Talk:Mohamed Atta/Archive 1

message: I believe the spelling used in most US government documents, as well as the media, is "Mohamed" with one "m".  Google turns up a few thousand more hits for the two-m spelling, but a search on lexis-nexis turns up thousands more for the one-m spelling.  I think that two m's are more common in American spellings of the name generally, thus blogs and such use the two-m spelling, whereas the more commonly recognized and accepted spelling is with one "m".  (Of course, in Arabic the names are probably spelled the same, one "m" or two, but the more common English spelling in the mainstream media is more reasonable of a naming standard, I believe, than the more common spelling on google.) csloat 07:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Commodore Sloat raises a good point.  I'll move this to Mohamed Atta al Sayed with one "m" unless a counterpoint is given in the next day or so.  Mr. Billion 20:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: All right, it's moved.  Now an open task is to fix all those links to Mohammed Atta. Mr. Billion 07:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: I noticed this sentence for the first time: "The elder Mr. Atta also claims to have received a telephone call from Mohamed on September 12th, after the air crashes of the 11th, and continued to hold in interviews with the German news magazine Bild am Sonntag in late 2002 that his son was alive, in hiding. "
The link, however, is from 9/20/01, and of course does not speculate what the senior Mr. Atta would claim to German reporters in 2002.  Nor does it mention any phone call Sept 12 but it does say he talked to his son on the 13th.  Can anyone substantiate the 2002 claim? --csloat 09:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's from just a few hours ago, from 66.191.69.132.  I guess I was far too trusting; I should have undone the entire edit, not just restored the replaced link.  Mr. Billion 09:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I just looked it up and it does check out, although it was sloppy editing.  The anon did something similar but more flawed on the Osama bin Laden article.  I've put in a Guardian link about Atta's father's 2002 claims. Mr. Billion 09:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohamed's Father? 

message: Biggest need I see in this article, is to depracate the timeline, merging it into the actual information in the article. Agreed? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The lead image, :Image:MAtta.JPG, which was released by the FBI and has been plastered all over the media for over four years now, is currently listed as having no source for its copyright information.  If this is not corrected, it will be deleted on January 17.  It looks like a passport or visa photo to me, and I'd assume such things would be public domain.  Anyone have any more specific information on this?  It seems kinda dumb to me that anyone at this point would be able to, let alone willing, to assert any proprietary rights over the image.  Postdlf 23:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, thanks for the heads-up.  Because it was released by the FBI, I'm going to slap  on it, which it what I've been doing with most of the images related to the topic.Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead image in danger of deletion 

message: Because this is likely the hijacker article with the most eyes watching it, I'll ask here.  Right now a handful of the 19 articles include External links - 9/11 Commission Report. I'd like to standardise them a bit more, either addign the same link to all pages, or removing it from the pages that do have it.  Personally I'm in favour of removing it from the individual hijacker's pages, you? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: There is a video interview with Amanda Keller, Atta's stripper girlfriend somewhere online.
It would be good to also include the evidence that Atta trained at US military bases\spy-schools.  Anyone with the appropriate link citations, please provide them and lets update the narrative to include these aspects of Atta's life.
*She turned out to be a fraud.--81.83.221.158 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Daniel Hopsicker doesn't believe Heather Allen's story, and he cites numerous sources for the claim that Atta and Keller lived together besides Keller herself.  Hopsicker seems to think Keller was paid off or threatened to get her to change her story, and he notes ominously that the only source of info on the change is an FBI official who won't give his/her name.  It's hard to sort out truth from fiction here; Keller was referred to in several reports after 9/11 (including in the herald trib) and Hopsicker's account is far more detailed than Allen's, but of course it is Allen's that has the backing of an actual newspaper.  I've also watched the Keller interview and it is pretty detailed and elaborate (and apparently was cut from 3 or 4 hours of footage that Hopsicker has); it's hard to imagine why she would want to make all that stuff up.--csloat 22:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atta's Stripper Girlfriend 

message: The timeline needs to be cited. It's not exactly proven fact, but moreso speculation.
--Anon. 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, we're actually trying to gradually weed out the timeline altogether since it's not exactly encyclopedic, and instead just incorporate all its information into the paragraphs :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This was listed as a "good article" before the timeline was added. By the way, you might want to consider creating an account and logging in. That way we can all have some sort of reference point in who we're talking to. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline needs citation 

message: * Undecided. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do you think the article should be?

