Talk:Cage (organisation)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cage (organisation) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Asim Qureshi was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 August 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Cage (organisation). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Hurried observation

Just to note that 95% of the current article is criticism of CAGE, are they so obviously and undeniably bad that nothing positive has ever been written about them or their objectives ? Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consistent use of right wing press in the article. Sources such as https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/apologists-for-terror-or-defenders-of-human-righ/ which points out that Cage has been the subject of a deliberate 'media smear campaign', have not been used in the article. For this reason I am going to use NPOV tag to encourage more editors to get involved in balancing these issues. Amirah talk 10:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there is no doubt that there has been and may still be 'a deliberate smear campaign' by the press, and this should be explicitly stated in the article. A lack of reliable sources which demonstrate the work of the organisation is therefore understandable to some extent. But I feel it would help if more reliably sourced content were introduced about their work, so that the article is not predominantly about the smear campaign. Amirah talk 19:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Amirah talk 19:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political organization, not charity

Collapsing non-productive discussion from editor now topic-banned from Cage. Marianna251TALK 15:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://5pillarsuk.com/2017/12/08/boris-johnson-says-britain-will-not-disengage-from-muslim-world/

Are you going to ignore it as well? Cautious (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete! Everybody, who is reading both information provided by Cage itself, and documents that describe Cage, knows that Cage is political wing of the Islamists terrorists, part of the network of organizations that are legal in the West, hopefully not for long. Now please report me for saying truth. Cautious (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Johnson said – It’s wrong that “Islamists” exploit freedom of speech in this country to pursue their ends.

– Elements of the Muslim Britherhood excuse terrorism but the group not be proscribed in the UK. He meant clearly Cage Cautious (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning

Discussion moved from Pincrete's talk page:

I noticed you have reverted a couple of my edits on this article today. I can understand your reasoning that the information you re-added should be in the lede. It would be better if this information were also found somewhere in the main article from other than a primary source.

If you feel that the text should definitely be in the lede I am not against having it there, but really the lede is for facts rather than statements which may be contested. There is no reason why it should be in quotes of the aims if the organisation are clear, I feel it would be better to put it as a flat statement of fact than a quote.

Also, references are not usually used in the lede as the lede is a summary of what is said and sourced elsewhere in the article. Particularly references to a primary source.

I would suggest taking out the words 'says that it', removing the quotation marks and the two references to primary sources from the lede. Amirah talk 16:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmirahBreen I have no objection to most of these ideas, but cites are often used in the lead of controversial articles, and CAGE has often been controversial. I hope to do some more work later/tomorrow, but feel overall that a lot of the 'bite' has left the article as a result of your edits. For example, the reason that CAGE originally got its info from detainee's families is because US govt did not admit to imprisoning suspects, and did not name those it held, for a long time. Even families did not know where their loved were and could only guess that they were being held by the US. All mention of this has been removed. Also, though it may be Begg rather than CAGE, Begg has played a crucial role in proving UK complicity in US imprisonment and torture in Bagram and elsewhere, and aided detainees seeking admission and compensation from the UK govt. That is not there for 'update' reasons. Some of the changes you made are 'good tidies' IMO, but many sanitise key issues. The impression overall of some changes is NOT of an org whose detractors present it as an apologist for Islamic terror and whose supporters see as a powerful voice in opposing (illegal) anti-terror laws and practices by US and UK govts. The aiding of former detainees is largely incidental to CAGE's main campaigning against torture, imprisonment without trial, 'draconian' anti-terror laws etc. Pincrete (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome discussion on anything which you feel should not have been removed.

What you are saying about the reason CAGE got it's info from families, was not clear in the text. To me it read that they had perhaps contravened the official secrets act by publishing information that the US government classed as 'secret'. Some re-wording may be necessary if you want to clearly convey what you have said above, and perhaps also more sources can be found to substantiate this.

I'm not sure what text you are referring to exactly in your second point, I will look at the diff from just before I started editing today and get back to you on that.

I think including the source which I mentioned on the article talk page would help to present the situation of detractors/supporters, using a reliable source rather than editorials and opinion pieces.

I understand I have taken a lot of information out of the article today, mostly due to sourcing issues, and some of this information will need to be put back with more reliable sources and presenting both sides of the issue, as there are two sides, not just from the POV of detractors.

Also, your last point about the aiding of former detainees being incidental to CAGE's main campaign, I agree that this should be made clear in the AIMS section, citing reliable sources if possible. Amirah talk 18:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cage_(organisation)&oldid=1042885405

Here is the diff which shows the article before my edits. Please could you let me know what section you are referring to in your message above, where you say 'Begg has played a crucial role in proving UK complicity in US imprisonment and torture in Bagram and elsewhere, and aided detainees seeking admission and compensation from the UK govt.' Please let me know where the text was that conveys this which has been removed. Amirah talk 18:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I substantially disagree with in your above posts. The 'complicity' matter may well be Begg rather than CAGE and wasn't really covered in anything you removed. While I find your pruning a bit severe, I'm glad someone else is taking an interest. Sources often ARE poor except when CAGE becomes controversial. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IMO there is no doubt that there has been and may still be 'a deliberate smear campaign' by the press, and this should be explicitly stated in the article. A lack of reliable sources which demonstrate the work of the organisation is therefore understandable to some extent. But I feel it would help if more reliably sourced content were introduced about their work if possible, so that the article is not predominantly about the smear campaign. (copied from previous thread above) Amirah talk 19:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you find my 'pruning' a bit harsh. I am simply applying the standards I have learnt through other editors/admins imposing them on me in articles I have edited around controversial subjects in other topic areas. I believe you have more experience than me in this particular topic area and also this particular article, and if you wish to revert some of my recent edits I will not object. Amirah talk 13:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested sources which could be used in the article

I have done a Google search this morning to see if I can find some more sources which meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Here are some suggestions which could potentially be used, as far as I can see they are not press releases, opinion pieces, editorials, self-published etc.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-war-on-terror-devastating-impact-rights-groups-highlight

https://policyexchange.org.uk/cage-mend-and-ihrc-co-launch-international-campaign-against-western-democracies-war-on-terror/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/19/afghan-detainee-at-guantanamo-prison

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/china-uighurs-hundreds-rally-uk-embassy-plight-muslim-minority

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/cage-leaks-training-materials-prevent-anti-extremism-strategy

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-man-unlawfully-stripped-citizenship-reunited-family-after-4-years

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/aug/20/detention-of-muslims-at-uk-ports-and-airports-structural-islamophobia

https://muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/terrorism/detaining-muslims-ports-islamophobic-says-cage/

(need a subscription to view) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/27/us/politics/guantanamo-bay-detainees-history.html

https://www.democracynow.org/2021/11/26/meet_mansoor_adayfi_i_was_kidnapped

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/justice-demanded-for-victims-of-austrias-operation-luxor/2416861

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/this-is-not-a-headscarf-the-objectification-of-muslim-women-in-austria-51585