639:
read, understand, interpret, collate, select, and summarize information, sometimes conflicting information, contained in multiple reports from at least half a dozen agencies, in order to prepare each memo. This means the memos fully satisfy all the criteria to be considered secondary sources. The OARDEC transcripts are primary sources, the memos are secondary sources. So, without further references, they substantiate that the official position of the DoD was that these camps exist, and this is all that is necessary to justify merging a paragraph, sentence, or list entry into a broader article, and redirecting this article name to the broader article. The reason the
Moroccan training camp is not mentioned in the Felter article is because the Felter article was based on a review of the 2004 memos, and the Moroccan camp was described in a memo drafted in 2005.
1804:
of closing admins who closed these AfDs as "delete", lamenting the fact that the proposal has attracted basically no participation since it was created on March 29. Of course, the reason is that nobody here, except for Geo Swan, seems to share his abiding passion for collecting even the most minor and obscure mentions of terrorist training camps in
Guantanamo transcripts. By creating this multitude of extremely non-notable "traning camp" articles in mainspace, Geo Swan has created a problem of significant magnitude, and he is not really in the position to complain now that nobody else in the community wants to invest their time and effort in sifting through all this material and trying to make order out of chaos. The only reasonable, the only
708:. You found and read judges rulings in the habeas petitions? That's excellent! And when you find that those judges rulings comment on specific allegations, and say they aren't credible, then please share those comments. Incorporate them into the appropriate articles, if you feel up to it. If not, leave a note about them on the talk page. That is important info. Doubts the judges express would be highly encyclopedic. But my personal doubts about the credibility of the allegations, or your personal doubts about the credibility of the allegations are completely irrelevant. We are simply not allowed to allow our personal doubts the credibility of our
1131:
community. Please do not put you personal like and believe over that of the community and the common goal we have. The discussion so far has shown that you are not willing to accept any community consensus or friendly proposal to solve this problem. That has becoume troublesome and disruptive but that is just my personal opinion and i guess you will once more simply disregarding community input and simply stick to your believe. But let me tell you we have policies to block editors who disrupt our work no matter they do it in good faith or bad faith.
757:
OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact checking nor any other reputation other that of preparing "Kangaroo courts". It does not have an editorial oversight that could guarantee accuracy of their information or a long reputation as newspaper have and as you know it is verified that they where often wrong with their information. That's the reason why we can not use them in a way as we use secondary sources. They can be used as primary sources with all the care we have to take with primary source material.
1053:
one who would be interested to write such an article. So why don't you just give it a try. Give us a break get this article here userfied and write a draft in your user space. Involve the community and let them have a look at your draft and i am sure they will give you helpful comments and might help you to improve on it and then we will see it it will be good enough to be worth to be included into main space. How about that?
1690:: In the source, "a Moroccan training camp" is merely descriptive and not a proper noun. If there were a number of these Moroccan training camp"s, called that by reliable sources, then the descriptive term might be worthy of an article. But there's no evidence of that. To put it another way, if a reliable source reported that a notable person attended "a Vermont prep school", that doesn't merit a
462:
world peace. This theory was widely accepted. The Bush administration continued to maintain it had existed, and just hadn't been located, for years after the invasion. We wouldn't stop covering this arsenal now, just because it didn't exist. And, we shouldn't stop covering these camps, even if their existence were to be disproven.
406:. Over the last five years on the order of 100 Guantanamo related articles have been nominated for deletion. Some ended up being deleted. IIRC most survived. In those discussions one perennial complaint used to be that the articles weren't citing enough MSM coverage -- phrased as if that was equivalent to saying they weren't citing
1251:. My position, voiced publicly on March 29, 2010, is that articles, like this should be merged into a broader article on all the camps. This ref is perfectly sufficient to support a list entry in a list of all the alleged camps. I don't understand why you object to this. I don't really see an explanation of your objections here.
