Talk:Huzaifa Parhat

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	No "from wikipedia" disclaimer is necessary because I was the sole author of this version. George Swan 12:24, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

I do not understand why this article should be described as "un-maintainable"

I have taken a break for a couple of months. But I have some more recent sources for this topic, and I don't anticipate any problems bringing it up to date.

Please see http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2563.0.html. The same concern is expressed for multiple issues and is a matter of policy. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

With regard to neutrality...

Neutrality is important. We are all human, and any contributor may lapse from the goal of neutrality, without recognizing they have done so. Surely if a topic is worthy of coverage, among the appropriate things to do when we see content we think lapses from neutrality, is to say so? Perhaps the original author of that content would appreciate having their possible lapse brought to their attention? Perhaps some other contributor sees a way to rewrite it in a more neutral fashion? Rewriting the offending passage ourselves is also an option.

But, if a topic is worth covering, shouldn't deletion be a last resort?

Cheers! George Swan 17:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all may agree that a topic is "worthy of coverage". Personally, I am more likely to agree a topic is worth coverage if it is:

• Strongly linked to other articles, including parent topics putting its significance in context
• Kept current if it deals with current events
• If controversial, has more than one author committed to keeping it current and balancing statements perceived as non-neutral
• Is tightly written, with a clear point, contains little or no information not related to the specific subject, with coherent links to more general aspects.
• Uses simple formatting so it's easy to edit.

Howard C. Berkowitz 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Some editing attempts

While I continue to question if this is appropriate as an independent article rather than as a subsection, at least, of the articles on Uighur captives, I will try to work with this. I am not committing to maintain it. These are examples, however, of what goes into maintenance.

The lede should summarize current status.

Copyediting

First, some copyediting. We generally discourage wikilinking dates, especially months and days, since we have no real structure to which they point and there have been Forum discussions suggesting there is little interest in creating one. Unless the day of the week is specifically relevant, it doesn't need to be in the text.

A simple blockquote, not boxed text, is appropriate to quote the charges; paraphrase might be more readable.

This memo, dated [[30 October]] [[2004]], provides one paragraph biographies of 22 Uighur captives. The memo asserts that all 22 captives are suspected of membership in the "[[East Turkistan Islamic Movement]]" (ETIM)", and were captured at an ETIM training camp]]". This memo was drafted prior to the Summary of Evidence memo prepared for Parhat's [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]]. is indeed is at the level of the group and need not be repeated here; a brief introduction and a link are adequate.

I removed the Combatant Status Review Tribunal since it has no text specific to this individual; a link is all that is appropriate.

Bullet by bullet and table formatting of points of testimony are hard to read. I did not edit them, but a paragraph-based paraphrase would be much easier on the eyes.

I removed the Administrative Review Board material not specific to Parhat and wikiliked to Administrative Review Board.

As to Parhat vs. Gates, I changed "is challenging" to "challenged". Maintenance means indicating if the matter is in progress, or its disposition if so.

I removed the Slate material as not specific to this defendant and belonging in the more general article. His attorney's quotation is more of a speech than I'd like to say,and it should be sourced.

It is not necessary to have four reputable news organizations' reporting on the same adjudication event; I moved three of them here. Pick one of the four. <ref name=McClatchyParhat20080623> {{cite news | url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41907.html | title=In first, court rejects military's ruling in Guantanamo case | publisher=[[McClatchy News Service]] | date=2008-06-23 | accessdate=2008-06-23 | quote= }} </ref><ref name=Iht20080623> {{cite news | url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Guantanamo-Chinese-Muslim.php | title=US appeals court rejects classification of Chinese Muslim as an enemy combatant | publisher=[[International Herald Tribune]] | date=2008-06-23 | accessdate=2008-06-23 | quote= }} </ref><ref name=Cnn20080623> {{cite news | url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/23/gitmo.chinese.muslim/ | title=Court rules in favor of Chinese Muslim held at Gitmo | publisher=[[CNN]] | author=[[Bill Mears]] | date=2008-06-23 | accessdate=2008-06-23 | quote= }} </ref>

Blockquote is less dramatic than quotation, and even quotations should be used with moderation, especially when they are general observations.

Substantive issues

I am doing some reference checking on current status; there is much more recent material. Will get back. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For example, a lack of due diligence in maintenance is reflected the lack of anything on the the October 17, 2008 ruling of Judge Ricardo M. Urbina to release the prisoners. How can pasting images of much older documents [1] remotely be considered more relevant? Howard C. Berkowitz 08:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the document images?

What do these add to the content of the article? We try to discourage quotes in favor of explanatory paraphrasing; it would seem that an image goes even farther.

