or region where they are from. Abu Musab al Zarqawi's apparent surname is just the town he is from, Zarqa. It is not his surname. Other times the appended disambiguator is their tribe, or occupation. These are also not inherited surnames.
And, in Al Shihri's case, the last component of his name, which is not an inherited surname, has been variously transliterated as: Al Shari, al Shehri and Al Shihri -- which, obviously, all sort differently.
So I removed the "default sort". Geo Swan ( talk) 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I re-installed the "war on terror" infobox. Brewcrewer's assertion that the infobox is not appropriate, because he is no longer a captive is inconsistent with how the infobox is used elsewhere. The infobox has fields for when the captive was released, or died -- clearly showing it was designed for both current and former captives.
The same for Category:Saudi Arabian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, routinely used for former captives.
Some famous Jazz guy said that the most important thing about Jazz was not the notes, but the spaces between the notes. Something similar is true for the wikipedia. It is not the raw text that is important, it is the links between articles, and the other mechanisms we have for organizing information that is important. Removing relevant categories is a mistake. Removing more closely focused infoboxes is a mistake. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I expanded the space on the allegations Al-Shihri faced in Guantanamo.
Brewcrewer has argued that his alleged role as a leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is more important than his detention in Guantanamo. He has gone on to argue that, therefore, the article's coverage of his Guantanamo detention should not be longer than the article's coverage of his recent alleged leadership of the militant group.
I have no problem with expanding the section on his participation in the Yemeni group, when we get more sources for it. We don't have that press release yet.
So, he gets caught, he is named in another press release, he defects, he is accused of involvement in another attack, coverage of any event like this will provide what is needed to expand this section.
It is a current event, after all.
As I wrote above, some famous Jazz guy said that the most important thing about Jazz was not the notes, but the spaces between the notes. And as I wrote above, something similar is true for the wikipedia. It is not the raw text that is important, it is the links between articles.
The allegations link Al-Shihri to other topics, making the wikipedia a richer, more useful resource. Hamud al-Uqqla, how important was he in providing support and drumming up recruits for al Qaida? The allegations against Al-Shihri state al-Uqqla instructed Al-Shihri to assassinate a writer. This is significant.
Read closely, the allegations could be seen as inconsistent. Did he enter Afghanistan from Iran? Or a thousand kilometers away from Pakistan? Did he escape Afghanistan, to Kuwait, as the informant who was the source the al-Uqqla claims said? Or was he wounded, and captured near Pakistan? Was he captured at a Pakistani border crossing, or from his bed in the Red Crescent hospital in Quetta?
Commenting on the inconsistencies, or editorializing about them, would be a mistake. And I have attempted to avoid that. But I would like our readers to have the opportunity to make up their own minds about the allegations. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As we progress in time, the article must be updated accordingly. The article violates WP:UNDUE, if it places a greater emphasis on one part of his life for which he is not notable instead of the parts of his life for which he is more notable.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has recently unilaterally changed the whole article into an article about the legal proceedings against him. This is wrong. An article about a person should not be focused on and should not come from the point of view of a government's charges against the subject, at one point the government claimed this and at what point the government claimed that, why a government chose to charge the subject one way instead of another way. This article must be focused on the subject's life story. It should tell a chronological life story. I have corrected the focus of the article. Please don't make such drastic unilateral unsound changes to the article. Thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A listing of his aliases in the infobox does not suffice. Most readers don't read the infobox. Indeed the infobox is intended to be a quick capture of what is already in the main text. Unless, there's a normal way of listing all his alternate names in the lede, the list at the bottom of the page will have to do. This is not a new idea. See Ajmal Kasab, a similar terrorist with a bunch of names. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This article violates WP:NPOV because instead of focusing on the person who is now an Al-Qaida head honcho, the article focuses on the proceedings against him in Guantanamo Bay. Formatting this biography in the proceedings against him is intended to focus on the lack of rights he was given while in custody instead of focusing on the murders of multiple civilians he arranged after he was released. The most egregious part of the article, which is indeed a microcosm of the whole article, is that his Guantanamo Bay detainee number (which I obviously tried removing) is given prominence in the infobox years after he was released. None of the Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors have a infobox with their concentration camp numbers.
