Talk:Gameel Al-Batouti

Untitled
OK, so what is the dispute? The banner is here, but no comments. What's up? --RobNS 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article or section are disputed.
First I'm sorry for not posting the reasons the first time, I didnt know I had to, I am new wikipedian.

Second, about the article, I have no objections against the facts that are given, but simply this is the U.S theory and the conclusions of an investigation that did not last much after the disaster.

Egyptians do not believe or accept this. Egyptian officials have denied these incidents and denied that the disaster was an act of terror or suicide by Gameel Al Batouti, they have reasons to believe that the crash was a direct result of a mailfunction in the aircraft tail (something in arabic that is transilated literaly to "elevation plates of the tail" I'm not sure if this is its true name and translation to english).

Egypt Air officially denied on 25/06/2001; a report by Newsweek saying that Egyptian investigators have secretly announced that they have accepted the U.S point of view and theory which suggests hat the reserve copilot of EgyptAir Flight 990 deliberately plunged the jetliner into the Atlantic Ocean last fall. The Egyptians have hired legal and technical experts in an effort to discredit the U.S theory and to find out what really happened.

Furthermore, and away from the official announcements, most egyptians believe that it was not an act of terror or suicide, Al Batouti family said on a T.V interview that the man was totally sane and professional and had no problems an was not an extremist. Egyptians agree with the mailfuntion theory, but some few even have more dramatic theories, one directly accusing the U.S of shooting down the plane confirming that there was a bundle of flame which hit the aircraft moments before it crashed, and they say that the U.S have shot it down because there was a highly trained Egyptian Special Forces group on board which if returned to Egypt will cause a military unbalance with Israel. Others say that the U.S investigation served the Boeing Corporation interests causing the avoidance of paying compensations to the victims.

Personally I go with the mailfunction theory, but this doesnt matter, all I want to do is to post these thoeries Egyptians point of view along the U.S theory, I have no objections on posting the U.S theory or what is already posted.

I want to note that the cause of the disaster is stated on the wikipedia Flight 990 page as Disputed.

