Talk:Abu Zubaydah

What the hell? Born in 1973, and In the 1980s he operated a popular terrorist training camp near the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? That would be the age range from his 8th birthday to his 16th...I'm thinking somebody has facts wrong, either on the birthdate, or his history. Sherurcij 21:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

News sources variously indicate that he was born in 1971, 1972, or 1973. The 9/11 Commission report says:

By this time [1992], Bin Ladin was well-known and a senior figure among Islamist extremists. . . Still, he was just one among many diverse terrorist barons. . . For example, Usama Asmurai, also known as Wali Khan, worked with Bin Ladin in the early 1980s. . . Among sympathetic peers in Afghanistan were a few of the warlords still fighting for power and Abu Zubaydah, who helped operate a popular terrorist training camp near the border with Pakistan.

I think this was misconstrued as "in the 1980s" when it should say "by 1992". That would make his around 20, which would be plausible. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Major Edit

Hello, I have been researching Abu Zubaydah for quite some time and have compiled a mass of information which conflicts with several portions of his wikipedia page. I have rewritten the wikipedia page in Microsoft Word and was hoping to effectuate a major edit. Before I did so I wanted to discuss with anyone who has been following this page what I plan to edit. I am not looking to ruin anyone else's work or create a poorly cited diatribe of my thoughts. But, I think there are factual inaccuracies and a general lack of citations for several points. For instance, the page starts off with an uncited statement that he has been close with al-Qaeda since their beginning and has run a popular al-Qaeda training camp. This actually is incorrect. He was at odds with al-Qaeda until 9/11, and the Khalden Camp was not affiliated with al-Qaeda. It was actually shut down by the Taliban at al-Qaeda's request. My rewrite is extensively cited to news articles (from legitimate news organizations), books, CSRT and other government documents, and other sources. In some places I cite six or more sources for a given point. I have been working on compiling information about him for school and was hoping to update his page accordingly.

Please e-mail me directly through my wikipedia ID if you have any questions or comments.

Thanks everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurThomas24 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This was major. You should have probably posted it to the discussion page first. If the material is good perhaps you will avoid a reversion war. 76.111.5.99 (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

"was a high-ranking member of al-Qaida", "played a lead role in one of the 2000 millennium attack plots" vs. "Despite evidence... that his position within al-Qaeda was primarily as a travel agent for operatives' wives and children, ..."

—Ashley Y 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This phrase in the Guardian/Observer source cited "The Observer has interviewed intelligence sources.." should have alerted the reader to the fact that the story they were reading was of doubtful veracity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.190.40 (talk • contribs).

I added the phrase "though there are doubts of his power and connections due to the fact that most information came from interregations where Zubaydah was known to vastly exxagerate his and al-Quaeda's role in international terror" to avoid contradiction and hopefully reflect the tenuous nature of Zubaydah's testimony. I hope this will be satisfactory. J-Rod 05:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is misinformation that was originally spread by the Bush Admin when Zubaydah was feeding them information that they wanted to hear. More recent evidence shows that the Bush Admin knew all along that Zubaydah actually was exaggerating. I put this on my watchlist so I'll try to help get it sorted out when I have time to research it.--csloat 03:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bush credibility

I added information about Bush's credibility specifically on the Zubaydah issue. Now, Anthony has added information about Suskinds book that has nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with Zubaydah. I submit that this article is about Zubaydah, not Suskind. I tried to delete this irrelevant info but Anthony reverted. His argument seems to be that any questions about Suskind's credibility are relevant to Zubaydah. I think, to be consistent, any questions about Bush's credibility would likewise be relevant. Thus, either we should delete the non-Zubaydah related Suskind information, or we must add the following information (and possibly more) to the section quoting Bush:

President Bush is known for frequent misstatements and errors regarding the war on terrorism; in fact, some have claimed that he intentionally constructed a false case for war with Iraq without regard to the facts. Some intelligence analysts have accused the Bush Administration of "cherry-picking" the intelligence to support a predetermined decision to invade Iraq.[1] A minority staff report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform claimed that "in 125 separate appearances, they [Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice] made ... 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda."[2] Even the conservative Economist has acknowledged that Bush has misled the public into war.[3]

There are some people, like Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials who hold the view that Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars.[4] Other experts have also regarded the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq as the supreme international crime, a crime against the peace: "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war.[5]

I did not add this information because I prefer that only stuff directly related to Zubaydah be included here. What do other people think?--csloat 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-read Anthony's edit and I see that he only added a link to the subway bombing thing but removed the information about it. That is better, but Anthony is wrong that the subway thing is "the central claim of the book." I also don't understand why it is relevant in any way to Zubaydah. Though I will not make a stink about it if others think the claim is somehow useful here; I'd just like to hear a logical explanation of why.--csloat 09:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You've adequately proven your point. Questions about Suskind's (or Bush's) credibility don't belong in this article, unless they directly relate to Zubaydah. Anyone can click on the links to Suskind or Bush to see more information about their credibility. And remember to follow WP:POINT. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 11:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that's why I posted this here to the talk page rather than to the article. I'll go ahead and remove that stuff from the article then.--csloat 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Blumenthal quote

