This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could you please explain more fully why you regard it as remarkable that Andy Worthington has not traveled to Guantanamo? Are you aware that there are very rich resources for historians, about Guantanamo, that do not require traveling there? Are you aware DoD has been forced to publish over 25,000 pages of documents about the Guantanamo captives?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any compelling reason why the reviews on Worthington's book is located in this article? It smacks of self promotion, and would be best left out of the article. If he wrote a book, leave that item, but remove the commentary. This is a not a review venue. Yachtsman1 ( talk) 07:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that this kind of comment lapses from policy. Who says it is "a liberal weblog"? Geo Swan ( talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
An {{ Articleissues}} tag was placed on this article in January 2009. It asserted that the tag placer had concerns over notability and primary source.
I believe all those concerns have been addressed, and plan to return to remove this tag after a reasonable period of time.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Another editor added an EL, that seems to me to be perfectly appropriate. Iquinn deleted it, without any rationale other than what appears to be POV. I added it back, agreeing w/the initial editor. Iquinn -- lacking consensus -- edit warred by adding it back. I have reverted, and would ask Iquinn not to edit war, and not to delete appropriate material without consensus (which he clearly lacked at the time of his last revert). Pls take that as a warning. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
@Epeefleche, your should check the facts before making false accusations and you should follow WP:BRD.
1) "Iquinn deleted it, without any rationale other than what appears to be POV." False.
I did not remove the link because of this. Where did you get this crap form? Any diffs? What is up with you coming in here edit warring without understanding anything and to threaten other editors before even a discussion has started? What is up with you?
"Pls take that as a warning."
Discuss in a civil way and cut the crap.
2) My edit summary: "there are thousands of other links that fit EL - i do not see any reason to choose this one. Please explain on the talk page"
So tell us the reason?
@Randy almost the same for you. Check at least your facts before making false accusations.
1) Who said that link is POV? You have any diff or you better take in consideration to apologies.
2) So for you the same question. That you have not answered. What is the reason for the link? That you find it on his website is not a reason there are hundreds of other links as well.
3) What have the number of links in Guantanamo force feeding to do with that? Is that your justification? (by the way these links in that article are references to information that have not been covered in that article.) "Iqinn added links to other articles so do i" ??? I do not think that this here is the right place to discuss other articles and that can not be your justification, right? So tell us the reason for the link here. He has given countless interviews with many organisation. As Antiwar radio, Democracy now... and and... (there are dozens of other links more important than that one) so why do you think that your link is the most important. EL says the link should be kept the links to a minimum. So tell us instead of attacking other editors and edit warring. Thank you. IQinn ( talk) 07:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
@Epeefleche and Randy your edit summaries speak for yourself the edit history on this page and this discussion and other terror suspect BLP's. I personalty think it borders almost "hate speech". But this is simply my personal opinion. And well Epeefleche you broke WP:BRD 2 times and then starts threatening me for no reason. Ridiculous. Well that has become your edit history. You did not answer my questions regarding the content issue. So i guess you think because you and Randy have the same POV entitle you to not discuss in a civil way and to instead threaten other people? Well then that is your history then. Best.
@Randy, The problem is that there are many other audio links that seems to be more important than this one. So why prefer this audio link over the others? IQinn ( talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Andy Worthington. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could you please explain more fully why you regard it as remarkable that Andy Worthington has not traveled to Guantanamo? Are you aware that there are very rich resources for historians, about Guantanamo, that do not require traveling there? Are you aware DoD has been forced to publish over 25,000 pages of documents about the Guantanamo captives?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any compelling reason why the reviews on Worthington's book is located in this article? It smacks of self promotion, and would be best left out of the article. If he wrote a book, leave that item, but remove the commentary. This is a not a review venue. Yachtsman1 ( talk) 07:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned that this kind of comment lapses from policy. Who says it is "a liberal weblog"? Geo Swan ( talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
An {{ Articleissues}} tag was placed on this article in January 2009. It asserted that the tag placer had concerns over notability and primary source.
I believe all those concerns have been addressed, and plan to return to remove this tag after a reasonable period of time.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Another editor added an EL, that seems to me to be perfectly appropriate. Iquinn deleted it, without any rationale other than what appears to be POV. I added it back, agreeing w/the initial editor. Iquinn -- lacking consensus -- edit warred by adding it back. I have reverted, and would ask Iquinn not to edit war, and not to delete appropriate material without consensus (which he clearly lacked at the time of his last revert). Pls take that as a warning. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
@Epeefleche, your should check the facts before making false accusations and you should follow WP:BRD.
1) "Iquinn deleted it, without any rationale other than what appears to be POV." False.
I did not remove the link because of this. Where did you get this crap form? Any diffs? What is up with you coming in here edit warring without understanding anything and to threaten other editors before even a discussion has started? What is up with you?
"Pls take that as a warning."
Discuss in a civil way and cut the crap.
2) My edit summary: "there are thousands of other links that fit EL - i do not see any reason to choose this one. Please explain on the talk page"
So tell us the reason?
@Randy almost the same for you. Check at least your facts before making false accusations.
1) Who said that link is POV? You have any diff or you better take in consideration to apologies.
2) So for you the same question. That you have not answered. What is the reason for the link? That you find it on his website is not a reason there are hundreds of other links as well.
3) What have the number of links in Guantanamo force feeding to do with that? