Jump to content

Talk:Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Abdulfarouk Umar Muttalab is worthy of inclusion, not deletion

It should be noted that the subject of this article is the only current suspect in the most significant terrorism event of 2009 in the United States. Therefore, he is notable, as described at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event which states: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category."

Also, this subject's father, Umaru Mutallab, is listed with an article in Wikipedia, and he is far less notable than his son, who allegedly attempted to blow a plane full of people from the sky.

As regards to the spelling of his name, most Arabic/Muslim language names have multiple spellings in English, but the spelling used in this page comes from a Nigerian news source, Umaru Mutallab's Son Identified as Delta Airline Attempted Bomber-ThisDayOnlinewhich, given that the subject is a Nigerian Muslim, should be considered an authority on the proper spelling of the name. Superman3491 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree DavidHøstbo (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wasn't considered a threat

This site: [Fox News] tells that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab suspect wasn't considered threat. again the American burocracy did another Soviet style mistake. Thanks to God or Allah, the terrorist Abdulfarouk Umar Muttalab was a complete failure.Agre22 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. username 1 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Abdulfarouk Umar Muttalab → Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — The official name used by the U.S. Justice Department in the criminal complaint filed against him. — fetchcomms☛ 21:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess someone copied it over... but I don't know if removing this notice will mess something up....  fetchcomms☛ 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relevance of comment from Nigeria's Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs

Why is the comment from Nigeria's Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs relevant to this biographical article? The article does not identify Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as Muslim. 04:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

do yoou have any doubts that he is not a muslim  ??? are you trying to imply that he is a non muslim who got caught up with al qaeda ??? the comments by the supreme council clearly refer to abdulmutallabs actions and therefore belong. Wikireader41 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I have no doubt that he is Muslim. That's not the point. There was no reliable reference to his identification as Muslim in the article until a minute ago when I added it. See WP:IKNOWIT to understand the methods used here better. patsw (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Crotchbomber

I've heard the man referred to as the "Crotchbomber", and its possible the moniker will stick. Is it possible, with additional documentation, to redirect to this page or to the NA Flight 253 page when a user searches WP for "Crotchbomber"? 75.71.13.148 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not going to stick. If Reid was the shoe bomber, then UFA is the underwear bomber. patsw (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"Jet Bomber" is also catching on, e.g., google news. Currently, Jet bomber redirects to a kind of airplane. 99.38.235.196 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Name?

Correct Name- Umar Mutallab, Incorrect Name-- AbdulMutallab. In Nigeria male parents and children use the same last name, numerous instances and references exist to show his father's name as 'Mutallab', same goes with his last name.

'AbdulMutallab is a creation of the media, and is NOT his last name. His names are Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab.

A cursory Google search of Umaru Mutallab (his father) ought to prove this point. Please let's use his given name (Umar Mutallab) and not use the one given by the media: AbdulMutallab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartermaster76 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

His name is Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, using AbdulMutallab is similar to merging someone's middle name and last name to create a new last name.

We don't call Barack Obama "Husseinobama", nor do we refer to Bill Gates as "Henrygates", or any other individual via such a bizzare naming standard, there is no reason to refer to Umar Mutallab as "AbdulMutallab". That is not his name. Think about it, his father is Umaru Mutallab, not Umaru Abdulmutallab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.246.83.2 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Quartermaster 76

His name has not been officially identified, there are multiple spellings in the news right now.  fetchcomms☛ 22:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if "Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab" is the preferred form of the name. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP1E?

