Talk:Mohand al-Shehri

Removed Part

I removed However after further information (in Feb of 2002) Saudi Arabia changed their position. "The names that we got confirmed that," Interior Minister Prince Nayef said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Their families have been notified." Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of the 15 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. as it is not specific to al-Shehri, and doesn't mean that the Saudis are now saying that al-Shehri was the one involved...I agree it's true, but it's more relevant to Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks or one of the more generic articles. I welcome any discussion on the matter here on the talk page. Sherurcij 01:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Saudi statement regards al-Shehri and a few others. The reason its relevant to this article is that the previous sentence gives an official Saudi statement that Mohand al-Shehri was not involved in the attacks - quite a momentous claim. The fact that they backpeddled (either due to new info or pressure from the U.S. government) is important. Without that paragraph, it is misleading; it makes it appear that the previous paragraph was Saudi Arabia's final word on the matter. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's important if it's about al-Shehri, but them simply saying "Yes, we admit Saudis were behind it" doesn't actually rescind their earlier statement that al-Shehri was not behind it. Perhaps all we need is to find a better, clearer quote from the Saudis, one that specifically references al-Shehri? (And if we can find them for the other 14 Saudi hijackers, all the better!). Or perhaps even just different word-choice along the lines of The Saudi embassy said that al-Shehri is "not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington", though Interior Minister Prince Nayef conceeded X months later that the attack was carried out by Saudis, something in that vein? Sherurcij 04:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahhhh. I had misinterpreted what Nayef was saying. The two statements don't contradict each other after all. So I agree that that paragraph doesn't belong there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I see the link ([1]) has now been removed. That's fine, but I think the link should be somewhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Either background, or the main article even - I have nothing against the link, I think it does help put things in context. I just personally believe it's not specific enough about individual hijackers to be put on their pages. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)\

I agree Sherurcij. This matter still seems unresolved to me. The paragraph you removed has been replaced, but no one has referenced anything that indicates Nayef actually retracted his initial statement about al-Shehri, specifically. Surely in the 27 months since you brought this up, someone must have been able to find some report from Saudis confirming this individual's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.~~

Birth date

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't his birth date be May, 7th instead of July, 5th? At the Visa applecation he uses the the DD/MM/YY format for the date his passport was issued (27/11/99), so why would he use the MM/DD/YY format for his birthday (it says 07/05/79)? all dis shit is fucked up

Fair use rationale for Image:Mohand al-shehri pic2.jpg

Image:Mohand al-shehri pic2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohand 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807204647/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

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) 16:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)