850:
1343:
s. And I have offered the opinion that merging and redirecting these articles to the individuals alleged to have attended these camps is a dis-service for readers, because the wikipedia's readers should be able to look up a known camp, in the context of a list of all known camps, and compare what is
669:
Fact checking again: One of your claims is false again. The Felter article included all transcripts including the memos with a/the
Moroccan camp(s) we speak about. So you might provide us with another explanation why they choose not to include this presumed camp into their list? As they choose not to
817:
are completely in line with its central theme, not an out of context misinterpretation. Official government publications are accepted as reliable sources for that government's official positions. They remain reliable sources for that official position, even if that position is challenged, refuted,
1803:
back in March of this year, which he mentions above and in reply to your post, for dealing with this veritable plethora of "training camp" articles. I think he mentions this merge proposal in every training camp related AfD, and at one of the current DRVs, and I have seen him mention it to a number
1093:
I work on controversial topics, and although I take extraordinary steps to comply with NPOV, VER, NOR, and to take civil, specific, good faith feedback into account, I still have these challengers who make these very unpleasant accusations of bad faith, of POV pushing, so I proceed cautiously, show
1052:
Yes primary sources from that low quality as here need a lot of care. To answer your question. That depends on the skills of the editor who would write such an article. That might be difficult and it depends on the skills of the editor who would write such an article. It seems that you are the only
461:
anymore, so it doesn't really exist, but we have an article on it. Finally, how about Saddam
Hussein's vast arsenal of WMD? The Bush administration insisted that Iraq had this vast arsenal of nerve gas, and possibly germ warfare and atomic bombs as well, ready to use, and posing a vast threat to
638:
The comment above asserts that the OARDEC memos are "primary sources", and can't be cited without further references to back them up. I believe one has to use highly idiosyncratic interpretation of "primary source" and "secondary source" for this argument. The authors of the OARDEC memos had to
445:
I've already acknowledged that the further references I thought I would find to support this camp having a separate article weren't found. But I maintain it is appropriate to have a broader article cover all the known camps, including the ones for which there are not sufficient references for an
1101:
What you now seem to be suggesting seems extraordinary. What you now seem to be suggesting is that I have to prepare a draft, in user space, of the merging of these articles, and get approval first, before I can move that draft to article space. I am unaware of any other good faith contributor
756:
the system. Parts of policies cited out of context and with ignoring the underlying spirit of our policies and the aim we have. Sure we work after the principal verifiability not truth. Because we rely on the truth and fact checking of "secondary sources" to write reliable encyclopedic articles.
500:
I've read this verbose reply and I'm going to make two short points: a) The issue is that "Moroccan training camp" doesn't refer to any specific training camp. It's a vague label, and thus not even an entity. If it pointed to a specific camp, it would be fine, but it isn't. Secondly, it would be
251:
The phenomenon that alleged attendance at a suspect training camp was used, in part, to justify continued detention in
Guantanamo is well documented. Felter et al, at West Point, noted that of the first 516 allegation memos, 181 justified the continued detention of captives, in part, because of
1130:
Is there any reason why you do not want to have the community have a look at the new article before sending it to main space? There are a lot of strong voices in this discussion that do not see any possibility how that could be merged into anything. I think it is just courtesy to work with the
1123:
I did not say you should give merging a try. I said you should agree now to move this article here to your user space and to give it a try to write the article that you have suggested in your user space and...and read above. Could you do that? I think there is very strong consensus here in the
661:
is an US military body and
Guantanamo is run by the US military and the original sources of the informations are unknown but most likely in big chunks produced by the US military itself. OARDEC as well does not have an editorial overboard and zero reputation for fact checking or reputation for
1422:
As I wrote above the
Moroccan camp is not mentioned in the Felter paper's list of other camps because the Felter paper was based on a review of memos drafted in 2004, and the Moroccan camp was mentioned in a memo drafted in 2005. Other than calling the 2005 memo a "primary source" no one has
1477:
waste of time and i do not see much progress and effort from your site. Please take your pick and make exactly clear what you want to mere to exactly what article. (It is not that much and we have already agreed on a merge.) I took my pick some time ago and so you should. Time to stop this
1358:
No that is not a "dis-service". It is not up to us to draw associations by clustering minor informations that are based on "primary sources" and where we have secondary sources that contradict our personal conclusions and associations. Do you have another list that mention this camp?? The
402:, that assert the existence of these camps, that leave some wikipedia contributors skeptical of their existence. Personally, I too am skeptical of some of their assertions. But my skepticism, your skepticism, should play no role in what gets put into article space. That is
821:
I disagree that respondent above has offered a "long list" of reasons why OARDEC memos should not be considered reliable sources for the official government positions that an alleged association with camps like this one justified holding individual for years of extrajudicial
692:
You assert that the OARDEC memos can't be considered secondary sources, because they were drafted by DoD personnel. But you make this assertion without citing any wikipolicies. I suggest that who paid the authors is irrelevant to deciding whehter they should be considered
1808:
solution here is to move all these articles from the mainspace into Geo Swan's userspace and let him slowly deal with this material on his own schedule (and if at some point in the future someone else shows up willing to get heavily involved in this as well, then great).
1192:
Libyan camp, etc.. I suggest the authors of these memos genuinely believed they were referring to specific, real camps. In some cases the memos state the city or province where the camp was found. This is perfectly acceptable
English for referring to a specific camp.
