Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, allowing redirect. The keep !votes adequately established that the detention camp, and the detention of this individual, are notable, but not that the detention of this individual is notable individually, distinct from other detainees, and not that the detainee is himself notable. No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources. Wikipedia should not be the first place to write notional biographies of living individuals, but luckily that is not what was happening here since the article is largely comprised of minor details of his detention. Summary: Gitmo is notable, the fact of a number of people being detained at gitmo is notable, the things that go on at gitmo are said by many (and with some justification) to be an outrage to human decency, but Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam[edit]

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

You have to be crazy to say that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is unnotable. That being said, it does not mean that every prisoner that was or is held at Guantanamo Bay is notable. There has been over 700 detainess held at one point on Guantanomo Bay. Should there be an article on each prisoner? Of course not. Except, of course, if there's substantial coverage about the person that WP:BIO requires. This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage on this specific person. The refs provided are just a bunch of Army files were he is listed as a prisoner.

The creator of this article Geo Swan (talk · contribs) continuously creates these articles even after similar articles go through afd with the vast majority of them ending up as "no concensus", "redirect", or "delete". Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody told me that posting above others with lines is the new the afd discussion guidline, but I will accordingly get in style. The creator of the article believes that the continuous repetition (and putting them in boxes) in this discussion of incorrect Wikipedia notability guidelines will validate the guidelines. Some of us have responded at each turn, but as our fingers hurt, and we have real-world issues, there might not be a response at each turn pointing out again and again the misconceptopns. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this nomination contains a number of misconceptions. I am addressing these misconceptions up here at the top, several days into the discussion.

  • I believe the nominator is mistaken to conflate previously closed {{afd}} that were closed as "no consensus" with {{afd}} that were closed as "delete". Unless there has been a recent policy change "no consensus" defaults to keep.
  • The nominator forgot to list similar {{afd}} which were closed as "keep": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
  • The nominator initially seened to be asserting that WP:BIO requires "substantial media coverage". It recommends "substantial coverage" -- and says nothing about whether it should be media coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several participants have questioned how Guantanamo captives were not really different from ordinary convicted felons. I believe this is a serious misconception, which I have addressed at length. Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "edit" to my addition, it has absolutely nothing to do with making you look stupid (though I think you claiming that I'm in "clear violation" of a suggested guideline is doing a fine job) - it has to do with me clarifying my position. Let it go. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. Please give relevant reasons for the non-deletion of the article. I don't know where you are getting your info about law school (is it a joke?).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the article before proposing it for deletion next time. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 09:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator asked where Sherurcij got the info about attending Osama bin Laden's law school? One of the allegations Ahmed Adnan Muhammed Ajam faced was

The detainee stayed at a legal college in Kandahar owned by Usama bin Laden.

Anyone can find that allegation in the article and on page 84 of this source, and on page 93 of this source.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is merely a confusion of the issues. Whether he attended law school (as Sherurcij originally claimed) or just regular college (as now claimed) and whether it is mentioned somewhere in the hundred page complaints or it isn't, is immaterial. Osama having a school is no way connected to the notability of this subject. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please actually read what your correspondents wrote, before you reply. Please reply to what your correspondents actually wrote.
Three memos that summarized the allegations against Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam have been published. They were drafted in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Each of these memos was published together with memos against other captives in three separate pdf files that are each about one hundred pages long. But the 2004 memo is one page long, and the 2005 and 2006 memos are just two pages long. These memos aren't "somewhere" in one hundred pages of complaints, as asserted above. The article's references clearly specify which page(s) within the pdfs the memos are found on. No one is asking readers to read articles random articles they may not be interested in. But I think we are entitled to have those who nominate or comment on articles that have been nominated for discussion to read them with sufficient care that they don't make unsupportable claims about what those article contain.