The NPOV tag will most probably be removed by User:Sherurcij but it is my token edit to this article. For now, I am removing myself from editing this article. Now that User:Sherurcij has joined User:Geo Swan they can do whatever they want in the name of "consensus." If another editor comes across this article and decides to help me deal with this POV problem I would be glad to collaborate with him or her in creating a proper neutral article. The article will remain on my watchlist but I won't touch the article if the only editors involved are us three.
This is really not the correct forum for this issue, but I think WP is done a great disservice by this tag-teaming of User:Geo Swan of User:Sherurcij. Any changes an editor would like to make an article about Guantanamo Bay or the detainees therein must go through these two editors who are single-mindedly interested in focusing all GB article on the lack of rights given to the detainees. I hope one day this problem can be resolved, but until then - God Bless America!-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The image that i have removed from the article violates the basic rules of Wikipedia. It is the own work of a Wikipedia editor who took a primary source combined it with other sources and then interpreted them. This is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that these are mostly primary sources has also further problems as it does not comply with the policies of BLP's of living people. So i see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn ( talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
...Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy...
"The source is a low quality primary source that does not have the potential for creating a meaningful not possible misleading graphical representation of this table of number by any Wikipedia editor as i have explained already."
I reverted this edit because I think redirection is more useful in an instance like this than actually changing the article.
There is no standard procedure for picking a transliteration of Arabic names into English. No transliteration is more correct than other transliterations. When we suspect various transliterations are to the same individual it is better to use redirection for various reasons.
What if the contributor who decided that the two transliterations are to the same individual turns out to be mistaken? What if there are two individuals after all? If the contributor used redirection it is trivial to fix that by replacing the redirection with a new article about the second individual.
Creating a redirect will address similar problems in other articles.
But when the contributor who decides there is just one individual goes and changes every instance of the second transliteration with an instance of the first transliteration, it is very difficult to unroll the changes.
In addition using redirection makes it possible to count how many times each different name is used. This could be helpful for those who argue the base name of the article should be changed. Geo Swan ( talk) 12:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Two pieces of evidence:
First: "Contradicting previous media reports, US intelligence officials and an Arab diplomat have told The Long War Journal that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's deputy leader is not thought to have been killed in an explosion while assembling a bomb in Yemen."
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/02/aqap_deputy_emir_sai.php#ixzz1YhC5SNcG
Second: Here's a very recent AFP article on targeting al-Shihri in a recent drone strike. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGb-HbMAhncAYxfIBB3n2Q7d9juQ?docId=bd7ef17abd4b42ab813549781c1d7c9a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.79.251 ( talk) 15:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
source: http://www.thememriblog.org/iran/blog_personal/en/41860.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 ( talk) 08:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Asharaq Alsawat did not back the claim made by the Yemen Post until today and the Saudi source did not confirm he was alive. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 16:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You are pathetic. The Yemeni source clearly said he is alive. Get over yourself.-- Zhoban ( talk) 18:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Read Tariq Alhomayad's profile on Wikipedia for yourself. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 17:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Which you just happened to post moments earlier. Once again, Ad Hominem arguments means crap when it comes to DNA evidence. Shihri is alive. Get over it. -- Zhoban ( talk) 18:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are incorrect Zhoban. The newspaper is quite controversial. I also recommend you not rudely tell people to "get over it" JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 00:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I did add to Tariq's article was his stance on Syria. I did edit the page, but almost all of my edits were already on Tariq's article. Both US and Yemen officials confirmed his death and already did forensic testing on his body to confirm his identity. I have already sent a dispute notice and I expect this matter to be resolved soon Please, stop this childish behavior. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 01:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, your dispute notice sure didn't last long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
Also, Yemen officials have "confirmed" his death and capture multiple times before only to be proven wrong. Only two anonymous U.S. officials have claimed that al-Shihri is alive. If the White House confirmed al-Shihri's death, that would be more reliable. If you bothered to read the Asharaq Alsawat article, you would realize that there's a big difference between forensic testing and DNA testing. Al-Shihri was mistakenly identified due to a similar leg wound.
