Talk:Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif

disputed picture

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A unilateral initiative...

Another wikipedia contributor recently started an unilateral initiative to remove referenced material from the captions of images of the trailer where CSR Tribunals were held, that the captives were shackled, hand and foot, to a bolt in the floor. This other contributor replaced the caption with another caption that asserts that the Tribunals were merely usually held in a small trailer. This contributor failed to provide a single reference to back up their assertion that some captives attended Tribunals that were not held in a trailer like the one pictured.

My response -- User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/shackles.

In my opinion the edits in this unilateral initiative is problematic because they remove referenced material and replaced it with the unreferenced assertion, that contradicts all WP:RS.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly let me assure you that there is and has never been "an unilateral initiative". Please be careful with such inflammatory language. IMO to falsely describe my edit in this way could be seen as an initiative itself and that would be a kind of initiative that has never been received well by the Wikipedia community.

Coming to the content issue that i guess you may want to discuss: I have read the page that you have created in your user space including the given references. I knew these information and references and some of it could be used to further improve Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

Regarding my edit to this article here. The biography of Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif i have to say the old version and the page you have created does not verify that Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif's CSRT took place in the trailer that is shown in the picture and it does not verify that Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif's hands were shackled to a bolt in the floor during his CSRT. In fact the page you have created strenghten the arguments for my version with the wording usually.

You have frequently pointed out that reliable sources are important to write WP articles and i fully agree with that and i have always done so.

As far as i see we do not have reliable sources that verify that Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif's tribunal was held in the trailer shown in the image and we do not have reliable sources that verify that Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif's hands were shackled in the way as it was described in the image description during his CSRT.

There are also many more requirements and rules that can not be ignored or broken when writing an encyclopedic article.

I think here you are ignoring the basic rules of logic.

To provide reliable sources that some detainees's CSRT were held in the trailer shown in the picture does not follow that Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif's CSRT was held in this trailer. As well reliable sources that some detainees were shackled during CSRT does not follow that Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif were.

This is an ongoing event and as soon we find reliable source that verify this information for Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif the subject of this biography without violating the rules of logic or other rules, than and only than should we add it to his biography. IQinn (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The response above is duplicate of one Iqinn provided elsewhere. I believe my response there is equally applicable here. Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WRT WP:OR

This edit, with the edit summary: "remove the summary and interpretations of primary source material as it violates WP:OR" removed a great deal of material.

I partially reverted that edit here. I believe the removal of the summary of the allegations from the 2005 allegation memo was not authorized by OR, which states:

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: it is good editing.

The summaries memos fulfill all the criteria to be recognized as secondary sources. They are independent from those who originally gathered the information they contain, and from the subject of they contain. The authors of the memos were charged with the responsibility to intelligently understand, collate, analyze, determine the credibility, and resolve ambiguity and contradiction of reports from half a dozen separate civilian and military agencies.

I drafted the section that contained a summary of Fahd al Sharif's testimony. I won't try to defend retaining that section. I drafted that section, and some similar sections, way back in 2006. I was a less experienced contributor then. Geo Swan (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been now a large number of editors over the years now who told you and recently you have acknowledged that you made mistakes in using there problematic sources. There is no difference here these parts of the OARDEC documents are also primary sources.

These are not secondary sources not at all. For various reasons. These are documents prepared by OARDEC a United States military body responsible for organizing the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. All these documents prepared by OARDEC for the Combatant Status Review Tribunals are primary sources because OARDEC is close to the event they running the Tribunals. They are not only close. They are involved in the event. Impossible to see them as secondary source for any information regarding the Tribunals.

The interpretations and summaries of these primary sources by Wikipedia editors as it has been done here in the article is WP:OR.

These interpretations and summaries of the primary source by a Wikipedia editor need to be removed. They can be replaced by including the original document as a direct quote as it has been done in most of the Guantanamo detainees biographies. Interpretation and summaries of these documents by Wikipedia editors are just off topic. WP:OR is one of our core policies. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Try to find secondary sources instead. IQinn (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. You have claimed on many occasions, possibly dozens of occasions, that I have misrepresented you. Please don't misrepresent what I have written here. The transcripts are primary sources. My interpretation was, and remains, that the Summary of Evidence memos are secondary sources, where the authors of those memos were charged with the responsibility to collate, interpret, reconcile ambiguity and contradiction from hundreds of pages of reports prepared by half a dozen other agencies, both military and civilian.
2. Over the last five years a limited number of my correspondents, including yourself, have asserted that the OARDEC memos are primary sources. With very few exceptions those who made this assertion have not chosen to actually engage in a discussion over this issue. I believe your second paragraph above is your first attempt to offer a policy-based explanation as to why you consider the memos primary sources.
3. WRT "close to the event" or "close to the event(s)" -- I believe you are misinterpreting this phrase. The events in question here are the events listed in the allegation memos, like that he was captured wearing the terrorist watch, or that his names was on a list of suspected al Qaida operatives.
4. I have replaced some of the sections of the articles that had previously included a verbatim quote of allegations in the allegation memos. Almost all the allegations on the CSR Tribunal allegation memos listed just a half dozen or so single sentence allegations. But the 2005, 2006 and 2007 allegation memos almost always listed several times as many allegations. The 2005, 2006, and 2007 allegations were often several sentences. And they were generally, but not always quite repetitive.

In my opinion replacing the large block of verbatim quote with a briefer summary, which did not repeat allegations that had been made in earlier years allegations made the article much easier to read and easier to understand. WP:OR#Synthesis of published material that advances a position says: "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: it is good editing." I attempted to carefully summarize and rephrase those secondary sources, without changing its meaning. If you genuinely think I changed its meaning, I would appreciate you being specific about how you believe the meaning was changed.

I have, in some similar articles, provided a summary of the more recent secondary sources, when they had not previously included the large quotation. Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. (1) I did not misinterpreted what you said. You have changed your mind on the transcripts and agrees now that they are primary sources. Right?

1. (2) No, that is wrong. There have been a lot of editors who explained to you that these are primary source. There have been discussions before and i remember well a discussion during an Afd years ago that i read where another author in detail explained and proofed to you with similar arguments that we have to treat all documents that come from OARDEC as primary sources.

1. (3) No, I do not misinterpret this. The tribunals are the event and OARDEC is United States military body responsible for organizing the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Also do not forget that some of the information the summarize comes from other military bodies. They are also close in preparing these summaries. And how do we know that what in their summaries is true? How does OARDEC do it's fact checking? As you said they summarized tons of information from lots of sources most of them gathered by counter intelligence interrogations (and we know how wrong they can be) - some of the information could have been obtained under torture - most information is classified. OARDEC has no reputation and it is not a secondary source like a newspaper it has no editorial overview at all.

1. (4) No, these are primary sources and there are already summarized. A further summarizing, shorten and rephrasing of the information can not be done without interpreting them. The meaning of this primary sources has already changed as you select certain parts of the documents and leaving out other parts. You can not summaries e or rephrase these primary sources without changing their meaning. Let's leave it to the secondary sources to analyse these documents and then we will included their interpretations and findings like we always do.