If it weren't a red herring, I might read it more carefully. But his school attendance has no connection to his notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As DGG pointed out about a similar article: "The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern." I can't see any Guantanamo Bay detainees being non-notable. The arrticles may have other failings, but I don't think they should be deleted on these grounds. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How the Guantanamo Bay detention camp provides for the due process of its prisoners is a matter of international concern, and that is why the detention camp is notable. The issue here is wheter each and every prisoner is notable or not. And the question that has to be answered it whether there's substantial coverage of the subject of the bio. I also think that that the issues surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are a matter of international concern but that has nothing to do with each prisoner. This article is a classic example of WP:COATRACK. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK says: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." however this article is focused (well or badly) completely on its subject. It doesn't discuss Guantanamo Bay in general. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article "in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject" no matter how much it focuses on its subject. The creator, in previos afd's, repeatedly states that the importance of the lack of due process that Guantanamo Bay detention camp provides to prisoners is the reason for the non-deletion of the article. It doesn't get anymore WP:COATRACK then that. Indeed, your reason for non-deletion pretty much says the same. There is a confusion with an important issue and people that are pawns in an important issue. The former is notable, not the latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's assertions about WP:BIO misquote the guideline. Nomination states: "...This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage..." -- the nomination claims WP:BIO requires "substantial coverage". What WP:BIO actually says is:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
The WP:BIO guideline says nothing about a requirement for "substantial media coverage". I urge anyone who thinks it does to go back and re-read it for themselves.
Some challengers have stated that the OARDEC documents such as those this article uses are unsatisfactory sources, because they are merely "primary sources", not "secondary sources". I took a closer look at the definitions, and it seemed to me these sources are secondary sources. These documents were drafted from multiple sources, by an independent agency. So I posted queries on WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source? and WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"? I encourage anyone who doubts the sources comply with policy and WP:BIO to take a look at those discussion.
Note: I politely asked the nominator to review those discussion back on March 7 2008 -- when they initially {{prod}}ded this article. I am very sorry that I have to report that the nominator proved unwilling or unable to offer any kind of reply whatsoever. Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This box sits right on top of the WP:BIO page:
(emphasis added) significant (in other words "substantial", but significant is actually a higher standard) coverage is actually the most important factor of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.
Noone here is arguing about the reliability of the sources, that's merely a confusion of the issues. There is one issue - and one issue only - is this person notable or not. Nothing so far has shown that he has any notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification please -- are you now acknowledging that the WP:BIO guideline does not, after all, require that the significant coverage, or substantial coverage, be from a media source? Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The memos were independently drafted, by a separate agency from the task force authorized to detain and interrogate the captives. The authors of these memos reviewed source documents from the FBI, from the CIA, from the USA's Criminal Investigation Task Force for Afghanistan, from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secrectary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, and from foreign intelligence services. After reviewing these documents the OARDEC authors reached conclusions, and listed justifications for his continued detention. I would like someone to explain why this should not be regarded as significant coverage, or substantial coverage.
Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam, in particular, stands accused of working for a charity that was a front for financing terrorists, and for being named on a list of those scheduled for military training from the other side. I would like someone to explain why this is not significant. Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification given -- Whether goverment documents are reliable sources or not (I don't see how they are, the US goverment isn't considered reliable) is a non-issue here. If not one media outlet (and there are plenty that are riled up about the whole Guantanamo Bay process) has decided to write an article about him then its impossible to say that he has recieved significant coverage required by WP:BIO.
If you are going to keep asserting that the WP:BIO guideline requires media coverage then please cite the specific passage that states this. Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never asserted that WP:BIO guideline requires media coverage (although I can't imagine that it doesn't). I stated that I can't see how an argument can be made that a person has recieved significant coverage required by WP:BIO when not one media outlet had even mentioned him in passing!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would still appreciate nominator, or anyone else, offering an explanation as to why the OARDEC memos do not fulfill the "significant" recommendation of the WP:BIO guideline. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked why it "is not significant" that Ajam "stands accused of working for a charity that was a front for financing terrorists, and for being named on a list of those scheduled for military training from the other side." I don't think that this is significant in itself without further evidence that it is. In particular, these accusations have not been established as being either considerably more serious, or considerably less serious, than the accusations against the hundreds of other detainees who are or who have been held at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that the body assigned to review the continued detention of Ajam generated a memo about him, as they did for numerous other detainees, does not appear to be "significant coverage" of his case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean by Keep/merge is that the article should not be deleted, which is the point of this discussion. I have no strong opinion on how the various prisoners are presented here but, even if they were to be gathered together in some list or compilation, this article would still be useful as a redirect since the name is an obvious basis for a search. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
okay, but please explain how the link that you provided establishes that he's "Evidently notable". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, unless specifically stated otherwise, the scope of my arguments nartually limit themselves to the debate at hand. With that in mind, a few hundred detainees each with their own article could easily overwhelm paper-based encyclopedia, but that's not a problem with an electronic-based one.
  • Second, nitpicking aside, I wish you God speed in fighting the good fight of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Thank you for all that folks like yourself do.
  • Third, my blessing of your actions in general should in no way be taken as an indication that I have retracted my assertion to OPPOSE you upon this specific nomination or the rationale provided. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've just drastically re-written the lead information on this detainee, at this point. I feel this improves the article and helps establish his notability. I believe that if the original author also uploads the transcripts for the subject's ARB and CSRT proceedings to s:Wikisource:Guantanamo, then this will make it a clear-cut "keep" case, rather than the debated status it currently has. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The article has not been drastically rewritten. It merely has gotten some background information. The problem with the article - unestablished notability - has yet to be rectified. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of 645 separate articles about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (the whole list is at Category: People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp). Unless one operates under the assumption that all prisoners at Guantanamo (or for that matter, at the Supermax in Florence, Colorado, or at a Chinese camp for political prisoners) are inherently notable, then I don't see that Ajam is more notable than any other person who is incarcerated. Mandsford (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I think the argument that Guantanamo captives are just like other prisoners is based on misconceptions. I have had dialogs on this, and saved one here Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs.
Briefly, I agree, your ordinary Supermax convict would not merit coverage on the wikipedia. But Charles Manson, if he were held there, would. The USA has a justice system that, like those of most other nations, is well-understood, predictable. Convicts had trials. Evidence was gathered, witnesses testified, and were cross examined. If the prisoner was convicted, and sentenced, then we assume he was guilty, will be treated consistently and fairly, and will be released on schedule, unless he commits more crimes while in detention.
While, I agree your ordinary Supermax convict doesn't merit coverage, I would argue that any Supermax convict for whom there are meaningful references to non-trivial claims he or she was wrongfully convicted would merit coverage.
Guantanamo captives aren't convicts. Less than twenty of them have even been charged with crimes. I think that is an important difference.
Guantanamo captives aren't like ordinary convicts -- they are much more like those for whom there is a controversy over whether they were wrongfully convicted -- except, of course, they were never convicts.
WRT to your chinese political prisoners -- no, I would not argue for having a separate article for every political prisoner whose name becomes public. But when there are meaningful reliable sources that back up the claim that a prisoner, in China, Iran, or any other country, is a political prisoner, not a felon convicted of a criminal offense, then I would support having an article written about him or her. I'd insist that the article contain a non-trivial amount of information, be written from a neutral point of view, and cite reliable, verifiable sources. If you have a concern with that, could you please be specific about which part concerns you?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for distinguishing Guantanomo Bay detainees and other prisoners don't make or break Wikipedia notability policy. There must be significant coverage, and after all these kilobytes of discussion there has yet to be provided one media source that discusses this person. The long talk of the lack of Due Process provided to these prisoners is further proof that the article was meant to be a coatrack. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has mispoke in referring to a "Wikipedia notability policy". Like WP:BIO it is a guideline. And it says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

I invite the nominator, or anyone else, to cite a passage from the article that they think represents original research.
The memos the article uses as references do refer to Ajam, directly, in detail. They refer to him by name, in fact.
If we had a source, maybe a Syrian newspaper, that asserted that all the remaining Syrian captives in Guantanamo were being tortured, it would require original research, interpretation, to insert the conclusion that this meant Ajam had been tortured.
I think the phrase: "...and no original research is needed to extract the content..." prohibits inserting that kind of conclusion in the article. And I don't believe the article makes any such interpolation.
If, for the sake of argument, the article did contain that kind of interpretation, the solution would be to remove or rewrite the offending passage, not to delete the entire article. (FWIW this is just an example. I have not come across any sources that suggest Ajam was tortured.) Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An argument proposing "significant coverage" to mean lack of original research doesn't require a response.

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT WP:COATRACK -- Nominator keeps referring to Coatrack. So I re-acquainted myself with this essay. It describes seven types of Typical coatracks. If this suggestion is going to be repeated I would like those repeating it to state which type(s) they think it is an instance of. It seems to me that this article is not an instance of any of those types.
