Talk:Said Ali al-Shihri

explanation

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.

• OARDEC (2008-10-09). "Consolidate chronological listing of GTMO detainees released, transferred or deceased" (PDF). Department of Defense. Retrieved 2008-12-28.

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)

In the interests of reabability I am striking a list of captives released in September. I believe we got to the bottom of why there were two release dates, September and November -- the new, ambiguous, shorter name this article was given today matched two individuals repatriated in the fall of 2007. I believe it is now clear we are talking about the November guy. The list is here. Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 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.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After further analysis, I realized that you are mistaken. The Times never said he was released in September 2007, they say that he was released in November of 2007, the same date that you placed in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They're the same person according to the NYTimes: Said Ali al Shihri (372) is also Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Randy: The Times and the DOD are obviously refering to the same person as you said. The problem is the Huffington Post article. The article was written in September of 2007, and it claims to refer to the Saudis released in September. However, this angel was released in November according to the DOD and the Times. I compared the HP article with the DOD list of releases and there are some discrepancies. It is possible that Andy Worthington mistakenly refers to Saudis that were not released. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Worthington article refers to a different individual -- repatriated at a different time -- September, with a different name, and different age.

I suggest this confusion highlights the care that must be exercised to get their names right, because, with indifferent translations and transliteratons it is extremely easy to mistake individual with similar looking names. And, as I wrote below, this difficulty is eased when the basename is the longer name. Short names are fine for redirects, but the base name for the article should be the least ambiguous. Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was keep at current name. --Aervanath (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Different names captive 372 was known by

• Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri
• Said Ali Shari
• Said Ali al-Shihri
• Sa'eed Al-Shihri

I came across this reference last night:

"Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported... "A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information."

SITE was set up by a guy named Evan Kohlmann. He wrote his thesis on Osama bin Laden, prior to 9-11, then went to law school. He was in law school on 9-11. Since then he has been a full-time terrorism consultant. What are his law-enforcement credentials? None, so far as I can tell, beyond serving as an expert witness. Does he have a background serving as an intelligence official, prior to becoming a terrorism consultant? None, so far as I can tell. Prior to becoming a terrorism consultant did he have any background in counter-terrorism, beyond writing his thesis on OBL? None, so far as I can tell. So, how reliable should we regard unsubstantiated assertions from his institute? Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

References

• Oppose. There are atleast five possible names for the article (see "Alternative names" section in the article). Per WP:NC, we must the name most commonly used. Thus we must the name used by the New York Times, not one of the many different name used in court documents. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Restore original less ambiguous longer name -- The contributor who unilaterally renamed this article, justified that renaming under the authority of WP:NC -- which states:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Arabic names are tricky. Unlike names in the anglosphere, where there is a rich name-space, the name-space for individuals in Arabic speaking cultures is sparse. The disambiguation provided by providing all the modifiers is not extraneous, is not wasted. It is essential. I have no problem with the shorter names being redirects to the longer name, but renaming the article to the shorter names is a disservice to readers, likely to cause additional confusion. Geo Swan (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to make an exception in the naming conventions policy for Arabic names I would suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. At this point we must use the most recognizable name. The current name is used by reliable sources and gets far more ghits (Compare Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri with Said Ali al-Shihri). I would also urge you to bear in mind WP:OWN. Also, it't probably unfair to count towards the consensus User:Sherurcij, who will come by in a few seconds and blindly support your opinions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting an exception. I am suggesting that the policy already states that the name should be adequately unambiguous. Sorry, the confusion generated by your new name for both Randy and I, shows your new name failed to be adequately unambiguous.

WRT to your comment regarding Sherurcij, I do my best to confine myself to the issues, not personalities, we should all do our best to confine ourselves to the issuses, and I would appreciate you doing likewise. Geo Swan (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The previous name was equally if not more ambiguous. It is one of the many different names used at the DOD proceedings. At this time, the front page New York Times expose which is linked all over the web (as shown by the gihts) is the most recognized name and now unambiguous. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look more closely. Ignoring the apparent differences introduced by different transliterations the long name approaches being a superset of the shorter names.

