Talk:Tariq Mahmood (detainee)

References formatting
Many scholarly papers place footnotes on clauses within sentences. But this is rare in wikipedia articles, and I moved all references to the end of the sentences in which they occurred.

I resist the temptation of reformat the references into my preferred style. I resist doing so as it warring over reference style seriously erodes the utility of diffs of different versions. It can make articles look like they have been massively changed, when they were hardly changed at all.

I am going to add new references in my preferred style, and I request those who don't like my style to leave the references as is, just as I will leave theirs.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's good that you resist that urge. That'd be unproductive. And WP:MOS/WP:CITE does state a preference for a singular citing style, and specifically on punctuation even in mid-sentence where cites refer to different statements. Thanks for your additions otherwise. JFHJr (㊟) 19:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:CITE says "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." So, where, exactly do you think WP:CITE states the preference for references in the middle of the sentence?  I had prepared to add a bunch of new references, and new material to the article, and got an edit conflict, due to your revisions.  Are you planning to work on this article today?  If not, how about refraining from reverting my good faith edits?  If you are planning on working on it, at the same time as I am, let's try to figure out how to do so where wer aren't impeding one another.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'm done for the moment; have at it. Sorry about the edit conflict. I do know that sucks. I hope your browser's back button still had the edits you'd made.
 * There were some edits I didn't touch, by the way; I reverted only where two cites supported separate statements that were joined together as clauses. It makes verification easier. Here, for example, the phrase "alleged to have...ties to al-Qaeda" was previously tagged as weasel wording. The cite was provided specifically to support that language. There are several other cites at the end of the sentence that either don't directly support that wording or that might be considered less reliable. A glance at the examples at wp:cite show the practice is acceptable here, as well as under the language you quoted. Otherwise, I removed excessive spacing and carriage returns for better readability in the edit screen. JFHJr (㊟) 19:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This article may contain parts that are misleading
see here Jrwikieditor (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Jrwikieditor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a permanently blocked contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of sources
On 30 October 2011, Tariq Mahmood was reported as possibly among British Guantanamo detainees scheduled to be released under a repatriation deal to take place around 25 December, though his presence at Guantanamo could not be confirmed.

No the source does not say this - in addition "reported" should be avoided. Why not name the source? In this case here an outdated tabloid press article that is presented with a misleading publishing date. Jrwikieditor (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Jrwikieditor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a permanently blocked contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there was any bad faith here. There seems to be something wrong with the Daily Mail site.  The Daily Mail site bears today's date, bore today's date, when it was added to the article.  Someone, whoever referenced it, got confused.  That Daily Mail article dates back to 2004 or 2005: The ages listed in the article are wrong; the article lists all nine UK captives as still held in the camp, when they started to be repatriated in 2004 or 2005.


 * Who says the Daily Mail is a tabloid? Their listing of these nine men in 2004 would have been solid reporting, not tabloid reporting, as the DoD didn't publish the captives' names until 2006-05-15.


 * For what it is worth the DoD's official list of captives was deceptive. It did not list some former captives of the CIA's clandestine interrogation centers who had been wrung dry, and in some cases driven insane, who were transferred to Camp Strawberry Fields in Guantanamo in 2003.  It is possible that Tariq Mahmood was held in Guantanamo in Camp Strawberry.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has accused you of bad faith. The question is if you have the WP:COMPETENCE to work on BLP"s. The large number of serious mistakes you have performed suggest that.

You do not know or do not understand that the Daily Mail is a tabloid".

You are not able to interpret sources properly. The context of the article did not leave any doubt that the publishing date you added had to be wrong, and there is nothing wrong with this website.

You are not able to avoid POV or you are not able to perform a basic Google search.

Your actions and reply suggest that you do not care about WP:BLP.

You are not able to correct your mistakes.

You relies on WP:OR and speculation instead of sticking to reliable sources.

You do not understand the issue even after it has been pointed out to you. Instead you concentrate on the Red herring in your reply.

I haven't seen anything like that. Jrwikieditor (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Jrwikieditor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a permanently blocked contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)