Talk:Saif-ur-Rehman Mansoor

Guantanamo connection

I removed the parts of information that has not been or can not be verified by the given primary sources. Strong BLP concerns because poorly sourced. IQinn (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, is this all the explanation you plan to provide?

Although you frequently assert this, it seems to me you have never offered a valid, policy based explanation as to why you call the OARDEC memos "primary sources".

WRT verification, you have frequently lapsed from WP:VER by arguing that information in the OARDEC memos is not true. It is not our role to decide whether or not the information in WP:RS is true. Making editorial decisions based on what we personally regard as true lapses not only from WP:VER, but from WP:NPOV and WP:OR. What matters is that the information in the memos is verifiable.

Please be more specific about these BLP issues. Geo Swan (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all i have to say your language is very rude and i would like to remind you on WP:CIVIL

WRT "it seems to me you have never offered a valid, policy based explanation as to why you call the OARDEC memos "primary sources"" That is simply false i have done so multiple times.

WRT "Making editorial decisions based on what we personally regard as true lapses not only from WP:VER, but from WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I agree and have always agreed to that.

WRT "you have frequently lapsed from WP:VER by arguing that information in the OARDEC memos is not true." I have never done so. That is simply false

Poorly sourced negative information about living people. What the OARDEC memos mean, how reliable they are or how they can be interpreted is absolutely unclear. We can only include the interpretation of these memos made by experts who have publish their findings in reliable sources. IQinn (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WRT your third paragraph, thank you for going on record as being commmited to full compliance to WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I'll save a diff to this comment, and simply remind you of your own comment if it seems to me you have lapsed again, OK?

You write: "What the OARDEC memos mean, how reliable they are or how they can be interpreted is absolutely unclear."

1. The memos have clear surface meanings. Could you please explain why you characterize them as "absolutely unclear"?
2. Official government documents are always taken to be reliable sources for that government's official position. When the wikipedian who cites a government document is careful to make sure their coverage of that document is properly attributes then there is no WP:reliability problem.

You write:

"We can only include the interpretation of these memos made by experts who have publish their findings in reliable sources."

Please re-read the relevant wikidocuments. For instance, you claim the OARDEC memos are "primary documents". I have strongly disagreed with this claim, but, if, for the sake of argument, this was correct, I think you have overlooked this passage from the policy: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." In other words, interpretations that go deeper than the surface meaning of a document require additional WP:RS. But when the document clearly states a connection then a properly cited and attributed statement is completely compliant with policy. Are you disputing whether the memos in question clearly stated there was a connection between those captives and Saifullah Mansur?

Of course the OARDEC memos completely fulfill all the criteria to be recognized as secondary sources. They are not "close to the event". They are not uncritical quotes of documents that are primary documents. They were drafted by authors whose job was read documents from other agencies, and synthesize them. Wikipedia contributors are not allowed to synthesize information. But we expect this from the authors of secondary sources. And the OARDEC authors did this. Their job was to read those other documents, collate them, reconcile discrepancies, leave out information that had been rebutted or wasn't credible, and then boil them down and summarize what was sometimes hundreds of pages to just a couple of pages.

I have explained to you, literally dozens of times, why the OARDEC memos should be recognized as fulfilling all the requirements of a secondary source.

I remember you repeating the assertion that the OARDEC documents couldn't be trusted because they weren't "independent". I pointed out that this assertion was based on a misinterpretation of the relevant wikidocuments. WP:BIO requires two kinds of independence.

1. The references that establish notability can't be written by the actual subject of the article, or anyone who could be perceived as being in a conflict of interest, like their family, friends or lawyers. Well, memos written about a subject, by a third party, are "independent from the subject".
2. The second kind of independence WP:BIO requires is for the references to be "intellectually independent". If you re-read the policy you will see the policy will not allow documents that uncritically repeat long verbatim quotes from primary dcuments to be considered "independent" from those initial primary documents. Well the OARDEC memos don't do that. So the OARDEC memos are "independent" using the two meanings of independence laid out in WP:BIO.

I honestly believe the above fully rebuts your claims the memos lack independence. Now if you are using some other meaning of "independent" please understand I don't believe you have ever cited the wikidocument upon which that meaning is based.

Is your claim that the memos aren't independent based on criticisms of the fairness and accuracy of the memos by the captives' lawyers, or human rights workers? Their criticisms could also be considered WP:RS, depending where they were published. If you have found specific criticisms of a specific captive's memo then a neutrally written, and properly cited and attributed summary of those criticisms certainly does belong in the article about that captive -- together with the OARDEC memo. You can't argue to suppress the OARDEC memo because you are convinced by the criticisms of the memo in another document, when both documents are WP:RS. That kind of argument lapses from WP:NPOV.

If your claim that the memos aren't independent is based on your own interpretation of independence then, no offense, you are lapsing from WP:NPOV, and WP:OR and WP:VER. Geo Swan (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No offence but it is you who is lapsing from WP:NPOV, and WP:OR and WP:VER and WP:BLP.

And no offence but the length and structure of your reply reminds me on filibustering, WP:LAWYERING and WP:Game and WP:DISRUPT.