And, if, for the sake of argument, this article did contain passages that did not comply with the advice in this essay, it has a section entitled: What to do about coatracks. The advice in this essay is essentially the same as that in Wikipedia:Notability -- remove or rewrite the troublesome passage. The essay specifically reserves article deletion only for "...extreme cases, when the nominal subject is barely notable and there is little chance the article can be salvaged." Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been asked to review the counterarguments and to comment. In addition, I've looked at the declassified Combatant Status Review Board site, which is the source for the arguments for detaining or releasing a particular prisoner and is listed on www.dod.mil/pubs. And while I think that articles about the Guantanamo Bay detainees in general should be fully supported, I don't see that each individual detainee merits a separate article. It's unprecedented that there would be an internet site that would have detailed information about each individual imprisoned at a particular facility, and it comes about in this case because of American federal court orders directing the American Department of Defense to make that information available. It's unprecedented also that Wikipedia would have articles about each person who has been imprisoned in a particular facility. There are very few groups where each individual is considered inherently notable. Wikipedia has a policy providing for a nation's legislators, for instance, to each merit their own article. Wikipedia has such a policy for individual athletes playing in a particular sports league. If there is a policy that applies directly to Guantanamo Bay detainees, then that takes precedence over our own personal preferences. However, I don't think that there's a policy that applies directly to Guantanamo Bay detainees. And judging Ajam as being notable in the sense of being mentioned specifically as an example of the plight of detainees held without trial, or as a significant participant in the activities of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, my opinion is that he is not notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are reports about an individual then he is notable. And yes i do think there is likely to be individual sourcing about every one of them in their native country and language, and it is merely outr limitation of having difficulty in finding them. DGG (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that every British or British-resident prisoner has been mentioned in British media, so it's reasonable to assume the same of all the others in relation to their national media. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability (one of the five pillars): The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis in original). All the reasons (i.e. original research) set forth here do not avail if not one media source on him can be found. There's plenty of articles here with Syrian-language media sources, and this person shouldn't be treated any differently then any other person that isn't from a non-english speaking country. Unless everyone from non-english speaking countries is assumed notable without any sources. I doubt it. But now that we are on the subject, I would like to point out that there's a few good reasons why there's no Syrian media sources on this prisoner. 1- Unlike in democracies, its no big deal if someone is locked up without having recieved (what is considered) the normal due process. If he were to be treated like a regular US citizen - then the Syrian media might report it. 2- The Syrian secular goverment-run media might not want its citizens to know about any Al-Queda members in its country. But all theories aside, everyone - angel or terrorist - must have significant reliable sources that establish his/her notability if they are to be included in this encyclopedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official language of Syria is Arabic. (Brewcrewer: when you referred to "Syrian-language media" were you referring to Syriac or something?) I always check local language sources when I put up an article for deletion. If you don't know how to do this, can we ask an Arabic speaker to do a Google check for us? --Kleinzach (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply transliterating his name into Arabic (he has a highly unusual name, so I also tried entries that didn't mention the Muhammad, etc) I would estimate there's somewhere between 5-50 websites that mention him, including news media, government (.sy, nearly all hits are Syrian, solidifying the assumption we're talking about the same person) and forums. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep pr Kleinzach and Geo Swan Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD seems to me to be going in a rather unique direction. The main question is whether there are or are not multiple verifiable sources to establish this individual's notability. Assuming that there must be sources is an example of WP:ILIKEIT. Assuming that web hits of a simple transliteration of this name must be about this subject (without confirmation of this fact) is not an acceptable means to justify this individual's notability. What does remain is that the subject of this article does not have multiple independent sources that focus specifically upon him. His name is only listed along with dozens of other internees in the media and he appears in the OARDEC reports that were done by the US government. OARDEC is an American Department of Defence organization (under the control of the Navy) that has the sole purpose of reviewing each internee's case/status! There are literally hundreds of OARDEC reports on detainees - it would be similar to say (to stick with the Supermax comparison) that a Supermax-commissioned report on a possible parolee at Supermax would constitute notability. This just does not satisfy WP:BIO, independent reliable sources, nor our notability requirements. BWH76 (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should not be making assumptions - much better to get the facts straight. Can you clarify whether or not you have checked Arabic sources? Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So when a reader of the article will ask "Why is Wikipedia the only place giving individual attention to this person?" you will also answer "Oh, but we do not know that for sure, transliterating his name into Arabic gives 5-50 web search results in google, and while we won't provide a reference as we usually do with our articles, please feel free to check those yourself, maybe someone else wrote about him." Point being, in AfDs, sources have to be found for the article to be kept, not the other way around. The speculations about possible sources are helpful as a means to actually check them - but unless/until someone does that, there should not be an article. --Minimaki (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but let's not change what Sherurcij wrote. He/she did not refer to "5-50 web search results in google" (to quote what you have written above) - but to "5-50 websites" . --Kleinzach (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, I just assumed that's how they were found. What I basically tried to say is that, as long as there are only speculations about possible Arabic websites, we don't need proof that they are only speculations. Instead, it would be very easy to show that they are not, by just providing cite-able links to some of them. --Minimaki (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is funny, were busy deciphering what Sherurcij meant, but where are the websites??--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- I seem to have neglected to explicitly state keep. As I stated above, IMO, nominator, and several contributors who voiced delete opinions have advanced arguments based on misconceptions.