I think your quote from WP:OR#Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a bit out of context as it does not refer to primary source material. And these summaries prepared by OARDEC the United States military body responsible for organizing the Combatant Status Review Tribunals are primary sources. IQinn (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I acknowledge the transcripts are primary sources. I prepared those summaries in 2006, and early 2007. I am no longer confident that those summaries of the transcripts comply with policy.
2. You are entitled to think you remember another contributor proved to me that the OARDEC allegation memos were primary sources. I think you are mistaken. If you think you can remember the points they made in their argument in sufficient detail to repeat it here, please do so. Otherwise, please consult your notes, and offer diffs to that earlier discussion.
3. For the transcripts the CSR Tribunal or annual review hearing is the event. For the memos the event(s) are Fahd al Sharif's alleged ownership of the watch, the name Fahd al Sharif allegedly being found on a suspicious list, his alleged presence on battlefields, training camps, suspicious guest houses. In the memos each of the listed factors describes a separate alleged event, back in Afghanistan.
   • All of the information reviewed and summarized by the OARDEC authors originally came from separate agencies. Some of them are military agences, some are civilian agencies. Those other agencies played zero official role in preparing the memos. Please consult [1] one of several dozen similar files. Please take a look at pages 3, 4, 11, 12, 22, 23, 30, 38, 39, 46, 55, 56, 67, 76, 77, 87, 88... These pages list the agencies that were the sources of the reports the OARDEC authors consulted. Note, the civilian agencies were always listed first.
   • WRT to your concern that the information may not be true. Once again I direct your attention to the first sentence of WP:VER. We aim to make the wikipedia verifiable. It is not our role to have our personal interpretation of whether what WP:RS say is true influence how we use our references. That is a basic principle of our policy on writing from the neutral point of view. What I personally consider true or untrue doesn't matter. Similarly, what you or any other wikipedian personally consider true or untrue doesn't matter.
   • WRT to OARDEC having no reputation for accuracy, we regard official government publications, web-sites, press-releases and press conferences as reliable for conveying that government's official position. We consider them reliable sources for that government's official position. Without regard to your personal doubts as to the credibility of the allegations on Fahd al Sharif's memo are reliable sources for the official position as to why he should be detained.
   • Could some of the allegations against Fahd al Sharif have been the product of torture, or other coercive interrogation techniques? On a personal level I might agree with you. But we are not allowed to let our personal speculation influence what we write in article space. If you can find WP:RS that specifically name Fahd al Sharif as an individual who was coerced into false confessions, by all means lets include that. Similarly, if you can find WP:RS that say he was falsely denounced by other suspects please include them.
4. Sorry, I don't accept your premise that the memos, which collate, interpret and summarize multiple other documents prepared by others, are primary sources.

In response to your last, unnumbered point, if the memos are secondary sources, as I contend, then neutral summaries of them not only make the articles briefer, and easier to comprehend, but are fully compliant with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

1. this edit removed the image of a Casio f91w digital watch.
2. I restored the image.
3. I reworded the caption, to read "Fahd al Sharif's detention was justified, in part, because he owned a Casio F91W watch." The caption was referenced to the 2005 allegation memo.
4. The image and new caption were excised, with the edit summary "a whopper of a mischaracterization.".

The allegation memo I referenced in the caption states:

The detainee's pocket litter included a Casio Watch, Model F-91 W. The Casio Watch, Model F-91 W, has been used in bombings that have been linked to al Qaida and radical Islamic terrorist improvised explosive devices.

In my opinion the caption is a fully consistent and fair summary of these two allegations from the allegations memo. Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The primary source did not claim the watch was used to "justify detention" of the inmate. The source merely listed it as evidence in a hearing. Your interpretation is not only WP:Synthesis, but misleading, as it puts a false light on the detention itself. If you label the image with something like, "evidence listed in his detention hearing", that is an accurate characterization. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in hearing why you call the summary of evidence memo a "primary source".

The watch was listed as evidence at a hearing -- a hearing with the sole purpose to make a recommendation as to whether he should continue to be detained. So, I am sorry, but I do not understand your characterization of it as a laspe from WP:SYNTH, or your challenge that it was used to justify detention. Could you please actually check the memo for yourself? The memo has five numbered section. Section three, which consistutes more than half the memo, is a list entitled: The following primary factors favor continued detention". I think that means it is fair to state any allegation in that list is offered to justify continued detention.

I would be interested in how you see this as misleading. How exactly does this "put a false light on the detention itself"?

Synth says:

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: it is good editing.

