Jump to content

Talk:Edham Mamet

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


removal of information

[edit]

The introduction had this passage that i have removed for the following reasons: 1) The introduction of this passage does not make clear the real source for the text. 2) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 3) The introduction to this text presents the information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 4) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 5) The introduction to this text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor. I have strong concerns to present this in the way it has been done here. Please discuss. IQinn (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) If the introduction does not make something clear, fix it! :)
2) I'm unsure how the tribunal proceedings of the US military can be dubbed "questionable", we qualify all the statements explaining they're American allegations.
3) I re-loaded the 78-page document to which you are referring, the biography is absolutely present. Your failure to find it reminds of your failure last week to notice there were two pages to a cited document - and your subsequent attempt to remove sourced information from the article. Read things more closely before assuming sources are lying.
4) The text does not require multiple sources, it has a valid, reliable source which is reporting on itself. We are not using the military source to cite facts about the prisoner, we are using the military source to cite facts about the military's claims.
5) See #3. Your failure to read sources carefully is not cause to delete sourced information.
Reverted your removal of information, do not act again without consensus. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sherurcij you are edit warring! And you are acting against the consensus of the whole Wikipedia community!
You have re-inserted controversial negative material into this BLP of a living person.
You have done this against the fact that the editor who has removed it has stated his BLP concerns clearly in the edit history and talk page.
You have not waited until consensus would have been achieved for re-inclusion.
Your edit summary and the five points you list here as your response to my concerns are mostly wrong. The material is controversial and problematic and i am willing to discuss this in an orderly manner.
I have checked the article, sources and your comment again carefully. I still have strong concerns.
It is strong consensus on Wikipedia to remove and not to re-insert material that has been marked as possible problematic by other editors.
I ask you in a friendly way to end your edit war and to remove this controversial negative material from this BLP article now until things for re-inclusion and way of presentation has been discussed and solved. IQinn (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

move made without prior discussion

[edit]

It seems to me this article was moved in a move justified with a misleading edit summary, namely: "moved Nag Mohammed to Edham Mamet: Old name is mostly based on primary sources from the beginning of the subjects detention. Edham Mamet is used by the NYT's where the old name is listed as alternate name".

Ironically, the NYTimes has picked the name from a document Iqinn argued here was a "questionable primary source".

This edit summary implies the NYTimes said it based the transliteration of the name it chose as the primary name for this captive after conducting some research, or consulting an expert. In fact, the NYTimes did no such thing. Every name they picked is one used on the older documents the contributor who moved this article has decried. It seems they arbitrarily picked one from among the several names. I regard it as misleading to imply NYTimes' choice is different than the "older documents".

FWIW I have asked the contributor to explain why he called the OARDEC memos "primary documents", when they are summaries based on the independent collation, analysis, and summaries of other reports from other agencies. I don't believe I have received a meaningful answer so far.

Normally I wouldn't leave a note on like this on every page changed in a series of changes. Normally I would leave a note on that contributors talk page. But this contributor has requested me to leave the note on every article's talk pages.

FWIW Andy Worthington refers to this individual as "Neg Mohammed". Personally, I trust Worthington's analysis more than I trust unnamed workers at the NYTimes. Geo Swan (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edham Mamet. 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) 07:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Edham Mamet. 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) 09:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edham Mamet. 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) 05:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edham_Mamet&oldid=1257716358"