1272:
Pluralization was not always appropriate in the examples you used. Anyway. I have repeatedly ask you to work towards consensus and i have ask you to make clear what exactly from this article here you want to merge to witch article. See the next section. Please stop
787:
and disturbing Afd's without showing any attempted to work towards consensus that does not meed his POV. Sorry to point that out but his behavior is so long standing now and so disruptive that we have to point this out and possible deal with it. Once again stop
1767:
The best approach would be to userfy the material, so that the original editor could merge it on his own time schedule (if there's anything worth merging), but that approach only makes sense if the editor agrees to it. I proposed this to the editor, but the
355:. It shouldn't matter whether or not the individuals who draft those articles on fringe sciences believe phrenology was based on something real. Why? Because the rest of the community should insist that articles on fringe sciences, like phrenology cite
1800:
727:. That is, they are CSRT memos, from 2004. These are the same memos reviewed by the team at Seton Hall University School of Law. The memo in question here was one of the 464 prepared for the first annual Administrative Review Board hearings in 2005
611:
This is verging on stupidity. Are you trying to tell me, that if someone said in conversation to you "I went to a French school", you would believe they went to a specific school called "French School" ? Please explain how this situation is different.
311:
1519:'s 2005 status review hearing. Neither is enough to substantiate a whole article. Either is enough to substantiate a sentence of list entry in a broader article on the general topic of camps that are alleged to have trained suspected terrorists.
1120::)) these OARDEC documents are doubtless low quality primary sources and as said before you are fee to claim to your false believe but your are so far off with your ridiculous claim and refusal to get the point that it becomes disruptive.
418:. We don't insist that every topic we cover can be referenced to MSM coverage. Official government web-pages, official government briefings, official government press-releases, and official government publications are all accepted as
228:
with a proposal that the separate articles about most of the camps should be merged. I went on record as acknowledging that I hadn't found additional references to support separate articles for most of these camps. There are lots of
1312:. There are not enough information for a stand alone article about the camp. The only information in the world we have about the camp are the allegations against Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan so that we should merge it into
1643:. A single ref is a judicial transcript, containing a couple of one-sentence vague mentions of the topic. Basically, as non-notable as a subject could possibly be. Nothing to merge here and nothing is even worthy of a redirect.
390:
was regarded as a kooky fringe science theory. If the wikipedia had been around, back then, and we applied the wikipedia's core principles, we would have covered continental drift to the extent it had been written about in the
169:
1794:
has created literally dozens of these "training camp" articles, each one being based on one-two brief mentions of a camp (or a suspected camp) in the
Guantanamo Admin Review Board transcripts. Each one manifestly fails
867:
I answered on your talk page and as said the Report leaves no doubt that memos that mention
Moroccan camps were included in their research. So why did they do not mention a Moroccan camp? You dispute that the memo of
1463:
I have shown also above that your claim is false. The Felter papers included these transcripts with the "Moroccan camp(s)". That they do not list a "Moroccan camp" in their paper is proof that we also should not do
1097:
You seem to be saying, above, that you agree that merging the articles on the less well documented camps is not unreasonalbe. Well, for goodness's sake, why then did you nominate a dozen of the related articles for
1687:
1397:. Why didn't they mention this camp here? They overlooked it? I do not know. They will have had there reasons why they did not mentioned it and we rely on the their judgment and conclusions and we do not do
1722:(to continue my analogy above) is worthy of a merge or mention in any Knowledge (XXG) article. If the vague mention became specific, and in multiple reliable sources, then that would be another question.
343:. I suggest that this argument, in general, isn't really relevant when considering whether an article should be kept, deleted, or merged. Our opinions, my opinion, your opinion, on the credibility of
591:
If there were a book, or even a newspaper article written about this camp, I would be arguing that it merited a separate article. I would not be arguing it merited being merged and redirected.
249:, so they should remain separate articles. Possibly other articles should remain separate. When I drafted the proposal I was hoping there would be a collegial informed debate on all the camps.
1401:. This is not a "dis-service" it is service that guarantees our reader that we do not draw possible false conclusions that are not verified and even here have been contradicted by a source.
993:
I am mystified why you still want to challenge this point and you repeat your misconception. No the report makes explicit clear that all documents including these one here have been used.
501:
different if there were books written on the subject of Moroccan training camp, which suggested that it existed. One sentence in a document which may well not be reliable is not enough.