Geo Swan (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. First of all, the term "primary source" simply means the source closest to the fact (non interpreted). A secondary source would be a news story about the hearing, for example. Primary sources are reliable, but they can be tricky to interpret. In this case, there are a few problems with the caption summary. First and most importantly, from a legal perspective, evidence presented at a hearing does not necessarily have any bearing on the outcome of the hearing. If you have an outcome ruling where the judge specifically cites the watch as a factor in his decision, that would be a valid conclusion. Without it, we don't know if there's any connection between the judge's ruling to continue detention, and any particular piece of evidence. In some cases, the situation may be clear enough where we can reasonably conclude that (for instance, if there was only a single piece of evidence given), but in this case, it appears to be one of the least incriminating pieces of evidence against him.

Another problem, which I can best illustrate by example. Imagine a murder trial where, among thousands of pieces of evidence presented, the jury is told the defendent liked to chew gum. Now, if we say, "his murder conviction was based on the fact the defendant chewed gum" -- without saying that the specific brand of gum he chewed was found on the victim's body -- we're presenting the evidence in a false light. We're not told the watch type is a commonly used detonator, or that he was carrying it around loose, rather than on his wrist as a person normally using a watch would be.

Third problem. The statement as written ignores what is far more compelling evidence against him. To use our analogy again, it's like claiming our murderer was convicted for gum, without mentioning three eyewitnesses identified him leaving the scene with a gun in his hand. Undue weight.

Fourth problem. The caption implies this was why he was originally detained, rather than being part of evidence in his continued detention. A subtle difference, but one that leaves a very different picture in a casual reader's mind.

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 02:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. First of all, the term "primary source" simply means the source closest to the fact (non interpreted). A secondary source would be a news story about the hearing, for example. Primary sources are reliable, but they can be tricky to interpret. In this case, there are a few problems with the caption summary. First and most importantly, from a legal perspective, evidence presented at a hearing does not necessarily have any bearing on the outcome of the hearing. If you have an outcome ruling where the judge specifically cites the watch as a factor in his decision, that would be a valid conclusion. Without it, we don't know if there's any connection between the judge's ruling to continue detention, and any particular piece of evidence. In some cases, the situation may be clear enough where we can reasonably conclude that (for instance, if there was only a single piece of evidence given), but in this case, it appears to be one of the least incriminating pieces of evidence against him.

Another problem, which I can best illustrate by example. Imagine a murder trial where, among thousands of pieces of evidence presented, the jury is told the defendent liked to chew gum. Now, if we say, "his murder conviction was based on the fact the defendant chewed gum" -- without saying that the specific brand of gum he chewed was found on the victim's body -- we're presenting the evidence in a false light. We're not told the watch type is a commonly used detonator, or that he was carrying it around loose, rather than on his wrist as a person normally using a watch would be.

Third problem. The statement as written ignores what is far more compelling evidence against him. To use our analogy again, it's like claiming our murderer was convicted for gum, without mentioning three eyewitnesses identified him leaving the scene with a gun in his hand. Undue weight.

Fourth problem. The caption implies this was why he was originally detained, rather than being part of evidence in his continued detention. A subtle difference, but one that leaves a very different picture in a casual reader's mind.

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 02:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that your reply incorporates some misconceptions.

Neither the CSR Tribunals or the annual review hearing are trials. The Presiding officers routinely told the captives that they were not allowed legal advice was that the proceedings were "administrative procedures", not "legal procesures". So, it is a mistake to refer to the officers who sat on them as "judges".

You wrote: "First of all, the term "primary source" simply means the source closest to the fact (non interpreted)." That is precisely the point. The authors of the Summary of Evidence memos were not close to the event(s) described there-in. They were at several removes. And their job required them to interpret, collate and reconcile conflicting reports.

You wrote: "A secondary source would be a news story about the hearing, for example." Some wikipedians assert that only press reports should be considered secondary sources -- and this is an interpretation I regard as obviously incorrect. There are lots of topics for which there are no press reports, which are nevertheless noteworthy, which we cover here. Some topics are too complicated to be addressed in press reports, but are nevertheless covered by the wikipedia. In those cases we rely on WP:RS published in other places, like academic journals, the web-sites of research institutes that study the phenomenon in question, or the sites or publications of government agencies. Similarly, noteworthy events from the past are unlikely to be covered in the popular press, yet they can remain worth covering.

