Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Khalid al-Mihdhar

Khalid al-Mihdhar

 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add   to the top of the discussion and   at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at TFAR nom/doc.

The result was: not scheduled by Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)



Khalid Muhammad Abdallah al-Mihdhar (Arabic: خالد المحضار, Khālid al-Miḥḍār) (May 16, 1975 – September 11, 2001) was one of five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77. Mihdhar was born in Saudi Arabia and fought in the Bosnian War during the 1990s. In early 1999, he traveled to Afghanistan where he was selected by Osama bin Laden to participate in the attacks. Mihdhar arrived in California for flight lessons with fellow hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi in January 2000, after traveling to Malaysia for the Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit. The CIA was aware of Mihdhar, but did not inform the FBI about Mihdhar and Hazmi entering the United States; Mihdhar was not placed on any watchlists until late August 2001. After briefly leaving the US to travel to Yemen and Afghanistan, he returned in early July 2001. He stayed in New Jersey in July and August, before arriving in the Washington, D.C. area at the beginning of September. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Mihdhar boarded American Airlines Flight 77, which was hijacked approximately 30 minutes after take off. The plane was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon, killing all 64 people aboard the flight, along with 125 on the ground.
 * Most recent similar article(s): Haven't been any recent criminal articles, last articles about people from the Middle East were Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid on January 21, and Hasan al-Kharrat on January 31
 * Main editors:, ,
 * Promoted: 19 October 2008
 * Reasons for nomination: This article is nominated for the May 16th slot, the subject's birthday
 * Support as nominator. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems well written. I suggest that this article, if there is any vandalism on it preceding the TFA, be put on pending changes, as the subject is likely to be vandalized a lot more than usual for TFAs. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  22:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reason given for nominating this date is that it's the subject's birthday. Is this appropriate? He was, after all, a mass murderer and terrorist - do we want to highlight his birthday on our main page?  Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with this comment. I don't like the idea of holding a TFA for the subject on his birthday in a celebratory fashion. Personally, I don't believe that terrorists/criminals should be commemorated with their faces circulated on WP's front page, but I recognize that there is no policy against such action so I will refrain from opposing . --NoGhost (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Commemt from coordinator Bearing in mind Brianboulton's comment, and assuming there are no other problems, I'm minded to run this in May, but not on that date. Do the nominators hava an opinion on that? Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Pinging, , , noticed none of these nominated this request Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel comfortable with this material on main page either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not taking a position, but ... what's available to run on Sept 11? This might be the only first-run FA we have available for the date. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I've changed my mind from my earlier statement, and decided to oppose this nomination on the grounds that it is in poor taste (see precedent). That an article attains FA status is not reason enough to reach the front page, as there are many more considerations regarding increased exposure. --NoGhost (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that a similar issue arises from the nomination for 25th May, albeit without the same contemporary impact. But the principle of good taste still applies. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that they are similar, but I personally don't feel opposed to the May 25th nomination. It is far enough removed that no one alive today was affected by the subject of the article and I don't believe there are any groups in society that treat it as a sensitive topic. --NoGhost (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there are any groups in society that treat [Jack the Ripper] as a sensitive topic—are you serious? There's a reason more than 50% of the Jack the Ripper Museum article is taken up by a "controversy" section. &#8209; Iridescent 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Woops, shows how little I know about that subject! Thanks for the info. --NoGhost (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Brian and others. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No good reason to run it on this date and a good reasons not to. &#8209; Iridescent 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: No good will come of this. Praemonitus (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not that day, not with an image, perhaps even not at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Coordinator's comment. I said at the outset that this wouldn't run on the suggested date. In the light of the comments above and the fact that the article writers appear not to have been consulted, I will not run the FA in May, which I'm scheduling. I'll leave the request open for a while so that any one concerned can see my comment Jimfbleak - talk to me?  19:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article needs to be featured on the main page (unless others really want it so), and especially not on his birthday. Aude (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)