Talk:Abdul Salam Al-Shehri

NPOV

I nominated this article because it omits the reasons why this person was arrested. It relies on the defense press releases. It does not present both sides. Joaquin Murietta 04:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the reason given for his capture as well. The non-classified reasons for his incarceration would be in the records for the non-classified portion of the records of his combatant status review tribunal. AP put the dossiers of 59 detainees up for download. Al Shehry's isn't one of them. I know other media outlets have made successful FOIA requests on other detainees. Presumarly those detainees who have lawyers have all had their doessiers requested. Maybe al Shedry's lawyer would make it available.r As works of US servicemen, they would be in the public domain, once released, correct?

I don't think Al Shedry's apology for traveling to Afghanistan implies either guilt or innocence.

Can one really say that an article is POV for not presenting the positions of both sides, when one side, as a matter of policy, won't comment. -- Geo Swan 06:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I edited the article to correct the problems. Joaquin Murietta 15:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

explanation

In this edit, with the edit summary "This is not needed. It is a very established source and we can rely on it. You may discuss this issue on the talk page."

The problem is not whether the New York Times is a "very established source" we can rely on. The problem is that what their writers write about the captives is protected by copyright. I already explained to this contributor that making a word-for-word quote, without making clear it is a direct quote, opens the wikipedia to accusations that its contributors plagiarize other sources.

This contributor has routinely quoted the one line of new content from the New York Times' "Guantanamo docket" for each Guantanamo captive. I've drawn to their attention that it is a highly problematic practice. Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that as a problem. These are simple facts that can be repeated without problem. Could you please show me an example how to rephrase these facts in a different way so it would solve the problem you see? IQinn (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, one sentence does not run into any copyright issues. Perhaps geoswan can point to a specific rule somewhere.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple facts can be repeated, without a problem -- so long as they are rephrased. The legal term is "de minimis".

What is the minimum amount that can be a direct word-for-word quote, without attribution? Different wikipedia contributors who follow these things draw the line at different points. Some contributors think a whole sentence is too long to directly quote, word-for-word. I avoid repeating, word-for-word, a whole sentence, from our references. I figure out alternate wording. Sometimes that results in a sentence that reads awkwardly. But we have an obligation to respect the intellectual property rights of the authors whose work we cite.

A year or two ago I was reading an article google found for me. Passages in it looked surprisingly familiar. Several paragraphs were a direct and unattributed cull of material I contributed to the wikipedia. I took me about fifteen minutes to confirm that 85 to 90 percent of the material in that article was a direct and unattributed quote from material I had written, and that two journalists had written. I wrote to those two journalists, and told them about it. One of those journalists said something like: "A reporter plagarizing the wikipedia? Usually it is the other way around."

Further, may I point out something about the NYTimes efforts in its Guantanamo docket? I remind you that you have praised the NYTimes efforts. I too find their docket useful. But the scans aren't the intellectual property of the NYTimes. For each captives' page the NYTimes added just two or three sentences of new intellectual property. So your unattributed, word for word quote represents a very large fraction of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I still do not see the problem to use these facts included in a simple sentence in our articles. Do you think there in no way to use these facts from there and put it into our article? Yes the material they provide in the article is short. Because they avoid any interpretation of these questionable documents at all. I think that makes it even more notable to include. I have explained this to you already on your talk page where you did not answer react to it:

It is the The New York Times that specially calculates and points out the lengths of the imprisonment for each prisoner. Why are they doing this? Because they think is is remarkable and notable. For a lot of the prisoner thats one of few information that have been made available by secondary sources. Not to include the little information that comes from highly reliable sources and that is specially marked as notable would be irresponsible. I do not think it is difficult to update this information i will do it and it is easy to do for every editor that work on or visit WP. But i must say you are right about the presentation of this fact in the article. It may be desirable to put this fact into a different sentence structure what is not always easy for such simple facts. But i will try my best in the future to improve this point.