You may not have meant to imply that only press reports should be considered secondary sources.

You write: "from a legal perspective, evidence presented at a hearing does not necessarily have any bearing on the outcome of the hearing" The authors of the Summary of Evidence memos were responsible for marshalling and listing "primary factors that favor continued detention". In your first reply above you wrote:

The primary source did not claim the watch was used to "justify detention" of the inmate.

I pointed out that the allegations I quoted were from a portion of the document entitled: "The following primary factors favor continued detention". I asked you how it was misleading to describe the factors as justifications for his detention. It seems to me you didn't choose to answer that question. I regard it as an important question, and I would really appreciate you not overlooking it if you choose to reply here again.

WRT to consulting the written descriptions of how the officrs recommended was reached -- that is not possible, the details of the officers deliberations remain classified. As above, however, I do not believe it would matter if the officers who sat on Fahd al Sharif's board did write that they discounted the Casio watch link -- as it was advanced as a justification for his continued detention by the authors of the memos.

Now if what you now mean by calling the caption misleading is that the article needed more context as to why the authors of the memo regarded the watch as suspicious... Are you suggesting the caption should be longer? In drafting this caption I wanted to respect those who don't like long captions. Are you suggesting that the summary of the memo, which also states that his ownership of the watch, should also state more details the watch being used to prepare bombs? I have no problem with that. If you want to make the caption longer.

WRT to your chewing gum analogy. Neither you or I, or any other wikipedia contributor is a WP:RS. You and I don't have any way of knowing what level of significance the officers making the determination placed on ownership of the casio watch. Our guesses, even our educated guesses, don't count, because we aren't WP:RS. So we should treat this factor no more and no less significant than any other allegation. If we had other factors that were illustratable, and the Commons had relevant images we should consider using those as well as, or instead of, the watch image.

WRT your third problem, "the statement ... ignores ... far more compelling evidence against him" -- as above, you and I are not WP:RS. To what extent do you think it is appropriate for us to factor articles around what we personally consider "compelling"?

When the first set of transcripts were published, on March 3, 2006, some reporters who had quickly reviewed those transcripts, noted in the days following that close to a dozen captives were held based on ownership of this watch. What they couldn't know is that as the years passed additional captives had the ownership of one these watches listed as a factor favoring their continued detention, on the memos drafted in later years.

You asserted the caption lapsed from WP:UNDUE. If the authors of these memos didn't consider it "compelling evidence" why are they continuing to list it as a factor? Why are they adding it as a new factor on new memos, for captives who hadn't faced this allegation in the past?

WRT your fourth problem, as I wrote on the WP:NORN discussion, I don't think it is properly our role to second guess what conclusions our readers arrive at. Our role is to find good, authoritative, verifiable references, and then cover them from a neutral point of view. I have written about these guey enough that some of my google searches turn up stuff other people have written, off-wiki, that I think those off-wiki writers had read material I contributed here. There have been some instances where I found I had been plagiarized. I don't care if those who read material I contributed reach a conclusion at odds with my personal conclusion. I just regard this as proof I succeeded from writing from a neutral point of view. And, for all I know, the personal conclusion I tried to keep out of my contribution to the wiki might be wrong, and the readers who read my contribution, and drew a different conclusion, might be correct.

I don't know why Fahd al Sharif was originally detained. Neither do you. Now if the article said he was originally detained due to the watch I think you could challenge that wording. But, unless you can explain how the wording isn't neutral, I think speculation on what conclusion a casual reader might form is not our role. Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The following three edits changed the caption to the image [2], [3]. I am concerned over the new caption, which reads:

A Casio F91W watch, a model commonly used as a detonator. Possession of a Casio F91W was listed as evidence in Fahd al Sharif' detention hearing.