This article should be deleted. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. JBsupreme (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the AFD above. This article won't be deleted. patsw (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
BLP1e?
  1. Defended the Taliban in discussion in the elite private school he attended in 2000;
  2. Visa denied by the UK;
  3. His father, an influential Nigerian, contacts the CIA, and reports his own son's increasing radicalism;
  4. The CIA chooses to hoard this information, and Abdulmutallab is not placed on the most important no-fly-list;
  5. Alleged to have tried to explode a bomb on 2009-12-25;
  6. Following the alleged incident he is reported to have claimed to have been trained and equipped by jihadists in Yemen;
  7. Multiple senior members of the US Congress have cited him, by name, and his reported training and logistic support in calling for President Obama to halt plans to repatriate the 80 to 90 Yemeni captives in Guantanamo
These are just for the top of my head. I am sure if I gave it more thought I could think of additional events. Please, I urge all serious contributors, to think twice before labelling an article as an instance of BLP1e, to make sure it is really an instance of BLP1e.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Republicans will not let his name go away. Notoriety is notability. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The NYTimes listed half a dozen warning signs... Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of Security Failures

...but amidst all the mea culpas in the U.S. government about the security failures, I'm missing an explanation as to why U.S. security procedures for screening boarding passengers would have been relevant to a flight originating outside the U.S., in Amsterdam. Some context would be helpful. I'm going to cross-post this to the flight article as well. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about because it would be unreasonable and unfair for the USA to complain about security officials in other countries not using new security measures, like the body scanners, and the chemical sniffers that can detect explosives that don't contain nitrogen, if the USA's own security measures are just as weak as those they criticize... Geo Swan (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't have the sources at hand, but it strikes me that countries at times make allowances -- at least when the airliner is from the other country--when the second country has stricter requirements, or wants their own people to check a passenger against that country's records. But hopefully someone more in the know can comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Details like this belong in the other article. This is biography not security procedures. patsw (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I expected (and largely agree with) that answer, but it's still relevant to the aftermath section of this article, discussing complaints about and changes in U.S. security procedures. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
That's true. What, exactly, are you proposing to add at this point? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo?

Here's the mug shot photo released by the US Marshal Service. http://www.upi.com/enl-win/f859cb4aa24e6d74d5dbb376b7fe72e6/ Can someone more experienced with photo copyright comment about if this can be used? Swapdisk (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Crotch Inspections

References supporting use of the term "Crotch Inspections" of Airline Passengers due to the Crotch Bombers attempt to blow up an aircraft.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/12/31/2009-12-31_xray_scans_not_speeding_to_airport_near_you.html, "Full-body scanners that can spot crotch bombers will eventually get to most U.S. airports" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.137.174 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Crotch bomber is a slang used for quirky shorthand, not an established nickname. Crotch inspection isn't reported by any reliable sources. The full-body scanner is intended to inspect the entire person, not specifically the crotch. Gotyear (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct Version of his Name

Folks, if this is an encyclopedia entry which should be taken seriously, the least we can do is get the man's name right.

His name is
'Umar (first name)

Farouk Abdul (Middle Names)
Mutallab (last name)

Can we please stop changing his name to read as AbdulMutallab? There is no such person, the fact that the US case against him uses that name is an error on their part, and nothing more.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartermaster76 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If his father is called Umaru Mutallab, why would Umar's surname differ? It would appear that 'Abdulmuttalab' is a conjunction of his second middle name and his surname. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this makes about as much sense as calling Obama 'Husseinobama'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Richard Leeming (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct Version of his Name

Folks, if this is an encyclopedia entry which should be taken seriously, the least we can do is get the man's name right.

His name is
'Umar (first name)

Farouk Abdul (Middle Names)
Mutallab (last name)

Can we please stop changing his name to read as AbdulMutallab? There is no such person, the fact that the US case against him uses that name is an error on their part, and nothing more.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartermaster76 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Abdulmutallab