As per the discussion in WP:RS/Noticeboard the references this article uses are secondary sources, the references are fulfill all the requirements of the wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
I addressed the nominator's concern that media coverage was required.
I addressed the nominator's concern that "significant coverage" was required. The article meets all the requirements in the passage that defines "significant coverage". The memos are about him, and they do not require interpretation to verify that they are about him.
I addressed the misconception that Guantanamo captives are just like mundane convicted felons.
Disclaimer -- as the nominator has pointed out in multiple places, I started this article. But, contrary to nominators many suggestions, my contributions have completely complied with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion you started on secondary sources had no responses. The discussion as to whether US military reports constitute independent reliable sources that you began appears to have the consensus that OARDEC files do not constitute independent, reliable sources. In other words, the main reasons that this article has been brought to AfD have not been addressed aside from opinions as per WP:ILIKEIT. We're running around in circles on this AfD, but the article still does not meet WP:BIO, does not contain independent reliable sources (nor have any been found during this discussion), nor have our notability requirements been satisfied. BWH76 (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assert that my queries on secondary sources netted no replies? On January 24 2008 my query netted helpful, collegial questions, which started:
For a source to be considered secondary there must be some form of significant and original artistic construction within it. If the summaries are something like a bibliography, this is considered a form of mechanical action, requiring no original artistic effort...
I offered a detailed reply. And my correspondent concluded.
Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.
Please go back and try re-reading this again. Please note that my correspondent offered many opinions on the difference between primary and secondary sources in other threads on the Noticeboard, and that his or her opinion and expertise seems to have been widely accepted. Let me suggest that the lack of further questions is a sign that the regular readers of that forum found the discussion with my well-informed correspondent convincing. If you don't find it convincing, please offer a civil, reasoned explanation of why you don't find it convincing.
I disagree with your interpretation that the consensus was that OARDEC memos do not constitute independent, reliable sources. Do you have counter-arguments? If so, what are they.
WRT your assertion that the article does not fulfill the recommendations of the WP:BIO guideline. I asked other respondents to be specific, and cite the specific passage(s) it does not fulfill. I ask you the same. I have offered my arguments, if you have counter-arguments, again, what are they?
WRT WP:ILIKEIT... I have encountered a limited number of wikipedians who have been willing to use fair means or foul to suppress the wikipedia's coverage of material on the war on terror. Some of them were prepared to go so far as sockpuppetry and wikistalking. Those challengers were classic examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now I have not accused you, or the nominator of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would prefer you show me the same courtesy. IMO this material fully complies with policy. If you disagree, please be civil, please be serious, please be specific.
I work very hard to make my sure my contributions fully comply with policy. Any serious correspondent of mine will tell you that when I find a lapse, I openly acknowledge it, and fix it myself. So, please confine your discussion to points of policy and hold back from making comments on what you imagine my motives to be. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Geoswan, you've gone to great lengths to reject my opinions on this subject, and that's fine. Implying that that I may be a sockpuppet, a Wikistalker, and am not being serious is going too far. Yes, you carefully specifically say that you are not accusing me or anyone else of voicing our opinions with malice, but by couching your comments towards me personally in accusations of sockpuppetry, wikistalking, etc., your implication is clear. Please do not make those baseless accusations.
