Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Ahmad Hashim Abd al-Isawi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Ahmad Hashim Abd al-Isawi

[edit]
(
)
  • Reviewed: Y Sap mine
  • Comment: Ahmad Hashim Abd al-Isawi is notable for being a terrorist. I have no idea how to make a hook that is not going to reflect on him negatively. I don't know if he is still alive, I have seen comment that he was executed but not found an RS on point. On sourcing, I think everything is in this New York Post piece and this IrishCentral piece. CNN provides details on the attack itself, and this page of Robinson's book references his earning the name.

5x expanded by EdChem (talk). Self-nominated at 10:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

  • I have some issues with these proposed hooks. Firstly, if he hasn't been convicted of anything, this is a potential BLPCRIME violation. Secondly, the source doesn't describe him as a "mastermind" of the ambush, just as a guy who was identified to be involved with it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: Thanks for your comments. I was fairly sure that al-Isawi was dead, having seen a mention of it, but have now found the source I was seeking.
    • From The American Spectator: "a sailor assigned to guard [al-Isawi] before the terrorist’s transfer to Iraqi custody (where he was subsequently tried and hanged), admitted leaving the prisoner unattended in violation of his orders" [1]
    • From the IrishCentral piece: "Intelligence suggested the mastermind of the contractors’ murders was Ahmad Hashim Abd al-Isawi, the so-called “Butcher of Fallujah.”" [2]
    • From CNN: "U.S. authorities accuse [al-Isawi] of being the mastermind in the slayings and mutilation of four U.S. contractors in Falluja in 2004, one of the Iraq war's most notorious crimes against Americans" [3]
    • From Fox News: "McCabe was accused of punching last year is Ahmed Hashim Abed, the suspected mastermind of the grisly killings six years ago." [4]
    • From the book by Patrick Robinson: "All through the year, from the very moment the American bodies were strung up on the bridge, the city of Fallujah, riddled as it was by Sunni insurgents, rallied to the shadowy battle cry of Ahmad Hashim Abd Al-Isawi. It was now common knowledge that he had been directly responsible for the murders" ... "For Al-Isawi, however, the battle for Fallujah had put him well and truly on the map. In the coming years the old warlord al-Zarqawi would be forever looking over his shoulder at the rise of the newly titled "Butcher of Fallujah" as he moved ever forward on his blood-soaked journey to the peak of al-Qaeda command." ... "this public uproar on the Fallujah bridge, demonstrating the barbarity of the terrorist organization, did not ring true to al-Zarqawi's mind-set. The analysts at Langley believed it was out of character. ... They drew the inevitable conclusion: there was a new man on the block in Fallujah, a fiend in desert robes. And as 2004 lurched bloodily forward, he was causing pandemonium in the city. Al-Isawi had personally started on the rubble-strewn streets the worst close-combat fighting of the entire war." and, quoting a SEAL Team commander's briefing "Gentlemen, for us there's nothing so difficult as searching for the unknown. But right now, the way it's been for God knows how long, we have only a name for this bastard Isawi. There's no more doubt that he strung up the bodies on the bridge, matter of fact he seems proud of that. But we've never been able even to see the sonofabitch. Right now we don't even have a friggin' photograph." [5]
    • From Greenwich Time: "Ahmad Hashim Abd al-Isawi was the mastermind behind the 2004 murder and mutilation of four American contractors in Iraq, and his capture was a major priority." [6]
  • The American Spectator source confirms he was tried and executed by the Iraqis, which is now in the article, and I think deals with the BLPCRIME issue (which you were correct to raise, obviously). The other sources go to both his role as the planner / initiator of the Fallujah ambush in 2004, and to the use of the term "mastermind". There is certainly more to add to the article, al-Isawi was busy between 2004 and 2009 and is believed responsible for hundreds of deaths. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. EdChem (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, the fact that the subject has been executed alleviates the concern about BLPCRIME, thanks. However, I do still have some concerns. The story appears to have gotten very little coverage anywhere except in mostly conservative sources reviewing the Robinson book. And I note that three of the sources you cite above refer to the subject as the suspected mastermind or equivalent wording. I think I would probably be more comfortable if he was referred to in the hooks and article as, say, "alleged mastermind" and/or "so-called butcher" because I don't think we should be uncritically parroting sources which may be inclined to a particular worldview. Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the coverage is also around the release of Higbie's books (Greenwich Time source), and around the time of the acquittals in the courts-martial (one Fox and one CNN source, above):
  • From the London Daily Telegraph: A US Navy Seal accused of being involved in an assault on a suspected Iraqi terrorist mastermind has gone on trial in a case which has caused outrage across America. [7] this source clarifies that he was in Iraqi custody when he testified, and denied involvement in the Fallujah ambush - though his own trial was pending at the time.
