User:Joaquin Murietta/archive1 Archive 1

Suspect sources for the "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees"

Last week you described as "suspect" the sourcing of the information for the detainees in the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. I welcomed you to spell out what you found suspicious. You said you were too busy last Wednesday to state your specific concerns.

Well, since I've spent a lot of time trying to make sure the sourcing was clear, I'd really like to know what contribution you have to make. So, how about the 25 word summary version? -- Geo Swan 16:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you have put into this article and I would like to give it the attention it deserves. I will try to take an hour this weekend to focus on my concerns, and if they are resolved I will post a comment to that effect. if they are not, I will post my concerns. Joaquin Murietta 19:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look forward to it. -- Geo Swan 06:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

- One concern is that you link to the Washington Post as a source, but the link takes us to the front page or home page for the paper. I'd like to see an online or print source for each name that goes beyond blanket cites to a newspaper homepage Joaquin Murietta 06:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You meant here? -- Geo Swan 07:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

- - You obviously care much for this subject and have worked very hard. But, now that the sourcing is clarified, much of the article seems to be lifted from the Washington Post. It would be better to have a short article that refers to the Wash Post web site, instead of copying their list. Please see my copy vio listing under [1] Regards. Joaquin Murietta 14:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

You have trusted that I put the information to the wikipedia in good faith.

And I am trusting that you put the copyright violation up in good faith.

So, where is the appropriate place for this to be discussed? Your understanding of copyright differs from mine. I am going to take this to the Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees for now, unless you can suggest a better venue. -- Geo Swan 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin, this is, at best, a misguided copy-vio notification. The article states at the outset that "This list of Guantanamo Bay detainees is compiled from various sources". Notwithstanding that statement, the referencing of the items on the list to the Washington Post (amongst other sources) does not constitute any copyright violation IMO, but is just the result of necessary hard work put in by Geo Swan to verify the article. The list in the article also contained names not on the Washington Post list, and you have no business deleting the entire list on that ground alone.

You stated on the article talk page, and on your own talk page, that you had concerns with the sources and you would return to address them when you had time. Most recently (10 October) you said you would do this at the weekend, which doesn't start until 15 October. Well, today you put up a copy-vio notice and deleted the entire list. A less generous interpretation than mine might construe this as vandalism. The correct course of action would surely be to have voiced your concerns about possible copy-vio problems on the talk page as you suggested you would do. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Joaquin, this is my first experience with a page that has been tagged with a copyright violation. I am going to assume it is your first experience with this tag as well. If I understand the procedure outlined on the policy pages, normally the contributor who is concerned about a possible copyright violation raises the issue on the talk page, first.

When you said you were concerned about sourcing I thought you were echoing Proto's concerns that the source of the entries was insufficiently referenced. Consequently I continued the work of adding a link to each detainee's entry who did not have an article of their own. If the wikipedia consensus concurs with your concern, that this is a copyright violation, that work will turn out to have been a waste of time. It will turn out to have been an avoidable- waste of time.

So, let me urge you, if you ever consider adding a copyright violation tag to another article, would you do so differently? If you ever consider adding another copyright violation tag would you consider raising your concern on the talk page earlier than you did in this case, to avoid wasting other wikipedian's time? Would you consider discussing the issue on the talk page before you add the tag? -- Geo Swan 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits on talk pages

Hi, I noticed that in your edits on talk pages, most of the comments that you made have been in a sub header saying Response by User Joaquin Murietta. This isn't standard Wikipedia practice and I find that this makes the discussions hard to follow and tends to give them an argumentative feel. I'd really appreciate it if you just used indentation instead. Thanks, Apyule 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you will do. Joaquin Murietta 04:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we talk?

Listen, I am committed to being here on the wikipedia for the long haul. And it looks like you are too. I'd like to suggest we try to assume good faith on the part of one another.

I know you know I thought you made a mistake, well, several mistakes, in initiating the copyright violation procedure on LoGBd, and in the careless way you initiated it, without checking some of your assumptions.

But I don't want to dwell on that. I was still angry yesterday afternoon, and last night. I was still mad when I cast my vote in the Jeffrey Waruch {AfD}. But I slept on it. I realized I had made lots of mistakes in my life.

And I remembered something else. I have a strong belief in democracy. I have a strong belief in the value of reaching out, and building bridges, to those who hold views that differ from mine.