That quote is really overkill. In essence, it is blogging by proxy. Very POV. --Blue Tie 18:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way? It's a sourced, accurate quote made up mostly of quotes from Suskind's book.--csloat 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In this way: It is a quote from a blog. WP:RS repeatedly discourages quotes from blogs.--Blue Tie 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an article in Salon.com, not a blog.--csloat 20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but LOL. I just read your edits. For you to make those edits and then have the audacity to claim that a sourced accurate quote is "very POV" is ludicrous. First, on Ackerman, the claim that he is a "long term critic" of "democratization" is ridiculously POV. Even worse, your "restructuring" specifically removed Suskind's response to the claim that his book is wrong, making it seem as if he had no response to the critics! Very dishonest.--csloat 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith.

Just because a quote is sourced does not mean it is a good and reliable source In particular, Blogs are not good sources.

Furthermore, Ackerman is definitely a critic of democratization in the MidEast. Are you not aware of this? Would you like some cites on that? It is one of his major beefs with Bush and it motivates his criticisms. To ignore this is to ignore his POV.

And with regard to the restructing, please familiarize yourself with How Structure and Undue Weight affect NPOV. I believe that by having way more text on one side of the issue and then burying the opposing view inside the mass of text, it creates an NPOV Problem.

I did not mean to remove the notion that Suskind had no answer, but I wanted to avoid an "argument by proxy". I just wanted the article to present one side and then the other. Nice clean presentation. Note that Suskind's responses are not really answers to the criticisms but actually restatements of his original premise. That does not really count as a new answer.

I will not re-edit at the moment but I will invite you to discuss these points. Wikipedia works by concensus and agreement between good faith editors. If you agree, then let's discuss. If not, let me know so we can seek an RfC.

And, finally, please, do not insult other editors. Again, assume good faith. --Blue Tie 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

i can't find a single source that says al Shibh was unknown until Zubaydah indentified him. this blog comment is completely out of place and a complete misinterpretation of what Bush said. i vote to remove it completely. and as far as The One Percent Doctrine section, i still don't see why sidney blumenthal's take on the book is relevant. Blue Tie, perhaps you can moderate this debate between me and csloat since csloat and i come from complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, and as csloat and i seem to be interested in how this page develops.Anthonymendoza 20:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A "mediator" should be someone in the middle or without a strong opinion either way rather than someone who agrees completely with one side. To take these issues in turn: (1) The Ackerman comment is not a misinterpretation of what Bush said; that is your opinion, and it is not backed up by a published source. Ackerman is well known enough as a source that the fact that it is in a blog should not matter. I can't find a single source that says specifically what Zubaydah told Bush about Shibh that we didn't know already. (There is another lie here, by the way, that Ackerman does not mention -- Bush implies that it was torture that got the information; whereas intel experts have indicated that Zubaydah did not give us accurate information until we tried methods other than torture to gain his cooperation). (2) As for Blumenthal, he is simply summarizing Suskind, mostly with direct quotes. What is your specific objection to this quote? I will pick up Suskind's book so we can quote it directly, but I think this is a useful summary.--csloat 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Blogs do matter. That is per Wikipedia policy. Anyway, I think you have it wrong. As I recall, some people claim that Zubaydah revealed information when he was given gentle treatment but clammed up later. You have the sequence wrong. But the problem with that is that the revealed information seems to have come from the supposed torture -- and indeed that is one of the complaints.. that he gave too much information that was not valuable. In short, the critics give it both ways -- he clammed up and he spilled too much. --Blue Tie 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. But I found your claims of POV, coupled with some disastrously POV edits on your part, to be deceptive; you are correct though, I should not have assumed intent to deceive. As for Ackerman, the problem I have is your definition of "democratization." Ackerman may be a critic of Bush's policies; one could just as easily say he is a critic of "neo-imperialism" in the middle east. Both are highly POV. I doubt he has a problem with democracy; it is democracy at the point of a gun that he seems critical of. I also don't see how it is relevant at all here, even by a stretch of the imagination. He is commenting specifically on alleged information revealed by abu Zubaydah; his views on "democratization" are totally irrelevant to this page. As for your restructuring, this is not an issue of counting words on each side -- it was an issue of you specifically moving a response to one set of claims to make it sound as if the claims were conceded by Suskind. You may believe Suskind's response is inadequate, but that is a judgement on your part and would be considered "original research." Best thing to do is say here is what an anonymous intelligence official said, and here is how Suskind responded. Restructuring the article as you did buries Suskind's response to make it seem as if he never responded. You also deleted his specific response to the claims, and you went further and characterized the view of one anonymous source and one named source as the view of "intelligence insiders" generally, when in fact Suskind quotes far more "intelligence insiders" in his book, including Dan Coleman, the top FBI analyst of al Qaeda at the time. Let me know if there is anything else I need to clarify.--csloat 20:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Conversation with CSloat

I want to address your points one at a time:

