Talk:Hassan bin Attash

Untitled

Captured in the same raid as Shawki Awad Balzuhair? Sherurcij ^{(Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear)} 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

I have reverted the prior change back to the neutral position it achieved previously. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please show other contributors the courtesy of offering explanations of what triggers your neutrality concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That has been explained thoroughly previously. Should you like to provide a link for readers to see, please feel free to do so. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO this excision requires an explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

responsible use of tags...

In the last month or so a relatively new contributor has been methodically going through the articles on Guantanamo captives. While they have corrected some typos, and added some relevant categories, they have, I am sorry to say, added some very questionable tags to a great many of these articles, with little to no meaningful attempt to explain their actions. This article being a case in point. The added {{Cleanup-rewrite}} {{BLP sources}} to this article, which, when instantiated, expand to:

This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions. (August 2009) This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (August 2009)

It seems to me that, like with the other other articles this contributor has processes, they applied these tags without really reading the article, and without reading the article's references.

I have written to this contributor, and explained to them that, in my opinion, the Summary of Evidence (CSRT), and Summary of Evidence (ARB) memos ARE secondary sources, not primary sources. They were drafted by authors who were charged to read, assimilate, analyze and summarize reports from at least half a dozen agencies, both civilian and military, and sometimes, as in Hassan bin Attach's case, from foreign intelligence agencies as well. I have explained to this contributor that this makes these sources the canonical example of secondary sources.

I have told this contributor my concerns that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy on verifiability. It is not our role to determine whether what our sources assert are "true", when those sources are verifiable and authoritative.

In addition to these satisfactory OARDEC references this particular article references an article Farah Stockman wrote for the Boston Globe:

But Hassan bin Attash, a Yemeni who was 17 at the time of his arrest, reported that he was hung upside down, beaten on the soles of his feet, and threatened with electric shocks after he was sent to Jordan by US officials. He says that he told them whatever they wanted to hear," said his attorney, Robert Knowles. He just wanted it to stop." Knowles said Attash was arrested in Pakistan in September 2002, and spent four days in a US-run detention center in Afghanistan before being sent to Jordan for 16 months. In January 2004, he was transferred back to a US prison in Afghanistan. In September 2004, he was sent to Guantanamo Bay.

• Farah Stockman (2006-04-26). "7 detainees report transfer to nations that use torture". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2009-08-06. Retrieved 2009-08-06.</ref>

Cageprisoners, mirrors a Reprieve report drafted by Clive Stafford Smith, who wrote:

He is now 20 but was 17 when he was seized. In 2002, his house was raided in Pakistan. After 4 days in a Karachi prison he was taken to the ‘Prison of Darkness’ in Kabul. He was held and tortured there until September 19, 2002. He was then rendered to Jordan with another prisoner called Abu Otaibi Hadarami, where he spent 3 months of torture 12 hours a day. Ultimately, he signed whatever they asked of him. On January 8, 2004, he was taken back to the Prison of Darkness in Kabul, then to Bagram, and then Guantanamo. One of his brothers was in Bagram, but he has disappeared. His father, Mohammed, is 70 years old and has been imprisoned in Saudi allegedly under U.S. orders. (Source of data: unclassified report by Omar Deghayes)

• Clive Stafford Smith (2005-06-15). "Kids of Guantanamo". Reprieve via Cageprisoners. Archived from the original on 2009-08-06. Retrieved 2009-08-06.</ref>

