Talk:Wail al-Shehri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleWail al-Shehri is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 21, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 31, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted

older comments[edit]

Alex Jones claims that there is a person in Saudi Arabia that claims to be this person. Jones claims that the FBI believes that this person is someone that stole the identity of Al-Shehri. Why would someone steal the identity of a dead man? Can anyone confirm or deny that any of this is true?

It would be very beneficial to steal the identity of a dead man, but it's unlikely in this case. Check out the last sentence of the article (and the link provided there) to see why. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 04:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed[edit]

  • ArabNews: Al-Shihri says sons missing for 10 months --Aude (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On July 16, both Wail and Waleed were staying at a hotel in Salou, Spain where they were visited by Muhammad Atta. 7Online.com: FBI Willing To 'Work' With Detainees With Terror Plot Info - This is an early report which doesn't pan out with later more detailed reports and sources. --Aude (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although there are conflicting reports whether he had a pilot certificate, he was considered one of the "muscle" hijackers, who were not expected to act as pilots." - I don't think this is needed. Perhaps we can say something about the conflicting reports, once sources are located, but this exact sentence doesn't fit. --Aude (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initial reports suggested that Wail may have actually been the pilot of the flight, but these were soon dismissed in favour of Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the attacks." - as with the previous item, this needs a source and then maybe we can readd something about these initial reports. --Aude (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The FBI reported that they had seized cell phone records for Wail's phone shortly after the attacks." - this needs a source and would need to fit somehow with the text. --Aude (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to librarian Kathleen Hensmen, Wail and Waleed al-Shehri used the Internet access at Delray Beach Public Library in August 2001, where they may have been looking at information on crop dusting; they reportedly left the library with a third Middle Eastern man thought to be Marwan al-Shehhi, whom Hensmen claims asked her for the name of a local restaurant." - Google turns up nothing, aside from Wikipedia articles [1] and Lexis-Nexis finds nothing to support this. A reliable source would be needed in order to re-add this. --Aude (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

The FBI's hijacker timeline lists his birthdate as July 31, 1973, which is information the FBI got from Shehri's visa application. I'm not sure where September 1, 1975 came from, though I don't doubt it may be correct. Need sources. --Aude (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Want more fun? a previous version listed September 1, 1968 as his birthdate :P Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
September 1, 1968 was the birthdate for Mohamed Atta, so I'm pretty sure that was a mistake. Perhaps cut and paste from Atta's article. --Aude (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

This article needs a photo. What I suggest is a screenshot from his last will and testament video. I do have a copy of the video, so can take care of this. I would omit the photo circulated by the FBI. If we did including, we would need to be certain of the original source (his visa, his drivers license, etc.) --Aude (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some good luck finding that as-Sahab has (unknowingly?) released a number of their videos into the Public Domain, choosing to dessiminate them through Archive.org's video library, which requires the uploader to confirm they release all copyright claims to any videos which they upload. If you do a quick search, I believe all the "Will and Testaments" videos were included in that; so you could even upload them to Commons. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found material there, as well, and noticed it's public domain. I'm not going to upload the videos to commons, since I think it may go too far in spreading Al Qaeda's propaganda and probably not what the Wikipedia community would want. Just not necessary. A still image would be just fine, and it won't give anyone technical problems whereas I (and others) can't play ogg videos without going to lots of trouble. --Aude (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "them" I meant clean screenshots - yes. Though I wouldn't mind creating short clips in the future for oggs, but I agree they're not very useful. A screenshot is 90% as effective, and 5% of the effort. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Wail al-Shehri. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Has No Place Being A Featured Article[edit]