347:
is irrelevant, according to several of the wikipedia's core policies. Our core policies protect the wikipedia from being over-run by fringe-science kooks, drafting POV articles on "
1496:
Taking the points of the previous respondent, in order, I accept, at face value, that they honestly believe they have offered policy-based arguments that the OARDEC memos are not
571:
1591:
163:
1741:
760:
I have brought up a long list of arguments why OARDEC can not come even close to be seen as a secondary source and this claim that has been brought forward by just one editor
574:
568:
1617:
124:
775:
No. That is absolutely wrong. Your claims are almost ridiculous and just repeated false claims without providing serious valid arguments and proof. Where does it say
1393:***(they list all mayor camps and minor camps) That this camp here in not listed in this paper is good reason that we should not draw our own conclusions based on
204:. There's no specific camp called "Moroccan training camp" - this article is just about information the US have which suggests that there may be an Al-Qaedia camp
624:
I fully agree with Claritas. That the term "Moroccan training camp" is not mentioned in the research paper Geo has provided also supports Claritas argumentation.
666:
cases have shown recently that many allegations in the memos where actually false. Just a laughable claim that this could even come close to secondary sources.
225:
1377:
546:
276:
457:. We cover lots of topics from theoretical physics, for which a critic might say, that new sub-atomic particle may not even exist. No one believes in the
129:
97:
92:
101:
319:
448:"I have stated my opinion, but I am just a volunteer, doing this in my spare time, I don't really have time to respond to your counter-arguments."
84:
1547:
The OARDEC memos are low quality primary sources less valuable than court papers. They still can be used in a limited way and with a lot of care.
990:
These are primary sources and have even lower quality than court papers. These sources can only be used in a limited way and with a lot of care.
534:
1500:. I ask in return for them to offer a diff to just one instance of a policy-based explanation why the OARDEC memo should not be considered
1127:
You interpreting me absolutely wrong i do think this article here should be deleted and i strongly believe that there is nothing to merge.
1516:
1402:
1313:
1309:
1085:
I am not as big a believer in BOLD, particularly for steps that are harder to undo, than they are to do -- like a big series of merges;
1019:
869:
439:
537:
intended by the authors of the document was that Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan did attend a specific camp, that they called the
438:
we cite, because, we are not trying to prove things are "true", merely that they are "verifiable". It is completely verifiable that
367:
coverage dismiss the topic as nonsense, then that is as far as the wikipedia article on the topic should go. If someone claims that
184:
17:
224:-- I started this article and about two dozen articles about other training camps, way back in 2006 nad 2007. On March 29, 2010, I
779:
in the article title??? Sorry but your repeated false claims are simply false. The article text makes clear without any doubt that
580:
to follow the surface meaning. No offense, but it seems to me that to interpret the sentence the way you interpret it requires an
151:
909:
906:
825:
WRT the Felter paper being based solely on documents drafted in 2004. I am mystified why you keep repeating this misconception.
728:
887:
1427:
for the DoD's position that there was a Moroccan training camp in Afghanistan, during the Taliban's regime, as the Felter paper.
560:
542:
1470:
is the minor problem here. The problem is that they hardly verify anything in connection of the topic of this article here.
1344:
known about, let's say, the Moroccan training camp, and compare it with the information known about other similar camps.
541:. The authors of these memos described other captives attending similar camps, with similar names, tied to the nations.
442:
had his continued detention justified, at least in part, based on the allegation he attended the "Moroccan training camp".
454:
145:
1861:
903:
484:. You may bring forward a clear argument that could help us to make progress and to work towards consensus. Thank you
36:
1844:
1818:
1785:
1753:
1731:
1703:
1676:
1652:
1632:
1606:
1569:
1542:
1491:
1455:
1414:
1353:
1325:
1286:
1263:
1238:
1202:
1140:
1111:
1062:
1043:
1005:
946:
926:
891:
881:
862:
801:
739:
683:
648:
633:
619:
600:
508:
493:
471:
334:
305:
261:
215:
66:
1663:
and i suggest the creator should "Userfy" it until there are more sources and information. Knowledge (XXG) is not a
1526:
in question says little, not enough for a full article, but enough for a sentence or list entry in a larger article.
1381:
1078:
them primary sources doesn't mean they aren't actually completely valid reliable sources -- for the DoD's position.
280:
141:
890:
allegation memos, and the memo in question was not prepared for his CSR Tribunal, but rather for his first annual
327:
My problem with a merge is that there's no verifiable information on the camp available. It might not even exist.
552:
88:
1860:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
191:
1221:
By the way there is only one source in the article. So you might provide refs when speaking about the captive
1360:
1094:
my work, and make proposals like the one you kept ignoring. I don't think I owe anyone an apology for that.
1023:
851:
User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/The Felter memo is only based on the first 516 CSRT allegation memos
234:
80:
72:
917:, that established that the DoD has published 1,595 memos, not just the 516 analyzed in the Felter paper.
912:
765:
715:
WRT the assertion about which memos the Felter paper reviewed all the memos. Could you please re-read the
1254:
WRT pluralization -- since I am making comments that apply to similar camp pluralization is appropriate.
886:
Yes, I dispute the 2005 memo was analyzed in the Felter paper, since the Felter paper says it is based on
1790:
My sentiment exactly. Userfying is the only reasonable option here. As far as I can tell, the same user,
1719:
1691:
810:
I should be able to disagree with you without being accused of "filibustering", "gaming the system", etc.
1727:
1699:
556:
533:
You write this as if you know it to be an established fact. Sorry, you don't know this. I believe the
359:, and measure up to all the standards we expect of articles. When a fringe science topic is covered in
315:
242:
238:
987:
in a verbose way can be a problem. It is hard to learn something if you simply stick to your believes.
370:
1824:
1779:
1737:
1664:
937:
WRT working towards consensus, I am confident my contribution history shows the complete opposite.
157:
1369:
382:
It is not our role to inject our personal opinions into articles. We are supposed to reflect what
268:
177:
1419:
I believe I have already addressed the serious misconception that the memos are "primary sources".
1018:
All sources should be used with care. Using the source that justified the continued detention of
1840:
1749:
1538:
1504:. I regard arguments that the credibility of their contents have challengers as irrelevant, per
1451:
1378:"CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries"
1349:
1259:
1247:
A Morocan training camp in Jalalabad? I stand corrected that this camp was referred to using an
1198:
1107:
1039:
996:
As said you are welcome to stick to your believes but it is hard to learn anything if you do so.
942:
922:
858:
735:
644:
616:
596:
505:
467:
458:
348:
331:
302:
277:"CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries"
257:
212:
481:
1034:, in a broader article on alleged training camps, is a limited and careful use of the source.
1628:
1602:
387:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
753:
403:
1723:
1695:
915:
1796:
1533:-- disagreeing with you is not an act of bad faith, and should not open me up to insults.
1505:
814:
701:
415:
201:
1814:
1799:, but they have all been sitting in the mainspace for years. Geo Swan did create a global
1774:
1672:
1648:
1565:
1487:
1446:
then please identify the specific passage or passages you believe lapse from compliance.
1410:
1385:
1373:
1321:
1282:
1234:
1136:
1124:
discussion for that. I am sorry but you do not show any sign of working towards consensus.
1058:
1001:
899:
877:
846:
832:
797:
679:
657:
Your argument that the OARDEC summaries could be possibly secondary sources is invalid as
629:
489:
284:
272:
1523:
1512:
1501:
1497:
1467:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1434:, using a neutral point of view, without inserting novel conclusions, not present in the
1431:
1424:
1398:
1394:
749:
709:
694:
671:
585:
581:
577:
531:"The issue is that "Moroccan training camp" doesn't refer to any specific training camp."
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
411:
407:
399:
392:
383:
364:
360:
356:
344:
230:
1736:
It is my position this camp, and other less well documented camps, should be covered in
783:
memos including the memos we speak about were used. User Geo Swan has a long history of
1560:
is also not an act of bad faith. Be more open for critic and you may learn something.
1836:
1791:
1745:
1534:
1447:
1345:
1255:
1194:
1103:
1035:
938:
918:
854:
731:
663:
640:
613:
592:
502:
463:
328:
299:
253:
209:
1482:
waste of time so people can get back to work. That get's a bit disruptive recently.
1624:
1598:
1337:
246:
118:
1557:
1479:
789:
784:
769:
670:
include this into their list so we also should not do it as this would be pure
1810:
1668:
1644:
1561:
1483:
1474:
1406:
1330:
1317:
1278:
1274:
1230:
1132:
1054:
997:
984:
873:
842:
793:
761:
675:
625:
485:
352:
1074:
the OARDEC memos primary sources doesn't mean they primary sources. Simply
1027:
1089:
because I llike seeking input from others first, before I take big steps;
453:
I will offer a couple of final counter-examples, to which you can respond
450:
I really am interested in trying to understand your objections to a merge.
48:. I'll be happy to userfy, just drop me a note on my talk page. Regards,
1016:"These sources can only be used in a limited way and with a lot of care."
662:
anything apart from holding "Kangaroo Tribunals" in addition as numerous
430:
does not imply that the wikipedia is endorsing the credibility of those
1688:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Al Qaida artillery and preps camp
818:
or withdrawn. To assert anything else is to support rewriting history.
375:
has a brilliant rebuttal of all those critiques we'd consider whether
1167:
Can I encourage you to do your best to refrain from using terms like
658:
1744:
you may change your mind that there was a single vague mention.
1854:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1423:
explained why that memo shouldn't be considered just as valid a
1211:
After a bit fact checking: Your claim is false the memo says: "
1032:"Training facilities allegedly attended by Guantanamo captives"
1772:
was non-responsive, so the only other recourse is to delete.--
1460:
I have replied and shown above that these are primary sources.
320:
Training facilities allegedly attended by Guantanamo captives.
1217:
Moroccan training camp in Jalalabad for six to seven months."
1030:
to support listing the Moroccan training camp in a table of
351:". We have articles on fringe sciences, like, for example,
298:
This is all fine, but where are you going to merge it to ?
1718:
I don't believe that a single mention of a vaguely stated
845:
erased my attempts to address this misconception from the
697:, or whether they should be considered secondary sources.
379:
measured up to our standards, probably decide it did not.
1832:
1828:
1769:
1716:
895:
828:
398:
With this camp, and many of the similar camps, we have
114:
110:
106:
1740:, or a similarly broader article. But I think if you
426:
to that government's official position. Citing those
176:
764:
is disruptive and laughable. Please stop disruptive
1827:regarded my initial reply as non-responsive. They
1715:
I'm answering Geo Swann's question on my talk page.
190:
1186:Arab camp. The memos allege the captives went to
1102:being asked to submit to this kind of oversight.
1081:Why did I just give merging the articles a try?
983:You are welcome to disagree but repeating things
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1864:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1592:list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions
752:that is always what we here from people who are
584:that interprets it that way. You don't have an
1277:and show constructive steps towards consensus.
1618:list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions
1515:, so is the 2005 allegation memo prepared for
1174:The memos don't say these individuals went to
588:that interprets the document that way, do you?
252:their alleged attendance at a training camp.
8:
1473:As this here once again is slipping into an
1442:. If you are so sure there is a lapse from
712:to influence what we draft in article space.
314:. It lists two possible targts for a merge:
1333:has offered this opinion in multiple other
1612:
1586:
700:I am going to repeat the key passage from
1171:to dismiss other contributor's arguments?
446:individual article. Now you get to say,
1616:: This debate has been included in the
1590:: This debate has been included in the
1430:Presenting information from verifiable
849:I compiled both recent explanations in
563:were all alleged to have attended the
576:. In all these cases it requires no
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
723:516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal
1517:Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan
1403:Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan
1314:Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan
1310:Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan
1020:Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan
870:Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan
440:Nayif Abdallah Ibrahim Al Nukhaylan
1367:mentioned in your military paper:
872:was not included in their report?
318:or a new article with a name like
24:
896:the second good faith explanation
1022:due to alleged training at the "
888:Combatant Status Review Tribunal
545:was alleged to have attended an
902:I supplied you with four links
725:(CSRT) Unclassified Summaries"
561:Omar Khalifa Mohammed Abu Bakr
1:
1831:(thanks). I trust they find
1556:Sure and to point someone to
792:and work towards consensus.
480:Sorry but this is all a bit
410:. That was a mis-citing of
1405:is still the right choice.
892:Administrative Review Board
772:and work towards consensus.
386:say. Period. For decades
1881:
1829:posted a followup question
1382:Combating Terrorism Center
829:explained this, once again
706:"verifiability, not truth"
281:Combating Terrorism Center
1845:23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1835:answers their concerns.
1819:13:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1786:12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1754:03:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
1732:02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
1704:02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
1677:22:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1653:18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1633:23:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
1607:23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
1570:00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
1543:23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1492:16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
1456:15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
1415:21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
1354:17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
1326:23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
1287:07:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1264:04:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1239:15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
1203:15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
1141:03:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
1112:02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
1063:01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
1044:01:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
1006:00:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
947:23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
927:02:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
882:01:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
863:01:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
802:06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
740:03:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
684:16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
649:15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
634:21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
620:20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
601:20:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
553:Abdullah Kamel al Kandari
509:16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
494:15:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
472:14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
341:"It might not even exist"
335:21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
322:21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
306:20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
262:20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
216:19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
67:11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
1857:Please do not modify it.
539:"Moroccan training camp"
32:Please do not modify it.