1. To claim that my edits were disasterously POV is just wrong. You may feel that they are POV (I was seeking NPOV) but certainly it was not egregious.... not compared with the current section.
2. You do not have a problem with my definition of "democratization." You can't. I did not give one. Ackerman has been quite open about his concerns. He has never said that he had a problem with "neo-imperialism". Indeed he has an alternative strategy that might be a version of neo-imperialism. However, Ackerman himself has been vocal about being opposed to the democratization of the middle east. You seem unaware of his position. But when you say you doubt he has a problem with democracy, you clearly do not know what he is about. And perhaps you should research it. He does not think that these countries can or should be democratized if they are going to vote for fundamentalist islamic regimes. (I happen to think he may be right).
3. Ackerman's pre-disposed views are relevant since his quote is a real POV work. It presumes things that Bush did not say and then attacks those things. This is called "Strawman". When this logical fallacy is engaged in, it is appropriate to look into the motives of the person saying such things. By rejecting that notion, you are rejecting NPOV for the article.
4. You mention word counting and say it is not an issue. Again, I refer you to WP:NPOV, where it is one of the items to consider in an NPOV area. Please do not reject policy out of hand simply because you do not like the results.
5. As far as removing Suskind's replies, the problem here is two fold. First, the objections to Suskind, if not expressed in an equal volume of words, at least deserve their own separate paragraph. Buried inside the discussion creates an POV pit, and I already showed that this is a concern in WP:NPOV. Second, though, Suskind's replies are not new. They are a rehash of what was said before. Should we go and find different quotes from different people, going back and forth in the article? I think that is highly unencyclopedic. I did not remove substantial content. I let the other view have the bulk of the space and I also let it have the first word. However, it is entirely appropriate and within the guidance of WP:NPOV that it should have its own separate section and that furthermore, the article stay clean by summarizing each point separately, rather than engaging in argument or debate by proxy.
6. With regard to Suskind's response being adequate -- or my view of its adequacy... this is utterly irrelevant. What I think of it does not matter. What matters is the content. Did he had anything substantively new? No. His side was presented. Now the other side gets a fair shake to respond. That is all. Your claim that I am using original research is completely inappropriate.
7. I did not change the source to anonymous. It was originally anonymous in the article. Check it out.
8. The one thing you need to clarify is this: will you engage in a discussion to fairly edit this section or are you resistant? I note that others seem to indicate you are resistant to such things. If you are resistant, then we can go for an RfC. That is all I need clarified. --Blue Tie 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) Your version was more POV than the version in place before you got here; is that better?

It is better, though still wrong. --Blue Tie 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is false. Your most recent edits are even more objectionable in terms of POV. I will be reverting many of them.--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No it is true. And what is also true is that you are promising to engage in edit warring, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. --05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Where have I edit warred?--csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) Repeated reverts without discussion. When I, thinking that this is a bad approach, but perhaps it is your way of doing things, try the same thing, you revert me again anyway. That is an edit war. And you are leading that charge, despite my request and invitations to discuss. --Blue Tie 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate where I reverted? I made changes rather than reverting. My preference is to move the article forward rather than backward. You seem annoyed that I did not give in to every one of your changes, but I found some of them to have severe POV problems, which I explained here when changing.--csloat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(2) Again, I think the problem I have is the focus on the word "democratization." I think the way you stated it made it sound like he was a monarchist or something. I don't want to debat ethis as I don't think it has anything to do with his views on Zubaydah; if you think it does, please establish the connection without using WP:NOR.

It is one of the key sources of his criticisms of Bush's policies. There is nothing wrong with the use of the word. It is per the dictionary and per his beliefs. As far as being monarchist, he supports the notion of governments that are not democratic. These include monarchys. --Blue Tie 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support your claim that Ackerman is a monarchist. Then provide sources supporting your claim that this has anything to do with Zubaydah. Until such sources appear I will be deleting that claim.--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support your claim that I have claimed he is a monarchist. --Blue Tie 05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the problematic claim. Look, I backed off the Ackerman quote; are we done with this?--csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent)Well, more done than that, as I shall mention later --Blue Tie 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(3) Again I think you are in OR territory here. You don't like Ackerman's reasoning, fine; but if you don't have a sourced critique of it, your critique is WP:NOR. I left in the statement that Bush was talking about something slightly different than Ackerman, but the fact is that Bush has not pointed to anything other than what Ackerman criticizes. Your claim that this is somehow tied to Ackerman's views on "democratization" seems ludicrous on its face. This is not about democratization nor is it about invading Iraq. It is about whether what a captured terrorist had to say while being tortured was helpful in catching other terrorists.

I am not trying to critque Ackerman's views so there is no problem with Original Research. Bush has actually pointed out something different than what Ackerman claimed. Ackerman's points were simply wrong. Retaining those views requires an explanation or they should be deleted. --Blue Tie 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ackerman is not wrong and in fact is backed up by NYT here, but again, you cannot say Ackerman is wrong; you can, however, provide sources that say that. Otherwise you are indeed in OR territory.--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is clear by inspection that Ackerman is wrong. Just as above when you claim that I said he was a monarchist. I did not say that. But you claim it. Ackerman says that Bush said something he did not say. It's obvious by inspection and requires only ordinary reasonableness. --Blue Tie 05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

By whose inspection? Yours. That is the OR issue. Anyway, Ackerman is gone, but do not assume what is "ordinary reasonableness" to you is the same for anyone else. (Hell, to me, "ordinary reasonableness" itself is not a reasonable, or ordinary, category!)--csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent)Sort of funny. But in fact, ordinary rationality is a matter of both logic and law. In logic, failure to observe the obvious is a logical fallacy. In law, such failures by jurors are "Failure to deliberate" and can even result in penalties. So, while your position may work here, it is not valid in "real life" as I am sure you know and in a quite moment would admit. --Blue Tie 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain the relevance of this point to Mr. Zubaydah's biography?--csloat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(4) I am not rejecting the NPOV policy. I am saying that NPOV does not mean we have to count words. For example, take a look at the Holocaust or gravity articles and count the words in favor of Holocaust denial or in favor of the view that gravity does not exist. I'm not trying to bias the argument here one way or another; I am trying to accurately portray the state of information known about Zubaydah. If you take a look at mainstream media sources, the consensus at this point seems to be on Suskind's side, at least on this one issue. The evidence is also in his favor.

And please note that I am not the one who has brought up word count. It is you. I do not know why. However, you are starting to pile it on with your latest edit, and I do not think that is fair editing given that this is now under discussion. --Blue Tie 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate what is unfair about my edits.--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is unfair is that you edit while there is a discussion related to the content going on. That is a process that simply disrepects my prior restraint and leads to edit warring. --Blue Tie 05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate where I have edit warred. "Prior restraint" is not an issue here. Editing while discussions are going on is the normal way of doing things around here.--csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent)That prior restraint is not an issue to you, and editing on top of other editors objections without discussion is my complaint. What you consider "normal" is contrary to wikipedia ettiquette. I think you should reconsider your approach. --06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate what aspect of Wikipedia ettiquete you believe I have violated; a link to the relevant wikipedia policy would be helpful.--csloat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(5) The objections were not buried inside the discussion - they have their own paragraph. If all you want is a paragraph break before Suskind's replies, that is fine by me. But your solution was to bury Suskind's reply as if it were not a reply, and then to delete the most important part of the reply! I found this deceptive. Your claim that his reply is not new is your opinion. Again, it is not up to Wikipedia to evaluate this debate in such a manner. Sorry but I do think your version was extremely POV.

They did not have their own paragraph before and they do not have their own paragraph now. Furthermore it is a tit for tat kind of thing that is going on and you have piled on more stuff. Do you really want an argument by proxy on a subject that is tangentally related to the topic? Why not take this to some other article where it fits better?--04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not "piling on stuff"; I am putting in information that is relevant, sourced, and useful to this article. Please indicate what does not belong here specifically so it can be discussed. I have done so (e.g. the "democracy" stuff).--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are piling on. You are not discussing. You are dismissing what I have said, out of hand and adding your own edits. With that approach there will be no resolution. When I do the same as you though, you revert my edits. You are being an aggressive and difficult editor. (I hope that is not too forthright for you) --Blue Tie 05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not "dismissing" anything out of hand; I responded to what you said, and made edits that specifically avoided the problems you pointed out. That is responsible editing, not edit warring. I have not complained about your "forthrightness," so I don't know why you are bringing it up. I have also not reverted your edits.-csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) Well, you said you would revert them. They are reverted. You are the only other person editing. If you did not revert them, how did it happen? And you would understand then if I change them back right?--Blue Tie 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which change are you talking about? I added to the page, I voluntarily removed the quote that we were fighting over, and I carefully explained every edit that I made. I think the only edit you could characterize as a "revert" was the unfair characterization of Suskind's response as "repeating himself." If you have a good argument for this POV characterization, please explain it.--csloat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(6) I agree, what you think of Suskind's reply does not matter; therefore, you should not delete it or pretend it is not a reply because you think it is not "substantively new." Your claim that it is not "substantially new" is your own evaluation, and it is not appropriate here.

You are misquoting me. I did not say Suskind's reply does not matter. --Blue Tie 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you said that; I said you said that what you think of suskinds reply does not matter, and it doesn't. It is deleting or moving Suskind's reply that is POV on your part.--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Opps You are right, I misread you. I apologize. However you are still misquoting me. I did not say that what I think of it does not matter. I said that it does not matter what I think of its adequacy. But It DOES matter what I think of its content. That is a different matter. Do you not see the difference? --Blue Tie 05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the difference, but you are wrong. What you think of its content is not something that belongs on Wikipedia, until you publish your thoughts in a reliable source.--csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent)In this you are absolutely wrong. Wikipedia editors are to use reasonableness and discretion in editing, applying principles of reason and logic to their efforts. What they think of the content is critical. However, if you really believe what you are saying then you must admit that your views of the content are utterly unimportant. I will not so confess, but since your views are unimportant, you should really not fight for them. I believe that with a little bit of inspection, you will realize that your position is inconsistent with your adamant insistance upon editing. --06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what I'm saying is that we should not make claims in the articles that are not backed up by outside sources. Please review WP:NOR.--csloat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(7) You misunderstand my point. I was expressing dismay that you used the clause "intelligence insiders disagree" when in fact there are "intelligence insiders" on both sides of the dispute, and in fact the ones on Suskind's side are far more credible (at least, Dan Coleman certainly is).