I can't imagine why there should be controversy now, but hopefully these cites will help you. It is pretty clear that the correct version of the name is the one that everyone is using and it is: Abdulmutallab.
  • Charged in the criminal complaint as Abdulmutallab, [1]
  • Name as given on FBI website as Abdulmutallab [2]
  • A Google search will show you the name being used is Abdulmutallab
  • As given on the White House website - text of Obama's speech of 1/5/10 Abdulmutallab [3]—Regards, KeptSouth (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because it is the most widely-used version, it doesn't make it the correct one. His father's surname is Mutallab. His second middle name is Abdul. Can we see where 'Abdulmutallab' came from yet? It was probably a transcription error. George Richard Leeming (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia; we don't publish original thought. Most every reliable source I've seen refers to this man as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and this article should reflect that. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're right. We don't publish "original though" but especially when it comes to names we might want to listen to reasonable thoughts from Arabic speaking editors and ask for verification. "Even" RS's often fail and it's up to us to verify not the truth but the facts. Maybe there is some trustable Arabic speaking editor or admin out there to settle this for good? And by "settle this" I mean to settle this here on the talk page before any further page move is done. Does this sound reasonable to others? The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable on its face, but to be honest I'm not thrilled with the idea. While reliable sources can be wrong, this isn't a situation where we're relying on just a couple of reliable sources that screwed up. We're talking about the vast majority of reliable sources – and there's the problem. As an encyclopedia, based entirely on facts in reliable sources, can we override those reliable sources and call them all erroneous? I don't think so. Maybe a content RfC would be appropriate here? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed, if RS's screwed up they screwed up big time, relaying and picking up from on each other (that's my thought). Early on I was thinking about moving the original page to Abdulmutallab when it still was named, Mutallab I guess? An RFC might be the way but before going there I would prefer if trustable editors/admins get their say about it (as I said above). There is no rush but at the end we should get it right even if RS's get it wrong. Do you think the same way or do you have a better proposal we should consider? Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
And always keep in mind that nobody's perfect and neither are RS's  ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The article has usually been at this name; it's been moved to Umar Mutallab a few times, but never for long. My thoughts are somewhat similar to yours, but with significant differences. I agree that accuracy should be a priority. However, I believe that encyclopedic content would above all reflect reliable sources. Since an overwhelming majority of the reliable sources – and the government of the United States – refer to this man as "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab," my stance is that the article should reflect that and remain at its present name. Also, I'd like to see some evidence that the current name is wrong, and by that I mean evidence that is verifiable in (you guessed it) a reliable source. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is Abdulmutallab, according to this source, Nigerian news website, purportedly showing his passport : http://www.saharareporters.com/news/4688-2009-12-31-21-44-48.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that refer to him by this name, and some by another. But a source which an image capture of "Farouk's International "Terror" Passport" is sure not reliable. Anyways, thanks for trying to help. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegedly

Is it really only an allegation that UFA attempted to ignite explosives concealed in his clothing? This is a question apart from his criminal guilt which has yet to be determined. patsw (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is verifiable in reliable sources that he attempted to ignite explosives on the airplane. Stating that he did so is not taking a POV as to his criminal guilt. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reflecting Muslim identity in Article Lede

It's relevant and well-sourced. It you want to remove it let's discuss. patsw (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he should be identified as Muslim in the lead, because it is indeed relevant and well-sourced. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur. raseaCtalk to me 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As do I.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed again and restored. I gave 90.202.185.176 a uw-vandalism1 patsw (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed again and restored. I gave 90.202.185.222 a uw-vandalism1 patsw (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you list this person's religious affiliation in the lead, then you will need to this for every person or biography in Wikipedia, which will obviously will not be accepted since religion is seen as more personal to the person then nationality as an identity. Dimario (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No -- in some instances by the facts of the bio (as here) the religion is relevant. In other instances, not. I will revert your deletion, as it is against policy and against consensus here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is the religion relevant to this particular article? and what policy are you speakin of?? Dimario (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Name again

Why is it called "Umar Mutallab" now? I'm not familiar with Nigerian naming conventions, but a very brief explanation or a link would help on the several names and the current preferred one. Gotyear (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed Arabic Transliteration

The Arabic transliteration of his name was eliminated. Nigeria is not an Arabic-speaking country in any way, shape, or form so it is highly unlikely he ever used this transliteration of his name in any meaningful capacity. 207.61.19.62 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Janet's Reversal

The current description of Janet's remarks doesn't appear to be a NPoV but more politically driven to make Janet appear to back track. Rather she was clarifying her remarks. Tom Ridge during an interview with Larry King best described what had occured with Janet's remarks.