You are correct, though, in that I had not seen that you asked similar questions in more than one forum. I disagree with the answer you received due to how you made the case. As I wrote before, OARDEC is a military organization under control of the US Department of Navy and under the direction of Rear Admiral James McGarrah - if it is not currently under McGarrah's command, it was in the time period for which all the sources listed in the article were written. You wrote that the reports were written with the oversight of a civilian official, but that's only half the story. The Designated Civilian Official (DCO) was US Secretary of the Navy Gordon England. To sum it up, the OARDEC reports were written by the US military about detainees held by the US military under the oversight of the civilian head of one branch of the US military. I don't believe that this constitutes an independent source. I do think that the OARDEC sources could be perfect for our purposes - but only if they are corroborated by independent sources. BWH76 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that I have rejected any civil argument made by BWH76 or any other participant in this discussion.
I suggest that if you look more closely you will find that being the Designated Civilian Official (DCO) in charge of the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC) is not one of the duties of the Secretary of the Navy. Note, when Gordon England was promoted, to be a Deputy Secretary of Defense, he remained the DCO in charge of OARDEC. He wears multiple hats. It is a separate job.
I believe, if you look more closely, you will find that it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that these three positions Secretary of the Navy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Designated Civilian Official are separate, independent positions, and that the DCO does not report to the Secretary of the Navy, or to the Dep Sec Def.
I had challengers who asserted that OARDEC reported to the Camp Commandant at Guantanamo. That was not true. On paper the relationship is a distant one. My reading of the documents is that in practice it was a distant one. The OARDEC staff had tremendous difficulty getting the cooperation of the JTF-GTMO staff. JTF-GTMO staff routinely withheld exculpatory documents and other evidence from the OARDEC staff. The authors of the memos routinely seemed to have reached very different conclusions from those of the JTF-GTMO.
I asked, in the other forum, how "arm's length" OARDEC would have to be, before you considered it independent. Since you haven't addressed this question, I will repeat those questions.
  1. If OARDEC was run by the UN would you consider it "arm's length"?
  2. If OARDEC was run by NATO would you consider it "arm's length"?
  3. If OARDEC was run by a "Special Prosecutor", a Ken Starr, a Leon Jaworski, with a staff of civilians, would you consider it "arm's length".
  4. What if OARDEC was run a civilian, who was served by a staff of temporarily detached military personnel, who officially reported to him or her, not to the military chain of command?
The last is the current situation. As I said in the other discussion, you are perfectly free to mistrust whether it lies within the capacity of the US Government to have multiple separate agencies, that don't report to one another, that are, on paper independent, and are independent in practice too. You are free to hold this opinion, in private.
The wikipedia's policies would proscribe you inserting this personal opinion into article space. This is an aspect of the wikipedia's policies that some wikipedians find counter-intuitive. Even some experienced administrators forget sometimes that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". It is counter-intuitive, but us wikipedians are not allowed to insert things in articles, because we believe they are "true".
And, similarly, although it may strike you as counter-intuitive, the wikipedia's policies do not allow us to suppress material, no matter how untrue it might seem to us personally, if it complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER and other policies. It may strike you as counter-intuitive, but arguments that neutrally written material, cites valid references, can't be suppressed, because, for instance, it strikes someone as violating "common sense". "Common sense" is not verifiable.
I am not trying to be offensive, but, I think, if you re-read everything you wrote above, after "...but that's only half the story..." -- you may see you are ignoring WP:VER, and making an argument about what "common sense" tells you is "true". WP:VER says we aim for "verifiability, not truth".
I've thought about this. I've thought about whether I could come up with sources that could prove OARDEC was not a truly independent agency? No. I could not. Are there sources that challenge the independence of OARDEC? Sure. Prove? No. You are perfectly free to insert material that cites verifiable authoritative sources that challenges the independence of the OARDEC agency.
Please see the Press Conference England gave when he announced taking up the new job:
Gordon England (June 23, 2008). "Special Defense Department Briefing with Secretary of The Navy Gordon England". United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2008-03-26.
England said my comment
"So first of all, thanks for being here. If we haven't met, I'm Gordon England. I'm the Secretary of the Navy. But I'm not with you in that capacity today. Rather, I've been designated by Secretary Rumsfeld to operate and oversee a process to conduct an annual review of each enemy combatant held by the Department of Defense in Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba."
In other words DCO is a separate position
Q
I guess what I mean by the question about whether you want to release more people, is there a sense that perhaps a lot of people are being held who should/could be released?
SEC. ENGLAND:
Charlie, I don't know. I mean, I have not looked at any of the cases, any of the files. I haven't looked at any of this because I really wanted to put a process together that was independent of the people themselves. I wanted to make sure we had as fair a process, fair as we could make it, balanced, as reasonable as we could, so we're putting the process together...
"Verifiability, not truth" -- The process is said to fair and independent.
Q
How are you going to juggle this responsibility with being Navy secretary, though? You've got what seems to be a full plate just being Navy secretary. How are you going to do this, juggle the priorities?
SEC. ENGLAND:
Well, we just spend the time to do it. I mean, we will do this right. Like I said, I take this very seriously, so I'll take the time necessary to do it. We just work a little harder. It will work.
Another claim of independence.
Q
Related to that, sir -- it may be spelled out in here, I'm not sure, but when you say you make the final decision, is your final decision subject to review by the secretary, perhaps, or anyone else?
SEC. ENGLAND:
No, it's not.
Q
So what you say goes.
SEC. ENGLAND:
That's correct.
England, again, specifically assert that he makes the final decision -- that his decision is not subject to review by the Sec Def.
If you will allow me to paraphrase what I think you are saying -- you think it is obvious -- or common senses, that since the Sec Def is England's boss when he is Sec Nav or Deputy Sec Def, England is going to tailor his decisions to please the Sec Def, even when he is wearing his DCO hat. Have I paraphrased you correctly?
Well, he said he is independent, over and over again. His assertions of independence is verifiable, your opinion that he is not independent is not verifiable. Geo Swan (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjective intent might actually be important in trying to decipher whether this is a Wikipedia:Coatrack and/or a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL.
  • Intent aside, there's no secondary independant sources. One short response on a noticeboard is far cry from a concensus (a reason why nobody else bothered to reply might be because they aren't interested in getting a long "please explain further" on their talk page (which everyone who disagrees with you seems to be honored with)). The goverment documents stating the charges against him can in no way be considered INDEPENDANT.
  • The lack of secondary sources aside, there's no significant coverage. The claim that WP:BIO doesn't require significant coverage or that significant coverage means the lack of original research is a total waste of kilobytes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The question is not whether the production of the OARDEC reports is verifiable; they obviously were written. What is difficult is to establish that they constitute independent, reliable sources. As the reliable sources guideline states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." OARDEC is not a third-party. It is a US government organization, led by the now-Deputy Director of Defense, which made judgements on detainees held by the military. It is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article subject's future in captivity.
It was written above that "[H]e [OARDEC Head England] said he is independent, over and over again. His assertions of independence is verifiable..." His assertions of independence are not in question; whether OARDEC reports constitute independent, reliable sources is the question. We should judge them to be independent because the head of OARDEC says they are independent? No.
OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it has no reputation at all. The recommendations on the OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources. Again, the question is not whether the OARDCEC reports exist, the question of verifiability is of what the OARDEC reports say. So, what are we left with? Nothing. No independent, reliable sources. The article lacks significant (or any) coverage outside of the disputed sources. The article does not satisfy WP:BLP. BWH76 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respondent seems to be suggesting that different agencies within the US government can not be separate agencies. Respondent disputes that OARDEC is not a third party.
  • Is OARDEC imprisoned in Guantanamo? No.
  • Is OARDEC responsible for the imprisonment of the captives in Guantanamo? No.
Then, by definition, it is a third party.
Note: three days ago respondent compared the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos to Parole Board reports. Is respondent questioning whether Parole Boards should be considered third parties?
I have problems, which I have addressed elsewhere, with the idea the Guantanamo captives are like ordinary convicted felons. But I agree with what respondent seemed to be saying three days ago, that the OARDEC memos are like Parole Board reports, in that they are the product of a third party.
Respondent suggests that OARDEC's reliability has to be established before it can be considered a reliable source. The Environmental Protection Agency has critics, various other US agencies have critics. The United Nations has critics. The existence of critics does not cause us to disregard the statements that the leaders of those agencies might make at press conferences, or the official documents those agencies publish.
Respondent asserts:

"It [OARDEC] is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article subject's future in captivity.

If respondent is trying repeat that the staff who guard and interrogate the captives are also making the recommendations as to whether they should be released or repatriated then he or she is incorrect. What respondent describes is true of the detention camps in Afghanistan, and was true of Guantanamo -- prior to the creation of the OARDEC.