So, if there are intelligence insiders on both sides then "Intelligence insiders disagree", right? --Blue Tie 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a cheap shot in terms of the way it was phrased; as if you have suskind on one side and "intelligence insiders" on the other. I believe it is more NPOV to simply state who says what.--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a cheap shot. The phrase "Intelligence insiders disagree" was never intended to be universal. It was an introduction to the paragraph. That is all. I do not like to use the weasle word "some". --Blue Tie 05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Intent is not relevant here; what is relevant is what is stated. Best simply to state who says what rather than make it seem universal.--csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent)Intentions are important. When you do not see this, you miss half or all of the meaning. I will agree that mindreading is at least undesirable if not impossible. But intentions are very important. To deny this is a denial of reality. --Blue Tie 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, intentions are important, but do you deny that the current sentence is better than your version, regardless of "intention"? If so, please explain.--csloat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(8) I don't know what you're talking about. I have been engaged in this discussion, and I am continuing to. I have been very open about discussing this article and about my thoughts on these issues. I am not sure why you say that others indicate I am resistant to such things - I actually tend to use the talk page a lot to discuss such issues, and many people, even some of my most vocal opponents, have thanked me for being extremely open about discussing even minute changes to the articles. Now, there are certainly editors who get angry with me for my forthrightness - I am not afraid to say what I think, and that certainly bothers some people. But you seem to be claiming that the opposite is the case.

I am referring to your edit of my points without discussion, your dismissal of my points perfunctorily without dialog, and now your piling on more stuff in a section that is under discussion. This is not particularly evidence of good faith on your part, even if you meant nothing bad by it. It is simply impolite. I do not know why you have taken the path of being hard and difficult to deal with. You may not normally be that way, as you claim, but this time that is how you have gone about it. I am not angry with your forthrightness. I haven't seen anything along that line anyway. I have only seen you be somewhat beligerant and resistant. I do not understand it. But I am evidently not alone. Others seem to have similar complaints. Perhaps you should consider a change of approach. --Blue Tie 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific -- who has what complaint? I have been extremely forthright about every word and I am insulted at your claim that this represents some kind of bad faith. I also don't understand what you are complaining about here or what you are asking for.--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it Ok with you if I am insulted by your treatment of me from the start? It was uncalled for and it continues to be so. I offered discussion and refused to revert your reverts of my edits, but you responded with insults and then edited on top of your reverts without discussion. Somehow you think you are being fair but that makes no sense to me. --05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never insulted you and I think my edits have been more than fair. In fact, I have bent over backwards to take seriously your claims even though I disagree with them. What is your specific complaint here? Sorry, I just don't understand.--csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent)I accept that you just do not understand. But I do not know how to make it clearer: You have been a harsh and difficult editor. I find it hard to believe that someone of obvious intelligence as you have, is unable to detect this problem after it has been repeatedly described. But I think the problem lies in what you have described above as your view of "normal" behavior on wikipedia. --Blue Tie 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, again, please explain what specific problem you have rather than making a vague claim about my "normal" behavior. Thanks.--csloat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(9) If you want to file an RfC be my guest -- an RfC is literally a "request for comment," not a disciplinary mechanism, so it is not something you should keep invoking as some kind of threat. But I really don't see that there is much to request comment on at this point.--csloat 03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you were unwilling to dialog that is the approved solution. I was not looking for discipline, but rather resolution. Why are you being this way? --04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Being what way?--csloat 04:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hostile, difficult and edit warring. --Blue Tie 05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of such?--csloat 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent)Once more... the revert edits and responses. --Blue Tie 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I make changes when I see problems that can be corrected. You made problematic edits. I changed them to what I felt were less problematic constructions. I explained carefully why I thought my changes were superior. Rather than respond to those explanations, you have basically gone on a tirade about my behavior.--csloat 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi, may I ask you a question? I would like to know how we pronounce his name. Could you tell me the corresponding IPA symbols to his name? For foreigners, it is very difficult to correctly pronounce Arabic names. So, what do you think about adding IPA symbols to this article?

I think its a good idea. Having lived among arabs in the mideast, I have some idea how to pronounce it, but I don't know those symbols though. Perhaps you could do it. --Blue Tie 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

Hopefully my recent additions will clear up the problems that have been alleged with the Ackerman quote. Ackerman's claims have been echoed by the NYT and WaPo, so I have added that information. I also added the CIA spokesman's response to the claims. I have also included Suskind's comment that the Emir of Qatar, not Zubaydah, provided the key breaks. As far as I know, this specific claim has not been addressed by the Administration.--csloat 03:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not clarity. Piling on. It is normally good manners on wikipedia to avoid editing a section that is under some dispute. --Blue Tie 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate where in Wikipedia policy you see this particular discussion of manners. Please also indicate what your problems are with my recent edits. I have not "piled it on"; I have simply put in relevant and sourced information that specifically avoids the pitfalls of the Ackerman quote that you objected to. There is nothing impolite about that, and I have explained and justified every single move I have made on this page.

