Talk:Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee 23)

question...

I am going to disagree with this well-intentioned edit. I personally didn't find the May report credible. But it is verifiable. And it was very widely repeated, re-reported, and mis-reported. The New York Times ombudsman did eat crow, and retract the initial story. But, as per usual, the retraction did not get nearly as much play as the original report.

I think, with the widespread re-reporting of the report, the criticism the NY Times received, and its retraction, the report itself merits coverage. I think this section should be restored, with the addition of a

Further information: May 2009 report one in seven former captives actively support terrorism

It we trim the report, because it is retracted, we short-change readers who read re-reports of the NY Times story, and turn to the wikipedia for a balanced coverage of it. Intelligent readers are entitled to know of the initial report, how widely it was repeated, and its eventual retraction, so they can reach their own conclusion.

I am afraid removing coverage of the report erodes the wikipedia's credibility.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

explanation

I reverted this excision for several reasons.

First, I believe the good faith contributor has misunderstood WP:VER. We can't be concerned when material does not seem credible to us, when that material is verifiable from authoritative WP:RS.

Second, the edit summary claims:

"You say: "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" Your source for that is the NYT article. Have a look at it. It has been edited and does not verify this anymore. WP:BOP WP:GRAPEVINE"

However one of the NYTimes article said, and still says: Khan, Isa -- Sept. 17, 2004 -- Pakistan -- Suspected.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's wrong. There is no misunderstanding of WP:VER. I have removed the information here because the cited source does not unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.

The article says: "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" This is not unambiguously supported by the NYT's sources or any other source. It should be removed under WP:BOP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:NPF. Iqinn (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Further explanation (from WP:NPF):

"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth."

That means the section needs multiple, highly reliable sources. What is not the case in it's current form. Secondly, that the DoD simply "suspect" him is not relevant to his notability.

Another concern: The NYT "misreported" the material that is in the section. It is troublesome to use it without making this very clear and only to use the misreported part without mentioning the content of the appended Editors' Note).

Finally, I have cited WP:GRAPEVINE. Because it clearly says that such material should be removed and not re-inserted until controversies have been solved. Iqinn (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You have written, here and elsewhere:

"It is troublesome to use it without making this very clear and only to use the misreported part without mentioning the content of the appended Editors' Note."

Sorry, I believe I already addressed this, in detail, above, and on User talk:Iqinn.

The NYTimes listed over a dozen former captives who were suspected of terrorist or enemy activity. So all of these individuals share half a dozen things in common. One approach to addressing the half dozen or so things they have in common is to repeat them on each of the captives' pages. Another approach is to have a brief introduction to the topic of the May "one in seven" claim, and a {{see}} pointing to an article that goes into as much detail as you like:

• of the claim,
• Cheney's use of the NYT reporting of the claim;
• early criticism of the claim;
• how widely repeated the claim was;
• how widely misreported it was;
• the NYT ombudsman's disavowal of the claim;
• the Seton Hall study published about the claim.

I was very disappointed by your choice not to give this suggestion a serious meaningful reply when I first suggested it a week ago. And I am sure you can understand how confused I am now to read that you think the coverage of this material should include reporting of the ombudsman's disavowal, when I thought I already addressed that, and you ignored my suggestion. Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it could be rewritten in a more neutral way, i think you or somebody else could achieve this. But it is troublesome and against policies in it's current form, it should be removed and not simply reverted back without changes. What had happen repeatably. The policies are very clear that the material should be taken down and not re-inserted before controversies are solved. Do you disagree with that?

My second question? Do you think that the 'misreported' claims are relevant to Isa Khan's notability? If so why?

I still believe it would be the best to put it into the article of the NYT's. Why putting it here where it could be damaging to Isa Khan? It would be better to be on the save site and just leave it out. Iqinn (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree with you, on several points.

1. I think you should have discussed your concerns first, I think plunging in, and making controversial changes, which, no offense, you haven't really explained very well, has been a mistake;
2. I don't agree with your interpretation of the policies you cite;
3. I disagree and think the original wording was neutral;

With regard to the relevance of the claims -- the Bush administration kept leaking claims that a mounting number of former captives had "returned to the battlefield"; "returned to terrorism"; "returned to supporting terrorism" -- and variations thereof. And apologists and admirers seized on these leaks, accepted them at face value, without any critical examination, and trumpeted them loudly.

Practically every newspaper article, that addresses the possibility that former captives might be detained, or be given some kind of parole, or asylum, within the USA, that allows readers comments, has had multiple readers repeat the more extreme figures of how many former captives have "returned to terrorism".

Our intelligent readers want to give these claims a critical examination, and they want to turn to the wikipedia for the neutral, balanced, referenced coverage of these claims, so they can reach an informed conclusion.

You have acted to suppress the neutral coverage of these claims, on the grounds that total suppression protects those who face the suspicion. I don't accept that censoring the wikipedia's neutral coverage of this topic protects those who face the suspicion, when the non-neutral story has been very widely repeated.

