This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United 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 of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Fayez Banihammad was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: October 5, 2006.
Ugh, wth? Why does google indicate that this is the only example of "Banihammad" being a name? Is it not a name? Has there never been anybody else in the history of the world with the name Banihammad? Is it our transliteration skills that suck so hard? What's the right name? Pulling my hair out, grah! Sherurcij(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)07:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
بني (bny) means "sons of" in Arabic and حمد (ḥmd) is just a name. You could transliterate this as "Banihammad", "Bani Hamad", "Beni Hammad", "Beni-Hamad", or any other combination of the above. There are, unfortunately, quite a few "standard" ways of transliterating Arabic. —Gabbe07:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm afraid I must disagree with User:Quadell's assessment, the article has almost no references outside of two things near the bottom, as far as anybody not involved in writing the article can tell, almost everything may just be compleatly made up. This is clearly not a well-referenced article. Homestarmy17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply