Talk:Mohamedou Ould Salahi/Archive 1

I think I'd dispute the use/fairness of the word "al-Qaeda" in the opening paragraph, there is almost nothing in the article to substantiate such a claim. He allegedly pledged loyalty to UBL personally, and that was in 1990 while UBL was still living in Saudi Arabia, long before he even started his Advice and Reform committee, moved to the Sudan, and finally to Afghanistan. I know the AQ article suggests a 1988 "founding date" for AQ, but realistically Slahi seems to have had little to nothing to do with al-Qaeda other than attending an Afghan training camp, and introducing militants to other militants. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to clean up spelling, grammar, punctuation, date links and clear factual errors with my editing today and yesterday. I didn't delete, change or add any major content up until now. Next week I plan to submit some more substantial changes. Feel free to contact me if you are interested in discussing this article.

Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest it is a mistake to "correct" errors in quoted material. This recent series of edits contains numerous "corrections" of quoted material.

The DoD uses its own, idiosyncratic transliterations for a number of names and terms common in their documents. Unless there is a good reason I believe it is best to leave their transliterations in, in quoted material.

• In particular they almost always use "
  al Qaida
  ", not "Al Qaeda". I believe it is appropriate to restore their original spelling.
• The DoD often transliterates Osama bin Laden's name as "
  Usama bin Laden
  ". I believe it is appropriate to restore their original spelling.
• The DoD often transliterates Kandahar as Khandahar or Qandahar. Again, I believe it is appropriate to restore their original spelling.
• I have been told that
  Mazari Sharif
  is the preferrred post-invasion transliteration of the city in northern Afghanistan. The DoD has used half a dozen different transliterations, but not that one. I think it is best to stick with the documents' original wording in cases like this.
• Some OARDEC authors introduce their own idiosyncratic errors. At least one OARDEC author always wrote "Providence" when they mean "Province. I believe it is appropriate to restore their original spelling.
• The OARDEC documents refer to AK-47 rifles as "AK-47", "Kalashnikov", and have a dozen similar transliterations. Again I think it is best to stick to their original spelling, in quoted material.
• The DoD typically uses the phrase "to include" when they meant "including". I believe it is appropriate to restore their original spelling.

I am not concerned with correcting actual errors outside of quoted material. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• why was this image removed?
• I would like to discuss the change here in how the old and new versions express a certain conclusion. The old version directly quotes a full sentence from the LATimes. It makes clear it is a quote. The new version changes the first four words of the quote, leaves the rest verbatim, but obfuscates it is a direct quote. The reason I think it should be a direct quote is that the conclusion it expresses is a controversial one. The more controversial a conclusion is, the wiser it is to quote it directly, rather than paraphrasing it, because, with a paraphrase, even a subtle weakening or strengthening of the conclusion can trigger a concern of POV pushing. -- I am concerned over this change. It could be read as if the wikipedia endorsed this conclusion. Well, neutral point of view -- we don't do that. Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to know why these wiki-links were removed. Geo Swan (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why was Special operation plan unlinked? Geo Swan (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal scholars at Seton Hall University's School of Law have done extensive work analyzing the documents the DoD has published in detail. They have been admirably methodical and systematic. They published a dozen detailed, methodical systematic analyzes of the documents.

The recent series of edits flattened the links, changing:

a The detainee is [[associated with Al Qaida]] and [[associated with the Taliban|the Taliban]] to

a The detainee is associated with [[al-Qaeda]] and the [[Taliban]].

One of the things they noticed in their analyses is that the individual DoD documents called some captives: al Qaida members, or al Qaida fighters, or they said that captives were associated with al Qaida. The DoD documents used other terms. The situation was the same for the Taliban.

They noted that the unclassified documents didn't explain the difference between an al Qaida fighter and an al Qaida member. But that didn't mean that some other document that hasn't been published yet that does explain that distinction. Alternatively the DoD authors may simply have been less organized less methodical than the Seton Hall team, and the different wordings are not significant.

