187:
I'm saying that source A (USA DOD) says, "This guy is a terrorist", in various documents; source B says, "Seton Hall has collected all these guys the DOD says in random documents are terrorists in an
Appendix," and that C is this title of "Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than
87:
the team made an arbitrary decision to accept certain allegations at face value. I think they made this choice because they realized they were accepting some allegations at face value in oder to enhance their credibility. I think they knew that if the line they took in their studies reflected their
106:
acceptable sourcing, it's a total mess of BLP concerns. We can make the list "work" correctly, but to do so would require OR. Since we can't do the OR to make it work under other policies, it's never going to comply with NPOV, so it becomes a BLP trainwreck. It's a terrible Catch-22, but that's what
91:
So, my guess is that the Seton Hall team chose a name that didn't suggest the allegations were bogus, because they thought many readers would stop reading at that point. They wrote five articles, each of which addressed a separate aspect of what they learned from studying the
Summary of Evidence
75:
The name they gave their list seems to really trigger your concern. I don't know, for a certain fact, why they chose that name. But I think I can make an educated guess, based on some of the other choices they made in the other four studies. They could have picked a name like
154:
I did state a conclusion, here that I thought that
Akhtiar Mohammed's membership in Itihad Islami merited coverage in the wikipedia. So, your demand that I find an RS... Are you really suggesting I have to find a place where
107:
it has become. If the list and whatnot were sufficiently notable, this wouldn't be happening, but it simply isn't. For what it is worth, I am in favor of these things all seeing the light of proverbial day, but not like this. •
139:
I agree, in my personal opinion, the "no-fly list" merits coverage on the wikipedia. This is an instance where my POV and your POV are in agreement. Recognize, our judgements, your judgement, my judgement, are rooted in our
196:
convicted of any terrorism in any sourced court of law, under an article called "List of
Terrorists," while only listing various diaspora of allegations, means that this is both a BLP and SYNTH/OR violation. •
203:
176:
113:
96:
88:
judgement as to the allegations credibility they would leave too much of their readers behind -- because the jump to what they strongly suspected was credible would be too much of a jump for most reader.
92:
memos. The article in which this list was found addresses the discrepancies between the different lists of organizations suspected of ties to terrorism used by various branches of the US government.
77:
61:
17:
151:. I cited published source A. I cited published source B. But, I think, if you check again, I did not introduce novel synthesis C.
72:, have played a central role in organizing the efforts of the pro bono lawyers who are aiding about 200 of the Guantanamo captives.
188:
the
Taliban or al Qaeda" republishing all these names under a page called "List of terrorists". We're basically saying that they
68:
There are some things you seem to be missing. Professor
Denbeaux, and some of his Seton Hall colleagues, such as
147:, thanks. But I don't see how what I wrote in the article breaches that policy. You quoted the passage from
78:
Organizations not tied to terrorism by the
Departments of State and Homeland Security, but tied by Defense
60:"Specifically, I'm concerned about names of real people and organizations being listed on a page called
84:
198:
108:
192:
terrorists. We can't combine sources to make a new conclusion. Listing all these people, who are
148:
144:
132:
120:
164:
64:, when we have no evidence or reliable non-primary sources saying they are terrorists.
173:
93:
62:
Defense
Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda
50:
156:
102:
Geo, I really appreciate your efforts here, but with a title like this, and barely
40:
56:
concerns. I asked them to be specific about their concerns. This is their reply:
160:
69:
170:"The wikipedia should really cover Akhtiar Mohammed and Itihad Mohammed"?
36:
Another wikipedian blanked about 80% of this article, based on
128:
135:. In the interest of brevity, my response here:
58:
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for deletion
7:
32:Concern over the name of the article
24:
143:I think I am familiar with the
27:Specific BLP and NPOV concerns
1:
204:20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
177:20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
114:21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
97:21:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
224:
66:
85:First Denbeaux Study
127:Another wikipedian
215:
201:
131:that I violated
111:
55:
49:
45:
39:
223:
222:
218:
217:
216:
214:
213:
212:
199:
125:
109:
53:
47:
43:
37:
34:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
221:
219:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
200:Lawrence Cohen
180:
179:
152:
141:
124:
118:
117:
116:
110:Lawrence Cohen
33:
30:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
220:
205:
202:
195:
191:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
178:
175:
172:
171:
166:
165:Bill O'Reilly
162:
158:
153:
150:
146:
142:
138:
137:
136:
134:
130:
129:had a concern
122:
119:
115:
112:
105:
101:
100:
99:
98:
95:
89:
86:
81:
79:
73:
71:
65:
63:
57:
52:
42:
31:
26:
19:
193:
189:
169:
168:
157:Howard Kurtz
126:
103:
90:
82:
74:
67:
59:
35:
161:Dan Rather
70:Baher Azmy
174:Geo Swan
167:wrote:
149:WP:SYNTH
145:WP:SYNTH
133:WP:SYNTH
121:WP:SYNTH
94:Geo Swan
123:concern
83:In the
163:, or
16:<
140:POV.
51:npov
46:and
194:not
190:are
104:any
41:blp
159:,
80:.
54:}}
48:{{
44:}}
38:{{
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.