Talk:Sami al-Hajj

Scoffing at Qu'ran flushing appropriately placed? Sources don't substantiate assertion.

An unnamed contributor place a skeptical comment about Qu'ran flushing, in the middle of a summary of Al Hajj's lawyer's account of his experiences. That unsubstantiated assertion was, in my opinion, inappropriately placed. I removed it. No reasonable person would question that a place could be found for quoting a credible source that expressed skepticism about the Qu'ran flushing. The middle of the summary of Smith's account is not the right place. And the original unnamed contributor didn't provide a source. Another contributor felt they should restore the oriignal skeptical comment, in its original inappropriate place. They added three links, which they say substantiate skepticism as to whether it was possible to flush a qu'ran.

I still believe the location is inappropriate. And those three sources are not credible sources that substantiate the original assertion.

• The more credible source is Fox News. But the Fox story doesn't substantiate the assertion. It merely says that Newsweek stepped back from saying that their anonymous official source had confirmed that a classified official inquiry had confirmed the story.
• The other two links [1] [2] look like non-notable blog sites. And I don't see them substantiating the original assertion that flushing a qu'ran down a toilet is impossible.

By all means add skeptical comments to the article, but in a more appropriate place. And those skeptical comments shouldn't attribute the skepticism to "some critics". Further links that are said to substantiate the assertion should actually substantiate it. -- Geo Swan 19:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we get some news source links other than Al Jazeera? In the context of the article it seems... inappropriate. --DDG 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the prisoner 345 page, owned by al jazeera, "The Qu’ran was thrown in the toilet in front of him." [3] It doesn't say it was flushed, for what it's worth.71.246.241.195 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My recent edit made the references and external links disappear

Sorry about that. Not sure how it happened but the code is still there. Can anyone fix it?

Fixed.

Did you mean to use a link to one of Al-Jazeera's Arabic pages as a reference? [4] When a reference doesn't include the title and date it makes it impossible to look for a mirror, if the main link goes dead. So, I tried the link to find the title and date. But, I don't speak Arabic.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Flushing a Koran down the toilet is Physically Impossible!

Guantanamo Koran hanging in a surgical mask.

A Guantanamo toilet.

It's so obvious that this was part of the propaganda campaign unleashed against the Western World.

Has anyone ever tried to FLUSH A BOOK DOWN THE TOILET? It would be physically impossible, as books are larger than the pipes in a toilet.

This allegation in the article should be listed as such: an unfounded allegation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.184.152 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Whether it is an unfounded allegation or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia documents his allegation, not whether or not it is true.--109.59.150.9 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you take it LITERALLY, yes, it seems to be not possible. More probably the guards have torn out the pages, throwing them piece for piece in the toilet. You see, more funs for the Marines who run this "prison". --84.141.50.97 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, some people are eager to take the words "flushing a book down the toilet" literally, simply to discredit the facts and put some dense fog over them. There is so much video and photographic evidence on the net where a Koran is abused, that this incident seems true. What I am missing in this article: Bush and his camarilla are planning to give themselves and others immunity for each war crime (like this) committed in Iraq. But my English is not good enough to work that out. --84.141.33.125 (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is it my imagination or is there no place to put toilet paper in that toilet...? But the hole does look like it would accommodate the book, at least if you bent each of the covers in half. Wnt (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

rm -- see talk

I clipped a comment. It was in a section that quoted from the 2005 Summary of Evidence (ARB) memos. It was made to look like the factors from that memo. Innocently, no doubt, but also innappropriately.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

removing wikidates from quoted material

Wikidates are great, in general. But I believe correcting quoted material to use them is a mistake. Quoted material should be left "as-is". Readers may want to search the web on it. If so using wikidates can cause those searches to fail.

That is bad.

So I removed the wikidating.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Identity section

The fact that transliteration of Arabic symbols to the Latin alphabet is imprecise and often produces many possible results suggests to me that Section 1 (Identity) would be at best reduced to 2 possible spellings of Hajj's name (as at Taj El-Din Hilaly). There is no source given for any confusion over Hajj's identity only sources for different latinizations of his name. And this doesn't deserve a section to itself. SmithBlue (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

$10,000 bills?

According to Large denominations of United States currency there are believed to be only about 300 $10,000 bills in circulation. As collectibles I would think their condition would be very important. Is there evidence that there were really 22 of them tucked under his wife's belly? Surely this is some mis-translation. $2200 in a money belt seems more believable. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

call for discussion

Another contributor removed an image I added, with the edit summary: "Undid revision 339208005 by Geo Swan (talk) no good reason given for the inclusion of this image".

Sami al-Hajj is a hunger striker who: drew some striking illustrations, including one depicting himself as a skeleton being force-fed. "My picture reflects my nightmares of what I must look like with my head double-strapped down, a tube in my nose, a black mask over my mouth, with no eyes and only giant cheekbones", he said.

I think this image is entirely appropriate for this article.

If the other contributor did not understand that Al Hajj was a hunger striker who had been strapped into the restraint chair for his force-feedings I suggest it would have been wiser to have, politely, initiated a discussion over their concern -- rather than just excise the material they didn't understand.

In my experience this kind of radical excision too often serves as a trigger to an edit war. I won't immediately revert this excision. I'll wait to see whether the other contributor has other arguments for the excision. But I call on them to make a greater to refrain from treating the wikipedia like a battleground. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits follow common rules on Wikipedia and i have always done more than enough to cooperate. Once again do limit your post to the content issues and leave false ad hominem arguments out.

I am more than willing to discuss the arguments for and against the inclusion of this image. But i am not longer willing to stand your uncivil rude language. Please understand that a revert is not a personal attack. Please do not be offended by that. As you said Wikipedia is not a battleground so please let's solve content issues through civil discussions. Can we? IQinn (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please turn to "civil discussions" before reverting others' contributions to the project, otherwise you appear to be engaging in severe WP:OWNERSHIP. Per the issue at hand, is it possible to get the actual illustration al-Hajj drew? Either as Fair Use, or if he'd agree to release it... Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you still do not full understand WP:OWNERSHIP. I have never shown ownership behavior. You are still asking for explanations in advanced what could be seen as ownership behavior. Geo Swan edit information without explanation that's fine. I revert with a clear edit summary that's fine. Discussion starts on the talk page. Nothing wrong here. So let's come to the content issue and discussion.

I think your idea to get the original i think you mean this one Sketches of the nightmare? Yeah that would be worth to try the article is already hopeless based on government sources and the Sketches of the nightmare image would help us to work more towards WP:NPOV. Any idea for the best way to get permission...?

A few more images. The Torture Drawings the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to See IQinn (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

call for discussion

I recently started an article on the Guantanamo hunger strikes. We already have an article on hunger strikes, throughout the ages, including suffragists, and the IRA. It has a section on Guantanamo. Looking at it I can see that that section is very out of date, unreferenced, and, frankly poorly written. I checked. I wrote much of that section. I wrote it four years ago, when I was less experienced, and when the wikipedia's standards, and my personal standards were lower.

I think the Guantanamo section of the hunger striker article should be improved. And I think the Guantanamo hunger strikes and hunger strikers merit an article of their own. After some work, I think this article will become much larger than it is now.

As I was working on the Guantanamo hunger strikes article I started looking at other articles that referred to the hunger strikes or hunger strikers, because they might be citing references about the hunger strike that could be re-used in the Guantanamo hunger strikes article. And, while doing so, I changed links from "hunger strike" to "Guantanamo hunger strike".

Another contributor asked me to stop -- for discussion I thought. They told me they planned to suggest merging the new article into the "hunger strikes" article. I thought I would wait for them to initiate that discussion -- or another discussion, if they thought they had a better idea, before I made any more of those changes in article space.

Instead of that discussion they reverted my change in the wikilink here.

I think if someone has a concern they should:

1. explain their concern;
2. try to work towards a compromise;
3. if a compromise is acheived, great, we all work together on that approach;
4. if no compromise is acheived there are other options.

But, for crying out loud, if you have a concern, don't just hint at it, and then start reverting the other party, skipping the attempt to explain yourself and work towards a compromise. Geo Swan (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Once more my edits follow common rules on Wikipedia and i have always done more than enough to explain and to cooperate. Once again do limit your post to the content issues and leave false ad hominem arguments out. I have always worked towards compromise and consensus.

I am more than willing to discuss the arguments for and against relinking of hunger strike. And once more i am not longer willing to stand your uncivil rude language. Please understand that a revert is not a personal attack. Please do not be offended by that. As you said Wikipedia is not a battleground so please let's solve content issues through civil discussions. Can we?

Coming back to the content issue. To witch page the word "hunger strike" should link depends on the context where it is used. Your large scale relinking did not take this in consideration.