Wikipedia is not a blog. But I do visit blog sites, and participate in political discussions there. I found some people were going to the site I liked to find like-minded people. And some went to find those at the opposite end of the political spectrum, so they could mock them, and try to trick them into embarrassing admissions. Relatively few people went there for the reason I did.

The value of talking to those we disagree with...

When I entered into discussions there one my chief motives was to challenge my own views.

That first group of people, who sought out the like minded, got their opinions reinforced. And I saw them getting their opinions reinforced, even when that kept them from wising up when the cruel world, and cruel events, could have taught them that their views, were mistaken.

That second group of people, who sought out the other side, but to mock them, and trick them, were also just re-inforcing their views. And they two were at risk of reinforcing their views, and not wising up when events were making their positions untenable.

When I enter a discussion I welcome finding a correspondent who will challenge me, and make me think.

On that blog site I mentioned I have found some correspondents, on the other side of the political spectrum, who played fair, just as I play fair. They might get het up, but they kept the discussion to the issues, and if they asked me a question they thought I wouldn't be able to give a good answer to, they would listen to my answer. And they would be fair, if I gave a good answer, I could count on them to honestly acknowledge that.

I try my best to to do the same. I won't show false modesty. I think I do a pretty good job.

I never use an argument I know is flawed. I never use figures, stats, facts, that I know are questionable, or if I do, I do so with a proviso, letting my corrspondent know it is questioned, and letting them know why.

If I learn an argument I used was false, or a fact or figure I used had been overturned, or debunked, I try to own up, and say so.

If my correspondent makes a good point, I tell them so. If they convince me of some portion of their position, or the convince me in whole, I own up and say so. And I admire those who can do likewise.

And, if I do something that doesn't meet my standards, if I think I owe someone an apology, I own up and say so.

I have an apology for you

I believe in playing fair with my correspondents. I believe in apologizing. And I have an apology for you.

I wrote something that, when I checked my record of contributions, turned out to be incorrect. I had a false memory. I wrote that by having a concern about the LoGBd article that was serious enough that it might get the article deleted, but not sharing it, keeping it to yourself, you had risked allowing me to put a lot of effort into what might turn out to be a waste of time.

During the AfD on LoGBd I worked flat out on improving it, as the history shows. I was doing a lot of other work, secondary research, that doesn't show up in the record, reading article I found through google news alert, so I could document further document the detainees. I tracked down about a dozen new detainees, who are not listed in either the Washington Post's list or the cageprisoner's list.

My memory was that I kept working flat out on the article after the AfD closed. My memory was that I might have put as much as a dozen hours working on it during the 6 days between when you hinted at having concerns, and when you initiated the copyright violation procedure. But it wasn't true. My contribution record shows my memory was false. So, any outrage I expressed was misplaced.

I owe you an apology for that. And I am prepared to put a note on Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees saying so. If you want a note, I will let you see the wording first.

Edit wars suck

I saw you have been editing some of the pages I have written.

I said I can appreciate a tactful challenge to my positions.

I made a few changes to the article on Agha, That attracted your attention. Well, the thing is, I had been working on a big revision of that article, when a friend of mine called me up, and wanted me to go with them and run some errands. I considerably expanded on the paragraph where I talked about how much fun the three boys had in Camp Iguana. It is undeniable. Even though they were 12, 13 years old when they arrived, they were completely illiterate. They learned to read and write their. It is kind of heartbreaking that 30 years of warfare in Afghanistan had destroyed the infrastructure there so much that they were illiterate. The father of one of these kids thought that the year of schooling he had at Camp Iguana left him as an educated man. It is heartbreaking that Afghanistan is so ruined that a year of schooling makes a kid among the few educated men in their village. There is no way that is America's fault.

The kid's parents not getting a letter, telling them the kid was still alive. You thought the original wording of his article was an implied criticism of the USA, right? Well, what I found today is that he dictated at least one letter to his parents to a representative of the Red Cross. That letter didn't get through. So I changed that portion of the article, and I think my expanded version makes clear that the heartbreaking anguish his parents must have felt when their son disappeared without a trace is not the fault of the USA. My gues would be that it was due to the remoteness of his village, and the breakdoown of the infrastructure.

