Jump to content

Talk:Bagram torture and prisoner abuse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Glendale C. Walls)


NYT

[edit]

I notice that this article relies on external liks to several to New York Times articles. It is my understandg that after two weeks, the NYT archive is now pay-only, so these articles may no longer be freely available. However, it is likely they have been republished elsewhere, the links should be updated. -- Viajero | Talk 19:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -- it's a problem. The Times links were closed last night when I was editing this, I only had access to them because I'm a subscriber. I'll try to do some alternate sourcing tonight, Godwilling. BrandonYusufToropov 19:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

The article seems to be about any abuse that occurred at Bagram, but the lead-in is only about the homicides. I think the lead-in needs to be changed. Rich Farmbrough 03:49 7 March 2006 (UTC).


NPOV Addition

I added a NPOV banner to this article.

The McCain portion needs to be rewritten, as it is most definantly not objective in regards to the Vietnam references. It is strongly preachy, and is clearly an attempt to try and criticize McCain without any basis in reality. I'm not saying that the material in the article is necessarily false, but it is irrelvant to the McCain Amendment, as well as his time as a tortured POW. I might be slightly more acquiescent if the article mentioned the torture and murder of South Vietnamese by the NVA, VC, Khmer Rouge, Pathet Lao and others, but THAT portion of the article is clearly biased, and needs to be either removed or reworded to conform to NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.125.82 (talk • contribs). 17:32, 2006 March 16


There is considerable debate about Carolyn Wood not being a notable person and the article being unencylopedic.Are not the other people tabled here (some with their own article page) even less so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.131.127 (talk • contribs). 18:01, 2006 April 6

The current position of the Bush administration is to acknowledge that abuse has been committed by Armed Forces personnel -- but that there were only a few isolated incidents, committed, without authorization, by rogue personnel -- and most importantly for this article, all the perpetrators had been held accountable.
The high-profile perpetrators from Abu Ghraib, Lyndie England, Charles Graner and Ivan Frederick all got stiff sentences. But less publicized perpetrators, like Lewis Welshofer, and those implicated in the murders of these two Afghans, were either not charged at all, acquitted, or received trivially light sentences -- even though murder is a much more serious charge than any the Abu Ghraib seven were implicated with.
People are likely to look to the wikipedia to decide for themselves whether Condalleeza Rice's claim that the perpetrators had all been appropriately punished was credible. IMO that makes these individuals highly notable. Readers deserve to know the actual charges and the actual punishments meted out to these individuals. -- Geo Swan 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What people have not realized is that there are no taxi cabs in or around Bagram AB. There is not even a city, but a small settlement. While stationed there a month ago there were not even any motor vehicles other than the ones use by military personnel. The man written about in the article could not have been a taxi driver unless he got lost and drove thirty miles from Kabul. I have never heard of a taxi drive getting lost and accidentally ending up at the front gate of the largest military installation in region.69.138.61.215 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where public transport is missing, taxi cabs play that role, not just in Afghanistan but everywhere in the third world. 30 miles is not an uncommon distance, if he were from Kabul. --85.178.5.4 10:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing investigations and prosecutions

[edit]

I added the Blpdispute template to this section. Most of the US soldiers named here are listed with charges against them, but without citations for the charges. We need citations or the allegations of serious crimes committed by them need to be removed from Wikipedia. Kevinp2 04:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citations Kevinp2 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove redlinked and acquitted people?

[edit]

Quite a number of the people who were charged in these cases have been acquitted of all charges (or in at least one case, all charges were dropped), and are redlinked. Wouldn't it be appropriate to remove these people from this article? Seems like a bit of a BLP issue linking them to a crime of which they were acquitted. The acquitted people who have articles in WP are a different case, but the redlinked ones should be deleted. Horologium t-c 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion

[edit]

Another contributor suggested merging Zalmay Shah here. They applied the {{mergeto}} tag there. They did not apply a {{mergefrom}} tag here. Nor did they explain why they thought a merge would be a good idea.

When no-one commented, either way, they redirected Zalmay Shah here, without making any effort to merge, even though they had suggested merging.

I reverted their redirection, but I left the merge tag on the article.

Personally, I think this kind of merge is a very bad idea, for a number of reasons.

  1. Granularity: The superiority of wikis over plain ordinary world-wide-web pages rests largely on the bidirectional nature of wiki-linking. On the WWW you can have no good idea of which pages point to the page you are on, you only know what pages it points to -- because the links are uni-directional. In the ideal world we could freely link to paragraphs, sentences, phrases, or even individual words. But we can't do that now, we can only link to other articles -- which are really files, in disguise. So long as the atom, the basic unit of wikilinking is a an article (file), it is best to keep them as small as possible.
  2. Navigation: Unless one is using an obsolete computer it should be faster to click on a link, than to scroll through one part of a large article to another part.
  3. Who is in charge?: I want the reader to be in charge of how they traverse the web of human knowledge. Why should the reader be restricted to an order designed by some know-it-all stuffed-shirt? They should be able to traverse that web of human knowledge in the order that makes sense to them. And this works best if our articles are small, focussed, and richly interlinked.

What about intra-article wikilinks, and wikilinks to sections of other articles? In my opinion, while it is possible to used both of these techniques, neither should be used. With different underlying software, that more fully supported these kinds of links, I would say "no problem". But the current software does not properly support these kinds of links. With redirection links still work, even if an article is moved to a different name. It is seamless, painless. Article to article wiki-links don't break when the article's names are changed. But wikilinks to a section in another article, or within the existing article, break if someone changes the target section name. Even the most trivial spelling, punctuation, or capitalization change to the section heading breaks the link. wikilink to section sucks.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Bagram torture and prisoner abuse. 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) 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Bagram torture and prisoner abuse. 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) 18:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bagram torture and prisoner abuse. 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) 16:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bagram torture and prisoner abuse. 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) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the Aafia Siddiqui Section

[edit]

@FDW777: Everything I said is completely relevant to this specific article. I have included details on how she ended up in Bagram and what caused it. In fact, if it is proven via a CIA Release that she was indeed held in Bagram, she'd be able to have a retrial proving her innocence, due to a central issue in her trial was whether or not her mental illnesses were "faked" due to the government denying she was even held in Bagram. In other words, Bagram is the center of her guilt/innocence, and thus anything I said should be kept. I would suggest you revert your reversion.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@FDW777: I have partially added ONLY matters relating to Bagram. I have included every account relating to her in Bagram. I also corrected factual errors in the second paragraph. If you have any issue with that, let me know. (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

You've still included off-topic information. The claims by her mother about men on motorcycles are not germane to whether she was held and supposedly abused at this particular facility. Also please stop using unreliable advocacy organisations as references. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only added to what was already included. And since when were BBC and The Guardian "Unreliable Advocacy Organizations"? I will add something related to her time in Bagram solely from these sources then, and I guess "CSMonitor" as well. Is that cool? (NerdyGenius1 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
When did I say anything about the BBC or the Guardian? And no, it isn't acceptable for you to add claims that are always attributed to her family, this isn't a soapbox. FDW777 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you again to WP:ONUS, should you restore any of the content objected to I will be asking for your block to be extended to this article. FDW777 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of death

[edit]

What was it that actually killed the detainees? The article take about their abuse but not about what actually killed them. That seems like a pretty important detail. Ender8282 (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&oldid=1195304082"