Thank you. nÅnNü 14:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable enough to try and balance the article out. If and when I get time, I will try to do some work on it. The two other things I have to say are 1) We were all noobs once, I've done some pretty stupid things when inexperienced too, so don't worry about it. We're pretty forgiving around here. 2) "Elevation plates of the tail" should, to my mind, mean the horizontal stabiliser (note I've sent the link to 'tailplane', which is the same bit, but I use the alternative name of horizontal stabiliser). Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just add a note about the conflicting conclusions to the intro, and the Flight 990 section. With verifiable sources of course.Murderbike 17:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is neutral. While the NTSB specifically stated that the cause of the plane going into the dive was because of the manual stick actions Batouti performed himself, no where in the article does it actually state that the crash was due to Batouti committing suicide, even though that is the most plausible explanation. Injecting claims of the plane being shot down by the US is pure fantasy. This smacks of the Egyptian government grabbing at straws and continuing to live in denial.... Philvb 05:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About your first point, I understand that this is your own opinion Philvb and I totally respect it, but you must understand that others (A lot others, nearly all Egyptians) have different views that you should respect as well. About you second point, I don't think it is suitable on Wikipedia to use this kind of offensiveness against my country or any other entity, such an act is intolerable, you could do so in some other place that allows such offensiveness, but to reply to this decently and by not considering your attack; the Egyptian government never accused the U.S of shooting down the plane, some lawyers of the victim's families did so. The Egyptian government is positive that the crash was a result of a malfunction in the aircrafts tail. ñÅñÑü Talk 06:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The main problem with neutrality here is that the Egyptian government's claim about a tail malfunction is not supported by any physical evidence. I've read both the US and the ECAA reports thoroughly, and all the Egyptian gov't has to offer is a list of "what ifs" and theories without providing a single piece of hard evidence. In addition, when addressing the questions about Al-Batouti, all the Egyptian reaction was "oh, he'd never do that, it's against his character as an Egyptian". Unfortunately, that's an opinion, and not one supported by actual fact. It's a cultural assertion based on national pride, and while national pride has it's place, that place is not in the midst of a scientific, technical investigation. Egyptians are human like the rest of us, and are just as subject to human failings as any other human. To assert otherwise is to add POV and sway the article into non-neutral territory. Neutral means you look only at the facts and the reliable reports. Non-neutral is when you start adding emotions (including national pride) and theories based only on belief rather than cold, hard steel and aluminum.  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And we do respect the points of the Egyptians but neutrality does not mean we have to mention other theories. I suggest you read WP:UNDUE. I do not understand why Egyptians think the west saying EAF#990 was brought down deliberately is an affront to their country.  Perhaps, if they didn't take things so personally they will see the NTSB came to the right conclusion.  They even whitewashed the wording of the conclusion for them and yet they're still miffed at the NTSB.  Fighting for Justice 09:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me set a couple of things straight before replying so that those things aren't to be discussed again. The Egyptian government NEVER accused U.S or any other entity of shooting down the plane, this was just a myth created by some lawyers and victim's families that is not supported by any facts. Another thing is that this matter has nothing to do with national pride, I totally agree of course that Egyptians are human beings and can mess things up intentionally or non intentionally, there are even Egyptian terrosists in Al-Quaeda lines, the most famous is Abu Ayyub al-Masri that is Abu Ayyub The Egyptian.
 * But speaking of facts, an experienced well living happy person will not push the stick to make a plane crash to end his life and the life of others just out of a sudden. This is not a fact. If its suicide then of course its unnacceptable because its a fact that phsycologically that man has no reason to commit suicide. If this was a fatal mistake by the man then it is acceptable of course because any man is subject to human failure, but that doesn't prove that the article is neutral.
 * Again its a fact that some big coorporations when messing up they do whatever it takes to save the organization reputation, even having a single employee to blame, I study business and I've studied that throughout history a lot of coorporations did that. It is possible not a fact that the plane crashed due to a malfunction and they got the man to be blamed, case closed, Boeing has nothing to do with it. It is possible not a fact that the man made a mistake in the cockpit that lead to the crash. But it is a fact that the investigations stopped without the agreement of the Egyptian government and without enough evidence collected to acuse the man, it is a fact that the Egyptian authorities wanted to make a sole investigation to collect more evidence, it is a fact that Egyptian authorities does not accept closing the case in that manner, which makes this matter disputable between Egypt and the U.S, which means that this article is disputed by Egyptians because this is the claims of the U.S authorities.
 * So to acheive neutrality in this article the least we should do is to add a section about the Egyptian Disagreement or the Egyptian POV or whatever you want to call it and brief what the Egyptians has as facts. This is all I want. I suggest that  AK Radecki  as an experienced person in aviation that has read both the US and the ECAA reports thoroughly should create this section, I can't do that as I am not an experienced person in that field. But until this section is created, this article is still disputable and the tag should not be removed, because its a fact that the Egyptians disagree and in coflict with this article, and because here I am, still arguing.  ñÅñÑü Talk 19:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
The following thread was originally posted on my user talk page, but as it is relevent to the discussion here, and since it deals with the proposal and acceptance of compromise text, I am pasting it here for the record.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, you posted this on my talk page after I retagged the article as : You seem to still be insisting on tagging this article, even though it has been explained to you that the tag is inappropriate. You are free to believe that the cause of the disaster as determined by the NTSB is wrong, however your POV belief does not qualify as a factual assertion that the biographical article is not neutral. Please stop adding the tag, or your edits will be considered disruptive.