Like I said, I think edit wars suck. My offer to you is that I will put the expanded version in a file my user space, and give you a sneak preview. You can comment on it without us having an audience. A discussion is differnt when there is no audience.

I know the bible says "turn the other cheek". In the interests of full disclosure I am not reaching out to you because I am a christian. I am not a religious person, FWIW.

How collaboration should work - my first experience with the NPOV tag

Last night, before I fell asleep, I re-read the history of the article and the discussion page for that article. I try my best to avoid inflammatory wording in articles. I thought I had done an okay job in that article. In any case I had given it my best effort. But someone put an NPOV tag on it anyhow. Well, he turned out to be a good guy. I asked him questions. He told me what his concerns were. Answering his questions, made me work hard. Paying sincere attention to his concerns drew some compromises out of me. We got to a point where we were both satisfied. Even though I had been satisfied with the article before the NPOV, I felt a lot better about it after.

After I woke this morning I was going to invite you to read the article I had been so pleased with. But then I realized that various events had happened since my discussion, and I had made edits. I had put my best effort into avoiding the things I know can trigger Americans feeling a document is attacking America. My plan to present it as an example of how an article can be written that satisfies people of differing views wouldn't work if I had unknowingly let some of those triggers leak in since then.

You might find it hard to believe, but I really do believe in reaching out. I'll remind you I made multiple attempts to contact you, and learn your concerns, even after the AfD went against your side.

So I started working on some more updates to the Camp Iguana article. I will put it up a preview version of my update in my user space.if you like.

In my discussion with that other fellow I explained my view on the compromise between not triggering the feeling that an article was POV, and honouring the truth. I offered him an analogy, by asking him to consider how the wikipedia would handle talking about slavery, if there were countries where slavery remained legal. I think if slavery was still legal in some parts of the world today it would be a very contentious issue. I think the spin doctors of the slave owning countries would invent euphemisms for slaves, that they might call them something like "beneficiaries of guaranteed lifetime job security", and the more extreme abolitionists, the radical John Brown types, would try to make everyone call slave owners something like "flesh-ripping whip wielders".

Anyhow, I hope you will read the discussion the other fellow and I have in Talk:Camp Iguana.

Inviting your opinion on copyright issue

I take copyright seriously. Today my google news alerts advised me of two new Afghanis. These two are expatriates, who lived in Pakistan. They were both journalists. One was a poet. His story is remarkable. It moved me. I am planning to start an article about him. Some of the brief poems, or brief excepts of his poems, published in the following articles, moved me. Poetry doesn't usually move me. But these did. Even though these newspapers published them I think the copyright belongs to him. I am considering including some selections in the article. Let me invite you to offer your opinion on how much of the poetry in the newspaper articles could be included in his wikipedia article without triggering a copyright concern.

-- Geo Swan 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted, but nothing further is necessary or needed.

With respect to the copyright issues, I'll wait for the admins to decide.

Again, I would suggest that you look at the William Kunstler and Chicago Seven articles for some ideas on how to handle a controversial subject in a NPOV, encyclopedic fashion.

Regards Joaquin Murietta 01:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I have a request of you. I have told you I take all serious questions seriously. And now you believe me. That history of the talk page that documents the exchange Lekoman and I had showed I was prepared to make a big effort. But it takes time.

I think I can document that Carolyn Wood drafted the extended interrogation techniques. I am going to make a big effort to try. I'll make a serious effort to address serious concerns you have on any contribution I make. You are going to let me pace myself, right? Can you hold off on nominating articles for deletion, over contributions I made to them, that you consider POV, or whatever? If you give me a fair chance to make my best, good faith effort to satisfy your concern, and your best, good faith, opinion is that the article still deserves deletion, why, of course you should go ahead. With my blessing. -- Geo Swan 02:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No, thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Joaquin Murietta 03:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

cooperation

Well Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category says that if you think the "article is biased or has lots of POV" you should List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention

The reason you gave for nominating the Carolyn Wood article for deletion was POV, but the tag you put on it was {AfD}. I am honestly perplexed about that.

There are so many policies. And no master index of them all. Some of them seem to contradict one another. That is a pretty brief reply. I have read "what wikipedia is not" a number of times. I just read it again. And I read the editing policy twice. Sorry I don't really understand how it relates to my request.

Like I said, I recognize that the brevity of your reply could be a clue to your level of interest in building bridges.