Either way I think it is useful not to flatten the link to wipe out the distinction between "al Qaida associates" and "al Qaida fighters". So long as the link remain to '''[[associated with the Taliban]]''' an interested reader can check out the pages that link to "Associated with the Taliban".

This is useful. Consider

This flattening seriously reduces the value of this material.

Would it be even more useful if there were articles there, rather than redlinks? Yes. Those articles haven't been written (yet). But the redlinks are still very useful, just because ot the value of the pages that link to "Associated with the Taliban". So I am restoring these collapsed links.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Geo Swan, is it okay to flatten the associated with Al Qaeda and Taliban now that those red links have been deleted? Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll defer to your expertise in quoted material and the like. I removed the image because I read the "replace this image" is deprecated. I'm going to contact Slahi's lawyer for a usable image. From what I read, fair use is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

Point well taken on LA Times article.

Linked dates are deprecated. I don't believe that the FOIA or Civil actions will - or should - have stand alone articles. I don't have a problem with "Special operation plan."

Good point on "associated with." Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest deleting the Call Home section at the end of this article. It seems very irrelevant that Slahi was allowed one call home. The attached template picture also descends into the next section and the footnotes. If the phone call home seems important to anyone, I would suggest deleting the section heading and template and include the information in another section.

I changed a source from The New American to Reuters UK for the sentence saying Slahi was granted his habeas release. Besides The New American being partial (publication of The John Birch Society), the article cited was second-hand, it quoted first-hand sources and commented on them. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the deletion. I was always thinking exactly the same about this section. Go ahead. IQinn (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The policy change to allow captives occasional calls home was very significant. In the first half dozen or so years of the camp captives were allowed calls home on less than two dozen occasions. The change to allow more calls home is also highly significant. Mnnlaxer you state that if seems irrelevant, but you don't state why. I request you respond with a fuller explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Geo Swan, you also state the policy highly and very significant, but don't provide a reason beyond it being rare. That doesn't guarantee significance. Here are my reasons: 1) the phone calls home are of a personal nature. 2) Material from the calls and changes in Slahi's case are very unlikely to be produced by the calls. 3) Any importance to the calls can only be established by the caller being interviewed and having their account published. When that occurs, then I would support the call being included in the article. In any case it doesn't deserve it's own section. A section should have at least a full paragraph of relevant information in it. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm placing the original lead paragraph on Couch here. It is too prominent in the lead, especially the second sentence, but I want to preserve it for the later section.

According to Prosecutor

From above: The CIA didn't hold or torture Slahi and Mayer's reference not online. I'll use Brevin and Horton references to expand Couch's section later. Keeping this ref with corrected citation:[3] Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Added Couch material back into Guantanamo section. I think it's sufficient. If you want more detail / sources, the Virginia Law Weekly source above is good Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I request additional opinions on this edit. The edit summary states:

"remove the summaries and interpretation of primary source material as it violates

WP:OR

".

This is one of many instances where one particular contributor has used this identical edit summary.

The captive's testimony is a primary source, as the summary of evidence memos are clearly secondary sources. However wikipolicy does not bar the use of primary sources.

Wikipolicy states that primary sources don't normally establish notability. Wikipolicy says primary sources should be used carefully.

In my opinion this source was used carefully, and no novel interpretations were introduced, so the excised passage does not lapse from

I agree with Geo Swan, but I see that there is no citation. What is the primary source? The gist of the testimony has been repeated in many articles, but I would like to see the source before it is included. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't look at the current article before writing this. The section has been changed since this edit. Let's focus on the current version. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All recent filings and articles have used Salahi instead of Slahi. How does one go about changing the name of the article or creating a new one and redirecting the old one to it? Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've adding the

(moved here from my talk page) IQinn (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Iquinn, where is some support? Is Bagram considered to be automatically in CIA detention? I don't think so. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What's exactly the problem? Mohamedou Ould Slahi was in the CIA detention program and considered one of the high value detainees. The CIA flew him to a Jordan prison that is notorious for torturing prisoners on behalf of the CIA, allowing American agents to keep their hands clean. The CIA kept interrogating him in Jordan and flew him than to Bagram after they found nothing even after he had been tortured. The Bagram prison is mainly run by the military but has also cells that are controlled by other intelligence services and anyway mostly secret with no accountability like in the dark ages or secret prisons of the Nazi's. Anyway in Bagram he was apparently handed over from the CIA to the US military or one of their intelligence departments who flew him to Guantanamo where the US military now started to torture him again. No credible evidence of any wrongdoing of Slahi. The US has become a criminal state that randomly arrest and tortures people wherever and whenever it wants. IQinn (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is factual. I would say that people detained by the CIA were in the black site program. I've never seen anything to suggest Salahi was in this program. Do you have any references? Finally, I don't think your last sentence is appropriate in this forum. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking myself, I've found some sources saying his rendition was done by the CIA and some interrogation was done on behalf / at the direction of agency. (I added the Human Rights Watch report in external links) However, I think it is important to distinguish this from the actual CIA operated black sites. Slahi was picked up so soon after 9/11 that the CIA had no program at all in place. Binalshibh is commonly described as the first black site prisoner, in spring of 2002. Seeing that Slahi was rendered from Jordan to Afghanistan, staying two weeks and then to GTMO in the summer of 2002, I don't think he should be in this category. [btw, the Black Site article reference to Jordan is completely wrong. The link isn't to Haretz and in any case, it's dead.] That said, I'd like to describe more precisely the facts and conditions of his detention. In particular, it should be shown in which camps and for how long Slahi was housed at GTMO. In general, I think the overall structure of the article is straightened out, and I plan to start focusing on expanding various sections. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt that the CIA took care of him and he was part of the

Extraordinary rendition by the United States. Did you read these sources? [1], [2] IQinn (talk

