Talk:Gameel Al-Batouti

message: OK, so what is the dispute? The banner is here, but no comments. What's up? --RobNS 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The following thread was originally posted on my user talk page, but as it is relevent to the discussion here, and since it deals with the proposal and acceptance of compromise text, I am pasting it here for the record. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read your post, and that is not a reason to tag the whole article. You just said that your concern is only with one narrow area. So, read up on the NTSB and the ECAA reports from a technical point of view, and add factual material that supports what you think is missing from the article. Just make sure it's factual, NPOV and properly cited. And keep it brief...this article isn't about the crash or the controversy. That's in a different article. Also make sure that your material is based on fact, not speculation. You might want to read the ECAA objections to the NTSB assertions, then read the NTSB responses. In the areas of mechanical failure in the tail components, the NTSB actually listened to the ECAA (despite media assertions to the contrary) and in a very detailed manner, tested the mechanical failure theories. It's quite interesting reading, if you're into technical stuff. However, general stuff like "he wouldn't have done that" or "an Egyptian couldn't have done that" is speculation and is not based in demonstrable fact. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Akradecki, I know this is becoming very boring but I want to ask you something, I am convinced now that the Factual Accuracy of the article is not disputed because it is based on facts, but is it neutral or does it deserve just a  tag until the Egyptian Disagreement section is created !!! Because this article contains one sided information and doesn't contain the Egyptian POV. ::The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. I just want to thank you for your patience on my little experience on Wikipedia, but believe me I'm just trying to do the right thing. ñÅñÑüTalk 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about Al-Batouti's article, or the incident's article? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gameel Al-Batouti's article dispute not the incident. ñÅñÑüTalk 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the problem is that the Egyptian disagreement is based on technical aspects of the accident investigation and so that content should be in the incident article, not the article about Gameel. At most, a statement that says something like "The Egyptian Civil Aviation Authority disputes the cause of the crash, blaming technical problems, rather than any action of Al-Batouti". Would a statement like that satisfy you? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes It would be acceptable. That way the reader gets the message and forms his own opinion about the man. ñÅñÑüTalk 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've added that phrase, as well as refs to back it up. Hope this helps, thanks for working through this with a cooperative spirit! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: You Americans are real racists, I couldn't change anything to make this article more objective! Well, it doesn't matter, 'cause nobody takes Wikipedia seriously
!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is utter nonsense. Nobody will miss you if you just stay away from here. 80.130.181.71 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: pro-American article!

message: "EgyptAir Pilot Sought Revenge By Crashing, Co-Worker Said" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/16/us/egyptair-pilot-sought-revenge-by-crashing-co-worker-said.html?ref=gamilalbatouti
I don't know how reliable that is, nor even if he was really demoted, but thought I would add it to the talk.
Also, this article states for a fact that the two pilots fought for control. I think it would be more accurate to say that all forensic information points to that scenario.--Skintigh (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible motive - demotion? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gameel Al-Batouti. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cairotimes.com/news/batfam.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed parts of the section "Flight 990" that state that the plane was deliberately crashed and replaced them with  a summary of the incident from the article on the crash. Can someone knowledgeable on the subject please edit this to focus on Al-Batouti's actions prior to the crash? Lettlerhello • contribs 10:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory removed 

message: It states that he killed all passengers, "then" committed suicide. There is some controversy over that, to be sure, though I think that is mostly from the Egyptian government trying to deflect blame from their citizens and airline. However, assuming the intentional crash theory is correct (which I do), everyone died at the same time. There was no "one group, then another" in the timeline. The phrasing in the opening paragraph suggests something incorrect even to the theory it is supposed to be putting forth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:4280:6610:4B9C:3A50:4B15:B22F (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening of article