Talk:Guantanamo Bay files leak

Sources

For sources/references/documentation in order to expand this article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8][9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

detainees

I've created a "detainees" section to summarize important information about individual detainees. Additional information should probably be on the individual's article. I'm kinda hoping this won't become a long list, but we'll see. pm (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page?

Why was this article removed from the main page, and is no longer found in the news section? Moreover, why is there no discussion regarding this removal on the main page? The Wisedog (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As requested, my explanation for the edit at the top (BRD)

I, and also through my IP Addresses, have made some edits regarding the nuclear terrorism aspect of the leaked documents, where Khalid asserts that Al-Qaeda is harboring a weapon of mass destruction. Suprisingly- at least to me -these edits have been accepted, and in one case, embraced (I awarded said embracer down the line, :D ).

This being said, one edit I made, that I personally deem especially important to counterbalance the "Guantanamo is evil" side with "Bush was right" (and no, this isn't an attempt to invalidate the former, but rather to provide for both), involves a summarized version of the "nuclear hellstorm" section.

Reading the doctrine that justified the removal (WP:BRD), I found, again to my delight, that this wasn't a challenge to the text I added, but rather a call as to explanation of why the nuclear remark was notable enough to be at the top, where the meat, the summary, the biggest points were to be made.

The text I added can be found here, and is as follows:

“ It also contains data supporting the long alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction by Al-Qaeda operatives. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- through information which may have been extracted by waterboarding -stated that Al-Qaeda possesses a nuclear weapon and would unleash a "nuclear hellstorm" if Osama bin Laden was ever caught or killed by U.S. allies. (Newsmax) ”

I see this as a justifiable main page topic for the following reasons:

• It provides another side to the documents that doesn't involve the innocence of a handful of the detainees in Gitmo. (Remember that the one hundred fifty laymen and low-priority troops, plus that kid and geezer, aren't the only Guantanamo detainees. There are real and extreme threats in that pit as well, like Khalid.)
• In my personal opinion, the lack of the paragraph seems to tilt the article a bit towards the "Guantanamo is wrong close it now" side, which, while also showing the nuclear terrorism area down the line, does not do such an important aspect justice.
• The nuclear comment is extremely notable, as notable as the one hundred fifty "innocents", because it represents groundbreaking and astonishing news not shared before by the government. Khalid's statement gives leverage and backing to one of Bush's more controversial assumptions: "if we let Al-Qaeda go unchecked, they'll nuke us". Indeed, if there really is a WMD in Europe run by terrorists, isn't that something the people would like to know when they seek to learn about these leaks?
• I receive several conservative newsletters every week that keep me to date with their side of the story. Upon announcing the WikiLeaked Gitmo files, the "nuclear hellstorm" remark flooded these letters on one particular day and were heavilly spoken of by assorted rightists on the Internet. (A mere handful of those were added originally as references, though most were removed because I provided some really good ones that already met the requirements, or were referenced elsewhere.)
  • The nuclear topic was of particular focus to the rightists, to the same extent and urgency as the leftists dove into the detainees (like that kid or that chef). They were all over that comment in identical fashion.
• To use a scale analogy, picture it this way:
  • On the left scale pan is the "Guantanamo is evil" side. We have documented, authentic sources explaining to us some of the men and women, of little threat, detained alongside people who could and did bring down the Twin Towers. This, without question, is notable data that deserves a place on the top of the page.
  • On the right scale pan would be the "Bush was right" side. Rightists justify the WOT with several assorted statements, facts, and data of their own. These are not to be debated here, since this pertains solely to the Khalid comment, but I mention it to introduce my statement. Now, the Khalid statement asserting that Al-Qaeda not only possesses a WMD, but threatens to use it is a major find to the rightists' argument. They claim, frequently, that Al-Qaeda is an extreme danger to the West, and what is more dangerous than a weapon of mass destruction? In the interest of showing that both sides have facts and data to back their statements, I feel that this statement- which meant a lot to the conservative side -has equal merit and importance as the alleged human rights violations that also stand at the top.
• Wikipedia is, by doctrine, a neutral site. This article in my opinion, is fairly neutral, since it presents both sides: the innocent side, and the WMD side. I personally approve. However, the WMD section is just that: a section down in the article. When a person first pulls up this Gitmo article, they see mentions of the one hundred fifty low-priority Arabs detained for years. While this is unquestionably a notable and noteworthy statement that deserves all the attention it gets, I feel that the initial feeling a novice reader gets when they see it is: "Hmm, Guantanamo is evil and unjust. There is no value to it, and there is no good data extracted, so it must be closed.". This opinion, of course, stands only if they don't take the time to read the whole article.
  • Including the nuclear terrorism part, in my opinion, would add another thing for a reader to think about: "Hmm, so Al-Qaeda might actually have nukes!"
    • This would "hook" the reader, so to speak, and get him interested in learning more. Seeing the unjustified detention of one hundred fifty petty suspects, alongside the information of a nuclear threat by Al-Qaeda gives a duel statement: "While Guantanamo has performed some injustices, it has also given us valuable intelligence and, in some ways, shows us just how bad the real terrorists really are."
    • I feel that presenting both the innocents detained AND the nuclear terrorism remark really underlies the purpose of why we're here reporting this. Wikipedia's job is to provide as much reliable information as they can, from both sides- liberal and conservative -and then allow the reader to make their conclusions. By omitting the nuke comment until several sections down, it poses the risk of shifting opinion to one side over another, assuming the reader does not venture past the summary at the top. Although it maintains the NPOV doctrine, it still tilts the scales. It's a minor tilt that most wouldn't notice, but still, it's there. What I mean is that more weight is directed to the "Guantanamo is evil" side than the "Bush was right" side, until the "Nuclear hellstorm" section, which tips the scales back to the neutral state.

