Talk:Wazir Akbar Khan (Kabul)

Could you please explain...
This edit removes a properly referenced paragraph, with the edit summary:

First, the first sentence of the paragrpah starts with "According to Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts..." WP:NPOV requires what we wikipedia contributors write to be written from a neutral point of view. It doesn't require all of our references to be written from a neutral point of view. All it requires is that assertions that would lapse from NPOV if we wrote them have to be properly attributed. And that first sentence fully complies with the obligation to properly attribute the assertion. Can you please explain why you don't recognize that the obligation to properly attribute the assertion was met?

You called the references "unreliable". Is that different than your assertions elsewhere that similar references were "questionable"? Sorry, try as I might I was unable to find any place where you explained what policy you throught authorized you to characterize those earlier references as "questionable".

American intelligence analysts may have been completely wrong. There may have been zero al Qaeda presences in the Wazir Akbar Khan neighborhood. Or the American intelligence analysts may have exagerrated. Some al Qaeda leaders may have had private homes in this neighborhood. Al Qaeda may have operated facilities for receiving potential recruits and barracks for already trained al Qaeda members who were between assignments, or who were on leave -- but surrounded by lots of neighbours who were ordinary rich Afghans. In theory I guess it is possible that the intelligence analysts assertions were literally true, that the al Qaeda presence in the neighborhood was overwhelming, where non al-Qaida visitors and residents had to pass visible al Qaeda sentries everywhere they went in this neighborhood.

I don't know the actual truth. I don't have to know the actual truth. I very strongly suspect you don't know the actual truth. You too don't have to know the actual truth. Because our policies, WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR, require us to use what our WP:RS say -- even when we personally disagree with them. Even if you or I or some other contributor had been a secret agent, stationed in that neighborhood in early and mid 2001, and were in a position to know, for a certain fact, that there was an al Qaeda sentries patrolling all the neighborhood's streets, and stationed at every corner, that too would be irrelevant. If you, I or some other contributor had been a secret agent, stationed there in 2001, who knew the truth for a certain fact, unless we had written a book, or been interviewed by a WP:RS, our knowledge of the the actual truth would still be prohibited from being expressed in article space by NPOV, VER, NOR, because we would not be an RS.

Were the analysts assertions based on information from extrreme interrogation methods? It is possible. It is also possible the assertions were based on surreptiously intercepted cell phone conversations, or al Qaeda documents or other evidence found abandoned in houses in the neighborhood, or to interviews with the innocent civilian bystanders left behind after al Qaida members fled.

What we need to be concerned with is not whether the assertions were accurate or reliable reflections of the actual conditions in Wazir Akbar Khan in 2001. What we need to be concerned with is whether the assertions accurately and reliablely reflect the analysts official position.

Finally, I don't understand why you wrote my contribution was "put together in violation of WP:OR." Geo Swan (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, As a courtesy to other to other contributors, could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries? Geo Swan (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My edit summary is an edit summary nothing more or less it follows common editing practice. Sure i will discuss edits on the talk page if somebody raises valid arguments, as i always have done.


 * But that's all WP:TL;DR. Could you please reduce it to an acceptable size and few arguments and points at a time. That would be helpful. I think your overlong filibustering responses have been a problem in our past discussions. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You asserted that my contribution violated WP:OR in this edit summary, and in close to a dozen other edit summaries yesterday alone. You didn't explain why you asserted my contributions were WP:OR on any of those talk pages.  And you still haven't explained how this contribution violated WP:OR.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please be more careful with fact. "Close to a dozen other edits summaries yesterday alone" That is wrong.


 * Also please be more careful when writing articles you have frequently violated WP:OR please review this policy. It is one of our most important.


 * The contribution you made in this article violated WP:SYN. Please do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. IQinn (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have made a claim of WP:SYN. I request that if you assert a good faith contributor's contribution lapses from compliance from policy you make a meaningful attempt to explain how you think the contribution lapsed from policy.


 * In this particular case please explain what conclusion are you asserting the passage you excised made that was not in the sources? Geo Swan (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)