Talk:Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harbi

message: :If a credible, authoritative, verifiable, external source can't be cited, making this assertion, it should be struck.  With no source it is not a neutral statement.  It is editorializing.
[RESPONSE] The person raising that question did not bother to read the U.S. Military translation of the video starring Khaled Al-Harbi and Bin-Laden. If you have ever done any fund-raising, or been the target of any fund-raising, you can tell that the video was made to show to contributors. 
Not to mention Khalid al-Harbi's opening statement on the transcript:
"We don't want to take much of your time, but this is the arrangement of the brothers. People now are supporting us more, even those ones who did not support us in the past, support us more now."
The 9/11 Commission Report, at the chapter titled "A money trail?", states that Al Quaeda was financed by "financial facilitators" , who raised money in mid-eastern nations, primarily Saudi Arabia.
INDIANAPATRIOT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs)  18:41, 2006 June 21
::Did the 9/11 Commission Report specifically name Al-Harbi as one of those financial facilitators?  Did some credible commentator say, "Al-Harbi must have been one of the 911 Commission's 'financial facilitators'!" -- if so, fine, quote it.  But if you added it because it is obvious to you -- then it is a violation of the no original research policy.  It shouldn't matter whether any of us privately agree with your conclusions.  I shouldn't matter whether all the contributors to this article privately agree with your conclusions.  Conclusions like that have to be backed up with credible, authoritative sources.  You have drawn conclusions, and defended them by claiming they are "obvious".  If you can find credible, authoritative sources that draw those conclusions, by all means cite them, quote them.  But if the only source is your own private judgement, then those conclusions have to be stricken from the article.  --  Geo Swan 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.  I am going to repeat my request that you follow the convention and indent your replies, and use the conventionally accepted signature and time-stamp feature.  --  Geo Swan 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious fund raising tool?

message: :Specific quotation is required here.
[RESPONSE] The transcript, which the person raising the questions did not read, contains the following statements by Bin Ladin (UBL) and by Khaled al-Harbi(Shaykh).
"UBL: After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it.
Shaykh:  I listened to the news and I was sitting. We didn't..we were not thinking about anything and all of a sudden, Allah willing, we were talking about how come we didn't have anything, and all of a sudden the news came and everyone was overjoyed and we stayed until four o'clock, listening to the news every time a little bit different, everyone was very joyous and saying 'Allah is great, 'Allah is great,' *****[rest of celebration omitted]"
Khaled Al-Harbi had to know when the attacks were going to occur to wonder "how come" he had not heard any news of the attacks. 
INDIANAPATRIOT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs)  19:01, 2006 June 21
:::This does not prove that al Harbi, and his companions, 
:::*knew that terrorists were going to attack the World Trade Center, and important Washington landmarks, using hijacked planes, on September 11th, 2001.
:::*knew that terrorists were going to attack the World Trade Center, and important Washington landmarks, using hijacked planes.
:::*knew that terrorists were going to attack the World Trade Center, and important Washington landmarks.
:::*knew that terrorists were going to attack the USA using hijacked planes.
:::What it suggests is that they expected that some kind of hostile activity, maybe more embassy bombings, maybe another suicide attack on another USN vessel, or an overseas Marine barracks.
:::The references supplied are not sufficient to back up the assertion that al-Harbi had preknowledge of the attacks.  In Indiana Patriots opinion it is obvious al-Harbi knew.  In my opinion spreading knowledge beyond those who have a "need to know" would have been a foolhardy and unlikely breach of operational security.
:::If no furhter substantion is offered I plan to delete the claim that al-Harbi had specific foreknowledge of the 911 attacks.
:::Cheers~  --  Geo Swan 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knew the attacks were going to occur?

message: :The article currently reads:
::"The fact that bin Laden would take the time to meet with Khaled al-Harbi while the bombing of Afghanistan by the United States had commenced, clearly establishes that Khaled al-Harbi was very important to Al-Quaeda."
:So -- clearly established to whom?  If this was merely "clearly established" to the wikipedia contributor it should be removed or rewritten.  If a credible, authoritative, verifiable, external source stated that it was "clearly established" then this source should be cited.
[REPONSE] The entire transcript of the video, which explains the difficulty and danger Bin-Ladin and Khaled Al-Harbi went through to meet at that time is a credible authoritative external source etc etc.  INDIANAPATRIOT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs)  19:03, 2006 June 21
:::This is an INTERPRETATION.  If a verifiable, authoritative source has also reached this conclusion, cite it.  Otherwise it is original research, and editorializing, and must go.  --  Geo Swan 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clearly established?

message: :The author assumes that the support Al Harbi was talking about was financial support.  But has not cited any external sources to back up that interpretation.
[RESPONSE]See the 9/11 Commission report quoted above. It is not moral support as Bin Ladin immediatly asks about moral support from the Mosques.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianapatriot (talk • contribs)  19:09, 2006 June 21
The difficulty that Bin Laden and Al-Harbi went to get together and make the video while the US was moving forward in Afghan. would only be done if there was a lot of financial support at stake.
Indianapatriot 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, without citing or quoting an authoritative, verifiable source, this looks like editorializing and original research.  --  Geo Swan 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Author assumes...

message: Indianapatriot, please Assume Good Faith.  I've been civil to you.  Is there any reason why the rest of us  shouldn't count on civility from you?  --  Geo Swan 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assume Good Faith 

message: This artilce contains a lot of editorializing.
One or more contributors to this artilce has inserted personal opinions, interpretations and conclusions as if they were indisputable facts.  --  Geo Swan 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov 

message: I can tell from your recent edits that you read my comments, and did your best to meet me half way.  So, let me thank you for that.  Having said that, I have some more comments.  --  Geo Swan 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks Indianapatriot

message: Indianapatriot, 
in this edit you added:
:Unidentified U.S. officials have allegedly claimed that, although al-Harbi is close to bin Laden, he is not a senior member of al-Qaeda or an operational planner. 'Such statements were on Fox Cable News, the day al-Harbi returned to Saudi Arabia.
You added:
:Such statements were on Fox Cable News, the day al-Harbi returned to Saudi Arabia.
This is not a proper citation.  --  Geo Swan 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: not proper citations

message: In this edit you state, as a fact, right in a heading, that al-Harbi is a financial facilitator.  This may seem obvious, to you.  But WP:NPOV proscribes you stating it as a fact.  If you can find a verifiable, authoritative source that states that opinion, by all means cite that source, quote that source.  But, as it stands, this edit shows bias.
Similarly, stating that al-Harbi is a financial facilitator, is an opinion, an interpretation.  The policy allows us to quote authoritative sources that state opinions, or to paraphrase those opinions, with a link referencing them, for other editors to check.  But we are not allowed to insert our opinions.  I am not allowed to insert my opinions either.  I try my best to avoid doing so.  And when someone points out that I have lapsed, and allowed one to slip in I stand ready to fix my lapse ASAP.
That al-Harbi was a financier really does remain speculation, IMO.
You say you heard Fox say al-Harbi was a financier back when the tape surfaced in December 2001?  Well, when al-Harbi surrendered they didn't say he was a financier.  Take a look.  Fox has several articles on their site about al-Harbi, but none of them state he was a financier.  So:
#Is it possible you heard fox commentators speculate that OBL's companion was a financier?
#Is it possible that fox commentators did state he was a financier in 2001, but no longer stood by that conclusion in 2004?
If Fox doesn't call him a financier, when they had a chance, in 2004, then it hardly seems right to look to them as a source in 2006, no matter what they might have said in 2001.  Agreed?  --  Geo Swan 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not extradite anyone involved in the 9/11 atatacks to the U.S., and as the Kingdon of Saudi Arabia pardoned Khaled al-Harbi, Khaled al-Harbi and the "brothers" who support al-Queada may never be brought to justice."
The second part of this paragraph is pure editorializing.  It is entirely inappropriate for a wikipedia article.  --  Geo Swan 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV means we can't state our opinions as fact

message: This article continues to state personal opinions as if they were facts.  I have already listed them.  So I am re-adding the {npov} tag.  --  Geo Swan 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article continues to state personal opinions as if they were facts... 

message: I deleted some original research and editorializing as explained above.
I also requested 
some
citations.
Cheers!  —  Geo Swan 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  delete original research as per talk page 

message: :Image:Al harbi and bin laden.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Al harbi and bin laden.jpg

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harbi. 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/20061231020207/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/16/ret.tape.identity/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/16/ret.tape.identity/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified