Talk:Mahfouz Ould al-Walid

explanation

i changed the description of noman benotman to match the description in the reference. While the article says he described himself as a former colleague of bin Laden, decribinghim as a a"former al Qaeda associate" is misleading I don't know how many foreigners voluntteered to help overthrow the sovietpuppets in Afghanistan -- thousands, possibly tens of thousands. They could all describe themselves as colleagues of bin laden,even if they had never met. Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy Worthington's opinion in lead paragraph

I have undone the addition of Andy Worthington's opinion that it is ironic that Mohamedou Ould Slahi, al-Walid's cousin, is still held in Guantanamo today while al-Walid is free, as he was actually a part of al-Qaeda at the time of the 9/11 attacks. While this may be true, it is not relevant enough for inclusion in this article and certainly not for the lead. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Article sourcing

Regarding the text: "By mid-2002, media in Thailand suggested that al-Walid, Abu Zubaydah and Saif al-Adl had traveled to North Africa as part of their exodus from al-Qaeda, while American media suggested the three were in Mashhad, Iran." near the end of the War on Terror section.

In general, reporting from 2002 about where al-Walid was at the time is very likely wrong. Going on that premise, the sources for this text are very suspect. The Intelligence Newsletter text is not freely available and it is not a RS. The Washington Post article had a different day and only one author. It mentioned Walid, but only to say he was killed in an airstrike. The Asia Times article is worth keeping, but it only says Walid was not killed as reported in the airstrike. The Library Information and Research Service is a strange source that is inaccessible now. [1] Walid appears in an index to one of the versions, but it is not worth keeping as a source.

So the text will be removed until some other RS is found to bring it back. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Aha! Mashhad, Iran was from Peter Finn's Washington Post report. Shahad, a respected South Asian reporter, has sources that contradict this info in the Asia Times piece. Need to get more perspective on how this should be handled. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Several sources without links were taken from this page: [2] I don't believe GlobalSecurity.org is a RS. Reminder that this article is a BLP. So even if "Also possibly tied to East Africa embassy bombings in 1998.10,11" does come from the AP source that isn't available (the other source is a Wolfowitz speach), it does not meet the BLP bar. Mnnlaxer (talk)

Found AP story at ProQuest, ID 287337157. No mention of Africa or Walid. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

SDN list

Since al-Walid was listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on October 3, 2001, there has only been one change to his listing on SDN. That change was removing "SLAHI, Mahamedou Ould" as an alias in 2007 source. Mohamedou Ould Slahi is al-Walid's cousin and former brother-in-law (they were married to sisters). The original listing on October 3, 2001 is easily found on this page, which is used as a source in the article. The 960 page pdf is unnecessary. So I'm going to substitute the BankersOnline source for the official SDN pdf. All info about the SDN can be found here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute

Hi, Mnnlaxer. Thanks for updating the URL, it appears I was in error to delete that source as well. It had appeared to be, like the other section, sourced from MEMRI which is extremely unreliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Has MEMRI been discussed on RS noticeboard? There are two MEMRI sources, one is a video of him speaking. Do you have any objection to leaving it? The other is a transcription of an al-Jazeera interview that I can't find. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I would normally be open to discussing leaving it but since this is a BLP page we don't have an option. The problem with the transcription is that if you look at their page their transcriptions and translations have been questioned by major media organizations. They’re fringe at best and can only be included if a WP:RS writes about their involvement in an issue, which does often happen. Also yes there does appear to be RS noticeboard consensus of unreliability stretching back a long ways[3]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

MEMRI has been mentioned on RS noticeboard a lot, but the three sections about MEMRI and the most recent mentions of it do not show consensus of unreliability. It's disputed, I'd say. And the area it is disputed is about anti-semitism and the Israel Palestine conflict. In this case we should be able to carefully use it with attribution. As for BLP, the translation could be (and I'm not conceding it is) an issue, but otherwise the material is direct quotes from Walid himself. Those can't be a problem for use on a BLP. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Direct quotes from someone BLP applies to sourced from a non-WP:RS are prohibited by policy. WP:BLP guidelines are above and beyond normal guidelines, if as you say there is no consensus on reliability it can not be used. If a direct quote cant be found in a WP:RS then it by definition isn't a notable quote for wikipedia purposes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

From the into to BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)