) 06:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but extraordinary rendition doesn't require being held at a black site operated directly by the CIA. His places of detention should be Jordan, Bagram and Guantanamo. I just don't see the transporting part important enough to list under CIA black sites. And detainees held by the CIA at black sites is a separate category than people rendered by the CIA. By all accounts there were 14 high-value detainees that were at CIA black sites. Maybe there are others we don't know about, or who were transfered to Guantanamo before 2006, but Slahi does not fit in this category. Neither of those sources, and no others I've read, explicitly says Slahi was in CIA operated detention. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that "black site" are abstract words. He was under the control of the CIA before he was brought to Bagram. Surely he was in CIA detention during the flights. There are lots and lots of "black sites" including in Jordan. The CIA rendered Slahi to a prison in Jordan and CIA agents interrogated him in the Jordanian prison and the CIA decided to move and flew him to Afghanistan. Even Guantanamo is a "black site". The CIA had lots of "black sites' in many countries running them alone or together with local partners including in Jordan [3], [4], [5]. I think there is absolutely no problem to say that he was held at CIA "black sites" and let the article text give the details. IQinn (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the Wikipedia policy that approves of treating terms such as "black site" as abstract words. In fact, I think the opposite is true, concepts and usage should be as concrete as possible. For my part, I will use the term "black site" as Wikipedia has defined it: "describing secret prisons operated by the United States (U.S.) Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)". The next sentence adds "controlled by the CIA". The prisons in Jordan do not fit this description. Another point is that a black site must be a "site", that is a physical location where the prison is. Surely Slahi was in CIA custody, but so has nearly every detainee extraordinarily rendered. Slahi fits in this category, but not the category of being imprisoned in a black site. Your statement: "CIA agents interrogated him in the Jordanian prison" Do you have support for even this statement? If he wasn't interrogated by the CIA, wouldn't you agree he wasn't at a black site? Guantanamo as a whole was not a black site. Strawberry Fields was a black site within the camp, but Slahi was never housed there. But getting back to the central point at hand, there is not one quote you've produced that says Slahi was held by the CIA at a black site. And yes, I've read all of those sources quoted here. The Amnesty International UK webpage doesn't mention Slahi, while the underlying report does, it doesn't mention the CIA holding him. Scott Horton's post doesn't mention Slahi, and the Jane Mayer New Yorker piece, which is a close as definitive as you can get, only does so in mentioning Slahi's prosecutor resigned due to torture (which took place in Guantanamo). The Human Rights First webpage doesn't mention Slahi, nor does the AI report in footnote 10. The other footnote source, the another seminal article on black sites, Dana Priest's November 2005 article, doesn't either. The best that I've seen that Jordan is a black is this from the AI UK page: "Some detainees in Jordan have reportedly been held at a secret detention centre - al-Jafr prison - in a desert in south-east Jordan, said to be run in jointly by the Jordanian authorities and US intelligence agencies. Amnesty International is concerned that al-Jafr may amount to a 'black site' detention centre." Besides being equivocal, nothing I've seen puts Slahi at al-Jafr. I'm changing his info box detention sites to Jordan and striking Slahi from the black sites template recently added. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Complicated... specially because many sources are still classified. History will tell. I am ok with your preferred version for the moment. IQinn (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think summarizing detention as in Jordan and explaining in the text is the correct way to go. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(moved here from my talk page) IQinn (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, there is no charge. However, a "part of" al-Qaeda is the justification of his detention. How should that be conveyed in the info box? Is there another category it can be put under? It is very unlikely Salahi will ever be charged. Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest i have no idea. Was he "part of" al-Qaeda? Things are complicated. IQinn (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If he is determined to be "part of" al-Qaeda by the federal court, he will be detained indefinitely without charge under the AUMF-AT. If not, he will be released. So it makes sense to leave my edit as is. I will look for a better category or make one up, but I am changing it back. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It might make sense to you but i think it does not make sense for most of our readers as they do not have the same extended knowledge on the case and laws as you. It is not a charge and it should not be presented as a charge. It is not a crime to be simply part of al Qaeda or to be associated with al Qaeda. Not in US as far as i know. Readers would misunderstand when this would be listed under Charges.

The detention under the AUMF-AT and habeas corpus is a whole other story. He could be detained indefinitely without the right of a fair trial under the controversial AUMF-AT. It is up to President Obama or any other president to come do make that decision or simply to release him. That the president has the right do detain anybody for as long a he wish to do so because he/she had any whats however connection to al Qaeda in the past does not make it a crime. We are back to the middle ages where not courts decide who should be imprisoned but rather it is up to the will of a single person like a king. (More about that story if i get more time. :))

I would like to ask you not to put this information again under Charges until you found consensus for this here on the talk page or other Wikipedia forums. Thank you. I saw you did a lot of other helpful changes to the article. IQinn (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but the basis of his detention is very important information. How about putting it under "status"? In addition or in place of the habeas granting and remanding on appeal.Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be fine. Depend on the implementation. Give it a try. IQinn (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I recommend deleting the last section of text from the article. It is not very relevant, is not specific to Salahi, and comes from one source that only exists on the mirror site. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The mirror is sufficient to verify the information. You are right it might not deserve a whole section but i think we should keep it until we can integrate it later somewhere in the article text. IQinn (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

An Engineering student at

I believe the above isn't worth keeping in the article. The allegation is sourced to one amateur hacker on the CNN report. I have not found any other reference to it and it isn't relevant enough to be included. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Iquinn, I want to strongly dispute your revision of my edits based on your interpretation of using court filings in BLP is a no no. The section you cite says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

First, the section is poorly written and needs clarifying. But it is relatively easy to see that "to support assertions about a living person" means using adversarial filings as fact. You can't assert a person is a murderer based on charging documents. The published opinion of a U.S. District Court judge in a habeas filing is as far away from allegations or assertions as is possible in our legal system. The judge's opinion is defined as a "finding of fact." Also, that some information is redacted is immaterial.

How do we mediate this dispute? And try to help to revise the BLP Primary sources guideline? Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two concurring opinions on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi. I am going to revert the changes. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is no justification to add poorly sourced negative material to a BLP. We take BLP issues very serious. REDACTED court paper are a no no in writing BLP's. Any interpretation of these redacted documents can only be done by reliable secondary sources. NOT by us. I am sorry as interesting that might look for you. It is against our policies and i am going to remove these instances again. I urge you to use reliable secondary sources. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I replied on the BLP noticeboard. Please do not simply re-add the information until the discussion has finished. IQinn (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not arbitrarily enforce your extremely stretched interpretation without first posting the issue on this talk page. I dispute that the information is "poorly sourced" and that it is negative. The habeas judge granted the writ, I don't see how his finding of fact that Slahi should be set free can be called "poorly sourced negative material." And it is a secondary source as well. The primary sources are testimony, legal briefs and oral argument. Please do not use the royal "we" when talking about yourself. It is obvious we have come to an impasse, how do we involve other parties? Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And what justifies deleting the ARB section? It has a template and is currently in use for 207 articles. Are you going to delete all of these sections? These yearly hearings were the only information about a detainee that was produced. No secondary source is allowed in the hearing, not even the detainee's lawyer. Why should it be required to find other sources quoting the same material? Why is there a difference between the CSRT and ARB? Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You are putting a lot of stuff out here and no offence some of it would not be needed if you would take advise and get yourself familiar with our core policies.

WRT: "Please do not arbitrarily enforce your extremely stretched interpretation without first posting the issue on this talk page." It is common practice and policy to remove un-sourced or poorly sourced material from BLP's first, that does not need prior consensus.

WRT: "Please do not use the royal "we" when talking about yourself." We are a community and when referring to things like core policies then i will continue to do so as i think "we" agree to respect these policies as they are base on wide community consensus.

WRT: "And what justifies deleting the ARB section?"

WP:OR

and community consensus. To go to these redacted papers and to make a list to what he has agreed on of disputed in these highly controversial hearings is original research.

WRT: "It has a template and is currently in use for 207 articles." That other crap exist is no justification.

WRT: "Are you going to delete all of these sections?" There is a cleanup ongoing.

WRT: "These yearly hearings were the only information about a detainee that was produced." Some correction it was the only information that was "released". That is no justification and no indication of importance. If it would be notable than tons of secondary sources would write about it and we use their interpretations. These are complicated issues and some people have analysed these documents. Use their interpretations.

WRT: "No secondary source is allowed in the hearing, not even the detainee's lawyer." No justification to do original research.

WRT: "Why should it be required to find other sources quoting the same material?" It is not about "quoting" the material, it is about the interpretation.

WRT: "Why is there a difference between the CSRT and ARB?" Not much difference.

Please get yourself familiar with our policies. I appreciate your strong will to help to bring light into these issues but original research

WP:OR is a no no. These are complicated issues so feel free to ask me more questions but let me also tell you that i am only a volunteer and you can not expect me to explain all policies to you. You might consider finding a mentor. WP has a program for that. I apologize when you think my reply sounds offensive. It is not mend to upset you, i am acting in good faith. Regards. IQinn (talk

) 06:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not offensive, but wrong. See my arguments on the BLP/Noticeboard page. What is the most galling is your claim of "community consensus" without any proof that such a consensus exists (see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_documents) when it suits you, but claim otherwise when it does not: "That other crap exist [sic] is no justification." Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I request you tone done your voice a bit and please do not use

ad hominum arguments. I think i was quite right and i am glad to hear that you want to rely more on secondary sources in the future. IQinn (talk

) 01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In a spirit of compromise, I will attempt to include other sources saying the same thing on citations of the habeas ruling. I ask that you restore the ARB section until you show that there is a consensus to remove it from all articles it is currently used in. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a good idea and closer to what our policies say: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy,

WP:BLPPRIMARY. IQinn (talk

) 01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For ARB, CSRT see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive103#Multiple_articles_on_Guantanamo_detainees_using_transcripts_and_court_documents_as_sources, Abdelaziz_Kareem_Salim_al-Noofayee... IQinn (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"May be acceptable" is the key phrase that you have interpreted as "is not acceptable" because you have made no argument using the specifics of this case or any particular usage until today. (I am fine with your recent edits, btw) I would like to see you dispute a particular sentence and argue why it should be changed or why it shouldn't be included. You don't have a large burden of proof, but a specific claim should be made, not a blanket refusal. I also think a distinction should be made between the Summaries of Evidence and the hearing transcripts. I believe Summaries of Evidence Memos are secondary sources. (You're not arguing these documents are unreliable, are you?) Granting that CSRT and ARB transcripts are primary sources, they are widely quoted in many RS for a handful of detainees. In Slahi's case, it should be possible to find alternative sources. However, public information about most Guantanamo detainees is extremely sparse outside of these government documents. Does that mean Wikipedia can't have any statements about them because of this lack of secondary sources? Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you have stopped using redactions as a justification to not include this material. Now I would like to see you acknowledge that paraphrasing and quoting CSRT and ARB documents is not original research. As for the comparison between CSRT and ARB is that if ARB goes, so should CSRT. You seem to be making a distinction between the two based on length. In any case, the supporting (non-box) ARB text and headings should be restored. That ARB's took place is well documented in secondary sources. The text statements in each of these sections do not quote from the documents themselves in any case. Please restore the ARB sections and non-boxed text. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to request that the tags at the top of the article be removed. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WRT: "I believe Summaries of Evidence Memos are secondary sources" I have given you the link to the relevant forum discussion. Did you read? They are clearly primary sources.

All documents from OARDEC are primary sources, I agree. But WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly states that primary sources "may be acceptable to rely on [ ] to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." I will endeavor to provide secondary sources to any sentence only sourced to OARDEC documents. Where that is not possible, I will add attribution language such as "the CSRT summary of evidence says" or "the detainee said at this ARB hearing". However, as this discussion makes clear: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive106#Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi, the opinions of federal habeas courts are secondary and reliable sources. The two separate issues have become conflated I'm afraid. In any case, I think you should have deleted offending sentences, rather than slap a template at the top of the article, which would seem to denigrate the entire article rather than a discrete instance of Wikipedia policy interpretation. I would welcome any specific edits you deem necessary. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WRT: "However, public information about most Guantanamo detainees is extremely sparse outside of these government documents. Does that mean Wikipedia can't have any statements about them because of this lack of secondary sources?" No reason to break our policies and also a good indication do decide what is notable and not. No secondary sources is a good indication that something is not notable.

I agree, secondary sources should be used to prove notability. The article itself is certainly notable, correct? In that case, a particular sentence can be deemed not notable by lack of a secondary source, but again, primary sources may be used within reason. Please delete or suggest changes to sentences you deem to not be notable. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WRT: "You seem to be making a distinction between the two based on length." No i do not. As said there is not much of a difference and i just removed this section that was not properly sourced. Feel free to re-add information together with the necessary secondary sources.

I will. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WRT: "I forgot to request that the tags at the top of the article be removed." I just remove two of them. The remaining should stay on until additional references have been added. IQinn (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim of original research was the weakest you have brought up. I haven't seen any argument showing that anything in the article is original research. I am deleting the template. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the tag. Please do not battle over the tag and add reliable "secondary sources" instead. IQinn (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This tag says "original research." Shouldn't you be able to point to at least one sentence that is "original research" to justify using this tag? Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just have a look of the title and content of this discussion. It is obvious that we speak about the numerous incidents where you have used the redacted court documents as the only source for not trivial statements. It seems to me that you do not have fully read or understand our core policy

WP:OR

. It is exactly what applies here. Please improve the article by verifying the claims made based on these documents by adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand

WP:OR. It states "The term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Cite one sentence in this article that violates that policy. You have not and I claim you can not. If there are any "statements consisting only of original research" then you should remove them. If you want to discuss the issue in this article in general rather than challenge a particular sentence, then start an entry at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard. Slapping a completely unjustified tag on an article is not our policy and I will not allow it to continue. I tried listing this on the Third Opinion page, but no one responded. If you have other suggestions to mediate this, please initiate them. Mnnlaxer (talk

) 17:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Writing large chunks of BLP based on redacted government papers like this one are not allowed. And i am going to replace these instances with a ^{[citation needed]} tag. If you claim not to understand or not been able to find these instances that were mostly added by yourself. Hope that is fine and lets work out the details then. You might have see that i was a bit busy the last days. :) IQinn (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing... This is pretty much what you do, isn't it? V7-sport (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, amazing. Now you're back to redacted documents, eh IQinn? Did you forget about this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive106#Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi :() Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, amazing that you still claim you could interpret redacted documents in any way you want. The last thing i heard form you that you would get a third opinion. Not my fault that this did not work out. And no justification for you to just go ahead. Please work towards consensus. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever read the above referenced Noticeboard? "I don't think that the fact that it is redacted prevents it from being used, carefully, as a primary source." Jonathanwallace. "As for redaction: editors must be careful when dealing with redacted material; it's usually apparent when a clear statement is likely to be altered by the context of an adjacent redaction. In those cases, I think the material should rarely be used, and then only with caution, to avoid an error of omission due to the redaction. However, there's often plenty of material in redacted decisions whose meaning wouldn't be meaningfully affected by the redactions; there's no reason to toss that baby out with the bathwater." ⌘macwhiz There's your consensus and I completely agree with these statements. By the way, where is the Wikipedia policy on redacted documents you are basing your complaints on? Mnnlaxer (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, I have opened a file at the Mediation Cabal. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-13/Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi Would you like to join the mediation with me? Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation is cool but filing it about the tag seems a bit odd. I have already agreed to leave the tag off from the top of the article and to mark single incidents instead. There are several issues about sourcing here and the mediation might should address that. But actually the reliable sources noticeboard could be i think the better place were you could explain how do you interpret documents that are redacted and therefore manipulated and if these manipulated documents are the right source for large chunks of information in a BLP. IQinn (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Then please edit the mediation request as you like. Anything to get other opinions that you will listen to. When it's one vs. one, you claim consensus is needed. When it's two vs. one, you claim being ganged up on. The whole time never responding to requests for specific justification for your edits. Mnnlaxer (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image from the article; our

I apologize to Off2riorob for reverting his deletion. I was extremely frustrated with IQuinn and let it get the better of me. If I can get a photo from his lawyer, what would I need to do to get it posted on the article? Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem; it happens. Getting a release through

WP:OTRS is the best approach (i.e. get them to contact OTRS officially to release the image). --Errant ^(chat!