message: *Regarding `Ata point 4:
**(question - what spelling do they use?)--csloat 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments

message: Shouldn't there be a reference in this article to the martydom video that was released not too long ago?  How about a still photo from the video be put in the article.  I'm new to wikipedia and am not sure how to download photos, but I'll try.  Jbbrewer 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, i went ahead and added it.  Jbbrewer 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job! The paragraph you added is excellent. I only have one quibble: you used the word "uneditied" to describe the tape, and I'm not sure we know that. Is there a specific reason to think the tape is unedited? If not, I'd recommending removing that word. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sunday Times article states "The high quality, unedited film shows Bin Laden addressing his followers at the mud-walled complex near Kandahar."  So the bin Laden part of the tape is apparently unedited, but I'm not sure if this also means the Atta message is unedited as well.  What do you think?Jbbrewer 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what that means in this context.  The tape is obviously edited since it shows bin laden and atta at two different places and times.  And how would the sunday times know if there was more to the tape that was cut out?  Presumably they did not have a reporter on the scene....  I guess what they're saying is bin laden's entire speech appears to be on the tape, that there are no obvious cuts.  I'm not sure what is gained with that word.--csloat 20:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing it means "The U.S and U.K. governments did not edit the tape." It could also mean the tape did not appear to be professionally (or even intentionally) edited. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: martyrdom video 

message: I have removed the statement "This 'stolen' passport, was found two blocks from the WTC towers after the 9/11 attacks."  In the 'National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States' hearings of January 26th, the opening staff statement includes the statement,
Beginning with passports. Four of the hijackers passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.
Atta is not mentioned here.  - Crosbiesmith 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passport not found

message: why does loose change say that he is still alive
Because loose change is wrong.
can anyone give any of the sources for the claims of the supposed survival of nearly all the hijackers and 9-11 terrorists....I know loose change asserts that many that are said to be dead are in fact alive but do they cite any sources...I guess i should probably check out "screw loose change" as well just to be balanced.
Loose Change is not a primary source and should not be used. --Sannleikur (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  still alive 

message: Most 9/11 consipracists (the same people who believe that the Bush adminisration is behind 9/11 and that a missle hit the Pentagon), believe that all of the 19 hijackers (including Atta) never existed and are fabrications by the US government. Should we put the possiblity of that here in the article too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.176.176 (talk) 
:No. csloat 01:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory That he NEVER EXISTED 

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of 
September 26, 
2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. 
Ruslik 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review &mdash; delisted

message: Don't misunderstand.  Atta killed people.  He hijacked the plane.
However, some hijackers articles state that "...was named as a hijacker" or possibly mentions alleged hijacker.  These legal distinctions are very important for the living.  However, I think they apply to the dead, too.
I'm bringing this up only because WP may be becoming a reference source for millions of people.  This requires a quality product, not just something anyone just slaps together in their garage.
This is a valid point or should we continue to state that he is the hijacker? Mrs.EasterBunny 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Produce reliable sources supporting this interpretation if you wish to change the article. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has frequently opposed slavish devotion to WP:TERRORIST in terrorism-related articles, and as someone who has no doubt that 9/11 was a terrorist act, I'm not comfortable with the wording of the lede sentence. Perhaps something along the lines of "Mohamed Atta, a known associate of al-Qaeda, was the leader of the nineteen hijackers who perpetrated the September 11, 2001 attacks. He personally participated in the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11..." This formulation makes no controversial statements (to any but the most die-hard truthers), and leaves the audience to determine for itself whether or not his actions constitute terrorism. Thoughts? Dchall1 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's a bit too much "TERRORIST!!" in the lead for me at the moment.  I like your revision better. --Haemo (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See the above.  It explains it clearly enough — statements of fact need to be sourced to reliable sources.  If you are going to insert the interpretation that he was not responsible, then you need to provide some sources which meet our guidelines.  I don't appreciate being called "not a contributor" to Wikipedia, when my editorial record stands on its own — please assume good faith and be civil. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: hijacker vs. alleged hijacker

message: :Image:Seconds after first plane.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) 13:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Seconds after first plane.JPG