  • From CNN: McCabe is the last of three SEALS accused of abusing Ahmed Hashim Abed, who was arrested in Iraq in September and charged with orchestrating the slayings of four U.S. contractors in Falluja, Iraq, in 2004. [8]
  • Another New York Post: Legal experts had predicted he’d get off based on the cloudy evidence in the case: the testimony of Ahmed Hashim Abed — accused of masterminding the killings of four US contractors in Fallujah in 2004 — and a Navy master at arms who claims he saw McCabe throw a punch to Abed’s gut. [9]
Having said that, it is clear that almost every source uses some variant on "alleged" before mastermind, so that is needed in the hooks, which I have modified. I've added more sources from away from the right, though the story did make most impact on the right. I've tried to avoid the extreme stuff.  :) EdChem (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That looks better, thanks. I will take a closer look at this article in the near future to try and wrap the nomination. If I haven't posted here in a day or two, feel free to ping me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: Any chance you could have a further look? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
First of all, apologies for the long delay in getting back to this one. Having said that, I can still see an issue or two here - firstly, that the article says the subject was hanged for his crimes but I couldn't verify that in the provided source. Gatoclass (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: American Spectator source (emphasis added): "Brian Westinson, a sailor assigned to guard Hashim before the terrorists's transfer to Iraqi custody (where he was subsequently tried and hanged), admitted leaving the prisoner unattended in violation of his orders." EdChem (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Well heck, how did I miss that, I read right through that article twice - I guess I should have used the search function too, my apologies EdChem. Regardless, there is still another issue, the sentence "it was DeMartino who emerged from the court-martial with a damaged reputation" reads like a BLP violation to me. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
We all miss things. In any case, how is this on DeMartino? EdChem (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding a ping to Gatoclass to keep this moving... BlueMoonset (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have made a couple of tweaks to the article with regard to NPOV and BLP, if these are acceptable to you EdChem we can continue to move forward with this nomination. I do however still have a concern about the long quote from the book, which looks excessive to me, and I'm not sure what purpose it is intended to serve. Any comment Ed? Gatoclass (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I had considered querying some of the people I usually consult in such matters about such quoting and fair use considerations. We should probably do so, just to be on the safe side, if EdChem considers the full quote important to retain. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass and BlueMoonset: Thanks for your comments. I looked at Gatoclass' edits yesterday realised they needed a long response, hence the delay. I have also been re-examining some source material. On the four recent edits, I have no issue with the first one (you are correct, it does not make sense). The second one seemed ok until I saw the third one. The third properly adds balance which I should have included originally, so thanks for that, but also removes context on the commentary, which I think is relevant. Colonel Dwight Sullivan, United States Marine Corps Reserve, was the Chief Defense Counsel for the United States for the Guantanamo military commission from 2005 to 2007 and attended most of the court-martial. He is an expert in military justice and such in courts martial, and his CAAFlog records provide analysis and expert commentary as well as recording simple facts. The final "tweak" on language (to quote the edit summary) is mostly fine, except for the word "accused", because he was more than accused. He was charged, according to this CNN source already in the article. So, I suggest changing (change highlighted in red):
Proposal: Based on intelligence reports, U.S. authorities eventually accused Ahmad Hashim Abd al-Isawi of masterminding the ambush attack.<ref name = GreenwichTimeHigbie /><ref name = CM /><ref name = CMMcCabe /><ref name = Irish /> and he was charged for the deaths upon his capture.<ref name = CNNTrial />
Changing the word "attack" to "ambush" is purely stylistic, as "attack" and "attacks" already appear in both of the preceding two sentences in the paragraph. Other alternatives might be chosen, but I thought "incident" was wishy-washy, "operation" feels too military to me, and variations on "atrocity" seem unencyclopaedically POV, even if true. Any suggestions welcome, however.
Regarding the second and third edits, the sailor in question did have his credibility questioned by more than just noting contradictions in testimony. Some reference materials:
References if you want to read, skip otherwise
  • Fox News noted his superior's praise, but also writes that "Defense witnesses on Wednesday had painted a picture of Demartino as unstable, unreliable and, after the incident with Abed, 'distraught.' According to testimony, Demartino was worried his career would be ruined because a prisoner claimed abuse on his watch, and that he would no longer have a chance for his dream job with the California Highway Patrol. This, the defense claims, gives Demartino a motive to lie. Demartino did not immediately report the alleged assault to his superiors and admits to dereliction of duty. The defense suggested that since Demartino initially said nothing, then later described seeing McCabe punch Abed, he’s an unreliable witness."
  • CAAFlog records that "witness after witness contradicted portions of his account.  I’ll post more details later.  Most of these conflicts aren't the kind of thing that two people might have different honest recollections about.  Rather, to convict, the members would have to believe that a number of officers and petty officers–SEALS and non-SEALs–are lying." He also wrote that "I truly believe that I came down here with an open mind.  This afternoon, I thought about how I would view the case if I were a member (and I disregarded the instruction not to reach a conclusion before all of the evidence was in and the case was argued).  Based on the evidence presented thus far — including the Government’s entire case-in-chief — I would conclude that the Government has not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, if this were a civil case, I would find that the defense prevails under a preponderance of the evidence standard even before seeing the complete defense case.  Maybe other observers will differ, but that’s my honest reaction to the evidence thus far."
  • His description of Abd al-Isawi's testimony was: "The rest of the afternoon was devoted to playing an audio of a deposition of Abed conducted earlier in Iraq.  The translator for the deposition, as the defense had argued, appeared to be fairly poor — and according to his own statements on the record, must have been at least 75 years old and was hard of hearing in his right ear.  During the government’s direct examination, Abed described being apprehended in his home and then flown to another facility.  He was later moved again, where, according to his testimony, while in U.S. custody and while handcuffed and blindfolded, he was kicked in the abdomen and fell to the floor.  He testified that he was then kicked several more times while on the floor.  That was followed by an extensive cross-examination, during which LT Shea — the detailed defense counsel — inquired into his background, his income, the discovery of $6,000 in U.S. currency at his house, his employment, his capture, transportation, and treatment.  About 2/3 of the way through the deposition, the defense asked for permission for LT Shea to use an easel in the courtroom to note inconsistencies in Abed’s testimony while the deposition audio was played.  Over Government objection, the military judge allowed the defense to do so during the remainder of the deposition." (Neither of these two sources are presently used I the article.)
  • The CAAFlog reference already in the article includes both observation ("MA3 Demartino described a number of conversations and encounters with petty officers and officers.  Three officers and three petty officers would specifically deny those accounts during testimony later in the day. MA3 Demartino's testimony was probably the most important portion of the court-martial.  While it seemed internally consistent, as noted above, it was inconsistent with the testimony of several other witnesses."), it goes into comment / analysis: "A Mass Communications Specialist First Class (MC1) ... testified for the defense in the afternoon, flatly contradicting portions of MA3 Demartino’s testimony." On al-Isawi: "... brought out information about Abed's suspected involvement in the killing of Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004.  The Det OIC also testified that Abed is believed to have killed hundreds of Iraqis, including cutting heads off and dumping bodies in mass grave sites" and "in the process of turning Abed over to Iraqi custody, Abed seemed to be 'hamming it up,' faking injuries.  He also testified that Abed sucked on the sore in his mouth to mix blood in with his saliva and spit it out after he heard Iraqi voices." More commentary: "The Det OIC repeatedly contradicted MA3 Demartino's accounts.  At one point, MA3 Demartino had testified that he and the Det OIC had spoken in MA3 Demartino's quarters about the detainee abuse allegation.  Unless the Det OIC is one of the world's best method actors, he had absolutely no idea what [the defense lawyer] was talking about when he asked about that alleged encounter." "The final witness for the day was an Equipment Operator First Class (EO1), who was MA3 Demartino’s LPO.  He's a reservist who has deployed to Iraq five times, he’s a former NYPD officer, he’s a current NYC fire fighter, and — oh, yeah — he's one of five candidates for a Navywide Reserve Sailor of the Year award.  And he trashed MA3 Demartino.  He specifically denied having conversations that MA3 Demartino had described during his testimony.  He also testified that even before these events, MA3 Demartino's credibility was questionable, indicating that MA3 Demartino had sometimes claimed to have accomplished tasks that he hadn't."
  • From The Virginian-Pilot [10] on al-Isawi: "Abed didn't appear in person, but his testimony was recorded and played back for the seven-member jury. He was far from a sympathetic character. In addition to his alleged involvement in the murder of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004, McCabe's lawyers said Iraqis knew Abed as "The Finisher." He was reputed to have the decapitated bodies of his victims delivered to their families' doorsteps."
Proposal (current in black, new in red): SEAL Team members offered testimony on the character of the SEALs and what they had witnessed. This included [[Carl Higbie]], who participated in the capture of al-Isawi and has written two books about the raid and its aftermath.<ref name = GreenwichTimeHigbie /> Dozens of Republican lawmakers wrote to [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] [[Robert Gates]] seeking his intervention, while [[Dana Rohrabacher]] (R-CA) called for the Pentagon to drop all charges against the SEALs.<ref name = CNNTrial /> Dan Burton (R-IN) was willing to testify for McCabe about the public support for the SEALs and the outrage at them being tried.<ref name = WTBurton /> Claims were made of unlawful command influence, alleging that Major General [[Charles T. Cleveland|Charles Cleveland]] had been inappropriately influenced as the [[Convening authority (court-martial)|convening authority]] to proceed to court-martial rather than to dismiss the trial. These were dismissed at the McCabe court-martial,<ref name = CNNTrial /> but the belief that decisions were driven by the shadow of [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse|Abu Gharib]] persists in some quarters.<ref name = Robinson2 /> Colonel Dwight Sullivan, USMCR, was the Chief Defense Counsel for the United States for the Guantanamo military commission from 2005 to 2007 and attended the court-martial; he recorded his observations and analysis at his CAAFlog site.<r.e.f CAAFlog1 [11] ><r.e.f CAAFlog2 [12] ><r.e.f CAAFlog3 which is the current CAAFlog [13] ><r.e.f CAAFlog4 [14] ><r.e.f CAAFlog5 [15] >
There were four principal areas of testimony at the McCabe court martial: direct testimony from al-Isawi and DeMartino, testimony and character evidence from SEAL team members and other witnesses, and medical evidence. al-Isawi's recorded testimony was played for the court first, in which he alleged that "while handcuffed and blindfolded, he was kicked in the abdomen and fell to the floor ... [and] then kicked several more times while on the floor."<r.e.f CAAFlog1 /> He was described as "far from a sympathetic character"<r.e.f Wiltrout2 [16] > and his testimony contained numerous inconsistencies.<r.e.f CAAFlog1 /> In addition, evidence was presented of his alleged activities in Iraq, including that he "is believed to have killed hundreds of Iraqis,"<r.e.f CAAFlog3 /> perpetrated the Fallujah killings, and earned the nickname "The Finisher" amongst Iraqis, for his reputedly having "the decapitated bodies of his victims delivered to their families' doorsteps."<r.e.f Wiltrout2 /> Evidence suggested that al-Isawi was "hamming it up" and faking injuries, including by sucking "on the sore in his mouth to mix blood in with his saliva and spit it out after he heard Iraqi voices."<r.e.f CAAFlog3 /> Medical evidence suggested the blood had come from biting a mouth ulcer<r.e.f CMMcCabe /> and that physical evidence expected from repeated kicks with military boots was weak,<r.e.f CAAFlog3 /> supporting the suggestion that al-Isawi was following the directions in the al-Qaeda manual to claim mistreatment.<r.e.f WTBurton /><r.e.f Wiltrout1 />
Following his capture, al-Isawi was to be handed over to Iraqi authorities but they were unable to accept custody until the following morning, forcing his detention in Camp Schwedler, which lacked a proper detention facility. DeMartino took responsibility for al-Isawi despite the second master-at-arms having being transferred back to the United States,<ref Wiltrout1 [17] > and admitted during direct testimony that he was consequently in dereliction of duty both in accepting the prisoner and in leaving him unattended. DeMartino admitted dereliction of duty during direct testimony.<r.e.f name = CAAFlog3 /> According to Fox News, DeMartino's account of subsequent events and conversations were His recollections were also contradicted by "a string of witnesses ... many of them Navy SEALs.," who depicted him as "unstable" and "an unreliable witness."<ref name = CMMcCabe /> Sullivan wrote that "Demartino's testimony was probably the most important portion of the court-martial"<r.e.f CAAFlog3 /> and that most of the conflicts between his testimony and that of other witnesses "aren't the kind of thing that two people might have different honest recollections about.  Rather, to convict, the members would have to believe that a number of officers and petty officers—SEALS and non-SEALs—are lying."<r.e.f CAAFlog2> The prosecution in response presented DeMartino's former superior officer as a rebuttal witness, who described his former subordinate as "one of my top sailors—I can depend on him for anything".<ref name= CMMcCabe /> The defense attorney described the prosecution as "asking the jury to take the word of a terrorist and a sailor who admitted initially lying about the incident."<ref name = CMMcCabeTelegraph /> Following the completion of the government case and even without all of the defense case having been presented, Sullivan noted that "[b]ased on the evidence presented thus far ... I would conclude that the Government has not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, if this were a civil case, I would find that the defense prevails under a preponderance of the evidence standard even before seeing the complete defense case."<r.e.f CAAFlog2 />
All three men were acquitted, with the Keefe and Huerta courts-martial taking place in Iraq to allow al-Isawi to testify in person.<ref name = CM /><ref name = CMMcCabe /><ref name = CNNacquited /> McCabe's court-martial heard evidence suggesting the blood on al-Isawi's lip was from him deliberately biting a [[mouth ulcer]].<ref name = CMMcCabe /> Robinson advanced a similar explanation in his Commentators have argued that al-Isawi was never assaulted by the SEAL team members, including Robinson who has written a book about the capture of al-Isawi and subsequent events, which he titled: ''Honor and Betrayal: The Untold Story of the Navy Seals Who Captured the "Butcher of Fallujah"—and the Shameful Ordeal They Later Endured.''<ref name = Robinson2 /> al-Isawi was in Iraqi custody<ref name = CMTelegraph /> at the time he testified in one of the courts-martial in April 2010.<ref name = CM /> He was asked directly about his responsibility for the massacre and ambush in Fallujah in 2004, and responded that "I have nothing to do with this."<ref name = CMTelegraph /> His own trial on charges of orchestrating the killings<ref name = CNNTrial /> was pending at the time of this testimony.<ref name = CMTelegraph /> al-Isawi was [[execution|executed]] by [[hanging]] for his crimes at some point prior to November 2013.<ref name = Spectator />
Thoughts? If you'd like me to put in the changes and you look from there, I can do that. The inclusion of the quotes from the book were to support the content so readers could see the source's own words, but I don't mind it being shortened as it's an editorial judgement as to what is appropriate.  :) EdChem (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay EdChem, I suggest you add your proposed changes to the article as that is probably the best place to assess them, I will probably make a few tweaks at that point and we can take it from there. Gatoclass (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I've added the changes and new references, plus archived them. Tweaks, suggestions, changes, additions, removals etc welcomed.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, I have made a few tweaks and am not done yet, but at this point I have a couple of queries, firstly, I can't confirm from the provided sources that "physical evidence expected from repeated kicks with military boots was weak", and also, I would like to know who the "Det OIC" is as that might help me to understand the evidence. Gatoclass (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass, thanks for the update. The Det OIC is the Officer in Charge of the detachment, the SEAL officer who was the direct commander of both DeMartino and McCabe. The weak physical evidence comment is only weakly supported by the CAAFlog, you are correct. I have read comments about it in other sources, the point being that if several SEALs had kicked al-Isawi while wearing combat boots, there should have been bruising (at least). IIRC, there is a source where al-Isawi is reported to have claimed the SEALs were wearing combat boots and this was contradicted by evidence that they would have changed after handing him over to DeMartino's custody and was another example why his evidence was viewed as unreliable. I'm not sure if DeMartino's evidence touching on this point was directly addressed in any source. I'll update you soon. EdChem (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the changes you have made recently:
  • I see you have distinguished between evidence and testimony, which I have been using interchangeably, so thanks for that – I'll try not to make that mistake in the future.
  • You refer to the Det OIC as a defense witness in connection to the hamming it up comment, but actually he was a government witness testifying under a grant of immunity and this comment was made under cross-examination (Synopsis of Wednesday CAAFlog). I have made alterations to address this, see what you think.
  • The other change I wonder about is the removal of the observation that al-Isawi was "far from a sympathetic character." On the one hand, a suspected terrorist who was allegedly responsible for the Fallujah massacre against US personnel (ex-military) is never likely to be seen as sympathetic by a US court-martial, so perhaps it is redundant. On the other hand it is the observation of a reporter in a reliable source, and I don't see it as UNDUE given the context and other content in the article. Thoughts?
  • I found a source on Robinson's perspective and motivation, which I think helps readers decide on his reliability / bias, so I added it and the related interview
  • I also added citations to Higbie's books and a reference supporting groups that called for the charges to be dropped.
Still looking on the medical issue, and I am also wondering about the sources which seem to use the names Brian Westinson and Kevin DeMartino interchangeably. I am wondering if Westinson is an alias used for DeMartino while he was still in the Navy (in the same way that Julio Huertas was called Sam Gonzalez in earlier reports), but haven't seen direct support for it. The accusations attributed to Westinson and DeMartino are the same, however, and the initial problem arose as there was only one master-at-arms available, who should have (by the book) refused to accept al-Isawi into his custody as a consequence. Had there been two, one leaving for a time would not have left al-Isawi unattended and there would have been a corroborating witness, two reasons why two are required for prisoner custody. I have to go for a few hours, back later. EdChem (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: How is this edit for addressing the medical evidence issue? EdChem (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
EdChem, I can't see anything about kicking or military boots in any of the four sources provided. I'm thinking we should move this discussion to the article talk page since it seems the issues are not going to be resolved as quickly as I anticipated and this thread is already getting a bit long for a DYK nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Gatoclass, al-Isawi's quote earlier in the paragraph contains the kicking allegation. I'm sure I read combat boots somewhere but certainly not in the sources here, so I've removed it. Added something on Iraqi response to the CMs for balance. Found a better google book link so removed the Robinson quotes. Happy to move to the talk page, but I'm hoping we are almost done. I still have a couple of references to archive, but I keep doing a couple then getting archive.org errors. I know I've made a lot of changes, looking forward to hearing your thoughts or seeing any other tweaks you make.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks EdChem, your latest series of edits have alleviated a lot of my concerns, particular what I saw as an overemphasis on Robinson. One still outstanding issue: the article states that "Commentators have argued that al-Isawi was never assaulted by the SEAL team members" but no other source is provided for that than Robinson. I'm not sure it matters what "commentators have argued" in any case, maybe it would be better to just say that Robinson has made that argument? Gatoclass (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I have added sources / cross-refs noting that conclusion, quoting Hartwell and a New York Post opinion writing, so it is not just Robinson, and then clarified the contrast against the Iraqi view. I'd add more Iraqi views if I knew of them. I've seen your latest few tweaks, and am ok with them. As an aisde, I note that the det OIC must have witnessed what he testified to, or he could not have testified to it, but the change you made is minor and I'm comfortable leaving it. Hopefully the light I am seeing is the end of the tunnel and not an oncoming train! That's for your efforts.  :) EdChem (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Neither here nor there for the general review but fixed the grammar in ALT3: that dash had no business being there and court-martialed and acquitted are connected by but, not and. — LlywelynII 13:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We are not quite out of the woods yet. The article states that "al-Isawi was recognised for his skill at using American rules and procedures to his own advantage" but I cannot see any such claim in the provided source. Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

When I wrote the article originally, the Google books preview of Robinson's book had most of chapter 1. I am pretty sure that your quote is based on the bit I now can't see, pp. 11-12, which speaks of al-Isawi using knowledge of tactics to draw U.S. troops into vulnerable positions and where their rules of engagement prevented them from acting until fired upon, maximising the chances of high U.S. casualties in the opening moments of the engagement. The description of al-Isawi on pages 6-7 also indicates tactical skill (as well as a ruthlessness in ensuring the local populace complied with anything he wanted.) I made the reference pp. 8-10 when I removed the quotes as that was where they were from, but forgot that I had used other parts of the chapter – and there are useful sections on the courts-martial. I will change the page references to a larger part of the chapter, perhaps pp. 6-12, but keep the present link. I am certain that it is in the Robinson reference. EdChem (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been struggling to find any time for Wikipedia over the last few days, and expect to be busy for the next few days as well. This nomination is still my number one wiki-priority and I will get back to it as soon as I can, my apologies once again for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, I have decided to update the review right away. EdChem, I have attributed the claim about the al-Qaeda handbook to U.S. authorities per WP:ATTRIBUTION WP:ASSERT, and removed the direct reference to the term "al-Qaeda handbook" as both the article on that topic and the underlying source state that the term is inaccurate. I have also removed the statement that al-Isawi was "recognized for his skill" at manipulating procedures because you don't have a page number, you can't quote the source back to me and the statement as it stands just sounds a bit dubious to me.

The other concern I have right now is that neither the Washington Times nor the New York Post have a high reputation as sources, so I am asking myself why the article needs the inclusion of opinion from these sources. Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I certainly understand being busy / swamped, I am having a similar experience lately, so please don't worry about that. As for the article content, I don't see why the choice between jihadist manual, Manchester Manual, and al-Qaeda handbook (all used for the same thing) is that important, so use whichever you like. The comment on al-Isawi's skill is in Robinson, I've read it, and that you choose not to accept my statement for something offline is irritating, but it's a small comment and certainly not worth holding up the DYK nomination, especially as the sentence in question is not used for the hook.

On sourcing, the Washington Times articles are a book review by the same author as the American Spectator piece, and an article on the views of Carl Higbie who has been arguing the courts-martial should be blamed on the Obama administration for quite a time. I would cite the interview Higbie gave directly, but could not find it, but there are right-wing sources that also reported on the interview, if you feel that is needed. I don't see why the statements which the Washington Times sources are used to support are inaccurate or particularly contentious. The New York Post source supports characterising al-Isawi as a terrorist and that he was captured by SEALs in Fallujah. These could be supplemented with more sources, if needs be. The Post is also one of the sources for the belief al-Isawi was not assaulted, supporting the claim that this view has been expressed / is held by multiple sources. The report that al-Isawi claimed he was stomped with boots comes from the NYP source and I do not know of an alternative for that, but it is directly quoted with the NYP as source included in-line, so readers may form their own view of its quality.

As a general comment, I will always try to respond to suggestions and comments to improve an article, as I have here where your comments have certainly made for a better article... but is it really still not reaching DYK standards, in your view? A 12875 / 420 = 30.65... × expansion, from 71 words and 2 different references to its present 2051 words based on 38 references, with plenty of discussion and modification, and we still aren't up to looking at the hooks? I realise that some of your comments have led me to substantial revisions and that necessitates more work / scrutiny on your part. I also readily admit that I'm having a bad week and am stressed, so I could well be coming across as grumpy. However, I would appreciate your honest appraisal as to whether this nomination might ever getting to an approval? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, in reply to your question, I think you have done a fine job on improving this nomination and yes, it's not far from approval now I think, in fact, I would probably have approved it during the last round of discussion had it not been for a couple of new concerns that arose from your otherwise very worthwhile additions. With regard to your "irritation", I regret that but given that your recollections of sources for this article have on one or two occasions appeared to be at odds with the sources to some degree, I felt that perhaps I should err on the side of caution (and I hope you won't take that as criticism - I know only too well from my own experience how easy it can be to gain misleading impressions from new material - I've lost count of the number of times I've caught myself doing the same!).
Having said that, in consideration of your latest response, I will take another look at the article and see if we can wrap this up quickly. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Gatoclass, take the time you need. I can do without going through issues being raised at ERRORS. You are correct that few of us have perfect recall, and certainly mine is imperfect. I try to state when I am unsure. I had intended to expand on the tactician point when I added it, but can't when the source is no longer available to me, and you've removed what was left so the point is moot in any case. Perhaps I am arrogant and unjustified in thinking of myself as one of the DYK contributors who is most diligent in including sourcing and contributing substantial (as opposed to barely passing) new or expanded articles, and also reviewing to a high standard, but I do, and would not want anything I've done passed when a reviewer is not satisfied with its compliance. So, please, don't pass this if you have doubts over compliance.

Having said that, I have seen so many one-line reviews that miss huge issues in an article and aren't close to DYK compliance, which usually goes without any significant consequence, and this review feels to me like it has gone way beyond the requirements for DYK. It is not perfect and incremental improvement is a good thing, and I am stressed and angry with off-wiki issues and my mood is seriously worsened by the ear infection that is driving me nuts, so my judgement could be way off, but this not a GA review. EdChem (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your ear infection EdChem, I hope you recover from it soon.

I have made a couple more tweaks to the article, if these are acceptable to you we can take this review to the next stage. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks re the ear infection, drops and antibiotics are helping, but it is now in both ears. :( Regarding your changes, I included "American" as a contrast to later Iraqi comments, but was not and am not strongly of the view it was essential. Your change is accurate and reasonable, so yeah, I have no issues with it. Next is looking at hooks / ALTs? EdChem (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I hope you are starting to feel better by now EdChem!

Before completing this review, I think I should respond to some of the comments made above, particularly the suggestion that this review has gone "beyond the requirements for DYK". I didn't respond earlier because I didn't want to get sidetracked from the review itself.

I am in my tenth year of participation at DYK and in that time, have probably reviewed as many nominations as anyone, so I think it should be clear that I know what a DYK review entails. I am prepared to overlook many flaws in an article when reviewing for DYK and indeed have copped criticism from time to time for doing so, but there are two policies that in my view can never be compromised for any article nominated for main page exposure, and they are WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I had concerns about both with regard to this particular nomination, which is why the review has been longer than normal. With regard to BLP, I initially had a concern about the subject, which was quickly resolved, but I also had concerns about DeMartino which I felt needed to be addressed. More importantly, I was concerned that this article too closely followed a narrative from the conservative side of politics that these courts-martial represented an "outrage" and a miscarriage of justice. The sources for the article are predominately from the right, while the main source, Robinson, is a novelist—somebody who makes a living from telling ripping yarns—who appears to have found a market in recent years pandering to conservatives. But I think the fact that the more mainstream media appears to have barely bothered reporting on these trials helps put these claims in perspective.

Regardless, you have clearly made a sincere effort to improve the article in response to the concerns raised EdChem, and while the article still isn't perhaps ideal from my POV, that is obviously not a DYK requirement and I think the article is now sufficiently NPOV to be featured. Gatoclass (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gatoclass, I guess I wasn't seeing your comments through those perspectives. I have around 60 DYK credits as nominator and author, so I'm not a newbie but also do not have "as many nominations as anyone." I'm also not a regular user of conservative sources, and honestly don't want to become one. I don't for one moment want to minimise the importance of BLP or NPOV, but there are a lot of nominations with major flaws which get cursory reviews. I am all for rigorous reviews, I guess this is a learning experience for me on being on the receiving end. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is new enough and long enough and passed a check for copyvio. Though I still have a couple of quibbles about NPOV, I don't think them serious enough to hold up the article for yet another round of tweaking. All four hooks are verified, but I have added quote marks to the term "Butcher of Fallujah" in ALT2 ALT1, though I am still not keen on ALT2 ALT1 and would prefer to see one of the other hooks promoted. I also took the liberty of removing the phrase "but all were acquitted" from ALT4 as I think it somewhat kills the interest, but feel free to restore the phrase EdChem if you prefer it. And thanks once again EdChem for your patience and hard work in responding to my concerns with this nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I am comfortable with the change to ALT4 and am striking ALT2 based on Gatoclass' concerns. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I meant ALT1, I have unstruck ALT2 and struck ALT1 accordingly on the assumption that you would have done the same had I not made the error. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ahmad_Hashim_Abd_al-Isawi&oldid=1021429023"