I am concerned about your interpretation of notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says: "...the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." You have added primary source tags to a bunch of articles. In doing so you seem to have overlooked this passage from Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." There are some wikipedia contributors who assert that all the OARDEC documents are primary sources. While the OARDEC transcripts are primary sources, the "Summary of Evidence" memos are documents that analyze, synthesize and interpret other sources. The are canonical instances of secondary sources. Geo Swan (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

← The material in it's current form should not be on the page because it is possibly harmful to the subject of the article it clearly does not meet the requierment for inclusion under WP:NPF in it's current form. Potentially defamatory information about living persons should be treated with special care. I have always done my best to explain. Yes my first explanations clearly do not show the quality of an editor who is on Wikipedia for many years. I apologies when that has caused confusion. Everything is a process. Let's come back to the relevant issue. I think there is only one point left that needs to be discussed. From: WP:NPF

"biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."

I do not see that this material is relevant to the notability of the subject and it is possible harmful to his reputation, therefore it should not be included. That's why ask you above: Do you think that the 'misreported' claims are relevant to Isa Khan's notability? And if so why Please let us discuss this question. Iqinn (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• According to the Defense Intelligence Agency Isa Khan has been characterized as being suspected of "reengaging in terrorism", because he was had an "Association with Tehrik-i-Taliban". That is remarkable, worth covering, and suppressing this is a disservice to readers. Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate your work i also want to make Wikipedia better. But adding another allegation that should not be included under WP:NPF has not solved our problem with the first allegation.
• The new added Material is based on a single source and can not be cited and included in the article until it has been published in multiple, highly reliable sources. As well it can not be included because it is not relevant to Isa Khan's notability.
• For the Material in the first part, nothing has changed. The 'misreported' claims in the NYT's is not relevant to Isa Khan's notability. And should not be included in the article under WP:NPF.
• A collection of allegations may be acceptable and useful in a biography of a well-known public figure like O. J. Simpson. But it can be very harmful to people who are relatively unknown. That's why many countries have laws to protect these individuals. By restricting the publication of allegations that could be harmful to a private indivitual. WP:NPF has been developed to protect these individuals and to keep Wikipedia out of trouble. The section in it's current form is clearly a violation of WP:NPF and should be removed.
• The article had less than 1 visitor a day over the last months. So it's easy to imagine that most of them are privately connected. Like the teacher of his children or an employer who wants to hire him. There is no public interest at all that would justify the inclusion of this section. Iqinn (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pentagon claim he had..." (Disputed-section)

In addition to the discussion above, now another discussion takes place here as a few more articles have the same problem. Iqinn (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In this edit a {{Disputed-section}} tag was added. That tag, when instantiated, reads: "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."

I belive this means the tag placer should have started a new section explaining the tag placement. Yes, I realize that the tag placer personally finds the official assertions of the DIA not credible. But wikitags are supposed to be used in a manner that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:VER. Our personal conclusions should play no role in our placement of tags.

I am going to wait a reasonable period of time, and if no meaningful, specific, policy based explanation for this tag is offered, I will remove it. Geo Swan (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about the disputed section is here on the talk page and i have linked to the other relevant discussion here Where the issue is under discussion. You very well know this.

Please further discuss the issue or respect consensus and do not threaten or start an edit war over a tag. Cheers IQinn (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A request for an explanation for one of the tags that tells readers to look to the talk page for an explanation is not "edit warring". Could you please be more careful about how you use that term? You routinely use it inappropriately

The discussion you linked to says the tag is authorized for tag placers who think the section's references are insufficient. I suggest the references the section has are sufficient and the tag is inappropriate and should be removed. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I use the tern "edit warring" when it is appropriate and it was appropriate here. That i use the term often in connection with you? - You might change your behavior regarding this then i do not need to use it so often.

The tag was applied appropriately and i was linked to the relevant discussion.

The ref you have added now is helpful but the section still needs to be changed to reflect the sources and the title needs to be changed and the part that relies on the NYT's source needs to be changed according to the discussion we had about it on the other talk page. No problem to agree to remove the tag after this has been done. IQinn (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

recent edits

Another contributor removed File:Photo of Guantanamo captive Issa Khan in 2002.jpg with the edit summary: "not helpful - subject is not recognizable". Granted, this very low resolution crop of an image that was published in a much larger image would not be useful as a passport photo or a mugshot. But it shows Isa Khan in western garb -- not the traditional garb of traditional Pashtuns, or the traditional Pakistani garb.

That his family had an image of him in western garb suggests he was not, or was not always a died-in-the-wool jihadist. So, in this particular case, an image of such low resolution that it could not serve as a passport phot is still useful and helpful.