How does it help answer the questions raised by this article? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought adding images of the documents would go hand in hand with reducing the verbatim quotes which had triggered your concern. George Swan 05:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You thought incorrectly. The reason I objected to the verbatim quotes is that they are given with no context. They are even more egregious example of introducing large volumes of data with no context. It is my ruling, as a Military Workgroup Editor, that they are completely inappropriate here. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the document images or lengthy quotations from the documents might work well on a subpage. My thoughts on this kind of neutrality issue are these: have the main article present the facts and the opinions of clearly defined, noteworthy people (or bodies), but give the reader the tools to come to their own conclusions. If President Obama has an opinion, it's probably worth being cited in the main article. If Human Rights Watch (or a similar high-profile NGO) has made serious allegations, those are probably worthy of inclusion as well.

Ultimately people are going to have to come to their own conclusions on this sort of politically sensitive issue. Having lengthy quotations on a subpage (perhaps called 'Documents') facilitates that. Brian P. Long 21:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You make good points. There is, I believe, a strong difference between a political official, a NGO, etc., making a statement, and the quote from a participating attorney or journalist. While they both are opinion, the former category has much more weight.

Certainly, prosecutors or defense attorneys are not going to be neutral. Officials, and influential NGOs/international organization, may be non-neutral, but their statements ex officio have significance.

There are, incidentally, official statements that either are not specific to a prisoner, or, by their nature, are precedent-setting. Such statements are apt to be lost in a bottom-up, prisoner- and incident-specific organization. For example, the Bush Administration, not long ago, named a retired judge as the new convening authority for military commissions. While she started with a specific case, she quickly threw out some allegations as tainted by torture, no doubt annoying the appointer, but also making determinations that the person in question was in a category that should not be released — but that was pending new, observed, untainted rulings.

Of course there is political sensitivity. My firm belief, however, is that it is possible to have some broader and more neutral coverage, and the individual or small group level isn't a practical way of writing it. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts

Hello gentlemen, would you please go back through this talk page and make sure you've signed your posts. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 17:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)/constable

View from a distance

This is an interesting test case; is this article intrinsically non-neutral in selecting an individual anecdotal case to make an impled general case? This individual is, after all, notable only as being an exemplar, but how representative is he?

We don't know, but it seems to me that in this case we can't rule that this article is intrinsically non-neutral, because we have no reliable information about the detainees in general. It seems to me that while this is so, the best evidence we can have is of individual cases, and they become notable as rare documented case studies. My view here as I hope everywhere is - let the facts out, the good the bad and the ugly, just record them honestly and let things fall from there as they will. Maybe the information flow at times will be "unbalanced", but we can't micromanage - let's let it all flow.

I think this article is making serious attempt at objective recording of verifiable information - indeed perhaps such a serious attampt that there is little narrative flow. So please let it get better; we're not talking about Approval here, I think we should relax and wait.Gareth Leng 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just cannot agree. Further, I don't agree that there is a total lack of information on detainees in general. It did not please the Bush Administration when they named a retired judge as the convener of Military Commissions, and she put out a number of rulings that specific actions were tainted because she determined that individuals had been tortured. That, and other broad statements, including things released by the Obama Administration and also that has been in reasonably authoritative sources, can and should, in my opinion, be in a non-anecdotal general article.

While it gets closer to original synthesis, I believe it is within reasonable limits to make some non-anecdotal observations. U.S. military and intelligence interrogation policy goes back well before the Bush Administration. Some of the earlier policies were deemed unwise and were revoked. One principle, which stretches across different political, intelligence, and military leadership, is that intelligence interrogation should be under the control of intelligence professionals. Beyond the U.S., it also is widely accepted that abusive treatment is rarely efficacious in eliciting information rather than coerced confessions — this is actually well-sourced in other, more general articles I've written, such as thought reform.

Here's the synthesis: Guantanamo Detention Camp was originally set up by a task force commanded by a U.S. Marine Corps brigadier general. I don't know that he has a specific intelligence background, although I can probably find out; the original treatment of prisoners there, however, was, while not a vacation, somewhat correct. Where later prisoners would be put under stress when protesting, this officer would go to the prisoners and actually talk to them as human beings. Informal contacts I have had indicated that he was, in fact, getting information, but not as fast as political leaders would have liked.

This officer was transferred, apparently either at the direct orders or transfer of Cheney and Rumsfeld, and an Army major general (since demoted and retired) put in to "get tough". I did confirm the second officer never had an intelligence assignment. After setting up Guantanamo, he was sent to "toughen up" Abu Ghraib. Is there, perhaps, a pattern here?

Ironically, the Marine has since been promoted, and commands one of the domestic bases being considered for detaining, under U.S. law, the prisoners that are not released. Turnabout, eh? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

explanation

This article was deleted by a constable after an editor repeatedly claimed it was "unmaintainable". I asked for it to be restored, on the old server. This is copied from the last version before that editor made several excisions that I consider questionable.

I will spend a couple of hours bringing it up to date sometime in the next couple of months. George Swan (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (CDT)