Talk:Hussein Salem Mohammed

disputed picture
Replaced transcluded image with inline image - npov tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 15:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

explanation
I reverted the poorly explained excision of the section based on the publication of this captive's medical records. The contributor who excised this section from this article excised similar sections from half a dozen other articles -- again without making an attempt to discuss their concern.

I responded to one of those excisions here. Geo Swan (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is simply wrong that i would not engage in discussions. More information about that here: User_talk:Iqinn#question


 * The wording of my edit summary might not be the best but it was sufficient for people who are familiar with the cited policies WP:NPF, WP:GRAPEVINE. And i thought you were. I apologies when you think there were words in the edit summary that offended you. That was never my intention. Iqinn (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical records
Additional explanation to my edit summary and the related policies.

"not relevant for his notability" The release of medical records of Guantanamo detainees might be interesting in the broader topic of Guantanamo, as for example some of the detainees claim they have suffered health damages. But this is the biography of Hussein Salem Mohammed and there are no secondary sources in the article that discuss his personal health to a level where it could become relevant. The inclusion of this material is not relevant to Hussein Salem Mohammed's notability and can not be included under WP:NPF.

"insufficient sourced" from WP:NPF The section is based on a primary source and therefore it can not be included.

"private information that could be possible harmful" Medical information are very personal information. All countries around the world i know have laws against the publishing of medical records. Publishing of medical information is restricted unless the individual agrees to it. Why? I can easily imagine a lot of situations where this could be harmful to an individual. An insurance company could reject to sell him a policy or potential employer could reject to give him a job...

Only one of these three reasons would justify a removal. This is not even a border-line case here. The material needs to be removed as soon as possible in accordance with our policies. Iqinn (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. --Six words (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WRT "insufficiently sourced"
I asked Iqinn, back when he first stated this concern, if he was taking the position the sources provided were insufficient what sources he would recognize as sufficient. He chose not to answer.

This is the official source: Here are some third party commentaries on the records:

What Iqinn seems to be overlooking is that there is no other party in a position to weigh the captives. Captives' lawyers have regularly requested their clients be examined by third party medical experts. And those requests have all been declined. The only independent visitors the captives receive is from the ICRC. Cheney and Rumsfeld were furious when the first camp commander allowed the ICRC access. But the ICRC is allowed access to captives because they have always honored their promise to keep their reports strictly confidential. Geo Swan (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first two sentence are absolutely wrong. I have answered you. I told you it does not matter who creates the health records and how they were released. The evaluation of this records is also difficult as only selected information of the total health records have been released. Anyway primary sources should not been used for individuals who are relative unknown. And we need multiply reliable secondary sources as they may be harmful. We can include them after the health of Hussein Salem Mohammed has been discussed there. Iqinn (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WRT "private information that could be possible harmful"


The DoD is in a long battle to suppress the publication of material about the Guantanamo captives. Initially they wanted to withhold everything -- even the captive's identities. They fought very hard to suppress the publication of material about the captives. But they chose to fight based on the claim that they were protecting the captive's privacy. US District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected these arguments. This triggered the release of over 20,000 pages of documents. The medical records were also published based on a FOIA request. I think it was a separate FOIA request.

Iqinn has called these records "very personal". Elsewhere he calls the information "sensitive". What these records show is his height, his arrival date, his weight upon arrival, and that his weight was in the normal range, for all but two of his weigh-ins. This is hardly "sensitive" information. Iqinn asks us to believe censoring this information protects Hussein Salem Mohammed. Iquinn suggests that some future potential employer is going to tell him:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * ''"we don't care that the US held you for seven years, telling the entire world you were one of the worst terrorists in the world.
 * ''"But that your weight was in the normal range, and then showed two spikes to overweight alarms us so much we have decided not to hire you. We don't care if you might be a terrorist.  But we can't stand the overweight, or even those who were even briefly overweight.'""
 * ''"But that your weight was in the normal range, and then showed two spikes to overweight alarms us so much we have decided not to hire you. We don't care if you might be a terrorist.  But we can't stand the overweight, or even those who were even briefly overweight.'""


 * }

Iqinn suggests that publishing Hussein Salem Mohammed's weight is against the law, because he believes it might be illegal in "countries around the world". This information was published in the USA. US law applies. It was published by the DoD, after the Associated Press brought suit against the DoD for failing to comply with FOIA requests. The DoD, in its explanation for not publishing information about the captives, did not claim "national security", it claimed the publication of this material would violate their privacy.

US courts have consistently rejected this DoD claim. This information was published because the US government rejected this claim. So, let's not claim that this information violates any laws. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not paraphrase me!
 * It is absolutely uncivil to put out such quotes with statements of things that i might have suggested. This Quote is absolute wrong. I have never said or suggested anything like that. I suggest you take this quote away.


 * Secondly, you are contradicting yourself. Here you say, the spikes just show he had some overweight. But in "Discussion please..." you argue that it looks like he had been force-fed. (What could lead to long term health problems.)


 * Yes a potential employee or insurance company can interpret this records in any way and it could definitely harm him if he would be rejected because of that. They are very sensible when it comes to the health issues. No strong reason to included them until his health has been discussed in multiply reliable secondary sources. Iqinn (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion please...


A contributor made this excision with the edit summary: "Guantanamo Medical records: I agree that medical records should generally be omitted, unless they are _very_ relevant - say, tracking weight during a hunger strike".

I can't help wondering whether the exciser missed the final two sentences of the passage they excised: "His records indicate his weight jumped from 150.5 pounds on April 11 2006 to 198 pounds on April 18 2006. His weight dropped back down to 145 pounds by May 15 2006. He gained 30 pounds between July 19 2006 to August 9 2006. He dropped 35 pounds between August 9 2006 and September 24 2006."

We shouldn't sensationalize what our references report. We shouldn't try to drive our readers to a particular conclusion. We should neutrally present the facts, and let our readers draw their own conclusions. But here, on the talk page, let me point out that his April 2006 weight gain of 47.5 pounds, in a single week is inconsistent with health. He only weighed 150 pounds. This is a gain of almost one third of his body weight, in a single week.

His second sudden weight gain, in August 2006, of thirty pounds in twenty days, an increase of 20 percent of his body weight, is also inconsistent with health.

I don't know why his records show these sudden spikes. Any guesses you or I might make, privately, shouldn't be hinted at in article space. Geo Swan (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The records have been remove because they are private to move the records here and to start discussing his health is not necessary and should not be done. I have stated three requirements that need to be given for an inclusion above. None of them are given. Iqinn (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As Geo points out in his summary, we are not discussing his medical weight, we are reporting it and not drawing conclusions or pushing the reader in any direction. WP is merely stating that the DoD reported him gaining 50lbs in a week. That, I would say, is a notable fact. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sherurcij may i remind you, in one of your edit summary you label these records as: "...information on his physical well-being while in captivity..." Now Geo Swan and you point out that the records show weight fluctuations that might show he had been force-fed. Now we go to all the records of the other prisoner calculate the weight and decide which one may have been force-fed?
 * We would find multiply reliable secondary sources if it would be obvious and notable that Hussein Salem Mohammed had been force-fed. But we do not have multiply reliable secondary source that say so. Therefore we can not include these records. Iqinn (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

rough work
These links to the page numbers within the OARDEC documents may be useful to other contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another useful source is the The Guantanamo Docket it is an interactive database provided and updated by the New York Times. The database is searchable and has the Pentagon documents (CSRT and ARB) included. Additional documents and reliable New York Times research regarding the detainees at Guantanamo are also provided. This is the link to the documents and research regarding Hussein Salem Mohammed. IQinn (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)