To avoid further dispute, I have removed the Ackerman quote. I still think you are totally wrong about it, but I have work to do in the real world and I frankly don't see the point of continuing a fruitless discussion about it. The NYT and WaPo criticisms, we can agree, are more notable and more accurate than the Ackerman quote, and they are not from blogs.

I will ask you now to please refrain from further insults about my "bad faith" or about my manners.--csloat 05:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That will not be hard since I have not insulted you about your bad faith or your manners. Oh wait...was I too forthright? --Blue Tie 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

cSloat: I'm Going to take a break

• I originally requested discussion about the content. You were dismissive.
• You have repeatedly reverted my edits. Not all of them but enough.
• You have deleted the Ackerman quotes, which suggests that you have your way of seeking compromise.
• However, your method of seeking compromise is aggressive, dismissive and easily leads to edit wars.
• By looking at the history, I note that you have essentially taken Ownership contrary to guidelines of this article.
• On your talk page you admit to a bias that would affect this article.
• I do not think you are interested in dialog or concensus but rather a bullying technique and revert edit wars that you consider to be "normal" for wikipedia.
• When I object to your tactics, you say you do not understand. If I believe that you do not understand, I lose respect for your intelligence. And if I do not believe that you do not understand, I lose respect for your honesty. It is a no-win situation for me.
• Because your approach has created an emotional response in me, I believe I should disengage.
• Perhaps if you push everyone to disengage through these tactics, you will win. Not sure that is worth it though.
• But I am leaving in accordance with wikipedia guidelines to disengage found on the mediation page.
• This is my third attempt to resolve this nature of disputation with you, the first being to dialog, the second to make reasonable edits (which you reverted) and now I will disengage.
• But I will return after a time. I suspect you will still be here because of ownership. At that time, I will hope that we will be able to go forward in dialog rather than an edit war. I will not assert that the article must change in the meantime or I will just start over. I will come back with an open mind. But I do not think that an open mind will accept the POV in the article as it is.
• I earnestly encourage you to work hard to remove your POV from your editing process and to seek to put your behavior more in line with wiki ettiquette.--Blue Tie 06:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• I also apologize for my actions or errors that have led to hard feelings or misunderstandings --Blue Tie 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what the hell is the deal? I didn't revert you; I bent over backwards to address your concerns and even took out the contested material completely. You continually insult me, telling me now that I have no intelligence and/or honesty. I am sorry you have some emotional connection to Mr. Zubaydah; my connection to this is simply about keeping these entries accurate and truthful. I do not feel that I "own" this article as you have charged; I am editing this article and similar ones because I have some expertise on these topics. I have not reverted your edits; I have engaged you in conversation over every contested point, and I have made reasonable arguments justifying my position. You seem to believe that when I do this I am being aggressive and bullying -- I am simply stating as clearly as possible what I believe to be true and offering the evidence to back it up. If you have counter evidence please offer it. As you should have seen, I am more than willing to be reasonable. I am confused as to why you think I have not been. And please don't bother repeating stuff here on my talk page. Thanks.--csloat 09:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you only consider it reverting when you go back a page. However, another form of reverting is to remove the edits of another editor and replace them with the same words or very closely similar words as were originally there. That is what you have done and which I was referring to as revert. I suspect you will now say that this is not reverting. However, it is part of the definition of reverting for such things as the 3rr rule, so that is how I use the term. I returned here to offer my apology above and saw this statement of yours and decided that this might help clarify.

Incidentally, calling me a "weird stalker" is an example of the behaviors that I find dismissive and offensive, in case you were not clear about what I mean in that area. --Blue Tie 13:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. Don't duplicate your tirade on my talk page and we won't have this problem. You still have not clarified what was reverted. I have pointed above to the only thing that I thought you could call a revert, which was a minor point that I have explained my changes on. You have not responded to those explanations.

If we just focus on the reasons for our changes rather than our annoyance at the other's personality we will have a much more productive discussion here.--csloat 18:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com as a source for this article

This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia.Andries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The "concern" raised is completely bogus. Salon is a respected outlet for investigative journalism as well as some fine writing of other genres. The "concern" raised on the page you cite is based entirely on a completely out of context quote from Salon's editor. I didn't see any mention on that page of a single fact that Salon had gotten wrong. Frankly, the whole debate over Salon on that page is a weasly way to push POV.--csloat 07:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on article

I have submitted the following for RfC:

• Abu Zubaydah No disputes (so far). I reorganized the content and it appears that a whole separate article is contained within the original article. The separate article is related to criticism of the incarceration/interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. It is substantially longer than the article on Zubaydah himself. I would like comments on whether this should be a separate article. Secondarily, I wonder, if we keep that information in the biography, should it take up that much room?

The area below is for responses. --Blue Tie 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I think the Gitmo stuff should be separate; a pointer within the bio would be enough. There are Wikipedians who go from terrorist to terrorist around here, for no other reason than to copy and paste big tables of data about detention, or fatwas about it from Human Rights Watch and the Guardian. There is enough to say about Abu Zubaydah.