1686:for the same reason as
1511:The Felter paper is an
235:Al Farouq training camp
1823:I didn't realize that
1361:Moroccan training camp
1024:Moroccan training camp
565:"Libyan training camp"
81:Moroccan training camp
73:Moroccan training camp
557:Jalal Salam Awad Awad
316:Afghan training camps
243:Derunta training camp
239:Khalden training camp
1738:Afghan training camp
548:"Arab training camp"
312:my March 29 proposal
310:I offered a link to
206:somewhere in Morocco
1720:Vermont prep school
1692:Vermont prep school
455:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1180:Moroccan camp, or
721:"An Assessment of
719:of the document?
459:luminiferous ether
44:The result was
1635:
1621:
1609:
1595:
1440:original research
898:I offered you on
813:My references to
578:original research
388:continental drift
1872:
1859:
1801:"merge proposal"
1784:
1782:
1777:
1622:
1596:
1392:
1390:
1384:. Archived from
1342:
1336:
766:WP:Wikilawyering
377:Phrenology today
371:Phrenology today
291:
289:
283:. Archived from
195:
194:
180:
132:
122:
104:
64:
34:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1862:deletion review
1855:
1833:my 2nd response
1825:User:SPhilbrick
1780:
1775:
1773:
1531:"filibustering"
1388:
1374:Jarret Brachman
1368:
1340:
1334:
900:User talk:Iqinn
847:User talk:Iqinn
833:User talk:Iqinn
535:surface meaning
434:, or any other
287:
273:Jarret Brachman
267:
137:
128:
95:
79:
76:
60:
56:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1878:
1876:
1867:
1866:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1821:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1707:
1706:
1680:
1679:
1656:
1655:
1637:
1636:
1610:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1527:
1520:
1509:
1471:
1465:
1461:
1428:
1420:
1391:on 2009-08-30.
1376:(2007-07-25).
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1267:
1266:
1252:
1242:
1241:
1219:
1206:
1205:
1172:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1115:
1114:
1099:
1095:
1079:
1066:
1065:
1047:
1046:
1009:
1008:
994:
991:
988:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
838:
837:
823:
819:
811:
805:
804:
790:fillibustering
785:fillibustering
773:
770:fillibustering
768:and continues
758:
743:
742:
713:
704:-- we aim for
698:
687:
686:
667:
652:
651:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
589:
543:Mohammed Nasim
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
498:
497:
496:
475:
474:
451:
443:
396:
380:
363:, but all the
324:
323:
293:
292:
290:on 2009-08-30.
275:(2007-07-25).
265:
226:went on record
198:
197:
134:
130:AfD statistics
75:
70:
58:
54:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1877:
1865:
1863:
1858:
1852:
1851:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1807:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1771:
1766:
1763:
1762:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1714:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1657:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1641:Strong delete
1639:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1476:
1475:filibustering
1472:
1469:
1466:
1462:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1421:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1370:Joseph Felter
1366:
1362:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1339:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1275:filibustering
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1218:
1216:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
992:
989:
986:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
948:
944:
940:
936:
935:
928:
924:
920:
916:
913:
910:
907:
904:
901:
897:
894:hearing. In
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
866:
865:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
839:
836:
834:
830:
824:
820:
816:
812:
809:
808:
807:
806:
803:
799:
795:
791:
786:
782:
778:
774:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
741:
737:
733:
729:
726:
724:
718:
714:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
691:
690:
689:
688:
685:
681:
677:
673:
668:
665:
664:habeas corpus
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
650:
646:
642:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
618:
615:
610:
602:
598:
594:
590:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
569:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
549:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
510:
507:
504:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
460:
456:
452:
449:
444:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
389:
385:
381:
378:
374:
372:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
337:
336:
333:
330:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
304:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:Joseph Felter
266:
264:
263:
259:
255:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
62:
61:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1856:
1853:
1805:
1764:
1742:look at this
1712:
1683:
1660:
1640:
1613:
1587:
1530:
1386:the original
1364:
1304:
1303:
1248:
1229:. Thank you
1226:
1222:
1214:
1213:...attended
1212:
1188:
1187:
1182:
1181:
1176:
1175:
1168:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1075:
1071:
1031:
1015:
826:
780:
776:
722:
720:
716:
705:
564:
547:
538:
530:
447:
376:
368:
340:
285:the original
250:
247:Tarnak Farms
221:
205:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
53:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1724:First Light
1696:First Light
1558:fillibuster
1480:fillibuster
1169:"stupidity"
1014:You write:
529:You write:
395:of the day.
349:wongo juice
339:You write:
164:free images
1776:SPhilbrick
1770:"response"
1665:WP:Crystal
1659:Change to
1331:User:Iqinn
985:ad nauseum
843:User:Iqinn
822:detention.
762:ad nauseum
754:WP:Gameing
353:phrenology
57:rbitrarily
1694:article.
1625:• Gene93k
1599:• Gene93k
1438:, is not
1098:deletion?
1028:Jalalabad
1837:Geo Swan
1792:Geo Swan
1746:Geo Swan
1535:Geo Swan
1448:Geo Swan
1346:Geo Swan
1256:Geo Swan
1225:and memo
1195:Geo Swan
1104:Geo Swan
1036:Geo Swan
939:Geo Swan
919:Geo Swan
855:Geo Swan
732:Geo Swan
641:Geo Swan
614:Claritas
593:Geo Swan
503:Claritas
482:WP:TL;DR
464:Geo Swan
404:NPOV 101
329:Claritas
300:Claritas
254:Geo Swan
233:for the
210:Claritas
125:View log
1713:Comment
1076:calling
1072:Calling
914:, from
170:WP refs
158:scholar
98:protect
93:history
1797:WP:GNG
1765:Delete
1684:Delete
1667:ball.
1661:delete
1506:WP:VER
841:After
815:WP:VER
702:WP:VER
659:OARDEC
559:, and
416:WP:VER
245:, and
202:WP:GNG
200:Fails
142:Google
102:delete
46:delete
1811:Nsk92
1669:IQinn
1645:Nsk92
1562:IQinn
1524:WP:RS
1513:WP:RS
1502:WP:RS
1498:WP:RS
1484:IQinn
1468:WP:RS
1464:this.
1444:WP:OR
1436:WP:RS
1432:WP:RS
1425:WP:RS
1407:IQinn
1399:WP:OR
1395:WP:OR
1389:(PDF)
1318:IQinn
1308:- to
1305:Merge
1279:IQinn
1231:IQinn
1133:IQinn
1055:IQinn
1026:" in
998:IQinn
874:IQinn
831:, on
794:IQinn
750:WP:RS
748:Yeah
717:title
710:WP:RS
695:WP:RS
676:IQinn
672:WP:OR
626:IQinn
586:WP:RS
582:WP:RS
486:IQinn
436:WP:RS
432:WP:RS
428:WP:RS
424:WP:RS
422:, as
420:WP:RS
412:WP:RS
408:WP:RS
400:WP:RS
393:WP:RS
384:WP:RS
365:WP:RS
361:WP:RS
357:WP:RS
345:WP:RS
288:(PDF)
231:WP:RS
222:Merge
185:JSTOR
146:books
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
1841:talk
1815:talk
1806:sane
1750:talk
1728:talk
1700:talk
1673:talk
1649:talk
1629:talk
1614:Note
1603:talk
1588:Note
1566:talk
1539:talk
1529:WRT
1522:The
1488:talk
1452:talk
1411:talk
1350:talk
1322:talk
1283:talk
1260:talk
1235:talk
1199:talk
1137:talk
1108:talk
1059:talk
1040:talk
1002:talk
943:talk
923:talk
878:talk
859:talk
798:talk
777:2004
736:talk
680:talk
645:talk
630:talk
597:talk
490:talk
468:talk
414:and
258:talk
178:FENS
152:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
1623:--
1597:--
1553:So?
1550:So?
1365:not
1363:is
1338:afd
1189:THE
1091:(3)
1087:(2)
1083:(1)
853:.
781:all
551:.
208:.
192:TWL
127:•
123:– (
1843:)
1817:)
1752:)
1730:)
1702:)
1675:)
1651:)
1631:)
1620:.
1605:)
1594:.
1568:)
1541:)
1490:)
1454:)
1413:)
1380:.
1372:,
1352:)
1341:}}
1335:{{
1324:)
1316:.
1285:)
1262:)
1237:)
1201:)
1139:)
1110:)
1061:)
1042:)
1004:)
945:)
925:)
911:,
908:,
905:,
880:)
861:)
827:I
800:)
738:)
730:.
682:)
674:.
647:)
632:)
599:)
573:,
570:,
567::
555:,
492:)
470:)
279:.
271:,
260:)
241:,
237:,
172:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
1839:(
1813:(
1781:T
1748:(
1726:(
1698:(
1671:(
1647:(
1627:(
1601:(
1564:(
1537:(
1508:.
1486:(
1450:(
1409:(
1348:(
1320:(
1281:(
1258:(
1249:A
1233:(
1227:s
1223:s
1215:A
1197:(
1183:A
1177:A
1135:(
1106:(
1057:(
1038:(
1000:(
941:(
921:(
876:(
857:(
835:.
796:(
734:(
678:(
643:(
628:(
617:§
595:(
506:§
488:(
466:(
373:"
369:"
332:§
303:§
256:(
213:§
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
121:)
83:(
59:0
55:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.