You have not addressed an important point I have made, so I am going to try to explain this again. The surname name-space used in the Anglosphere is very rich. You open a phone-book in North America and you will see pages and pages of surnames that trace to regions all over the world -- the legacy of hundreds of years of international commerce, conquest, colonization, and post-colonial and commerce driven immigration. The name-space for given names is also very rich. This makes name collision -- two individuals with the same name, relatively rare in the anglosphere name-space for individuals. The same is far from true for the name-spaces used in Saudi Arabia. Their name spaces are very sparse, barren, so the disambiguators are essential. From my reading, if you opened a Saudi phone book, you would find page after page of homonyms. Many more Saudis are in the position that an individual named John Smith finds himself in here.

Of the 120 or so Saudi captives six of them contained "Al Qahtani" in their name. Four of them had names that could have been shortened to Mohammed al Qahtani. One of them, when faced with the allegation that his name, or known alias, was found on a suspicious list, pointed out to the officers reviewing his status that fully five percent of the captives had a name that could be confused with his. I found it a compelling point, particularly given how many times I have seen good-faith contributors confuse these six men, or all the various guys named al Libi.

In January 2008 Abu Laith Al Libi was reported to have been killed in a high-tech missile strike. American spokesmen promptly claimed that they had taken out al Qaeda's number three. Most journalists didn't notice, but some with longer memories pointed out that when another guy called "al Libi" had been killed in a missile strike a year or two earlier the same spokesmen had claimed that he had been al Qaeda's number three. Some spokesmen ignored these questions. Some implied they had got it right both times, that the second Al Libi had been promoted to number three, when the original number three was killed. And some acknowledged that they had got it wrong the first time -- that they had confused men with similar names, and that the first one was a second rank leader and Abu Laith al Libi had been the real number three all along.

Similarly, a couple of years, a guy named Abu something El Masri was killed in another missile strike. He was a 2nd or 3rd rank hero. I wasn't familiar with him. But when I went and looked at the stories about his death, and looked at the mugshot American intelligence analysts had put on their most wanted web-page for the several years preceding his death, it took me about half a second to realize they had confused two other guys with similar names. There was a big tall fiery imam in London, who was one of the individuals characterized as "al Qaeda's ambassador to Europe". Any picture you see of him today he has hooks replacing his hand, and one of his eyes is scarred and blind. The picture attached to the other guy was clearly an early picture of the London Imam, when he was a little skinnier, his hair hadn't gone grey, and he had both eyes. US spokesmen quietly acknowledged the error a little while later.

No offense, but the long name is essential for disambiguation, without regard to your opinion that the version used by the New York Times is more popular among English speakers. Given that he is practically unknown I don't think your google hit metric is really meaningful. If another high profile newspaper were to write a widely cited newspaper article about him again, in a couple of months, under a different transliteration, we would find that the majority of the web searches turned up under that spelling. It is a flawed measure tool, which is why various wikidocuments remind us not to rely on counting web search hits. Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but we can't just use one random used on DOD doc to make sure that there is no confusion. There are a number of different documents each using a lightly different name. It's simply arbitrary to use one of the names just so that other won't get confused. We might as well rename the article to The Saudi with a name something along the lines of Sa'id Ali Jabir Al Khathim Al Shihri, who was in Guantanamo Bay and then went on to being an Al-Qaida leader after he was released. Our zeal to disambiguate has no limits. Therefore, it's just most prudent to use the name that is the most well known in the english speaking world. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tch, your complaints that I'll blindly support things without my opinion offends me, I've long campaigned to "shorten" detainee's article titles as I feel it broaches an NPOV issue to refer to somebody as Sami Mohammad Omar Mullah Mohammad bin Khomeini bin Omar al-Hajj, instead of "Sami al-Hajj". It makes them sound alien and frightening, and I strongly support keeping a "first name, last name, middle name if always used in referring to the subject". So for this article, I'd support its current name (which given the lower-case 'a' and the en-dash, I'd imagine I actually named?) of "Said Ali al-Shihri". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

explanation

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)