Hopefully, that explains why I added it. I don't intend to remove or challenge the other side. They have their sources and they have their facts all in order. Their statements are notable and important. However, the opposing side has equally notable data that needs its time in the limelight as well.

While some people cry out about innocents in Guantanamo, others cry out about confessions of nuclear terrorism. Both of these cries are part of the ongoing debate as to the legitiamcy of the black site and the overall direction of our country.

It may be a stretch, but I think that including Khalid's comment will vastly improve the quality and manner in which information is delivered, and, by presenting both sides, encourage the reader to keep reading the article.

Thank you.
--TurtleShroom

P.S.: Hi Iqinn! ^_^
P.P.S.: I'm sorry that I wrote a book to explain a single edit. I'm a natural born, filibustering rambler, and have trouble conveying my ideas in text without a long wall of text.

Looking through the large number of secondary sources that so far have come out i would say that according to the sources i would say one sentence about this in the lede would be more than fair. (You copied and pasted the whole section into the lede before.) And the sentence should not be longer than 30 words. In my opinion there is nothing worst than redundancy. Is it a deal? Sorry for suggesting strict limitations on that but it seems necessary looking up to your post and the terms might be negotiable. IQinn (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A comment here - we shouldn't be looking to present 'both sides' here, but instead to reflect what others report. If the response from outside mainstream reliable sources is negative, then we should be too. As for 'confessions of nuclear terrorism', one needs to ask how credibly they have been received before attaching undue weight to them. I'm inclined to leave this for a few days to see how the story is treated in the media, and then have another look at the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if any sentence is made, I'd consider that a victory for neutrality. I understand and accept that deal. Also, I think Wikipedia is supposed to present both sides, because Wikipedia is Neutral. If we give all sorts of negative data and nothing positive, how on the earth is that neutral? We'd not only be depriving the reading audience of information that could be very valuable in their quest to get the whole story, we'd also be grossly defying Wikipedia's neutrality doctrine. Our job isn't to reflect what the mainstream media or the big wigs of today report on a story, our job is to provide all the information we can, on both sides, in neutrality and with reliable references... -at least, that's what I was told when I first joined. -TurtleShroom — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurtleShroom (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

'Neutrality' begins by not automatically assuming that there are 'two sides', but instead by accurately representing what the sources say. If we are going to start assessing articles to see if they have a 'correct' political balance, we will be engaging in WP:OR, and imposing our own opinions of what 'neutrality' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What Andy said. We're not here to seek out "balance". That's for our sources to do.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

user:QICRRY - read the above statement on neutrality. your edits continue to introduce bias to the article by not accurately representing the sources. The guilt or innocence is not being decided here, just what the facts of the sources - what the sources say, not just the parts you like. (user:jay.j25.hunter) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP and good faith

I removed two times negative unsourced information: "as well as his ties to an organization linked to terrorist financing" This negative information about a living person needs secondary sources for verification. Instead of unjustified accusing me of bias you must provide secondary sources for such claims. Please do not re-add this claim without the necessary secondary sources. Thank you. QICRRY (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Threat by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed connected to Boston Marathon bombings?

Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's threat related and/or even connected to the Boston Marathon bombings? I found quite a few sources talking about these conspiracies, [23] [24] [25]. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The surviving bomber said they learned how to make the bombs from extreme jihadi websites. So, their connection to established jihadi is generally understood to be one-way. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

25 April 2011

The New York Times report is dated 24 April 2011. 109.144.245.100 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

responsible use of tags

Someone added an editorial tag, claiming certain content needed a "better source". I checked the existing reference, and saw nothing obviously wrong with it. It seemed to me that the tag looked like a stealth attempt at editorializing. So I removed it. Anyone who really thinks the tag is relevant should explain their reasoning here. Geo Swan (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)