You may get a beer and lean back a moment. You have made lot's of edits over a large amount of pages. People need time to work through it. I have only reverted parts of your large scale changes with a clear argument in the edit summary that is enough.

I have only reverted the instances where i think that it would be better to link to hunger strike in the context of the information. And i did not revert the instances where i fully understand that a link to your new page could made more scenes. That is clearly to see from the edit summary. Concerning the merge proposal and message on your talk page. Please leave enough time for editors to answer instead of going mad and falsely accusing people.

For the "hunger strike" link in this article that you have relinked. I think it would be better it would link to hunger strike instead of the from you new created page. My argument for that was given in the edit summary hunger strike gives the reader a better overview over all aspects of a hunger strike in this context. You are welcome to address this argument and i would like to ask you to limit your replies to an acceptable size. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As I find myself agreeing that "Guantanamo Hunger Strikes" offers readers who click-through a better context of the issue, rather than a dictionary definition, I have reverted Iqinn's reversions. (Double negative is a positive?)

Consensus currently suggests that "Guantanamo hunger strikes" is the better link in these circumstances, so no further changes should be made unless consensus is demonstrated otherwise. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring again. You have reverted several instances even the discussion has been clearly started already. Bookmarked and other forums to deal with that.

For the consensus. Consensus is not established by voting if it that what you mean by (Double negative is a positive?) ?

For the content issue you are not addressing my argument. Please have a closer look at the articles. The term "hunger strike" refers to different ideas in the context. The best choice should be use for each context. I agree that it is the better choice in some context but not everywhere.

So i suggest you address my argument. In the context of the sentence where hunger strike is used here the article hunger strike gives the reader the information they are looking for in this context. IQinn (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not even close to possible for me to "edit war" on articles I have never edited before reverting your removal of information a single time. I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with WP policies before you continue your policy of opening every argument by accusing your interlocutor of breaking them. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me assure you that i am familiar with the policies and the apply very well you reverted on multiple pages despite a discussion was already ongoing. Anyway i suggest we leave it behind or up to other forums.

I am always looking to solve edit disputes through discussions. I have given you my arguments concerning the content issue that we need to solve and i would be glad if you could take part in the discussion and address my argument concerning the content issue.

English Language Citation

Per Wikipedia citation guidlines, "When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." There is no such English translation for the citation : ^ a b "لجنة حماية الصحفيين قلقة إزاء تدهور صحة الحاج". Al Jazeera. March 6, 2007. http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/49B71E20-FDC0-4B51-A1D9-1CFB0ACA2D10.htm. Retrieved 2007-03-07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJ Crowning (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Transliterations of Arabic name

Official documents the United States Department of Defense has released gave the latinized version of Al Hajj's name as Sami Mohy El Din Muhammed Al Hajj except for one document released in September 2007.

References

Phew

Reworked much of the former weirdness of this article, with some help from User:IQinn. There's room for expansion with regards to Al Hajj's treatment at Gitmo.--109.59.150.9 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks release today

His file has been released in today's batch. It claims he's a member of al-Qaida and Taliban, among other things. Quite an interesting read. --91.32.72.83 (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sami al-Hajj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207155525/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=39128 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=39128
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080320111126/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/AE290F88-4501-4E8C-825B-B264DF7B7218.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AE290F88-4501-4E8C-825B-B264DF7B7218.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207155525/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=39128 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=39128

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sami al-Hajj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230154701/http://www.newagebd.com/2006/nov/13/edit.html#2 to http://www.newagebd.com/2006/nov/13/edit.html#2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308111428/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17971 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17971
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305023248/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20344 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20344
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306210631/http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639 to http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309114045/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19079 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19079
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826191906/http://www.rsf.org:80/article.php3?id_article=23363 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=23363
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121055414/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk:80/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=38719&c=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=6&storycode=38719&c=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119044858/http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17217 to http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17217
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220205859/http://web.amnesty.org:80/library/Index/ENGAMR512072005 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR512072005

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sami al-Hajj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008225514/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=6486&sectionid=3510205 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=6486&sectionid=3510205
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051224223358/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15AACD99-DF1A-4E68-A9A6-DFEECF597F3E.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15AACD99-DF1A-4E68-A9A6-DFEECF597F3E.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029065339/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/021AA43D-0DC8-4EC1-835E-41EEBF47C27A.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/021AA43D-0DC8-4EC1-835E-41EEBF47C27A.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)