Talk:Samir Naji Al Hasan Moqbel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

disputed picture[edit]

Replace transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 03:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update[edit]

There has been a burst of news about Moqbel -- enough to justify restoring a full article about him. Almost 300 people came here looking for an article about Moqbel earlier today -- looking in vain, in fact. Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article reads like a press release and contains factual inaccuracies[edit]

For example, in his Op-Ed to the Times, he only denies being Osama Bin Laden's body guard. He does not deny association with terrorism, or deny being a fighter, as the article states. In fact, he omits any discussion of the time period in which he is accused of being an Al Qaeda fighter. Later the article describes what his threat to prison officials was (low) and intelligence value (medium) while omitting the same document characterized his threat assessment to the US as high. This creates a prejudicial picture of the information publicly available about him. (69.86.115.143 (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Did you read the transcript from his 2004 CSR Tribunal? Did you read the memo he wrote for his 2006 annual status review hearing? If you haven't, then please do so. I think if you read his 2004 testimony, or his 2006 memo, you will agree that he unequivocally denied any role in terrorism.
With regard to the observation "Later the article describes what his threat to prison officials was (low) and intelligence value (medium) while omitting the same document characterized his threat assessment to the US as high. This creates a prejudicial picture of the information publicly available about him." After literally hundreds of discussions, over several years, over whether the conclusions and observations in the DoD documents should be repeated in articles about Guantanamo captives, the consensus was that they should not. However, when scholarly articles or the mainstream press quote those conclusion and observations, we are prepared to include them in our articles. We do this because it is the journalists, scholars, and their editors who are considered authoritative, verifiable, WP:reliable sources. They have made the editorial judgment as to whether the observation or conclusion merited publication. So, we include them, properly attributed, to make clear this is not the position of the Wikipedia, but rather the judgment that the conclusion or observation was worth publishing was made by that publication.
In the passage you criticize it may have been true that the 2008 JTF-GTMO assessment did characterize his threat to the US as high. But, the newspaper only quoted the portion I repeated in the article. If you find another RS that quotes or summarizes the threat to the US you think belonged then, by all means, I encourage you to include that information and to cite that reference.
So, no offense, but I disagree that not including DoD observations and conclusions, that are not published elsewhere, shows bias.
FWIW, in those discussions, I argued that the DoD documents should count as sufficiently reliable that we could quote, summarize or paraphrase their conclusions and observations. But, as time went on, mine became a minority opinion, and that is why I would no longer directly include observations you think I showed bias by discluding. Geo Swan (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that in the NY Times Op-Ed he makes no such claim, yet any reasonable parsing of the phrasing you reverted to implies he did make such a claim in that article at that time. It is simply factually incorrect to suggest, state, or imply he denied any association with terrorism in the NY Times Op-Ed, regardless of him denying associations to terrorism at other points. If you would like to add a line, paragraph, or phrasing to include a note that he did in previous statements with citations, I would be open to something of the sort. Ironically, part of the relevance of this is that we do not know whether the NY Times would have published his statement had he made such a claim, and as you pointed out above, there might be issues with reputable sources. Do you have reputable sources to back up the statements made in the CSR Tribunal or his 2006 Memo? While I do not agree with this thinking that primary sources, such as the JTF-GTMO assessment, should not be accepted on their face (I think its patently ridiculous unless there is an objection or question that the document is authentic, and I thought it was scholarly consensus that the Wikileaks document dump from which this came was considered authentic) you cannot use it as a counter argument to me, and then not adhere to such restrictions yourself. I would ask if you do add such a line, to make sure it is properly sourced and if you are citing an unsworn statement, it should be noted in the text, not just the citation, that it is a summary of an unsworn statement. Again, I am not objecting to the assertion he may have denied association with terrorism in the past, but I think we can let the facts in evidence speak for themselves, would rather provide readers with as much information as possible, and his omission of such a broad denial in the NY Times Op-Ed is a fact. On this issue, there is no question: the line must be changed, and frankly, I am at a loss as to why you would revert my change. My change was factually correct and supported by the primary source text of his op-ed. If anything, you should have added the information you provided in an appropriate place, and not deleted my changes.
As to my complaint regarding bias, your argument while well put and potentially persuasive, is not so for two reasons. First, the text of the document cited to make those statements about the US' assessment contains reference to what I feel was omitted prejudicially. In fact, the Russia News article reads "According to a secret 2008 dossier on Moqbel drafted by the Pentagon and obtained and published by WikiLeaks, the detainee’s name has been found on al-Qaeda documents, and he allegedly admitted during at least one of the interrogation sessions that he has been subjected to regularly for over a decade to taking up arms with the group. But in that same detainee assessment released by the whistleblower site, DoD officials say Moqbel poses a low threat to prison personnel and is of only medium intelligence value. The Pentagon says Moqbel is a high risk detainee, “as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests and allies.”" This is from Reliable Source used to authenticate the JTF-GTMO dossier, and to underscore my point, it includes the material the omission of which I view to be prejudicial. To note only those two facts when the article includes significantly more is wrong.
Second, while I was not present for this discussion which I am taking your word achieved consensus, in this instance the NY Times itself has published this document, meaning it has already met the publication threshold required. (http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/43-samir-naji-al-hasan-moqbel). I do not know the details of this discussion, what it focused on, etc... but the NY Times has published it, and the NY Times is a reputable/reliable/authoritative source. Even more so, in your edit, you cite a document published there (OARDEC (2004). "Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement". Department of Defense. Retrieved 2013-04-15. Works related to ISN 043 -- Summarized Unsworn Detainee Statement at Wikisource). "To the office of the administrative board to review detend" (in English). Department of Defense. Retrieved 2013-04-15. Works related to ISN 043 -- statement of 2006/10/23 at Wikisource) I do not understand why you would tell me I cannot include documents published in the exact same manner as documents you cite. If one were to challenge whether this publication meets the criteria of reputable source because it is not a "traditional article" or "it is not in the print version of the paper" or similar, I would have to suggest some form of bias against the U.S.' practices is interfering with the community's objectivity or that straight intellectual dishonest abounds, and would have little problem challenging consensus and reopening discussion on this topic. Regardless, this is peripheral, since the first reason I gave should be persuasive on its own.
I will leave some time for you to respond, but will likely make modifications during the day tomorrow. If you would like to add a separate line at some point about how, where, and when, he did deny involvement in terrorism, I am fine with that. I will not allow the current language to stand, as it has no support in reality. He did not deny association with terrorism in the NY Times article, and the later line constitutes cherry picking in order to present a non-neutral POV. (Some minor modifications for clarification of my arguments)(69.86.115.143 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Lead paragraphs -- too long and specific?[edit]

Conventionally lead paragraphs are merely summaries of what is contained in the rest of the article. To follow that convention I think some of the details of Moqbel's Op-ed should be moved to a later section. Geo Swan (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Samir Naji Al Hasan Moqbel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samir_Naji_Al_Hasan_Moqbel&oldid=1210192345"