It has never been shown that OARDEC can be seen as a secondary source for most of the information. OARDEC is a United States military body responsible for organizing the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT). It is simply a laughable to claim they are independent. :)) These are OARDEC documents and the allegations in the documents are allegations brought forward by OARDEC and judged by the US military. Simply laughable your claim that the US military body OARDEC would be independent from these allegations, from Guantanamo (that is run by the US military) or from the Tribunals that are run by the US military (OARDEC). I repeat OARDEC is a United States military body responsible for organising Combatant Status Review Tribunals. No offence but your claim is laughable that they would be a secondary source for their own papers is simply laughable and disruptive.

So let me repeat this here. These are poorly sourced negative information about living people that need multiple independent secondary sources for verification before they can be included. IQinn (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Geo does not as far as I know claim that OARDEC is independent. Despite suggestions that Geo is in some way "on the US Government's side" the information he has presented does not particularly paint the government case in a good light, even if in some cases it does not paint the detainees in a good light. To suggest that using the OARDEC documents to substantiate the fact that the US Government made claims about a detainee constitutes unsubstantiated negative personal information about the detainee is so wide of the mark as to be the reverse of the case. In general the information presented in the OARDEC documents tends to, at least show that the USG case was extremely weak. The more explicit the citations are in this case the less negative impact on the people involved. For example we could cite "less primary" sources (for a typical detainee) saying that the USG had evidence that X had bomb making equipment, associated with Taliban and trained at a terrorist camp, or we could use the OARDEC document that says he had a Casio watch, bought a watermelon from a street trader and took a first aid course. the second seems to me far preferable unless one has a hidden agenda. The definition of "primary source" is de facto mutable, and depends on what the item is being used for, and indeed the policy needs not be too over-zealously applied. For example we have extensive citations of RFCs, which are primary sources, bible verses, poetic text, and in sections entitled "news coverage" we cite news, where we should in theory cite a survey of the news. Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

You have been coming out recently in favor of supporting Geo Swan at MfD where you added almost a docent similar keep votes in favor of his posistion without addressing the arguments and in a period of minutes. You have been touted multiple times for that at ANI.

No offence but your reply does not address the issue and the given arguments. You might rephrase it. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, there are some problems with this removal, and in the reason given.

1. "Negative" is irrelevant - and it is also POV. Let us put that to one side - and the reason given, it's not important what is important is BLP.
2. The key word is "contentious". The facts stated are not contentious.
   1. "Four Guantanamo captives had their extrajudicial detention justified, in part, because they were alleged to have been associated with Saifullah Rahman Mansour."

No one is denying that this is the case - we are not stating that they were associated, that it would have been a bad thing if they had been, that it would be a valid reason to detain them or even that it was the real reason. It is if course theoretically possible that one or more of the captives didn't exist, or that someone is spoofing the military website to give us false documents, but within the bounds of reason, any reasonable observer would conclude that there were four detainees who underwent a process in which it was alleged that they were associated with Saifullah Rahman Mansour, and that this was part of the information presented in the process to justify their detention. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

1. 1. "The extrajudicial detention of a fifth Guantanamo captive, Ali Shah Mousavi, was justified, in part, because he had worked as a medic for the father, Nasrullah Mansour, when they resisted the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, during the 1980s."

Again what in this could be considered contentious or libellous (except to the USG) ? Mousavi's role is documented elsewhere and even if it wasn't it is hardly contentious to say that someone worked as a medic. Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

WRT: "Negative" is irrelevant - and it is also POV. Let us put that to one side - and the reason given, it's not important what is important is BLP.

No offence but this is and has always been important and we can not simply ignore that.

WRT: "Four Guantanamo captives had their extrajudicial detention justified, in part, because they were alleged to have been associated with Saifullah Rahman Mansour."

I would love to include that into the article together with the names of the men. Please provide appropriate references for the verification of that information and others you may want to include. OARDEC documents can not be use to verify OARDEC information. OARDEC is an US millitary body who is running the Tribunals and the US military is running Guantanamo.. Just read above - IQinn (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP explicitly states that whether something is perceived as "negative" is irrelevant.

Clearly the OARDEC documents are the key source of information about the OARDEC process. Attempting to insist that a sanitising layer of commentary be inserted for the sake of it is puerile. If we were commenting on the process, saying it was good, bad or indifferent, based on the OARDEC documents that would constitute OR, but we are not. If we were relying (solely) on the OARDEC documents to support allegations about the detainees, then there might be a BLP issue (but not, for example, if the OARDEC document says "X claimed he was a school teacher" - it would be wholly unexceptional to report in X's article "X told the OARDEC Tribunal that he was a school teacher, working in..." ) but we are not. We are making wholly uncontentious statements about what are, admittedly very contentious processes about a contentious situation. Attempting to force the uncontentious parts of it to be deleted does not serve us well. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

masool

I removed information that needs to be verified by multiple secondary sources. The given source does not even allow for the assumption that this is the individual of this Biography. BLP concerns because poorly sourced negative information. IQinn (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you determine that being the masool in Pakistan is negative? This seems to be an NPOV position. Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Article moved

The previous form of the name was unsourced and did not make sense. "Saif-ur-Rehman" is a single name. Saifullah is a different name with the same meaning (sword of God). "Saif-ur" and "Saifullah Rahman" are just horrible mixtures. (To write "Rehman" or "Rahman" is just a trivial transliteration choice.) SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)