Of all of the amazing articles on Wikipedia, why was this chosen to be a featured article? Any glorification of the men who committed this atrocity, however academic and well written, should not be what Wikipedia stands for. I’ve been a daily Wikipedia user for going on 15 years and this is this first time I’ve been angry at the choice of featured article. There may come a time that an article such as this one is appropriate to feature as the English language article of the day, but we aren’t there yet. Shame on you Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.224.195 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused about why articles are "featured." They are reviewed as featured because they have been extensively researched and edited to the highest quality standards on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the nature of the subject. It's a quality rating, not an endorsement of the topic. See WP:FA. Similar criteria apply to Female genital mutilation, and the good article criteria to Zyklon B and Auschwitz concentration camp - none of these ratings amount to approval of the subjects. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree that it shouldn't have been featured as we have lots of featured articles to choose from that are not controversial. The addition of the 9/11 memorial image just rubs salt in the wounds for those who have lost loved ones. Its like having a featured article about Hitler with an image of the memorial at Auschwitz concentration camp. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - FA review is always an option, and images as decoration are generally deplored. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero qualms with an article being recognized for being exceptionally well researched and written. From what I understand there exists a rating system for well written articles that exists outside of the Featured Article paradigm. If this article meets those criteria then by all means it should be recognized as such. But to be a featured article it must be chosen over other equally as well written articles, and the subject matter here glorifies a single human being whose contribution to history is a singular deplorable event. I genuinely believe that a mistake was made here and that upon reflection, it would be difficult to make a good argument for why this article should hold such a place of distinction on such an esteemed website. It’s very much in severely poor taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.224.195 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles you provided as examples of “things we don’t approve of but happen to be great articles” give even decent justification for this being chosen as a featured article. They are about things other than singular human beings. They are touchy subjects to be certain but they don’t put any one individual on a pedestal. I understand that other controversial figures have been feature articles but they have always been much larger looming historical figures who have much broader historical impact. Again, this man is one of a handful of people who did an egregious thing one time on one day. It’s not good enough and he doesn’t deserve to be among the fraction of a percentage of articles that have been featured. Had an article on the whole of the group of men who had done this thing been featured it would have been a different story. But this isn’t that. It’s one man being elevated to a status he hoped he would be elevated to when he undertook this mission. And it’s just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.224.195 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We're not glorifying the person, we're featuring the article about the person (as the criteria says: Featured Article). It means that it's well written and sourced. The Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks article that you're suggesting as a replacement is only a Class B. Feel free to contribute there to make it a FA in the future! byteflush Talk 04:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You picked a single word out of what I said over two long paragraphs and clung to it. Your rebuttal is beyond lacking and I believe you are being extremely stubborn and myopic here. If you’re telling me there aren’t 1000 other article sitting waiting to be featured and this was the only option then so be it. But I would take a wild guess and assume that isn’t the case. Never did I assert featuring the broader article instead. I would appreciate you reading more carefully and gathering your thoughts more thoroughly next time you feel the need to jump in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.224.195 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a thread on Talk:TFA about this. Sleath56 (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks[edit]

Article clearly falls under WP:BIO1E; individual is only notable as one of the Hijackers in the September 11 attacks, which I can only guess is a sub-article of the September 11 attacks article. The subject of this article not being notable outside of their role as a terrorist during a notable event, should have their article merged into the sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Coffeeandcrumbs. As I understand, September 11 attacks on U.S.A. are considered a significant event (correct me if I'm wrong), and only an article about this person (a FA, if I may add) is being considered for merging into the parent article. I don't get it, could the nominator elaborate? byteflush Talk 03:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Byteflush: I would prefer that the all the hijacker's articles be merged into the article Hijackers in the September 11 attacks, per WP:BIO1E, as that is a sub-article of the primary article about the attack, and the appropriate place for biographies of the hijackers to be coalesced into.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - All nineteen hijackers have individual articles. Hijackers in the September 11 attacks covers their behaviors as a group and sub-groups per each plane, not as individuals, and that page incorporates very sparing biographical information about each man. There's no reason to incorporate one hijacker into the page you suggested without incorporating the other eighteen, which would make it close to prohibitively long and would detract from the original topic of the page, which is the group's actions as part of al-Qaeda, preparing for & implementing the attacks. Amphytrite (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amphytrite: And I would agree that the other eighteen should be merged into the Hijackers in the September 11 attacks article as well. Should I tag all those other articles as well?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per WP:BIO1E and what C&C said: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Suggest a speedy closure. epicgenius (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. pretty much per all of the above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this person did anything during the event and so their role was not a large one. The information we do have seems quite thin and the article pads it out with conjecture such as "his uncle may have been a major in the army". Their part was to be "muscle" and, as such, they were just one of a group. It's like WP:SUBNOT which states "material about individual members of a musical group are normally merged into larger articles about the group". The proposed target could use more information about the background of the hijackers and we'd end up with a better article. But who's actually going to do the work? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs. – Teratix ₵ 02:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs. It is good to have a discussion on this, but I agree with the above oppose votes. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020[edit]

Did he die instantly at 8:46:35 in 9/11,or die within a few seconds of the crash? 47.16.99.72 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wail_al-Shehri&oldid=1210343772"