I don't think any right-thinking person actually believed that Secretary Napolitano thought the system worked," he said. "Obviously, it was flawed. I think what she was referring to was that after the incident occurred, there are certain procedures and protocols to put in place. That worked smoothly. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/29/lkl.tom.ridge.terrorism/index.html?eref=rss_latest

I am suggesting the sentence be re-written to best reflect the statements. --151.207.240.4 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think someone without an ax to grind either way (I would qualify) and with the time (I don't qualify) might take a good look at the best sources, reflect them accurately, and let them speak for themselves. I think that incident may have see-sawed in its reflection in the article, but one way or the other certainly did reflect POV (I had actually thought in a pro-Nap manner, in one iteration).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"without an axe to grind?" Sorry, but none of us is lacking in slant, and it seems to me that when someone assets they are not biased or that they are a political independent, the opposite is usually true. (I mean that as a general truism, and not in relation to any individual such as the previous commentor, Eppe, because we all have to assume good faith here.)
As to some people being qualified and others not, under Wiki policies, no one is more qualified or less qualified to edit a particular piece than any other person. It is all just a matter of acquiring some knowledge about the particular topic, pushing our biases into the background and editing in a neutral or a balanced manner, giving both sides.
As for our Secretary of Homeland Security, it is simply the truth that she made the "system worked" statement one day and ate her words the next at a specially called press conference. I don't know why this would have to be amplified in the current article; it is discussed at greater length in the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 article, and the Janet Napilatano article. If someone wants to write more about the gaffe here, I would have no objection, if RSs were used and accurately summarized, and if the gaffee was not given WP:Undue prominence.—RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"No passport" claim

I've removed the claim that he boarded without a passport, as it doesn't seem to me to be of encyclopedic notability. Talk at Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Oscroft (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The criteria is not notability -- that refers to whether a topic should be included in the Wikipedia. The basic criteria for content are verifiability and a reliable source. patsw (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree w/the removal. Haskell's claim that Abdulmullatab boarded w/out a passport was widely reported especially b/c he gave multiple interviews to the media. It was debunked, however. If the claim is discussed here, I think the result - that it was shown to be untrue - would have to be discussed too.—KeptSouth (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the "passengers' speculation" (apparently a reference to the Haskells) that it was a U.S. government conspiracy, and deleted the LewRockwell blog repost of Haskell's screed from his personal blog site, which is not a Reliable Source. I added the fact that Abdulmullatab had a Nigerian passport, with a Reliable Source (CBS News) story that reported it.
I'm not sure that I should have done so, but I left the Haskells' allegation that Abdulmullatab had no passport. However, I made it clear that it was Haskell's claim, not an undisputed fact. (Perhaps Haskell confused Abdulmullatab with another passenger?) NCdave (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pls do. Though I would suggest a shorter timeframe, as on the incident page.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done Seven days it is.--Oneiros (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dutch criminal charges?

Will the Dutch authorities also press charges against him? NorthernThunder (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question. The best answer might come from looking at the Richard Reid shoe bomber case. He boarded in Paris with his shoes packed with plastic explosives. He tried to detonate his shoes near Boston, and was taken into custody there. He pleaded guilty to enough charges to keep him a supermaximum security prison for the rest of his life and was not charged by the French. I suspect that if the sentence was inadequate or if it was overtuned for some reason, the French might have prosecuted him. In this case, the incident and the legal charges are extremely similar. If he is sentenced to, for example, 120 years in jail, the Dutch wouldn't have any reason to press charges against him.
Here is an interesting bit of trivia, in case you don't know. A co-conspirator was supposed to take off from the Amsterdam airport at the same time as Reid and blow up an flight originating out of Amsterdam. He changed his mind though. It is said to be Al Qaeda practice to go after the same target again, a few years later, if the plot does not succeed the first time.—Regards,KeptSouth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

Let's try to put some facts before fiction and reach some consensus

Let me start with some copy-paste from my talk page regarding those edits] I made recently:

