Talk:Abu Zubaydah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Saudi Arabia (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
 

Needs strong editing, over-written[edit]

Editors have worked hard on this article, but now it needs strong editing to reduce the duplication and repetition. There is no reason to have five or more cites for the same information, or to have quotes from 17 Bush administration officials about how important they thought Zubaydah was. That just means they stayed on the same political message. Please, this is an encyclopedia article, not a compendium of everything written by every news outlet on every point that is being made. It is hard to wade through. There is a full, detailed article on the Torture Memos, for instance. Although they relate to Zubaydah, everything about them should not be repeated here, in what is supposed to be his bio article. There is UNDUE WEIGHT being given to topics that are covered elsewhere; although the enthusiasm for reporting and outrage about the case are understandable, they have to be reined in to make a good article. Similarly, there is material elsewhere about how the Bush administration tried to create links between Iraq and al-Qaeda to justify war. Parkwells (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Original research - too many primary documents[edit]

The sections "Discrepancies in charge sheets", "Links to other foreign agents" and the following one seem to be OR - original research, as they draw from and interpret primary documents of the charge sheets, and CSRT testimony. First, editors are supposed to use secondary sources. Secondly, as the CSRTs were determined to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2006, I think it is especially questionable to be using them as sources. Some editors seem to be pushing a POV that Zubaydah should have been charged - noting that he is referred to in the charges of other detainees, for example. But, I think there is much we do not know. No secondary sources are offered related to these assertions. I think most of this content should be removed - or at least everything that is not supported by secondary sources. This is really over-reaching. Parkwells (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Parkwell's statement is correct. There are enormous number of primary document refs. (Some are links to dead pdf files) We must find reliable sources, secondary sources. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Focus on the man[edit]

This article has become a coatrack for too much material on the Torture Memos, political ins and outs, discussions of enhanced interrogation techniques. While some of the memos were prompted by the CIA holding Zubaydah as the first major prisoner, the issues are larger than he and belong in issue articles, not buried in this biography. Moving such material out as appropriate to other main articles.Parkwells (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bias is overwhelming!? This article is not "a bio," it is "a bias."[edit]

This article is a one-sided screed that could not have been written in a more pro-Zubaydah manner if it had been written entirely by his own defense team!? Its sourcing is exceedingly dubious. The bias is extreme and very unusual for a a wikipedia article. May it not be indicative of the biographies for the other remaining GITMO detainees. It should be entirely deleted unless re-written. I am appalled that there is not at least a disclaimer (like this) warning the reader about the fundamental flaws in this article.Edward Carr Franks, PhD 03:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Ed Franks, May 2, 2013.

Abu Zubaydah article violates virtually all criteria for serious scholarship.[edit]

This article is exceedingly biased, filled with unsourced material, and also filled with material which "seems" to be properly cited but if the source is scrutinized it is quickly clear that the claims being made go well beyond what the source indicates. The article is written as if it were quite literally authored by the subject's defense counsel. It even makes assertions about the "state of mind" of the the US personnel involved, suggesting at one point that the US "refused" to believe the subject was not guilty! That can only be claimed if you know that the US "knew" the person was really not guilty, but nevertheless refused to accept what they admitted they knew?! That requires a rather extreme level of insight into the motivations of the US personnel involved, and is certainly not discernible from the citation. At best, one could say the "US rejected the subject's claims of innocence." We know that. That is a fact. We don't know whether the rejection was "due to an unwillingness to believe it." In any event, at the very least, if this article is determined to somehow be suitably scholarly, then there should be a banner warning the reader that there is some controversy as to whether the article is biased and/or written by interested parties, and/or written by those who have a very specific anti-GITMO agenda to promote. I've seen such "controversy" banners before on a number of articles that are far less offensive to scholarship than this one. I can't begin to understand why this article has survived un-flagged this long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfranks (talkcontribs) 23:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)