"Commonly"? I wonder if you could find unclassified reports that substantiate that the watch was used "commonly". Even if you could find unclassified reports that made this assertion I wonder whether it would be appropriate to cite those reports here -- if they don't mention Fahd al Sharif. Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

" So we should treat this factor no more and no less significant than any other allegation." But you haven't done this. You've given it undue weight by using a photo and caption to highlight just this one particular piece of evidence. A reader who doesn't delve into the details of the primary documents is going to be left with the wrong impression; that this subject was held simply because he owned a watch. Without context given, we've promoted that particular point of view.

"I don't think it is properly our role to second guess what conclusions our readers arrive at". On the contary, that is precisely our role. We need to ensure that, in our best opinions, the reader will arrive at a conclusion that best summarizes and represents the situation. I think its clear the original caption prevents that. Even the replacement caption (which I myself added) is I think a bit misleading, due to the undue weight issue I raised earlier, but I think its a fair compromise between the various positions being argued here. My own position would be to remove it entirely, as a situation that can't possibly be detailed in a short caption without misleading the reader.

Regards. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 03:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, if commons had images that usefully illustrated other allegations, then we would have to choose which one to use. Commons only has relevant images that could usefully illustrate one of the factors offered to justify holding Fahd al Sharif. So, no I do not agree this factor was given undue weight.

You wrote: "A reader who doesn't delve into the details of the primary documents is going to be left with the wrong impression; that this subject was held simply because he owned a watch." I write my contributions from the premise that we should respect our readers' intelligence and powers of judgment. You wrote that we should be second-guessing the conclusions our readers arrive at. You argued, above, that some of the factors were more "compelling". Isn't "Compelling" a personal judgment you reached? It seems to me that choosing to tailor our coverage of what WP:RS say, to give greater emphasis to elements because we personally consider them "compelling" is a lapse from the policy of writing from a neutral point of view. If you really did mean to suggest we should emphasize the factors that you personally regard as "compelling" wouldn't you be picking sides, and choosing to be an advocate for the OARDEC POV?

Lets be clear. We could comment that any reader who didn't read any whole article might reach a different conclusion than if they read the whole article. We can't make any of our readers read our whole article. We can't even be cross with them for not reading our whole articles. They read them for their own reasons.

I'd like to be clear on something else. There are other contributors who routinely challenge material on the Guantanamao captives, and who routinely claim the allegation memos are "primary sources" when doing so. I find myself called on, over and over again, to explain that because the authors of those memos were not associated with the detention or interrogation of the captives, because they drafted those summary memos after reading, collating, interpreting, and reconciling ambiguities and contradictions they found in dozens of earlier documents previously prepared by half a dozen other agencies, those summary memos fully fulfilled all the criteria to be considered "secondary sources" as per the wikipedia definition of "secondary sources". What I am sorry to report is that many of those who insist on calling the documents "primary sources" never respond to my description of why the documents are secondary sources with a meaningful counter-argument. I'd like you to ask yourself if you think you have offered a meaningful counter-argument. Geo Swan (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This information in the lead section of the article:

Following the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006

On November 1, 2006, lawyers acting on behalf of Fahd al Sharif and ten other captives mounted the first legal challenge to the newly passed Military Commissions Act of 2006.

has been referenced to a Wikinews article and to the SCOTUSblog.

Are the Wikinews and the Scotusblog WP:RS? IQinn (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews certainly isn't. Even worse, the Wikinews ref simply cited the original Scotusblog posting, so it was circular to boot. The Scotusblog case is more of a judgement call. I wouldn't personally challenge it for this particular usage, but there are people who consider anything with the word "blog" in it to be unreliable. But the underlying fact seems valid; scraping up a more ironclad source probably won't be difficult. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

robots only

This article is crap and primary cited and a shame on wikipedia that it exists, no one is looking at is apart from wiki bots and it is so crap that no wikipedia editor has bothered to touch it for three months. The AFD was also a shame with comments such as, keep , we agreed all these were notable, Strong delete asap. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)