Wikipedia

Talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Could you please explain...

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

This edit applied a {{or}}. Everything in the statement where that was applied seems properly referenced to me.

It seems to me that any time anyone applies an {{or}} tag it is reasonable to expect them to dcoument, on the article's talk page, ''why they applied the tag. I request an explanation for this tag please. Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Properly referenced? I must say your way of referencing is quite unique. Could you please explain why we need 53 references there?
To add references to 53 documents does not verify that 53 documents have been published. There could be 56 or 63 or more documents. The point is none of these references mention that 53 documents have been published. Classic WP:OR. IQinn (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
WRT 53 references -- 53 references for 53 documents.
I am going to rephrase what I think you meant, in a good faith attempt to make sure I really understand you. You seem to be saying that the sole(?) basis for your application of the {{or}} tag is that you think a reference is required to prove there weren't more files? Have I got that right?
Well, first, since the original DoD site that hosted the original versions of these 53 files (now 404) said there were 53 files, the current DoD sites says there were 53 files. All the third party sites that mirrored the files said there were 53 files.
Second, all the pages have a Bates number assigned. In September 2007 the DoD published an index to the Bates numbers of the individual transcripts. All the page numbers are within the Bates number used in the 53 files. Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, the document with the Bates numbers that you provide here does not veryfy that there are 53 files.
You write: 53 references -- 53 references for 53 documents that is obviously but why do we need them? What information in the text where they are added do you want to verify? As i said they can not verify that there are 53 documents by adding 53 references to 53 documents because they could be more.
Why not adding the reference where you say is mention that there are 53 files. You claim that all third party sites mention that there are 53 files. I could not verify that or find one of those. Could you please post a link to such a reference. So that we can add it to the article and fix the problem. IQinn (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
The main URL to the web-page where the DoD provides its links to large files is right where it was on other occasions I have drawn it to your attention -- [1]. Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank's for the link. You may have noticed that this references states that these are the documents of the CSRT from July 2004 and July 2007. But the introduction concerns the publishing date March 3, 2006. For me that looks like that some of the files must have been added later to the index page that states last updated 14-Jan-09 23:36:17. I have added this references and have edit the information in the article mostly following the attached secondary source. Feel free to improve on it by further editing. IQinn (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
You write: "You may have noticed that this references states that these are the documents of the CSRT from July 2004 and July 2007." Sorry, I noticed no such thing. That passage refers only to the previous section that contains nine files containing 572 allegation memos prepared for the CSR Tribunals. The ninth file of allegation memos dates from 2007. The transcripts from the fourteen 2007 CSR Tribunals were not compiled into a file containing multiple transcripts. Those transcripts were published individually, and were not listed on this page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do not agree to that but it does not matter because the index page where are 53 files does not mention when these files where published. Right And The Age reference does not mention that 53 files have been published on On March 3, 2006. So it is not verified that 53 PDF files where published on March 3, 2006. It might be true but with the references so far it violates WP:SYN. So i have take out the 53 PDF files. You are welcome to rephrase the sentence or to add another sentence but to revert it back to the old version would not be a good idea. If you have time you may also answer my question in the next post. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain...

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why do we need so many references there. They verify what? IQinn (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts. 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) 11:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts. 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) 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal_transcripts&oldid=1199818533"