But, for the record, I haven't a clue to what this reply means, except of course that you won't make any attempts to advise me of any problems you see in the contributions I have made before you set in motion one or other step to delete those pages. -- Geo Swan 05:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the my AfD nomination was that she is non notable, for the reasons stated in my post on the AfD page. The article also is POV. Joaquin Murietta 14:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

la voz de la gente

Joaquin, thank you for your interesting message on my talk page. You may believe you are the voice of the people, but you are mistaken. You are merely pushing your own POV by gaming the WP system through bad faith ~~AfD~~ copy-vio nominations. By all means express your views on article talk pages, and by discussion we can all reach concensus. I am still of the opinion that your ~~AfD~~ copy-vio nomination was a 'back door' suppression of valid information that did not accord with your POV and was wholly inappropriate.

As to the points made in your message, my response, in your order, is:

First: any apology you wish to issue should be sent to User:Geo Swan, not me.

Second: I do not use the phrase "Gitmo" either, never have, and never will. What exactly is the subject of the Anglo and Scottish-American domination that you speak of? What has Thomas Jefferson's alleged fiddle playing prowess got to do with the Guantanamo Bay detainees? Which society is "ours" that you refer to that has been imposed upon by "my" Anglo society? I can only assume you are referring to Cuba.

Third: You are free to edit articles as you see fit. As with all edits, this will be open to review and alteration by other editors.

As regards the alleged copy-vio, well we both know that was a bad faith nomination, come on now Joaquin, let's move on and edit articles properly and discuss differences responsibly. As for accusations of engaging in Agitprop, I suggest you drop a line to User:Randy2063 who is on the same wavelength.

Finally, I am not a fan of any of the the particular incarnations of the Dukes of Atholl, nor am I an expert on fiddlers.

Good luck. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of research, but could you please post a map of Aztlán so that we can all understand where you are from - USA or Mexico? Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

???????Joaquin Murietta 21:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi - hope you don't mind, but I've "neutered" the stub templates in your sandbox - the sandbox kept on turning up in various geography stub categories. The templates are still in the sandbox, but now listed by their name rather than what they look like. Grutness...wha? 10:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please withdraw your copy-vio nomination

Your vopy-vio allegation is absurd. You are just taking advantage of a backlog to push your point of view for a while. You have caused other users (not me) to waste a great deal of time on a non-issue. Please withdraw the nomination now. CalJW 12:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Proto t c 14:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I Support this statement and request too. --Apyule 14:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

GeoSwan's Mass Email a heads-up on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joaquin

Aside from your (ill-advised?) copyright violation notice on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, I noticed you've been following up a lot of User:Geo_Swan's edits, including (a misplaced AfD ), which really should have just been a simple redirect, and your strange comments on Talk:Mohammed_Hagi_Fiz regarding Geo Swan's edits again. Do you have a particular interst in this user's editing, or is this just coincidence. In addition, could I suggest you review and familiarise yourself with the Deletion policy, particularly WP:CSD before taking any further action. You do seem well-informed on the copyright procedure, albeit perhaps not fully conversant with the ins and outs of what constitutes a violation on a list of names. Proto t c 15:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

'It would take less time to rewrite it to avoid the copyvio than all this.' Yes. It would have. So why didn't you do that? Proto t c 15:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

response posted on Proto's talk page. Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to A. Ahmad

I looked at your edit to A. Ahmad. Looked fine. Birth dates are good, and you found out that he was recently sentenced.

You don't have to tell me when you work on a page I've edited. The pages I've edited are all on my watchlist.

Like I said before, I will answer all civil questions, and consider all civil requests.

I think leaving any questions you have, over other people's edits, their content, presentation, or viewpoint, can safely be left on the article's talk page. -- Geo Swan 22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Look mom! A post on my talk page to tell me that posts belong on the article's discussion page? Joaquin Murietta 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jamal Kiyemba

I think that you have done some good work on this. My comments about a possible political campaign were to do with AfD and copyvio notices rather than your treatment of articles, which I consider to be of quite a high standard. --Apyule 07:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Justin Frank

Any reason for the silliness you just posted? Keep your edit wars on your talk page please. --JJay 16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

White Boy Accuses Brown Boy of White Wash

I have responded on my talk page. Please have a look. --Apyule 11:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)