The Guantanamo Bay infobox does not belong because he is no longer held there. See WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. Try not to reply with huge boxes. It takes up too much space.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The person(s) who designed this box designed it to be used for both current and former captives. Note the "date of release" field. Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is something that other editors and I have tried explaining a number of times at the detainee afd's: Being held at Guantanamo Bay is not a basis for notability. A person's life is not all about being held at GB. Especially this person, who is more notable for being involved in a terrorism attack which killed a number of innocent civilians. Being held at GB is not this person's whole entire life story and a huge infobox about his stay at GB doesn't make sense if it is not violative of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP1E, and WP:COATRACK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you connect this infobox with a lack of compliance with WP:NPOV.

I don't understand how you think the essay on recentism is applicable here. I am not sure if you meant to suggest it was a policy, or should be treated as if it were a policy. If you do treat it as a policy, let me point out that it is an essay. It is not a policy. Having said that, if you think it has advice applicable here, please spell it out. Geo Swan (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The infobox that you prefer violates WP:UNDUE (a subpart of (WP:NPOV) because it places an undue and disproportionate emphasis on one part of this person's life. He is more notable for being an Al Quade leader then for being one of the hundreds held at Guantanomo Bay. The infobox should represent his overall notability, not one part of his life.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

wot infobox

I restored the {{WOT infobox}} that was previously removed without explanation.

Replied in the section right above this one. Don't know why a new section was created on the same topic. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-inventing the wheel...

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)

The "other editor" was probably confused by your naming of the refs. There's no point of reinventing the wheel but please don't assume that anybody that touches your articles won't be improving the article. Such assumptions are not conducive to a collaborative effort, which is what we do over here. As for the renamed summaries, if there are other "summaries" added to the article, we should accordingly modify the ref names. It does look kinda silly to argue about the names of the refs. It does not further any assumptions of good faith. Regards from the "other editor". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We all have natural preferences, for refnames, and other matters. I repeat, if the refname is already adequately unambiguous it is a mistake to change the refnames. It is disruptive and causes confusion, when those familiar with the old refname return to the article and want to re-use them. I leave other people's refnames alone, as a courtesy to other contributors. And I simply request you do the same. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That exactly is the problem. You created refnames with seemingly random numbers and/or letters. It can't get more ambiguous and confusing with your format. I am quite surprised by your comments about leaving alone other people's edits alone. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia is all about.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Refnames are not intellectual content. Consistency is important. Some contributors choose names like NYT for refs. Adequate if the article is never going to cite more than one New York Times article. I often append the date at the end of the refnames I generate. I don't think it should matter whether I recognize your use of the refname NYT as a reference to the New York Times. I don't think it should matter whether you recognize that 20070717 is a date. We can treat refnames as tokens with no inherent meaning, and copy and paste adequately disambiguous ref tags generated by someone else, without regard to not recognizing the name as meaningful, when we want to make further use of that reference.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we think we can think of better, more-meaningful or more aesthetically pleasing refnames, we should require a better reason for renaming them. Arbitrary renamings are an unnecessary source of confusion.

Please don't interpret my comment about potentially disruptive, arbitrary renaming of tags as if it applied to intellectual content. Of course on a collaborative project good faith contributors will make good faith changes to others' contributions. And, when appropriate, they provide a good faith explanation for their changes on the article's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Having written predominantly Canadian-themed terrorism articles, I'll just point out that names like ref name="csis" or "ref name="affadavit" get bogged down, because Mohammad Jihad's affadavit is referenced in Uthman Khomeini's article and vice versa for their small nuances, but have the same ref name. Similarly, it confuses those wonderful bots who edit to "rescue" abandoned ref names from "related articles" that have an identically named reference. (So "ref name="summary of evidence" is a bad idea). So just a note that I'd appreciate if we could try to include the subject's name (and a number if necessary) in the ref name. "shihriSummary4" or something is great. It's not a huge deal, just helps avoid too much clutter. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

suggestion

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)

I'm all for breaks, it's the story of my life. However, I don't know why the link provided is a reason for a "break". The current infobox is more in line with the infobox of Al Quada members, which is his strongest and current claim for notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

allegations

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)

All content regarding al-Shihri's actions or alleged actions belong in the article. It's important, however, that we not copy and paste the bulleted legalese from the DOD forms. This is encyclopedia, not a legal document. I do plan on going through the DOD form and putting all the accusations into this article with the correct prose. All help is welcome.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you please re-read your paraphrase of the allegations? Please recognize that you have paraphrased these allegations as if they were established facts -- rather than mere allegations. Isn't that a lapse from compliance with BLP?

Is there any way you could describe your view of "correct prose"? Geo Swan (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, the allegations must represent that they are just that - allegations. However, it will be prose-less to start off each sentence with "According to the Americans". While they must be in the correct prose, i.e. non-bulleted, we have to be careful to make it readable and in accordance with BLP at the same time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

medical records

Al Shihri's medical records

Al Shihri's medical records show periods of wild fluctuation. Geo Swan (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake to shoehorn Arabic names into the English style of surnames

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)

wot infobox redux

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)

As Brewcrewer has explained above, his current claim to notability is the fact that he's a leader in Al-Quada. We must be consistent with the other Al- Qaida leaders and use the same infobox that they are using. The fact that other ex-prisoners still have the infobox means two things: Nobody but the creator of the article (Geoswan) has edited or cares about the article and since Geoswan has decided that he likes the infobox it it still there. The second reason is that most of the prisoners are only notable for being held at GB (there unnnotable per wp:blp1e, but that's a different discussion for a different day). Thus, if there only claim to notability if there GB number, updating the article by removing the GB stuff effectively removes the whole entire article. Brewcrewer doesn't really get the whole jazz analogy but what he has picked up is that goeswan is pushing some sort of OR-like agenda. The same applies to Category:Saudi Arabian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. If he's not currently a prisoner, there's no excuse for us to open ourselves up to libel and defamation claims by keeping the category in the article. Paris Hilton was a prisoner, but she's no longer a prisoner. She's not in the category of Category:American prisoners and detainees.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to hold the personal opinion that his only claim to notability is that he is reported be a leader of a violent extremist group. Please don't assert this is an established consensus.

I didn't create the infobox. Somebody else did. So, clearly I am not the only person who cares about this.

WRT to your notion that I am "pushing some sort of OR-like agenda" -- I repeat, please stick to the issues, and refrain from this kind of personal criticism.

As I understand it, writing something like: "...the following passage: "xx yy zz", concerns me because it may lapse from policy WP:Xxx, because..." -- complies with the wikipedia's civility policies.

I believe you are mistaken that it is libel or slander for the wikipedia to cover the documentable fact that she was once a prisoner. Same with the former captives from Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion that his main claim of notability is because he is a leader of violent group that has killed dozens of people and because he sat in a jail for a few years is not my opinion only. This opinion is shared by a multitude of editors that have repeatedly said at multiple afd's that being in Guantanamo Bay is not in of itself a claim to notability beyond WP:BLP1E, if that much.

The infobox that I used to replace your WP:UNDUE-violative infobox was not created by me. Somebody else did. So, clearly I am not the only person who cares about this.

If I think you're basing your edits on your original research I have every right to tell you this. Original Research is absolutely not allowed here at Wikipedia, especially at an article about a living person. Please respond to Original Research problems in a substantive manner, instead of accusing your editor of making a personal attack.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

allegations

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)

Article trim

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.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with expanding the coverage of his participation in Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. I'll keep my eyes peeled for them. If you have some sources to support that aspect of his life, cough them up.

I do not find your assertions that the article lapses from compliance with WP:NPOV at all convincing. Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Article focus

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, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your work, and tried to maintain it as much as possible, while reverting some deletion of information I felt was relevant. I agree with you that it should tell the chronological story - there's no reason for us to have to read "2005 ARB Allegations" to find out which country he was in, or who he met with, that information should be kept in the biographical section (with "alleged" if necessary), so that readers get a clear flowing biography, thank you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of alternate names

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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer it in the main body, but I think it's a bit low where it is.