I suggest that the application of tags that assert an article requires more references should only be done after the tag applier has actually read the article, and checked its existing references. Geo Swan (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the {{USgovtPOV}} tag is appropriate to many of the Guantanamo biographies, since we list only what the government has said about them. It is a reputable source, so {{BLP sources}} isn't necessary as the USgovtPOV tag says the same thing but with more specific details about the complaint. I also feel that the {{Cleanup-rewrite}} is inexplicable without specific information on the talk page about how the user would like to see the article "rewritten" - does it need to use the third-person? does it need to remove bare urls? does it need to be written in the past tense? It is not readily apparent, even upon study, why he feels these articles need to be "rewritten", so I would discourage its use. I also feel the user has fundamentally misunderstood the use of {{wikify}} which he has also added to numerous articles; as it is meant for articles which lack in-line citations, section headers and wikilinking - and I haven't yet seen a single article lacking that among the ones to which he added the template. In summary, I feel that {{USgovtPOV}} is appropriate for all Guantanamo biographies which do not have either a newspaper or literary source, but all other templates are either overkill, unnecessary or simply spamming. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

misleading edit summaries

I've previously requested the contributor who made this edit to stop using misleading edit summaries. This edit has the edit summary "correction" -- an edit summary I consider extremely misleading.

Most of the CSRT summary of edit memos were published more than once. They were all published on September 2007. 179 of them were published in the dossiers prepared due to their habeas petitions. 517 were published in the winter of 2005.

Some of these memos differed in the different version. A few of them had divergent wording. A larger number had redactions.

I thought, when there was divergent wording the articles should note this. When fragments of sentences were redacted in 2005, I put those phrases in bold. Many books written by former CIA officers have used this technique, when their publishers got permission to publish passages that were formerly redacted.

The other contributor removed that bolding -- calling it a "correction".

I appreciate that another contributor can have different opinion as to whether those phrases should be in bold.

I strongly feel that it would be a mistake for any contributor who has a commitment to avoid edit warring to simply remove that bolding, rather than state why they thought following the example of those books by former intelligence officers was "incorrect".

I am even more concerned by this contributor's use of misleading edit summaries. Another misleading edit summary he uses is "clarify", which they also use when they have made controversial edits. Geo Swan (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The user who has posted this comment here has been ask before to stop his targeted offensive behavior that now spreads over multiple pages. The only misleading thing is your post here. Your description of my edit is absolutely false from top to bottom! And considering that we now have a quite a few instances where you write postings to talk pages that are ad hominum and or like here simply base on your false information. I assume good faith but let me also tell you that WP:AGF has limits when it comes to patterns. Please carefully check edits and do not falsely accuse other editors because of your most likely incapacity to interpret changes by simply reading the code. What could be the only reason when assuming good faith. The same thing has happened before and you have been warned. If you are not able to understand the edit from the diff link that you post here. What would be unusual for a long term contributer. I recommend you have a look at the old version and compare it with the new version to avoid blandly misinterpretation of changes and repeatedly false accusations against other users.

Your version before my edit

1. The detainee used the aliases Umayr and Al-Mughayrah
2. The detainee's brother is a prominent member of al Qaida.
3. The detainee's father who is currently in jail in Saudi Arabia, is a close contact of Usama Bin Laden.
4. The detainee stated that since he joined al Qaida he was treated well by the organization due to "his father's and brother's close relationship with Usama Bin Laden.
5. The detainee was arrested in a raid on al Qaida safehouses, Pakistan on 11 September 2002.

New version after my edit

1. The detainee used the aliases Umayr and Al-Mughayrah
2. The detainee's brother is a prominent member of al Qaida.
3. The detainee's father who is currently in jail in Saudi Arabia, is a close contact of Usama Bin Laden.
4. The detainee stated that since he joined al Qaida he was treated well by the organization due to "his father's and brother's close relationship with Usama Bin Laden.
5. The detainee was arrested in a raid on al Qaida safehouses, Pakistan on 11 September 2002.