) 22:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer please do not blame me for your mistakes and your inability to deal with your emotion. I had nothing to do with this issue here. IQinn (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't blame you Iqinn. I said "I apologize", "I was" and I "let it get the better of me". "with Iqinn" doesn't place any blame on anyone other than myself. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For the content issue. I would have preferred when people would raise the issue in the relevant forums as files for deletion. The claim that a free image could be easily produced for someone who is imprisoned for possible until he dies is doubtful. IQinn (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking policy asks us to assume that it is possible; he was a free man until his early thirties so photographs should exists somewhere - it is just tracking them down. If Mnnlaxer can get a release from the lawyer that is an even better solution :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it generally accepted that free images are not possible for individuals under a life sentence? Slahi has not been charged, or sentenced. But he faces an indefinite detention which is a de-facto, extrajudicial life sentence. Geo Swan (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've not seen that ever noted or discussed as a exception; there will be images from before his incarceration - we just have to find one. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have confirmed with the main lawyer for Salahi, Ms. Hollander, that no other picture exists and that Salahi has no objection to allowing the use of the previous picture. What should I do now? Ms. Hollander has no experience with Wikipedia and I agree with her that the procedure to follow in this case is very hard to find. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes i agree many things are still difficult to do. Have a look at this page Commons:OTRS. I think the best is you just sent an email to: [email protected] IQinn (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Although Ms. Hollander would like the photo to be used, she will not authorize the usage of the Der Speigel photo because she does not own the rights to it. As Slahi's lawyer knows of no other photo of Slahi, can the previous image be re-instated? Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame. I'm not really sure the best approach. Perhaps the best thing to try is to detail this problem at WT:Non-free content review and get some further input. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have, thanks. Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Slahi.jpg -- Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous photo that was deleted has been confirmed by Salahi's lawyer that it came from Salahi's family and Der Spiegel did not have the rights to it. But it all ends well, as the photo I just uploaded came from the ICRC in Guantanamo Bay. It is a free image. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the information is still based on primary sources what is not the best way especially in BLP's at the same time more secondary sources appear so the references need to be improved. IQinn (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, just like last time, pick a particular source or sentence of the article to address. Generalizations about sources does not help the article, in fact it hurts the article because you are calling into question every source included in the article. There is no consensus to apply this tag to the article. Either add tags to specific sources or sentences, or find enough people to agree that this general tag should be on the article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there are countless statements that are only referenced to primary sources "Slahi traveled to Afghanistan in December 1990 “to support the mujahideen”.[2] (p. 4) He trained in an al Qaeda camp and swore bayat to al Qaeda in March 1991. Slahi returned to Germany soon after and then traveled to Afghanistan again for three months in early 1992. Slahi alleges that he "severed all ties with ... al-Qaeda" at that time. The U.S. government maintains that Slahi "recruited for al-Qaeda and provided it with other support" since then.[2] (p. 5)" Referenced to a primary source.

This way of referencing is problematic in BLP's. So what is your battle about the tag about? Are you taking ownership of this article? Why not let other people help to improve the article? Do you see the tag as an insult of the work you have done on the article. You should not. Really i think you improved the article a lot based on the set of available sources. But it is not ideal to source information in a BLP to primary sources. More and more secondary sources are now getting published, so it seems naturally to me that the primary sources references should be exchanged as soon as possible with secondary sources and please understand there is no ownership here at Wikipedia so let the community help with this task. The tag just invites other user to help in improving the not ideal references nothing else. As said your battle over the tag seems to be a waste of time but there seems to be no logical or policy based reason against it. So i polity ask you to agree to add it to the article. Thank you for your understanding and i hope one day we bring the article to an A rating but this seems still a long way and references are an very important part of that. Thanks for your work so far and be open for others to help in the work. IQinn (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this. A judge's written opinion in habeas cases is not a primary source. The first part is what Salahi has himself testified. The second part lays out the two sides' view, clearly labeled as such. You are the one who presumes ownership of the article by placing a disputed tag on it without anyone's input. If you want to improve the article by changing what you say are primary sources to secondary sources, then do so. But don't slap a tag on it and walk away. No one is surfing around Wiki, looking for BLP Primary Sources tags, so that they can improve the article. If you have an improvement, make it. If not, then leave the article alone. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree.Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well court papers are primary sources and they might be used in exceptional case but we prefer secondary sources.

I have not put a disputed tag on the article. I put a tag on the article that invites other user to help in improving the references of the article and that has nothing to do with

WP:OWNERSHIP

. I would do it myself but i am to busy with other articles at the moment so be open to let other people of the community help with it.

You seems to agree that the references are not perfect. So why don't you want other people help in the task to improve them they will be notified by the tag. That's what we have the tag for. Nothing to be ashamed of as i told you, you did great work but theses references are far from perfect and new sources are getting published. What the fuss about? Anyway then we are going to dispute resolution over the tag. I have no problem with that. IQinn (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is an current talk page .