FWIW: his picture turns up here on AFP with detainee 333.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it deserves its own section, but I agree it's best to include the information in the main prose if possible, especially if we can list when he used each name, etc. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV tag

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!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to say that Geo_Swan and I agree and back each other up on everything, for example I implemented the {{ARB}}, {{CSRT-No}}, {{CSRT-Yes}} and similar templates because he was being accused of COATRACK and copy/pasting the same information (often with what I felt was an anti-Bush bias, and others agreed) into 900 articles -- so it was decided we'd take that "copy/pasted" contextual information and put it in a template (with consensus from Wikiproject:Terrorism, Wikiproject:Templates and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Templates who all agreed it was "not the proper use of Templates, but in this case merited an exception". The information could then be pared down and NPOVed across all 900 articles simultaneously, instead of Ali Baba Muhammad being nominated for NPOV checking this month, and Umar Abdullah al-Arabee next month. Likewise, Geo_Swan has not hesitated to tell me when he thinks I am wrong, an example coming to mind over the Yemeni captives in Guantanamo articles which ultimately went his direction not mine. Other examples still come to mind, and it's through butting heads with each other and with other users, that the project improves and the coverage of these individuals improves and becomes more NPOV, includes more information and ultimately becomes the ideal article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A note that I updated the tag to {{USgovtPOV}} since your complaint seems to be that we rely almost exclusively on the Gitmo proceedings, without taking any Saudi newspaper accounts of his later attacks into our readings? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The article contains lots of non-US government references now, so I have removed the tag that warned it might be POV because it exclusively called upon US government sources... Geo Swan (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

explanation...

Al Shihri's medical records

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)

User:Iqinn has had their attention drawn to WP:OI. Nevertheless, they have not reviewed the dozens of valid and useful images they excised -- prior to being made aware that:

...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...

I do not believe the image in question was a violation of policy. I will wait a reasonable period of time, for a meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanation as to why the image should be considered a lapse from WP:OR, after all. If none is provided I will restore it. Geo Swan (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this set of graph images has already been discussed on other talk page. Here and on another talk page. Where when i remember right you choose not to discuss. 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.

Your are also interpreting the source by speaking of wild weight fluctuations. We do not know what these numbers mean. IQinn (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You write:

"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 find your meaning unclear.

1. Who determined that the source was "low quality". Are you disputing that this is an official source?
2. What do you mean it "does not have the potential for creating a meaningful not possisble misleading graphical representation"? What is a "meaningful not possisble misleading graphical representation"?
3. Why did you insert the term "by any Wikipedia editor"?
4. The image does not use the term "weight fluctuations" -- so what is your point in using this term?

Let's be clear here. The justifications for the excision of the image you offered above were that it lapsed from WP:OR and that it lapsed from WP:BLP. I have cited the policy that I believe shows you were mistaken about WP:OR.

If I recall correctly your explanation of your BLP concern is that this suicidal militant would find their ability to buy affordable health insurance compromised by the publication of a graph of their weight fluctations. Have I got that right? I consider this a far-fetched justification.

You assert that you had already addressed your concerns at Talk:Mohammed_Ayub#explanation.... Your objections there were to the other image's X-axis which contained phrases that you regarded as lapsing from WP:OR. This is a different image, which does not contain the phrases that triggered your concern there. IMO citing that discussion here is inappropriate and misleading.

Let's be clear -- you have a long record of challenging WP:RS you characterize as "questionable". IMO, you have a long record of referring to material as lapsing from WP:NPOV when all it is doing is neutrally covering what WP:RS say, in a manner that clearly and in a policy-compliant way makes clear that any POV interpretation was in the WP:RS. We are not required to only cite WP:RS we can argue also write from a neutral point of view. Most of our WP:RS are not written from a neutral point of view. None of us, not you, not me, not even Jimbo Wales, is allowed to suppress material based on a personal concern over the credibility of our WP:RS. If we lived in a world where almost all experts continued to believe was flat, that is what our articles on geography and mapping would have to reflect.