BTW he's not the biggest al-Qaeda cheese yet captured. Check out Mamdouh Mahmud Salim -- a subhuman gargoyle whom the al-Qaeda defector al-Fadl says was Osama's best friend.

LDH 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What stuff do you plan to delete? csloat 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I mainly think that there should be a second article, not deletion. If there is no second article though, the controversy stuff should be pared down. --Blue Tie 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

CIA claims it destroyed video of Abu Zubaydah interrogation

Article here. Badagnani (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorialized Intro Needs to Go

The article starts off with an opinion piece, rather than a quick synopsis such as I had proposed, and such as is used for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...which, of course, I had already explained once before.

Keep the op-ed intro if you like, but it doesn't speak well for Wikipdedia. Peace. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of editorializing in the intro; it accurately states that there is legitimate (and well-reported) controversy about whether Zubaydah is who he said he is. That's an important part of the story; important enough for the lead, and Wikipedia does not take a position on it. csloat (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Algerian Six

The whole story of the Algerian Six is not relevant to Abu Zubaydah - their acquittal in the Bosnian Supreme Court, their detention in Guantanamo, U.S. allegations, the dropping of some allegations, etc. - all relevant to the article on the Algerian Six, but not in this article on Abu Zubaydah. Thanks for understanding why I have deleted these portions. 74.68.113.254 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been paying enough attention. I would have been the one who added the reference to the Algerian Six. I do not agree that it is not relevant here. It remains highly relevant. One of the six men remain classified as an "enemy combatant" -- the one accused of phoning Abu Zubaydah. If 74.68.113.254's excision hasn't already been reverted I will revert it myself, after waiting a reasonable amount of time for defences of the excision. Geo Swan (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

New WAPo article disputes facts of waterboarding

I thought someone might want to integrate the following into the article. From [6] "According to Kiriakou's account, which he said is based on detailed descriptions by fellow team members, Abu Zubaida broke after just 35 seconds of waterboarding, which involved stretching cellophane over his mouth and nose and pouring water on his face to create the sensation of drowning. But other former and current officials disagreed that Abu Zubaida's cooperation came quickly under harsh interrogation or that it was the result of a single waterboarding session. Instead, these officials said, harsh tactics used on him at a secret detention facility in Thailand went on for weeks or, depending on the account, even months. The videotaping of Abu Zubaida in 2002 went on day and night throughout his interrogation, including waterboarding, and while he was sleeping in his cell, intelligence officials said. "Several hundred hours" of videotapes were destroyed in November 2005, a senior intelligence officer said. The CIA has said it ceased waterboarding in 2003." Remember (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please get the man's name right

Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn is his born name, Abu Zubaydah is his terrorist alias. Abu is father, a title. Who gets born Fr. Zubaydah? Source of the born name is here. This whole page should be moved to the man's born name and the aliases changed to redirects. This is something of an NPOV issue. The jihadists *like* they're cool 'nom de guerre' and don't like using their born names. But should PA president Mahmoud Abbas have his page listed under Abu Mazen, his 'nom de guerre'? I don't think so.

I can understand that this is a major move so I'm not going to be unilateral over it. I'll wait till 2008 for feedback before I make changes. TMLutas (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that change.--Blue Tie (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So is it "Zein al-Abideen Mohamed Hussein" as indicated on the article, or "Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn", as written above?

I think the article should use whatever name he is most commonly known as in the English-speaking world. --RenniePet (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a real problem with renaming the article. With redirection all the various transliterations of his alias(es), and all the various transliterations of his real name, should redirect to one article. So long as they all redirect to the same article, I don't have a problem.

But on a practical level however, I think it makes sense to stick with the most commonly used alias. Just as we do with Mark Twain, George Orwell and Joseph Stalin,

Here are the redirections we have already:

• Abu Zubaidah
• Abu Zubeida
• Abu Zoubeida
• Abu Zubayda
• Abu Zubaida
• Abu Zubaydah
• Abu Zabaydah
• Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husain
• Zein-al-Abideen Mohammed Hussein
• Zayn al-Abidin Mohamed Husayn
• Zayn Abu Zubaydah

Transliterating Arabic names is very tricky. There are different transliteration schemes. And the DoD complicates matters, by using a non-standard one. (They use "al Qaida", not "al Qaeda", and "Usama Bin Laden", not "Osama bin Laden".)

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

On names

For what it is worth, as a sub-editor working in this area I think that Wikipedia should keep the page under Abu Zubayda but provide his passport name in the opening par. Obviously transliterations are a problem that cannot be resolved but only addressed by redirects.

Two additional points:

1) The comments about noms de guerre and their "coolness" above are not entirely germane. Abu Mazen, for example, is not a nom de guerre at all. Mahmoud Abbas' eldest son was called Mazen. Abu Zubayda may well be a similar case. As for the question of who gets called "father of Zubayda" at birth, if you are the oldest son of a man called Zubayda that would often be the case. My father (who was not an oldest son) was given his kunya as a child, long before I was born. I carry the name Maher today because he was Abu Maher as a youngster.

