Talk:Yaser Esam Hamdi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afghanistan[edit]

Who is "Dunham"? There is no prior reference to Dunham; we can only assume he is Hamdi's defense lawyer. Clown 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I clarified. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== {{cn}}

==

I asked for citations to substantiate the assertion that the prison riot was a prisoner uprising. This assertion is at odds with the accounts offered in the captive's Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings. They describe the captives being stripped, bound, and made to kneel in the prison's yard. They don't provide any testimony to back up the assertion of an uprising...

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of your question is at odds with the subject of this article. Maybe you should ask here: Talk:Battle_of_Qala-i-Jangi Flex Flint (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I removed your request for citation. Flex Flint (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please bear in mind that the account in Battle of Qala-i-Jangi is just one theory of what happened. Refering to another wikipedia page does not count as a reliable source.
  2. Please bear in mind that Wikipedian is not a battleground.
  3. You responded: "The subject of your question is at odds with the subject of this article." -- hello? If you think my {{cn}} is off-topic does that mean you think the statement I asked for citations about was off-topic?
  4. Since you think you can substantiate the assertion that the incident was a prison uprising I will wait for you to provide reliable sources to back that assertion up.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example of the many poor edits recently made to this article.[edit]

[1] This edit added the 'no inline ciations' tag, when in fact the article has plenty of inline citations. It also added the 'citation needed' tag to the line "According to the Charleston Post and Courier, Hamdi ran away from home and trained at a Taliban camp. They reported he only spent a few weeks at the camp, "where he quickly became disillusioned"" which is cited to http://www.charleston.net/news/2009/mar/15/hanahan_brig_next_guantanamo75104. The rest of the edits by Rms125a@hotmail.com are of similar poor quality. Dlabtot (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Regarding "poor editing", the edits I made included:

  • 1) rv: "Though Hamdi renounced his U.S. citizenship, it is unclear under these circumstances if the renunciation was "voluntary" as required by the Supreme Court's decisions in Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas, especially since the U.S. presently holds that formal renunciations are only valid if made before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer outside the U.S. If Hamdi ever tries to reclaim his U.S. citizenship, his renunciation may thus be subject to challenge before a U.S. court" (as unsourced POV and speculation)
  • 2) rv: "Frank Dunham, Hamdi's lawyer, was allowed to meet with Hamdi for the first time in December 2003, more than two years after Hamdi was incarcerated. Under guidelines drafted by Pentagon lawyers, military observers attended and recorded the meetings between Dunham and Hamdi, and Dunham was not allowed to discuss with Hamdi the conditions of his confinement" (as unsourced)
  • 3) either commented out pending rv or rv: "The memos indicate that officers were concerned that the isolation and lack of stimuli was driving Yasser Hamdi, José Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri insane" (as unsourced)
  • 4) rv: ["Mr. Hamdi actually met his lawyers for the first time in February 2004. After that initial meeting, Hamdi was allowed to have confidential discussions with his attorneys without military observers or video or audio taping in a room at the Navy Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.] (as unsourced)
  • 5) rv: "His Guantanamo Internment Serial Number was 9" (as unnecessary, unsourced cruft)

Let me add that in addition to monitoring the massive POV on this article I did add citation or fact tags and inline banner because they were needed. If someone adds text they should source it. I don't believe other editors should have to source material added, often by non-registered users. That is ridiculous. And if the text is of any importance then tagging it to advise the editor(s) is the responsible thing to do. If no sourcing is provided after a reasonable period of time then the text should be deleted unless the deleting editor wishes to go to the trouble of finding the source(s) himself or herself. I had no intention of doing all that work for other editors.

The version by Dlabtot contains unsourced and OR text ("[Mr. Hamdi actually met his lawyers for the first time in February 2004. After that initial meeting, Hamdi was allowed to have confidential discussions with his attorneys without military observers or video or audio taping in a room at the Navy Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.] ... Hamdi's father petitioned a federal court for Hamdi's rights to know the crime(s) he is accused of, and to receive a fair trial before imprisonment") and the entire following sections have no reflinks at all: U.S. Supreme Court decision, Legal significance and Release (see diff here and diff here).