-- Zhoban ( talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
How much do you even know about forensic testing? Part of it includes DNA testing. The story is not reliable at all and needs to be removed. Read a recent article that was published today about a Congressional protest against drone strikes. It talks about the reports of his death but not the reports of his "survivial." [1] 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the Yemen Observer, no DNA tests were done. The United States has reportedly requested that the Yemeni government wait until an American team of examiners can administer the DNA tests. As far as I know, the Yemen Observer is not known for making false claims.
http://www.yobserver.com/front-page/10022292.html
The people that claimed forensic testing was done were Yemeni officials. They are known to be inaccurate. Shihri has been reported killed multiple times. Also, the article you posted only "reports" his death. It doesn't confirm it. The only news agency that says Shihri's death was confirmed is the Associated Press. The fact is we don't know who to believe. There's too much contradictions. Some say DNA tests were done. Some say forensic tests were done. Some say neither were done. -- Kirbytoo ( talk) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This article written by Iona Craig [2] is poorly written and makes accusations that are not true. For example, Craig claims Al-Shihri was killed in November, when other other sources state he was died in January after being wounded in an airstrike. The Al Arabiya article also clearly stated his family told them the airstrike took place "in the second week of December." JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Your Ad Hominem arguments also fail because you insisted that Shihri died last September. He didn't. The Yemeni articles were correct about his survival back then too. When it comes to famous al-Qaeda leaders, their deaths are only confirmed when we have access to a corpse or the group makes an official marytrdom statement or "rahimahullah" comment like with Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti respectively.-- 151.236.17.86 ( talk) 14:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, his survival has not been confirmed. This is the reason why the media is forced to note that it was not clear when the message was recorded. The AFP source referenced in the article about the recent audio message also contradicted a claim made by the Associated Press's Cairo office that al-Shihri was referring to a February protest by making it clear that he mentioned "protests by Islamists in Saudi Arabia demanding the release of Al Qaeda-linked prisoners without specifying a date" and that "such demonstrations have been taking place sporadically in the kingdom over the past year," [3] also contradicting another claim by the AP's Cairo office that "protests are rare in the conservative kingdom." [4] Both the February anti-terrorism conference in Riyadh and the meeting of foreign Arab interior ministers in March where long planned and the issues debated, such as reforms to ensure more women's rights, were quite known to those who followed the preparations.
The DNA test report also was not accurate, as was later reported that no such tests ever took place. It took a video message of al-Shihri denying his death in October to officially convince the media he was still alive; though a part still thinks that it may have been as fake as a 2002 bin Laden video, and that it should've been noted that some news articles discussing it also stated it's authenticity wasn't independently verified, it is only my opinion and I can't present it as a fact. It is also known that the Al Qaeda also has a long history of trying to deny reported deaths of senior leaders and do not issue such martyrdom statements until they find replacements. They even released a video recording of Abu Yahya al Libi last summer and hinted he was still alive, but did not confirm his death until September. You should also look up the terms yellow journalism and sensationalism. Many journalists do not always report with the intent of being completely honest and intend to focus mainly on attracting audiences by creating curiosity. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, you were still wrong about DNA proving Shihri was dead. This guy is a vampire. I'll believe he's dead when we find his corpse. Anyway, looks like terrorists attacked Boston. Jesus. -- 173.169.84.59 ( talk) 20:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
In July 2012 another contributor
left 2 tags -- {{
condense}} and {{
undue}}
-- which probably should have been explained here on the talk page.
That contributor left hundreds of tags that I think similary required an explanation on the talk page in July 2012, and then left the project in August 2012.
I will wait a reasonable period of time, and if no one else steps forward who can explain why these tags are appropriate, I will remove them. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Said Ali al-Shihri. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Said Ali al-Shihri. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Said Ali al-Shihri. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)