Talk:Amanullah (Bagram detainee)

responsible use of tags

A Comcast subscriber placed a weasel word tag on this article.

They didn't say why. I suspect it is due to a misconception over the definition of extrajudicial detention -- which doesn't mean the detention was illegal. It means the detention was outside of the justice system.

Captives in Bagram are not charged with crimes. So, extrajudicial is not a "weasel word". It is a completely accurate description. Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My tagging was not based on the use of "extrajudicial". See below, answering you in the "Reply to Comcast" section.

24.130.129.125 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag placer responded on my personal talk page. I moved that comment here:

I'm responding to your request to explain the tag of neutrality or factuality by virtue of weasel words. I found the page randomly, and was about to leave when I was struck by the odd presentation, namely that most of the article uses Amanullah himself as the source. That in itself would be enough to ask for independent third-party references. Then I stopped to consider the tenor of what was being said. At this point it became apparent that his statements, and this Wiki page, were being used for political purposes, and that some of the article's words were selected by the Wiki writer, namely you, to forward a political agenda. (I, myself, tend to agree with what appears to be your political position, that is not at issue here.) The Radio Free article does not read "late-night raid", it reads "nighttime raid". Furthermore, the hour of a raid of someone's home hardly makes a difference, unless you are trying to inflame fears and passions on the part of the readers. "Fighting foreign invaders" is redundant, either "foreigners" or "invaders" would suffice. Furthermore, Amanullah does not use any of the words "fighting", "foreign" or "invaders". This inflamatory language appears to be yours, alone. The source article explicitly says 16 prisoners, which you changed to "over a dozen". It's difficult to ascertain whether you had any intention behind this. It's not so much a weasel word -- it's difficult to know -- as a misquotation. The source article's statement is "forbidden to look at each other or talk". This was transliterated by you to read "prohibited from looking at one another or speaking with one another". The reason for your rewording change isn't clear, but you've modified the original meaning to be less drastic than the source article. More seriously, the words selected for this article present a picture which is entirely one-sided, and do not give context. You've presented information of a nature which any prison inmate would have down to a fine art -- whether innocent or not. If this is a surprise to you, then I question whether you have understanding enough to write this article. Or should I say, paraphrase the Radio Free Europe article? Having mentioned that politically I'm unhappy about human rights violations, I must say that your article has aroused my suspicions that I'm being "had". Now I'm more predisposed to listen to the US military side, not less. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this article, the public does not know the reason the military detained Amunullah. Nor does the fact that people had a grievance against him mean that he is not guilty! Finally, and I don't have the source, there's an estimate that something like 1 in 10 people in American prisons are innocent of the crime they were convicted for. Who knows? Maybe it's only 1 in 100. The point is that innocent people are imprisioned. In some sense, justice did not serve them -- regardless of the specifics. However that does not imply that, therefore, no one should be in prison. That a biased party -- with no references or independent sources -- can make claims of innocence is almost dismissable. I suggest the easiest way to resolve the Wiki tag is to quote the Radio Free Article, with no word changes. 24.130.129.125 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Comcast

Quoting original articles, with no changes, might address your concern over what you regard as my bias. But it opens the article to concerns over violating the copyright of the authors of those original articles. That is my sole justification for paraphrasing the original articles, rather than quoting them.

I aim to make these paraphrases as fair and neutral as possible. In my 30,000 edits have I ever made a lapse? I would be surprised if I had not. But, no offense, IMO these paraphrases you are concerned about don't seem to be examples of lapses. Nighttime versus late-night? Are you really suggesting choosing one word over another is a sign of bias? Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support human rights. My issue is with the article's approach. Although I've now made additional statements, I originally placed the tag merely to have language replaced which, I felt, wasn't supportive of the cause of human rights, or of being non-biased. I was looking for a few word changes.

Answering your question, most certainly choosing one word over another can indicate bias. That's why I tagged the article.

I recognize the problem of paraphrasing without violating copyright. When I find myself in this dilemma, however, I usually find that I have not given sufficient consideration of the larger subject. In this case...and now I'm working as I go...here are things I'd like to know about Amanullah:

* What's his background?

* Who was captured in the same raid that he was? Have any of them been found to be terrorists?

* What information did the military get from Amanullah?

And especially, and I think the most pivotal for Wiki:

* What do other, hopefully independent, sources say about Amanullah?

Lacking any of the above, this Wiki article winds up being Amanullah's personal statement about how innocent he is. Which, as I mentioned, is something every prisoner will have reduced to a finely honed performance.

24.130.129.125 (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would be fruitful to be explicit about weasel words, although my major issue is that the article itself is not neutral.:

• "late-night" raid

• "fighting foreign invaders"

• "struggle" against Afghanistan's Soviet "occupiers".

Most of the rest of the article is nearly direct quotes. That, however, and this is a different issue, does not excuse the source itself (Amunullah) from employing weasel words, facile political assessments, etc. Quoting someone else's weasel words does not exempt a Wiki article from the need to avoid such words.

24.130.129.125 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems I didn't see this followup comment.

• I strongly dispute that "fighting foreign invaders" lapses from neutrality. The Americans were invaders -- just like the Soviets. Did many Afghans welcome the invasion? According to many press reports from the time, they did. That does not alter that it was a foreign invasion. No one disputes that it was a foreign invasion. Alternate terms, like "liberation" or "liberators" would lapse from neutrality. What you seem unaware of is that among the Guantanamo captives, where the Bush administration had to provide justifications for holding captives indefinitely, without charge, dozens of the older captives were being held not for resisting the American invasion -- but because they had resisted the Soviet invasion. No, I am not making this up.
• I don't think there is anyone, even in the former Soviet Union, who would dispute that the Soviet Union was occupying Afghanistan. As for what to call the resistance efforts -- if you think "struggle" is a bad choice why haven't you suggested an alternative?
• Please explain why you regard "late-night" as lacking neutrality. Again, I am curious why you didn't suggest an alternate phrase.

Comcast wrote, above:

...there's an estimate that something like 1 in 10 people in American prisons are innocent of the crime they were convicted for. Who knows? Maybe it's only 1 in 100. The point is that innocent people are imprisioned. In some sense, justice did not serve them -- regardless of the specifics. However that does not imply that, therefore, no one should be in prison. That a biased party -- with no references or independent sources -- can make claims of innocence is almost dismissable.

Comcast, may I remind you that, according to the Bush Presidency, none of the captives America takes in Afghanistan is a POW? By International law POWs can be detained, without charge, until a conflict is over. But Amanullah was not a POW. You write of innocence? May I remind you that none of the captives America took in Afghanistan is a criminal convicted through a justice system? May I remind you that, with the very questionable exception of two dozen of the captives who were shipped to Guantanamo, most of the captives had never been charged? Read the transcripts from OARDEC for yourself and you will routinely see the Presiding officers inform the captives that the proceedings are not courts of law, and they are not concerned with guilt or innocence. Geo Swan (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)