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to calm down, unbold your text, and engage in a calm and reasonable discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bolded the text for easier reading for my fellow editors. I am not screaming, believe it or not. But if the bolding is somehow a sign that I am not being cool, calm and collected, then I will unbold most of it. I have nothing more to say, however, so if you want to chime in, go ahead. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bolding of text certainly does not make for easier reading; and typing words or phrases in ALL CAPS or in bold text is certainly perceived by the overwhelming majority of people as yelling. I again respectfully ask that you re-format your comment to take out the yelling, because frankly I am having a hard time reading it as is.
Taking things one item at a time, do you agree or disagree that the 'disillusioned' text was in fact properly sourced? Perhaps the citation should have been at the end of the paragraph. But this seems to indicate to me that you are just adding tags willy-nilly without taking the time to examine the sources. Dlabtot (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I retyped some of the above as you stated that you were having difficulty reading it. As far as the "disillusioned" text goes, that is not one of the five examples I cited as unsourced. However, since you bring it up I will say that I am wary of such loaded emotive termsif indeed it is part of the sourced text then I guess it's OK but it was not clearly sourced if I recall correctly, and so I tagged it as such. I am going to recheck now and if necessary I will update this. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I rechecked an old version of the article and the portion that reads:

"According to the Charleston Post and Courier, Hamdi ran away from home and trained at a Taliban camp. They reported he only spent a few weeks at the camp, "where he quickly became disillusioned"

was not sourced, but the preceding paragraph was. When using such emotive terminology as "disillusioned" I am of the camp that believes better safe than sorry. In retrospect I could have simply moved the immediately previous reflink (which was from the same source, The Charleston Post and Courier) to cover that entire section but I didn't even check the prior reflink as I felt whoever made the edit should ensure that text is properly sourced. That isn't always my reaction, notwithstanding anything I wrote above as I do plenty of research, but in this case as a lot of text, post-lede, was not properly sourced in my opinion (hence the inline banner), I washed my hands of it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are saying. It's as if you can see that you were wrong but are unwilling to say so. Yes or no was the statement unsourced as you claimed in your edit? I'll be happy to go through all of these edits one by one but if making an admission of a simple mistake is this difficult, I have the feeling it is going to be a tedious exercise. Dlabtot (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is so hard to get?? -- the sentence "where he quickly became disillusioned" was not sourced, i.e. there was no referencelink after the last word, which was the last sentence of that paragraph, and, in fact, the section. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it clearly is sourced to the citation I gave. You were negligent in not actually looking at the sources and now you simply won't admit your error. Your not being at all reasonable. Dlabtot (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am always willing to admit when I am wrong. I have had a lot of life practice. But if we are going to go "one by one", we'll start with the 5 examples I cited above. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll go "one by one" by starting with "5"? You are speaking gibberish. Dlabtot (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First things first -- no response to the "disillusioned" issue which you raised and to which I responded above?

FIRST: Re: the "disillusioned" text. I know its source is in the The Charleston Post and Courier. However the link to the source was not next to the text in question. I know because I check old diffs and it was not. I tried to explain above that the source was located earlier in the relevant section of text, but you were so anxious to get me to admit I am wrong and refusing to accept the tacit olive branch I extended that you simply refuse to get what I am saying. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SECOND: My reference to 5 refers to the five examples above of text which I rv for lack of proper sourcing, which you claimed was "poor editing" and which we can review "one by one". Don't know what's so hard to get. I have recopied and pasted the whole thing here:
1) rv: "Though Hamdi renounced his U.S. citizenship, it is unclear under these circumstances if the renunciation was "voluntary" as required by the Supreme Court's decisions in Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazas, especially since the U.S. presently holds that formal renunciations are only valid if made before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer outside the U.S. If Hamdi ever tries to reclaim his U.S. citizenship, his renunciation may thus be subject to challenge before a U.S. court" (as unsourced POV and speculation)
2) rv: "Frank Dunham, Hamdi's lawyer, was allowed to meet with Hamdi for the first time in December 2003, more than two years after Hamdi was incarcerated. Under guidelines drafted by Pentagon lawyers, military observers attended and recorded the meetings between Dunham and Hamdi, and Dunham was not allowed to discuss with Hamdi the conditions of his confinement" (as unsourced)
3) either commented out pending rv or rv: "The memos indicate that officers were concerned that the isolation and lack of stimuli was driving Yasser Hamdi, José Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri insane" (as unsourced)
4) rv: ["Mr. Hamdi actually met his lawyers for the first time in February 2004. After that initial meeting, Hamdi was allowed to have confidential discussions with his attorneys without military observers or video or audio taping in a room at the Navy Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.] (as unsourced)
5) rv: "His Guantanamo Internment Serial Number was 9" (as unnecessary, unsourced cruft)
THIRD: If you insult me again (i.e. "talking gibberish", "poor editing") I will take the matter to ANI regarding your aggressive, overreaching, obnoxious, decidedly non-AGF conduct. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

The article suggests towards the beginning that Hamdi was released in September 2004. Then towards the end it says he was released in October 2004. So this inconsistency needs to be corrected. 68.177.151.17 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Yaser Esam Hamdi. 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:

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) 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yaser_Esam_Hamdi&oldid=1195308606"