Jump to content

Talk:Abu Bakker Qassim

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

Camp Tango?

[edit]

Recent revisions changed where Qassim was being held from Camp Iguana to Camp Tango.

A Google search for "Camp Tango" Abu Bakker Qassim produces just one hit, to a blog site. That blog site, in my mozilla firefox, is rendered with black text on a black background. I had to cut and past the text to read it. I see no mention of a "Camp Tango". Presumably some large camps, with lots of sub-camps, will all share the use of Camps, Able, Baker, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, through Tango.

Can anyone come up with a verifiable source for the existence, purpose, history of a Camp Tango at Guantanamo? -- Geo Swan 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was purely an error on my part. I corrected the reference to Tango, it is now Iguana. --Assawyer 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption.

[edit]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal of questionable information

[edit]

The Combatant Status Review section had a subsection "Transcript" i have removed most of the information there for the following reasons: 1) I do not see the information is rightly placed under CSRT subsection "Transcript". 2) The introduction (hidden in the template) does not make clear the real source for the text. 3) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 4) The introduction text presents this information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 5) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 6) The introduction text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor. I have strong concerns to present this in the way it has been done here. Please discuss. IQinn (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) If the introduction does not make something clear, fix it! :)
2) I'm unsure how the tribunal proceedings of the US military can be dubbed "questionable", we qualify all the statements explaining they're American allegations.
3) I re-loaded the 78-page document to which you are referring, the biography is absolutely present. Your failure to find it reminds of your failure last week to notice there were two pages to a cited document - and your subsequent attempt to remove sourced information from the article. Read things more closely before assuming sources are lying.
4) The text does not require multiple sources, it has a valid, reliable source which is reporting on itself. We are not using the military source to cite facts about the prisoner, we are using the military source to cite facts about the military's claims.
5) See #3. Your failure to read sources carefully is not cause to delete sourced information.
Reverted your removal of information, please do not do that in the future without consensus. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sherurcij you are edit warring! And you are acting against the consensus of the whole Wikipedia community!
You have re-inserted controversial negative material into this BLP of a living person.
You have done this against the fact that the editor who has removed it has stated his BLP concerns clearly in the edit history and talk page.
You have not waited until consensus would have been achieved for re-inclusion.
Your edit summary and the five points you list here as your response to my concerns are mostly wrong. The material is controversial and problematic and i am willing to discuss this in an orderly manner.
I have checked the article, sources and your comment again carefully. I still have strong concerns.
It is strong consensus on Wikipedia to remove and not to re-insert material that has been marked as possible problematic by other editors.
I ask you in a friendly way to end your edit war and to remove this controversial negative material from this BLP article now until things for re-inclusion and way of presentation has been discussed and solved. IQinn (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
WP:Reverting#When to revert has advice on this. It says: "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change."
Yes, I understand that another contributor thinks the official OARDEC memo is a "questionable source". But that contributor has never explained how they think this WP:RS constitutes a "questionable source".
I reverted this contributor's edit a few minutes ago, based on the advice in WP:Reverting#When to revert. Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:BLP is that it authorizes the removal negative material that is poorly sourced. The material being excised here is properly sourced.
I am concerned that the following edit summary, used here is, unfortunately, misleading. "rm - BLP violation - the removed part is a misinterpretation and misrepresantation of a questionable primary source - I see this issue as taken to the talk page where i left a message". There are circumstances when a direct quote from a WP:RS could be described as a misrepresentation -- when, for instance, it is selectively trimmed, so it it represents a minor point out of context, and implies the WP:RS says something other than what it really says. But I am mystified as to how anyone could see that as the case here.
These comments apply with equal strength to the other 21 Uyghurs described in Information paper: Uighur Detainee Population at JTF-GTMO Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Reverting#When to revert is obviously irrelevant in this case of BLP violation. Please do not revert controversial material into the article without consensus otherwise i will bring this issue to the attention of BLP administrator noticeboard. Please address the listed problems and change the content into a proper form instead of stupidly reverting back a version that violates BLP policies. Stop filibustering and instead address the arguments and problems that have been listed in the next post. Thank you IQinn (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your initial comment you raised six numbered points:
  1. A concern over where the material was placed in the article -- this is not a BLP concern, and not a justification for its excision;
  2. As Sherurcij pointed out, your assertion the source wasn't given was incorrect;
  3. An assertion that the WP:RS it is based on is a "questionable source" -- but you have never really explained what you mean by a "questionable source";
  4. A concern which I frankly am not sure I understand over the phrase "brief biography" to described the quoted brief biography -- whatever you may have meant, this is not a BLP concern;
  5. BLP does stress biographies need to be properly sourced -- but this passage is properly sourced;
  6. A concern over a minor inaccuracy certainly does not merit excision of the entire section. No, the Uyghurs weren't all caught in an ETIM training camp. But the Uyghur information paper alleges they all taught at an ETIM trainin camp. This is just a one letter typo, not a BLP violation.
I continue to think it is important for you to try to explain your characterization of the OARDEC references as "questionable", "unreliable", etc. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, finally you address some of my arguments. Before answering your post i would like to ask you what you want to discussed? Your answer to 1) raises this question.
You want to discuss if the removal was justified under BLP rules? Or you want to discuss how to fix the content? Either is fine with me but i think to do both at the same time would be a mess. IQinn (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removal of questionable information (2)

[edit]

The Combatant Status Review section had a subsection "Transcript" i have removed most of the information there for the following reasons: 1) I do not see the information is rightly placed under CSRT subsection "Transcript". 2) The introduction (hidden in the template) does not make clear the real source for the text. 3) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 4) The introduction text presents this information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 5) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 6) The introduction text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor. I have strong concerns to present this in the way it has been done here. Please discuss before re-adding the controversial material that violates BLP policies in his current form. IQinn (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believing a section needs changes invokes WP:SOFIXIT, not deletion. Fix the problems you see; and be careful, you are continuing to either misunderstand or misrepresent WP policies. Multiple sources are not needed to verify a primary source (or similar)'s claim if we are reporting what the primary(~) source says. For example, to say "The Guardian newspaper reported..." we do not need a NYT reference, we just need the Guardian reference. The same applies here. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who misunderstand or misrepresent policies and you are edit warring again. Please do not do this! You have been blocked for edit warring in the past and you will be blocked again. Please do change the information and address the points that i have listed here. You are welcome to fix the problems but that should be happen before reverting the material back into the article in case of BLP concerns. The information that i have removed is represented in a misleading way. You have added this material together with user Geo Swan. Stupidest re-inserting into the article without fixing it is vandalism and damages the reputation of Wikipedia. There is not "consensus" we all know that you have build up the Guantanamo section together with user Geo Swan with a strong POV that borders propaganda and that you routinely comes out to revert for him whenever he can mot make his points in discussions and he did not address the points that i have listed here as well as you have not addressed the points that i have listed here. Please do. IQinn (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abu Bakker Qassim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abu Bakker Qassim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Bakker_Qassim&oldid=1204464195"