Talk:Tipton Three

No Merge

I strongly oppose merging the articles about each of the three men from Tipton into an article about the Tipton Three.

I see no advantage in doing so. And I see many disadvantages, both specific and general.

Specifically, the men all have separate lives, have written separate documents, which are referred to in other articles in the wikipedia. When one of their writings is described elsewhere there is a link to the individual's name. It would be a disservice to readers to merge and redirect those articles to this one. It throws roadblocks before the reader who wants to read about the individual.

In general small focussed articles, in my opinion, serve the wikipedia much better than larger omnibus articles. I don't understand why so many wikipedians seem to want to confine the wikipedia, which could more closely emulate the branching, multidimensional nature of human knowledge, to the same linear flow forced upon paper documents. I wish I could get those committed to merging all related articles to actually sit and discuss the implications of their choice. -- Geo Swan 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but all you've done is pointed out that previous editing on Wikipedia, most of which seems to have been done by you, have taken it for granted that each of the individuals should have their own individual article simply for being an individual, regardless of whether any of the factors that make them encyclopedic are individual. You say it "throws roadblocks" before the reader who wants to read about the individual. I say it throws roadblocks before the reader to lead him to believe there are four separate articles about the Tipton Three only for him to discover that the four articles duplicate information relentlessly; if he wants to make sure he gets all that Wikipedia has on the Tipton Three he has to read each of these four articles but most of that time will be wasted; unless he happens by random chance to save the best for last, he'll read articles only to find out that they contain nothing that wasn't already said.

In general, articles which focus on some sort of overview of a subject serve Wikipedia much better than articles which zoom in on minute levels of detail and often have nothing of significance to say at that level. If Ruhal Ahmed was significantly different from Shafiq Rasul then isn't the reader going to have an easier time seeing that difference and understanding its significance comparing the two side-by-side rather than moving between articles trying to collect the whole story? If the differences are not significant (Ahmed's detainee number was 110, Rasul's was 86) then what's the point of covering them, and taking so many articles to do so? I wish I could get those committed to subdividing every subject into its smallest possible component parts and isolating those components in separate articles to actually sit and discuss the implications of their choice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say merge, but it may take more time before the "cultural significance" of the individuals (which at the moment is dubious at best) to disapate fully. At that time the only thing remembered is the event, not the people. Anyway, they don't appear to be notable at all outside of the "Tipton Three", and thusly Wikipedia would be better off having one encylopedic quality article instead of 3 stubby articles that provide nothing more than what is already said on the "main" article that links the three (or should at least). Stub articles that don't delve into any detail (and usually sit unedited for months, if not up to a year) are the bane of wikipedia. Radagast83 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No merge — I support having separate articles for different people. I have no problem with also having an article about a group of such people, and cross-linking between the articles. -Wookipedian 23:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wookipedian is right. Having seperate articles is easily the most sensible solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.14 (talk • contribs)

• Keep separate. I think each should have either own article. Each, IMHO, meets the criteria for notability (WP:BIO). 74.100.148.61 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Added spin to Lie Lab revelation

Some editors seem intent on running away with Ahmed's admissions in the Lie Lab programme. The referenced Observer programme review simply states he, "confessed not only to visiting an Islamist training camp but also handling weapons and learning how to use an AK47." None of this was quantified. "Visit" could mean a couple of hours and "handling weapons" means very little, as well. When I was 11 or 12, I went to an open day at a local Territorial Army base. I got to "handle" various "weapons" - both inert training versions and unloaded functioning ones - and ended up being allowed to fire off a few rounds from a L1A1 rifle on their range. That didn't make me a member of the TA. Editors should not exagerate Ahmed's experiences until there is a verified source justifying it. "Training" implies something more systematic and premeditated. We do not know if the "visit" in question was the sole or even an ancillery purpose of him going to Afghanistan, or if it was just something that cropped up while he was there. We know that he and his friends were taken without their intention further into the country and Taliban-controlled areas, so the visit to the camp may very well have happened effectively against his wishes once there. Nick Cooper 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ROFL, oh it was an al queda open day, why did he just not say that! Thats ok then! Thanks for the laugh nick. Hypnosadist 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you have to view it objectively. If someone asked me, "have you ever handled and fired military spec weapons," I could not truthfully say, "no," could I? In a certain context and without clarification, that could look incriminating. Nick Cooper 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets have a look at this confession, it takes place in a show whose aim was to prove thier innocence, that they agreed to go on. Then once the nature of the technology is explained in detail to them one bottles it and pulls out (no idea what that indicates!) and the other goes on to try to beat the machine. He fails, then he admits he was trained in how to use an ak-47 at an islamic militant camp (note not a taliban camp). The problem was the show was setup to prove his innocence and they had no idea what to do when they "broke" him, they did not push for more info. Hypnosadist 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're doing it again - "trained in how to use an ak-47"! You can learn the basics in five minutes. Ten year-old kids in warzones get sent out to fight with AK47s - it's hardly rocket science. Nick Cooper 23:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But strangly thousands upon thousands of aid workers (many britsh, many muslim and some both) have travelled to hundreds of warzones without learning to use one. Yes i'm upset that the supposed C4 journo's couldn't be bothered to extract his full military training history. Hypnosadist 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In the first instance, how do you know? And secondly, how do you know he's got one? You're just speculating. Nick Cooper 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course i forgot Oxfam hand out m16's to there staff! Face it one of the three was caught in a lie about who trained him and in what, and the other two declined their chance to prove themselves innocent. Just like Moazzam Begg had nightvison goggles and a bulletproof vest due to his long interest in military history, some people will believe anything! Unless you have a specific change you think should be made to this article i'm finished. Hypnosadist 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of body armour and nightvision equipment is not a crime in the UK. Don't put two and two together and try to get 13. However, it's clear that you're being deliberately obtuse, so there no point in trying to explain the virtues of impartiality to you. Nick Cooper 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Ownership of body armour and nightvision equipment is not a crime in the UK." didn't say it was but of course it should be (the only people around me who use those items are gang bangers). But if you take that 4 and add to it the multiple flights to war zones involving islamic militants such as Bosnia and his admission that he added these groups while there you soon get to 13 no problem at all. Hypnosadist 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but let's not make too little of it either.