So, if what you meant by the phrase "does not have the potential for creating a meaningful not possisble misleading graphical representation" was that, in your personal opinion the underlying numbers published by the DoD were misleading you are lapsing from WP:NPOV and WP:OR yourself. My opinion, your opinion, Jimbo Wales opinion on the reliability of those official weight reports are simply not relevant. We are not WP:RS. Suppressing a neutrally written, properly referenced opinion, just because you have personal doubts about its credibility is just as much a lapse from WP:NPOV and WP:OR as inserting biased or unreferenced opinions.

Official government sources -- government press releases, government publications, government web-sited -- we accept that these represent the official government position. So long as our coverage of that material makes clear it is the government's position, not an established fact, we cite those sources.

As I have told you, many times before, if you think there are other WP:RS that should be cited, that offer alternative points of view, by all means bring them forward. But, IMO, you are not authorized to keep fighting to suppress these references based on your personal doubts. Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

explanation

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)

Said is Not Dead

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)

Yes, I think he is still alive. I stumbled on this bit of news today claiming he left an audio message that "Warns Saudis of Imminent Iranian War against Sunnis, Urges them to Join Jihad in Yemen"

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)

Sorry, But This So Called "Evidence" Does Not Prove He Is Alive

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)

It Turns Out Asharaq Alsawat Is Known For Making False Claims

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)

The USA Today Article is A Bad Source

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)

Welcome back 75.72.35.253. I see you still have the habit of capitalizing every word you type in regards to titles. USA Today is not the only source. Shihri's survival has been cofirmed. He mentions events that have taken place after his reported death. An AQAP source confirmed Shihri was wounded but survived the drone strike. The family mistakenly believed that Shihri died. He didn't. He was in a coma but recovered.

http://shuaibalmosawa.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/shihri-back-from-the-dead-his-latest-audio-recording-interview-with-aqap-source-on-his-injuries-and-condition/

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)

responsible use of tags

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131162300/http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/reports/heights-weights-and-in-processing-dates to http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/reports/heights-weights-and-in-processing-dates
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228040335/http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3902 to http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3902
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220004442/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/09-F-0031_doc1.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/09-F-0031_doc1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20090130072004/http%3A//saudigazette.com.sa%3A80/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009012927911
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819202927/https://twitter.com/abdulahalmgahed/status/495630206762496001 to https://twitter.com/abdulahalmgahed/status/495630206762496001

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) 08:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/reports/heights-weights-and-in-processing-dates
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/measurements/ISN_323-ISN_494.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=1900&MainCat=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104220259/http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=31093 to http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=31093
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130210073831/http://www.yobserver.com/front-page/10022292.html to http://www.yobserver.com/front-page/10022292.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/measurements/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203004353/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/index_transfer_release_decision_ARB_Round_1.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/index_transfer_release_decision_ARB_Round_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227125640/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/index_ARB_Round_2_Decision_Memos.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/index_ARB_Round_2_Decision_Memos.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125033134/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB3FactorIndex8Jan09.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/ARB3FactorIndex8Jan09.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8454804.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009012627660
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009012927911
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/16/world/worldwatch/entry4949488.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2009/05/27/20/recidivists.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/20446.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009101951968
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/sources-air-strike-in-yemen-may-have-killed-imam-who-inspired-fort-hood-shooter-two-top-al-qaeda-officials.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60012
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009072244380

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) 03:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/reports/heights-weights-and-in-processing-dates
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/measurements/ISN_323-ISN_494.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=1900&MainCat=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524074928/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/08-F-0481_FactorsDocsBates300-401.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/08-F-0481_FactorsDocsBates300-401.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/measurements/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8454804.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009012627660
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/16/world/worldwatch/entry4949488.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2009/05/27/20/recidivists.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/20446.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009101951968
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/sources-air-strike-in-yemen-may-have-killed-imam-who-inspired-fort-hood-shooter-two-top-al-qaeda-officials.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60012
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2009072244380

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) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)