But OARDEC has a completely different set of staff, from JTF-GTMO. The OARDEC staff report to the DCO, not to the Commandant of JTF-GTMO.
I am going to repeat my request, I would like anyone who thinks the documented relationship between OARDEC and JTF-GTMO to be considered distant enough to be described as "third party" to describe a more distant relationship they would consider "third party".
Respondent asserts:

"OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It has no reputation at all."

I think respondent is trying to say OARDEC has a bad reputation. Okay. Fine. What are your sources?
Let's return to the EPA. No, let's pick the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a US Federal Agency that was very severely criticized following its response to Hurricane Katrina. For a period of time FEMA was the butt of jokes, was very widely criticized.
Should the wikipedia have stopped using official FEMA documents as references? Should the wikipedia have accompanied every use of a FEMA document as a reference, with a reference to one of FEMA's authoritative critics?
I suggest that if respondent thinks OARDEC's bad reputation rivals FEMA's he or she is perfectly free to provide other references he or she thinks will provide balance.
Respondent asserts:

"OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources."

Respondent seems to be insisting that wikipedians have to make sure allegations are idependently proven true, before we place them in an article. When we cover the allegations against ordinary people no one hires private detectives to independently verify those allegations.
Nor should we. What we should do is attribute the allegations to a source. This article does attribute the allegations to a source, a serious, official source. Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was OARDEC part of the same organization that is currently detaining the subject of the article? Yes.
  • Has OARDEC been led by someone that is closely involved in the organization detaining this person? Yes.
  • Was OARDEC responsible for reviewing the case of the individual to determine whether he remains in captivity? Yes.
  • Is OARDEC an independent, reliable third-party source? No.
  • Although the burden of proof to proove the independent reliability should be on the article creater (or editors), here is at least one person who believed the process/organization to be flawed.
  • "A more distant relationship" for a third party? Mainstream news organizations; "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", to name two. Basically, any source that does not have a direct connection to the subject matter. OARDEC has a direct connection in that it judged whether the detainee stayed in or was released from detention.
  • Please do not write what you think I am trying to say. OARDEC has no reputation at all (be it good or bad) as an independent organization. Please stick to judging the article on its own merits.
  • Comparing the independence of a military organization charged with determining the freedom of detainees held by the military to that of the EPA is comparing apples and oranges. If it's necessary to explain this in more detail, I will, but we've wasted enough space already in this AfD.
  • My parole board comparison was a bit off, I admit, as some are independent agencies while some are part of the department of corrections (in the US). [This wiki entry makes the clear distinction between the two.] OARDEC does not fall into the category of "independent agency" here.
  • As for adding more sources to balance the article, I think that's what we've been discussing now for days. There ARE no other independent, reliable sources out there that anyone has yet found. This is why the opinion that there is not significant coverage of this individual has been voiced repeatedly above.BWH76 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think at this point it'll probably close as "No consensus" no matter how many arguments either side puts forward. At this point I think two specific users are just wasting their time arguing, neither will get the other to confess the error of their ways - why not just put this effort into improving articles, rather than arguing over bureaucracy? Neither side is going to change anything today, it seems - so let's move forward without the emnity and spats. :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd generally agree that we're wasting time, but as the article doesn't satisfy WP:BLP (for independent secondary sources as is described above ad nauseam) and the decision could potentially effect numerous articles, I wouldn't be so hasty to close this AfD as a no consensus.BWH76 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all these kilobytes of incorrect wikipedia policy, that is exactly what the creator wishes should happen. But "No concensus" is when there is valid argument on both sides. I hope the closing admin sees through all this filibusting, and closes this afd applying WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ffs...yes, and Geo_Swan hopes that the closing admins sees through it all and closes it as keep...I said to STOP the arguments, not take one last swing at looking like the genius. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pretty much all the arguments made above for getting rid of this: esp the coatracking and bio issues that have been cited. And I would also indicate my agreement with User:Brewcrewer's point above that the closing admin should focus the decision on this on policy. This will likely end up at DRV, so the need to ground a close in policy is all the more pressing. Eusebeus (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources provided support notability. This is exactly the type of article we should have on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Adnan_Muhammad_Ajam&oldid=1179989415"