But have you read my post on the article's talk page about my reasons before posting this? Because it seems to me that you dont even understand why am I retagging the article as over and over again. So to make a long story short I'm not tagging it because I disagree with the cause of disaster determined by the NTSB, I'm doing this because to my opinion this article is missing the Egyptian disagreement on the cause of disaster determined by the NTSB. So please read my post if you havent already, and please inform me about the appropriate action that should be done. Thank you. ñÅñÑü Talk 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read your post, and that is not a reason to tag the whole article. You just said that your concern is only with one narrow area. So, read up on the NTSB and the ECAA reports from a technical point of view, and add factual material that supports what you think is missing from the article. Just make sure it's factual, NPOV and properly cited. And keep it brief...this article isn't about the crash or the controversy. That's in a different article. Also make sure that your material is based on fact, not speculation. You might want to read the ECAA objections to the NTSB assertions, then read the NTSB responses. In the areas of mechanical failure in the tail components, the NTSB actually listened to the ECAA (despite media assertions to the contrary) and in a very detailed manner, tested the mechanical failure theories. It's quite interesting reading, if you're into technical stuff. However, general stuff like "he wouldn't have done that" or "an Egyptian couldn't have done that" is speculation and is not based in demonstrable fact.  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok Akradecki, I know this is becoming very boring but I want to ask you something, I am convinced now that the Factual Accuracy of the article is not disputed because it is based on facts, but is it neutral or does it deserve just a tag until the Egyptian Disagreement section is created !!! Because this article contains one sided information and doesn't contain the Egyptian POV. ::"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth', in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." I just want to thank you for your patience on my little experience on Wikipedia, but believe me I'm just trying to do the right thing.  ñÅñÑü Talk 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about Al-Batouti's article, or the incident's article?  AK Radecki Speaketh  13:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gameel Al-Batouti's article dispute not the incident. ñÅñÑü Talk 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the problem is that the Egyptian disagreement is based on technical aspects of the accident investigation and so that content should be in the incident article, not the article about Gameel. At most, a statement that says something like "The Egyptian Civil Aviation Authority disputes the cause of the crash, blaming technical problems, rather than any action of Al-Batouti". Would a statement like that satisfy you?  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes It would be acceptable. That way the reader gets the message and forms his own opinion about the man. ñÅñÑü Talk 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added that phrase, as well as refs to back it up. Hope this helps, thanks for working through this with a cooperative spirit!  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

pro-American article!
You Americans are real racists, I couldn't change anything to make this article more objective! Well, it doesn't matter, 'cause nobody takes Wikipedia seriously ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is utter nonsense. Nobody will miss you if you just stay away from here. 80.130.181.71 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Google 'David Burke' and 'Flight 1771'. Americans too are capable of deliberately crashing a passenger plane and committing mass murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.17.0.1 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible motive - demotion?
"EgyptAir Pilot Sought Revenge By Crashing, Co-Worker Said" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/16/us/egyptair-pilot-sought-revenge-by-crashing-co-worker-said.html?ref=gamilalbatouti

I don't know how reliable that is, nor even if he was really demoted, but thought I would add it to the talk.

Also, this article states for a fact that the two pilots fought for control. I think it would be more accurate to say that all forensic information points to that scenario.--Skintigh (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gameel Al-Batouti. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cairotimes.com/news/batfam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Theory removed
I have removed parts of the section "Flight 990" that state that the plane was deliberately crashed and replaced them with a summary of the incident from the article on the crash. Can someone knowledgeable on the subject please edit this to focus on Al-Batouti's actions prior to the crash? Lettlerhello • contribs 10:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Opening of article
It states that he killed all passengers, "then" committed suicide. There is some controversy over that, to be sure, though I think that is mostly from the Egyptian government trying to deflect blame from their citizens and airline. However, assuming the intentional crash theory is correct (which I do), everyone died at the same time. There was no "one group, then another" in the timeline. The phrasing in the opening paragraph suggests something incorrect even to the theory it is supposed to be putting forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:4280:6610:4B9C:3A50:4B15:B22F (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)