When you said, "We know that he and his friends were taken without their intention further into the country and Taliban-controlled areas," on the contrary, we don't really know that either.

The only thing we really do know is that they didn't publicly admit to visiting the training camp until one found himself unable to conceal it any longer.

It's a shame that the U.S. government kept their findings classified. The three were released prior to the CSRT process, and so we don't even have that. The only thing we had before was the detainees' own version of events -- anti-American spin and all. This confession may be the first truly non-biased revelation. That the second one clammed up is another fact we now have. Everything else is unreliable.

-- Randy2063 15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the Three's story is that they were taken without their intention, effectively as cannon fodder for the Taliban. Once in that rock/hard place situation, it doesn't take a genius to work out that them not co-operating/playing along/whatever isn't going to be the smartest move. However, the simple fact is that the only account of this "confession" is extremely vague on the circumstances and timescale of what actually happened. Thus far people have been keen to portray it as something both premeditated and methodical, when equally it could have been something unexpected and fleeting. Until a more detailed account becomes available, it can't be emphatically reported any other way than it already is. Nick Cooper 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If "the only account of this 'confession' is extremely vague" it's because that's all they were willing to say.

It's already been pointed out (although strangely missing from this article) that they were known to have been radicalized before they even left Britain.

Three radical Islamists who just happen to visit the "alma mater for jihadis" on their way through Afghanistan as it's calling out for fighters. Cannon fodder? Probably. Unwilling? Doesn't pass the laugh test.

-- Randy2063 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to cherry-pick from Aaronovitch's article, why not also quote his clear statement of, "I am emphatically not saying here that I believe that the Tipton Three took up arms in Afghanistan and fought for the Taleban"? Nick Cooper 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he also wrote: "Their story may be implausible, but it isn’t impossible." And, indeed, that's true, but he wrote that before one failed the lie detector test, and the other remained silent.

I suppose it's still technically possible that three radical Islamists just happened to be in Afghanistan during the period when radical Islamists were being called to war, but that they declined, or as you say, perhaps they were forced to go along with it even though it was somehow against their radical Islamist principles. Still possible, but getting more and more unlikely.

Somebody should have asked about the so-called "abuse" they'd received at GTMO while they had him on the lie detector. That still seems to be taken at face value.

-- Randy2063 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Combine the sections of each person into one?

In the article right now, each man has a separate section, but this article is about the "tipton three" so would it be possible to give a treatment on the subject as a group of three?Statisticalregression 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

spelling

Someone changed "Guantanamo" to "Guantánamo" -- I told the person I thought this was a mistake. Prior discussion was that references to Geographic locations like the city, district and bay would use the Spanish spelling. The Naval Base, the detention camp, and the captives should use the English spelling.

I wrote the wikipedian who did the change -- (they had done the change to dozens or hundreds of articles.) They acknowledged getting carried away, but didn't take any steps to fix their mistake.

I am going to fix this one now. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks release today

Their files showed up in today's batch of wikileaks document release. Quite interesting to read. --91.32.72.83 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/12/bbc-broadcasts-tipton-three-lies/

  Triggered by \bhurryupharry\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)