"Can you please explain your reverts of my edits?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Sure I can and I already did so in my edit summaries. But please check the article's edit history where you can see that those edits where reversed several times and not just by me. About plastic explosives: Read the WP article about PETN. About his father being one of the "richest man in Africa": Read the source as he is one of the richest in Nigeria, not Africa. About "also now known as the lap-bomber": See the source which is clearly spam and also reverted more than once. Hope that cleared things up. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Will address one by one. The supporting ref to his being one of the richest men in Africa had been there previously -- would be interesting to see who deleted it. In any event, have restored it, along w/text. Its better next time to avoid this problem to indicate citation needed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Agree as to lap bomber.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I've added sources, including articles from the NY Times and Washington Post, calling PETN a plastic explosive.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)--Epeefleche"

  1. PETN is not a plastic explosive itself; It is only one of several other ingredients when manufacturing a "plastic explosive". Now, one editor provided two RS's which call it a "plastic explosive" yet this is scientifically not verifiable and just shows a lack of knowledge and research by those RS's. Point is that PETN is not a plastic explosive by itself, fact! If in doubt check the WP articles on PETN and plastic explosive. Point is that if a RS is not verifiable it cannot be used especially not for a scientific fact (see wp:RS).
  2. His father is not one of the richest man in Africa. The only source provided at some point that he was one of the richest man in Nigeria but this source seems to have changed till then and retracted they're statement. [Maybe their research proofed them wrong?]. Shouldn't bother us unless a new RS-source pops up. So meanwhile we can't even say that his father is one of the richest persons in Nigeria as there is no source to back this up.
  3. Guess the "lap-bomber" claim is settled as it originated from a spammer trying to promote his site.

So know please, check the above out and comment so hopefully we can edit the article accordingly w/o long-term "edit-warring" over it after establishing some factual; consensus. Appreciated for any input regarding what I've laid out above [And I think I speak for all or at least most editors]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments moved down out of my post The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. Six RSs at the PETN article, including the NY Times, The Washington Post, and others, refer to it as a plastic explosive, as does a scientist working on it. Pls stop deleting those refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. This was ref'd to a RS, though someone (would have to go back to see who it was) deleted the ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Responded to above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Crap or else? You don't seem to be able to add 1+1=2 or you're simply refuse to do so. I really can't tell. So let's see what other editors with scientific knowledge have to say about this so the article (incl. the PETN article which you changed just to proof your point) is treated accordingly to facts and not RS-fiction. RS's can be wrong. Here are some RS's that focus on the explosive(s): "PETN: The powder at the center of airline terror alert", "Readily Available, PETN Is Easily Molded and Hidden, "PETN, Detroit Explosive, Common And Easily Detectable". I'm almost certain I'm talking to a wall here. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: One more thing: Please try to use common sense instead of blindly following what news sources are (sometimes blindly) stating. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the fundamental issue here is that PETN is not a plastic explosive, but it can become one when mixed with other explosives that give it plasticity. Therefore, I propose that we refer to PETN as a plastic explosive in the lead but clarify in the "Attack" section that it becomes a plastic explosive when mixed with other explosives. I've done so, citing a reliable source. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WRT NEFA and Evan Kohlmann...

This edit removed a link to the nefafoundation, with the edit summary that described it as an "redundant unreliable source".

WRT NEFA and Evan Kohlmann, I asked for feedback, a couple of years ago, whether Kohlmann and his NEFA should be considered an WP:RS. I didn't get that feedback, back then. But I have watched how often real journalists quoted Kohlmann and his NEFA, and concluded bothe Kohlmann and his NEFA have to be considered WP:RS.

A couple of years ago Dana Priest used to have a weekly one hour chat with her Wapo readers. During one of those discussions I asked her about her use of Kohlmann. She responded that he was highly regarded and quoted by her peers -- serious journalists. And I found that to be true.

Personally, I don't share that high regard. Personally, I see him as the most successful of a group of self-promoters, who have claimed to be terrorism experts -- and convinced people they were experts.

