This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofEgypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcrime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Yes, which is why the lead sentence was brief and the body should elaborate with details: two agents on motorbike, at US request, daughter also killed, etc. Lead summarizes body.
I don't have a strong opinion on this question, but I think it's worth discussing: Currently, only a single publication (admittedlya quite well-respected one) has reported that Abdullah is dead. IPs have been edit-warring as to whether he should be referred to as dead in the lede, the infobox, and the body of the article. (I've requested PC or semi-protection on that basis.) It seems like we should establish a consensus here: Do we refer to him as dead, or just as reportedly dead?Tamzin (they/them) |o toki tawa mi.23:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that, regardless of this discussion's ultimate outcome, I think thatfor the time being we should probably not refer to him as dead, as aBLP/BDP matter. That said, this doesn't meet the "unsourced or poorly sourced" standard for summary removal, and I want to be cognizant ofm:The Wrong Version, so I'll hold off on making that change until/unless a second uninvolved editor (with respect to the edit war) agrees.Tamzin (they/them) |o toki tawa mi.23:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the paragraph quoting Mondoweiss needs to be removed or reworked. First, it isn't clear what the "misleading" or "dishonesty" refers to. If the entire report, it has been confirmed by several outlets. The mention of Ronen Bergman is ad hominem. The only part worth saving is a criticism of of using unnamed officials. Criticism of the story is fine with me, but a better write up is necessary. Maybe there is a better source out there. Pinging@Geo8rge: - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk02:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nuked it. We already say that the NYT's intelligence sources are unnamed. "Reeks of dishonesty" is indeed ad hominem and the only reason I could think to include it is if the utterance itself were notable (e.g., if it came from a notable person rather than a random op-ed).Einsof (talk)14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, the Al-Jazeera article claims Abu Mushin Al-Masri was al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, a title attributed also to Abu Mohammed al-Masri.--HCPUNXKID20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion