Talk:Amir Yakoub al-Amir Mahmoud

Interpretation of sources
The questionable Guantanamo documents of Amir Yakoub al-Amir Mahmoud' Combatant Status Review Tribunal and Administrative Review Board are are 18 pages long. How do we choose which parts to include into this BLP? IQinn (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same way we decide which parts of a newspaper article to include? Using all the facts that to shed light on the person? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You think we can compare these documents with newspaper articles or how would you describe their nature? And how would you choose these "facts" from a collection of 18 pages without misinterpreting them? The ARB has for example three rounds and the round that we do not include could present a very different picture. IQinn (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Include all sources, list all facts. Cite them to their sources. The usual procedure, as far as I can tell. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think we should include all 18 pages into the article? If not, how would you choose these "facts" from a collection of 18 pages without misinterpreting them? The ARB has for example three rounds and the round that we do not include could present a very different picture. IQinn (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary and interpretation of the "Testimony" part of the CSRT
My last edit has been reverted. I would like to discuss this here. Let me first further explain the reasoning behind this edit.

Prior to this edit i have clarified all parts in the article that are direct quotes from the transcipts of the Tribunals by putting them inside the {quotation} template.

When i came to the Testimony section i noticed that this part was not a quote but a short summary and interpretation of the testimony most likely produced by the WP editor himself. It is very biased and in my view a misinterpretation of this part.

That's the summary and interpretation (Link to same section in the article)

Compare that to the original five pages that have been reframed under "Testimony".

Page one: Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement

Page two: Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement

Page three: Tribunal member questions

Page four: Tribunal member questions

Page five: Tribunal member questions / Tribunal president question

Get the point? Summaries and interpretation of these documents are not to do by WP editors because they can lead to misinterpretations as i have shown here. I do not doubt the good intention of the editor who put this on the page but it is (lets phrase it nicely) not encyclopedic.

I would like to ask the editor who reverted me if he now could agree with my reasoning and my wish to remove it again. Or if there is anybody else who disagrees with the removal? Or if there are more questions and things to discuss what i am willingly to do. IQinn (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)