But I think my personal evaluation of his credibility is irrelevant. I would like to question whether any of our personal evaluations of his credibility are relevant, when he is highly quoted by serious journalists.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your view that NEFA is an RS. It's clearly relied on as such by our top RSs. Furthermore, a review of its site indicates that it hews much more closely to the facts, and less to POV hyperbole, than other sources on terrorism (which may well be RSs as well ... a POV doesn't mean they're not accurate). One think that distinguishes Kohlmann from other "experts" is that he has appeared as an expert in many terrorism trials. That doesn't just mean one side wanted him to be their expert -- it means that the trial judge admitted him as an expert, based on his background.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Samar Alami

I hope you don't mind but I've removed this needless reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.163.158 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Adding "coincidental" material from political pundint's blog is not encyclopediatic, especially BLPs. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Has been reverted twice (original change was me not logged in), I won't change again without a consensus here.
My point is twofold, firstly, can you explain how a fact that relates to the university is relevant in an article about a person who went to that university? If we went on a similar basis we should also state that "Coincidentally, a well known proponent of non-violent protest Gandhi also attended the university" And repeat Ad nauseam with List of University College London people
Secondly, just because it is mentioned in a source (I wouldn't call it an RS but lets not argue that here) doesn't mean it is relevant to the article. In the source the point is used to start a discussion about universities been a breeding ground for terrorists. Which is simply not relevant in a biographical piece. Madorangepanda (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I quite agree. Thousands of people have attended UCL and there is no reason to highlight one individual who otherwise has no connection to the subject of the article. wjematherbigissue 08:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Suspect" versus "Accused"

The word "suspect" is improperly used throughout this article (and any number of others). As outlined in the article on the word suspect, "suspect" is the term used for someone suspected of committing a crime, while "defendant" or "accused" is the proper term for someone who has been arrested, and (if convicted) all ambiguity is removed by using terms like "convicted felon" or "arsonist" or "rapist" or "bomber". Obviously, where the word "suspect" is part of a quote, it should stay. The lede in this article contains the following statement: " ... is a suspected terrorist who attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear ..." should be re-written to read, " ... is accused of attempting to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear ... ", thus avoiding the to-be-avoided word "terrorist" and correcting the status. Any thoughts? TreacherousWays (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Unknown Release Date

The article mentions that he was sentenced to life without parole. On the BOP.gov website, his release date is listed as Unknown. This often happens when either 1) his sentence was "vacated" during the appeal process and he's in the process of being resentenced, or 2) has committed a second crime while in prison and the sentence is being readjusted. In either case, it means the current sentence of LwoP has been removed. Just thought this might be worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.23.217 (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Diaper Bomber

This guy is known universally in the US as the Diaper Bomber. Some mention should be made of this. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reduce See also list

This seems to have been an excuse to list every case known to have involved a Muslim, which seems inappropriate. Also, this was not a case of "Islamic extremism in the US", as the man is Nigerian. It seems as if some editors are using articles as COATRACKs for others associated with the same topic, to extremes. Parkwells (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Too much here on Al-Alwaki

The main article on Al-Alwaki is referenced, which covers his activities, including video link broadcasts to London. All that should not be covered at length here, especially as intelligence sources were not even sure that Abullamutullab heard any of his broadcasts in London. The article needs to stick to the topic of the subject and any direct contact he had with Al-Alwaki, such as the training in Yemen. I have deleted portions covered in AA's main article. There should be even more summary in this article.Parkwells (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Convicted and sentenced- update as summary

The article should be summarized as an event in the past, rather than one in process as it unfolds. Quotes of unproved speculation should be deleted, and content updated as summary; it is not a newspaper article.Parkwells (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Internet posts

This discusses his internet postings. Wired has them at http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/12/farouk1986.zip

In case that link doesn't work, I found http://web.archive.org/web/20100106070533/http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/12/farouk1986.zip - Now archived: http://www.webcitation.org/6OltqJwZ0 WhisperToMe (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab/Archive_1&oldid=1164424548"