By no means did i remove the bolding of the redacted passages. By no means did i use a misleading edit summary or secretly removed information. If you would not have assumed bad faith and if you would have checked the edit carefully instead, you could have easily noticed that this is absolutely false. Both versions have an attached explanation note where the redacted passages are listed. You partly bolded the wrong passages in the text and i have simply corrected that. I do not doubt your good faith but in the text you bolded two passages wrongly. As i said i do doubt your good faith but instead of highlighting the redacted parts "The detainee's brother" and "The detainee's father" you falsely highlighted "is a prominent member of al Qaida" and "who is currently in jail in Saudi Arabia, is a close contact of Usama Bin Laden." instead. IQinn (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

References

move

I have checked the over search results available sources. Non of them (without the WP copies) uses Hassan bin 'Attash. I think it would be better to move the article to Hassan bin Attash as this is reflected in the sources. Any objections? IQinn (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few sources use Bin'Attash, the reason being that "Attash" begins with the Arabic letter Ayin, not Alif. Alif is translated as "A" while Ayin is transliterated as a glottal stop, or '. So obviously I oppose the move. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide some sources. IQinn (talk)

For bin'Attash, google it. For Alif/Ayin, learn Arabic to recognise the letters, or read the respective articles which I was kind enough to wikilink for you. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As i said i googled it. Only copies of WP for your version. It would be very kind of you to provide us with some references for you claims. Please provide us also with the source for his Arabic name as there is no source for it in the article. IQinn (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So either Human Rights Watch, and the New York Times are "mirroring Sherurcij's wikipedia article" or your Google doesn't work. Interesting. As for "please provide a source for the Arabic alphabet"...sorry, I really don't know how to footnote that other than suggesting you learn, or look up, the Arabic alphabet so you can know that a ع‎ is an ayin, not an alif. Or just click the damn articles I wikilinked for you and compare to the images! Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. Not the ref for the Arabic alphabet. We need a reference that shows the name of the individual of this biography in Arabic letters. I guess you have such a sources or document as you said you have translated it from Arabic. So please share this source with us.

For the two sources you have provided: The first is not a document of the NYT's it is just some document on there server and the document is not about the individual of this biography. The same for the second document. Also a different person. Not helpful. We need sources for the individual of this biography.

Speaking about the NYT's here is one source and this source contradicts your original research of translating Arabic. IQinn (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes...it is a US Gov't document...how does this disprove anything exactly? You can always take a look at Walid bin 'Attash and note the surname's spelling (remember Arabic is read right-to-left, no I don't have a reference for that, don't waste time asking) to compare the ayin that starts the surname with the alif. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify that a bit. 1) We do not have any source for his name in Arabic and i also think we do not have the Arabic name of his brother 2) As we do not have any source i think it is waste of time to try to translate something we do not know. 3) You confirm that the two sources you have provided do not speak about the individual of this biography. 4) We should only use and follow sources that concern the individual of this biography. 5) I have provided this source a research project of the NYT's that supports my version. As well there are many other sources that support my version. 6) For the points 1-5 we have good reason to rename the article to the from me proposed name. IQinn (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that there are sources that use the incorrect name, but Wikipedia is among many others (including the Department of Defense, HRW and others) that use the correct transliteration - noting that ayin is represented as a glottal stop in English; not as a simple "A" as Alif is. There is no reason we should change from a correct transliteration to an incorrect one, just because you can point to mistakes on the internet. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1) No offence but how can you translate something you do not know? We do not know his Arabic name. 2) The sources you have provided before where not about the individual here. You are speaking about other sources now? Please provide us with these sources. 3) Have a look at the NYT's sources that i have provided. It endorses my version. And the NYT's is a strong source. Looks more like your version is a mistake. In any way the NYT's is more credible that original research. IQinn (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Hassan Bin 'Attash → Hassan bin Attash—Per usual Arabic naming standards, the apostrophe isn't needed for the ayin letter.--John Cengiz talk 17:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cageprisoners.com%2Farticles.php%3Fid%3D7880&date=2009-08-06 to http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=7880
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070804021930/http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press_germanyusedforrendition_06_10_06.htm to http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press_germanyusedforrendition_06_10_06.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-11-guantanamo-combatants_N.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184542/http://cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=3838 to http://cageprisoners.com/articles.php?aid=3838
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1773140.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/12/16%20detainees%20wittes/1216_detainees_wittes.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2008mc00442/131990/152/0.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104936.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052803873.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)