2) Throughout the article as it stands, Abu Zubayda is referred to as Zubayda at subsequent references. This should be corrected and the whole name stated each time, as "Father of Zubayda" and "Zubayda" are usually two different people. The kunya is not two names, even though it is two words. It is a unit and should be kept intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.59.1 (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

John Kiriakou

Why isn't John Kiriakou mentioned in this article?

Also, how can it be reconciled that John Kiriakou said Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded only once, breaking and telling everything after 35 seconds, but new revelations state that he was waterboarded 83 times? Badagnani (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, 12 of the hours of tapes the CIA destroyed are said to have been of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding. Twelve hours of tape for one thirty-five second waterboarding? Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Torture Memos

An anon ip deleted the term "torture memos" and replaced with "interrogation memos" with a NPOV summary and the claim that "most media" refer to the latter. This is manifestly false; compare this search to this one. I've fixed the heading. csloat (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No charges?

Why Zubaydah, unlike Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has not been charged with anything under the Military Comissions System? Olegwiki (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many theories as to why he hasn't been charged yet. However, it seems that the system is simply very, very slow. Although it will be interesting to see what they charge him with. ArthurThomas24 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What if the testimony, during his CSR Tribunal, is the truth. What exactly would you charge him with?

• He acknowledged he was part of the management of the Khaldan training camp -- but he claimed that this camp was not an al Qaeda camp -- it was a rival organization. One he claimed did not teach trainees to attack civilians.
• Ahmed Ressam, and possibly Zach Moussiau trained at the camp. Abu Zubaydah testified that part of his job was to keep out "crazy jihadists", and that Ressam was radicalized months or years after attending the camp.

Alternatively, some commentators have said Abu Zubaydah was obviously nuts. Maybe prosecutors still believed that Abu Zubaydah played a meaningful role in the attacks on 9-11 -- but that this obvious insanity would be apparent to observers, and the public would wonder why they were trying someone who was clearly nuts. Was he actually nuts? I wouldn't think so from reading the transcript. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What to charge him with is less a controversy than where to charge him. Because of how the Military Commission system is setup charging someone as an "enemy combatant" can be fairly easy to accomplish. The defendant must only have "materially aided" a terrorist organization. Because Ressam, and perhaps Moussaoui both trained at the Khalden Camp, and Zubaydah admits in his CSRT to helping Ressam go to Canada, etc. then it could be argued he provided material aid or support to al-Qaeda operatives and therefore al-Qaeda itself. However, if he were to be charged in an article III court (federal court system) he would have to be charged with a federal crime. The requirements on evidence and proof are more stringent as well.

The real difficulty is in accurately defining Zubaydah's role in the "global terror network." He admits he ran Khalden Camp, but it is becoming seemingly more clear that it was not at all an al-Qaeda camp. Instead, it's purpose was to train Muslims who were interested in helping stop the death of other Muslims around the world. (Think Chechnya, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Afghanistan in the 1980's, etc.) This is known as "defensive jihad" and has been understood by many Muslims to be a religious duty of theirs. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, practices "offensive jihad" aimed at "killing the infidels" in order to bring about the second coming of their prophet. (similar to Christianity, hellfire and brimstone, apocalypse, etc.) What America is not talking about in the media yet, is how these two facets exist and how there were many, many training camps in Afghanistan and not all of them were meant to train al-Qaeda fighters. Or, how Muslims fighting around the world to defend other Muslims were not only allowed by such entities as the U.N., but were also encouraged. (Muslim brigades fought alongside U.N. peacekeepers in Bosnia, for instance)

But, should we hold training camp facilitators, such as Zubaydah, responsible when their recruits and trainees decide after their training to abandon defensive jihad and take up arms against "the infidels" in offensive jihad, with groups such as al-Qaeda? ArthurThomas24 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" jihad is correct but it is false to say that al Qaeda is waging an "offensive" one. At least the way they represent it, they are waging a "defensive" jihad; it is very clear from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri's speeches, among other evidence, that they believe they are responding to an attack on Islam. In fact, an "offensive" jihad is not possible without a Caliph, which does not exist in this day and age. Abu Zubaydah may not have had much to do with al Qaeda, but you can't base that conclusion on the claim that al Qaeda was fighting an "offensive" jihad; it's just not true. csloat (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I will admit from the get-go that I am not completely informed as to what technically constitutes an "offensive" jihad, however, the idea of a "defensive" jihad seems to be to protect Muslims around the world. While bin Laden and al-Zawahiri may insist they are waging a "defensive" jihad because of an attack on all of Islam perpetuated by America (or maybe all Western civilization) I am not sure how the attacks on 9/11, the USS Cole, the U.S. Embassies in Africa, the Madrid trains, the London public transport system, etc. helps to protect any specific Muslims, let alone Muslims around the world. Training Muslims to fight in Bosnia or Chechnya where they are directly targeted for violence is something I can understand. Do I need to understand it for it to be true? Absolutely not, but the logic seems inconsistent from my vantage point. Thanks for discussing this. I feel it is something that should be talked about more right now. ArthurThomas24 (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)