I will give the image exciser a reasonable period to respond. If they do not offer a truly compelling argument for removing this image I plan to restore it. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Subject is not recognizable and inappropriate to use in the infobox. Your personal "cloth" theory argument is not very compelling and pure original research. I am strongly against re-inclusion unless you come up with a compelling argument. I urge you to stop adding such images to biographies. A lot of similar images that you have added to Biographies of Guantanamo captives have been removed recently for violation of our policies. Please stop this. IQinn (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another contributor removed a relevant quote from a reference, with the edit summary "not useful". References go 404. References can remain useful when a key phrase is recorded in the quote field. If the exciser does not offer a compelling argument for this excision I plan to restore it. Geo Swan (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of context quote at the end of the article that leaves out that this is only an allegation of one party, that could be misinterpreted specially if the reference would go 404. IQinn (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You write this as if we not only required our wikipedia articles to be written from a neutral point of view, but expected our WP:RS to be written from a neutral point of view as well. We don't.

What exactly do you think would be a "misrepresentation" in this particular instance? Could you please explain why you describe this quote as "out of context".

As to whether our readers won't know it "is only an allegation of one party" -- please review the sentence before and after the citation. I would be very curious for your explanation as to how you think our readers could be confused that this was just one side of the story.

"On May 27 2009 the Defense Intelligence Agency published a fact sheet entitled "Former Guantanamo Detainee Terrorism Trends" that named Isa Khan as being suspected of having "reengaged in terrorism". According to the document he was suspected of an "association with Tehrik-i-Taliban".

Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations says:

The decision on whether to use quotes in footnotes is primarily a decision of style and may vary from article to article. Some citation templates include parameters for quotes, and quoted text can also be added inside a footnote either preceding of following a template-produced citation. Quoting text can be useful for the verifiability of material in an article. Footnoted quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, compliant to copyright (including fair use where applicable), of use or interest to the reader, and not used as an evasion of other guidance (most notably: content policy). Where there is disagreement on the use of quotations in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page for that article.

Please note the extra emphasis I put on the last sentence. Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you extra emphasis the last sentence? Sounds normal for me the issue has come up and it is under discussion now here on the talk page. Let's keep the discussion simple and clean and work towards consensus what i always do.

You are wrong we have to balance the article under neutral point of view that includes the selection of quotes in the citation. The sentence you quote here is not the quote that was included in the citation. That was a biased quote that left out that this is only a single sided allegation and therefor out of context. In case the reference goes 404 this out of context quote is all what is left and the text that you quote here could be changed. You should also take in consideration that not all people read the whole article and often scroll down fast and find this biased quote at the end of the article.

The only reason for inclusion i see in your explanations is that the biased quote should verify the cited text in case the reference goes 404? That would obviously not work and not a good idea. On the other hand we have the violation of neutral point of view that applies the the whole article including the citations and the chosen quotes in the citations. The bottom line, why including the quote as there are obviously problems with neutral point of view and there is not much of a benefit from inclusion of the quote in the citation? IQinn (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WRT your first paragraph above -- please re-read the recommendation of the guideline. I think the meaning of the recommendation is clear -- when you have a concern over the appropriateness of a quote, in a reference, you are supposed to raise your concern on the talk page. You are not supposed to simply remove quotes you disagree should be used. As to seeking consensus -- I would really welcome you making an effort to reach consensus in this and other discussions. In this particular case you seem not to have read what I wrote carefully.

WRT your second paragraph -- the meaning of some passages in this paragraph are unclear to me. But, as I have noted before, I remain concerned that you have misinterpret this policy. You have stated in the past that we can't carry material that could be interpreted as reflecting negatively on individuals covered here. Material that could be interpreted as reflecting negatively must be properly referenced. This article is properly referenced. If you think there are WP:RS with another POV that aren't being reflected in this article, please share those references here. If you don't have the time, or interest, or ability to add those other references others will do it for you. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, this is clearly an instance where you misread what I wrote.

WRT your third paragraph -- as per above I am concerned you are misinterpreting our policies. Geo Swan (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WRT your first paragraph -- my edit and edit summary are in line with common editing practice. And the discussion about the content issue has been started. I would really welcome you making an effort to reach consensus.

WRT your second paragraph -- I would like to ask you to re-read what i carefully wrote and to address the arguments and given questions. For me it looks like you once again are ignoring the arguments and questions. Please have a look at it again and provide counter arguments. You want me to repeat or rephrase my arguments and questions?

WRT your third paragraph -- i am concerned that you do not provide any prove or valid counter arguments. I interpreting our policies in the correct way. As per above please do provide specific policy based counter-arguments to the arguments i have provided. IQinn (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the image, although the quotes and "reasons" are probably best left on talk pages and not on the file/article obviously. But any image is better than no image - so long as it does not defame the subject. A shitty image of Lindsay Lohan shouldn't be used if we have a better one, but until we do.... Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any comparison with the image of Lindsay Lohan. She is recognizable the subject of this biography not. Could you please name a reason why we need this image where the subject is not recognizable? There have been a lot of these kind of images that have been discussed and deleted after discussion at BLP noticeboard. IQinn (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Captive --> Detainee

For the sake of consistency and following these three discussions [1] [2] [3] the page should be moved from Isa Khan (Guantanamo captive 23) to Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee 23). IQinn (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee 23). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hrw.org/press/2003/06/musharraf062003-ltr.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=11552
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304175010/http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/ to http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/7

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) 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)