I think it is notable and important to include and state in our articles how long the detainees have been or had been detained. As i have explained in my comment here and on your talk page. Do you think it is impossible to take this simple information from The Guantanamo Docket without violating copyright laws? IQinn (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand, there is no problem using the same facts as used in the NYTimes article. What is regarded as a problem is when one writer uses the exact same words, in the same order, to express those facts. As to how it is acceptable to use the facts in the reference... Rewriting those facts is one perfectly acceptable way to use those facts. Another way to use them is to explicitly indicate you are directly quoting your source, saying something like: "According to Joe Blow..." followed by a passage you think really has to be expressed in the original.

Maybe there are a considerable fraction of our contributors who think a passage has to be more than two sentences to be considered a problem. Others don't. Others see it as a problem. Quoting a single sentence from a single reference page might be seen as a something that could be overlooked, while quoting one hundred very similar sentences, from one hundred different pages.

As to the value of the NYTimes calculation... Well, it is dated information. The NYTimes updates those pages -- presumably by a robot, pretty regularly. I think they do so at least once a month. It is not a good use of our person-power to use wording that needs to be regularly updated. We have robots too, like Template:For year month day.

Penultimately, I don't understand what you meant with this passage. "Yes the material they provide in the article is short. Because they avoid any interpretation of these questionable documents at all. I think that makes it even more notable to include." Geo Swan (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

striking these two paragraphs, as per this request, to move them to a new subsection. Geo Swan (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As for whether the OARDEC documents are "questionable". If you mean that the documents contain allegations that may turn out to be based on forged documents, unreliable paid informants, simple cases of mistaken identity, I will agree, they may. The Department of Energy may make estimates of oil reserves that turn out to be unreliable. Similarly the Environmental Protection Agency, HUD, HEW, DOC might all publish information that turns out to be unreliable. There might even be corrupt officials who would knowingly publish false information because they were bribed. How do we deal with the possibility that officials may publish incorrect information? If there are other references, other WP:RS, which challenge those official documents, we can cite those other WP:RS as well. Sometimes it could be the official sources who have the true scoop, and the challengers, even charming and intelligent challengers who are mistaken. I know you are bored with me reminding you of WP:NPOV and WP:VER. But if it is really not our job to pass judgment on the credibility of WP:RS, then is it useful to keep calling the OARDEC documents "questionable"?

What are the choices open to a wikipedia contributor who is confident that all the WP:RS open to us on a particular topic, are wrong? I think our choices are (1) try to keep our reservations to ourself, and neutrally cover what the WP:RS say; or (2) sit out working on those topics until new WP:RS are published that agree with our personal opinion. I try to neutrally cover what the WP:RS say, even when I personally disagree with them. Geo Swan (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have ask you a few times to reduce your comments to a acceptable size. You are addressing at least two separate topics here. Would it be possible to reduce your comment here to the information that is relevant for this thread and start a new one for the other topics. I think that would make it easier for all of us to solve very interesting questions. Could you do so? IQinn (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Geo Swan (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are OARDEC documents "questionable"?

I am responding to a comment made in the section above, and various threads elsewhere, that OARDEC documents are "questionable", and can't be considered WP:RS.

As for whether the OARDEC documents are "questionable". If you mean that the documents contain allegations that may turn out to be based on forged documents, unreliable paid informants, simple cases of mistaken identity, I will agree, they may. The Department of Energy may make estimates of oil reserves that turn out to be unreliable. Similarly the Environmental Protection Agency, HUD, HEW, DOC might all publish information that turns out to be unreliable. There might even be corrupt officials who would knowingly publish false information because they were bribed. How do we deal with the possibility that officials may publish incorrect information? If there are other references, other WP:RS, which challenge those official documents, we can cite those other WP:RS as well. Sometimes it could be the official sources who have the true scoop, and the challengers, even charming and intelligent challengers who are mistaken. I know you are bored with me reminding you of WP:NPOV and WP:VER. But if it is really not our job to pass judgment on the credibility of WP:RS, then is it useful to keep calling the OARDEC documents "questionable"?

What are the choices open to a wikipedia contributor who is confident that all the WP:RS open to us on a particular topic, are wrong? I think our choices are (1) try to keep our reservations to ourself, and neutrally cover what the WP:RS say; or (2) sit out working on those topics until new WP:RS are published that agree with our personal opinion. I try to neutrally cover what the WP:RS say, even when I personally disagree with them. Geo Swan (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)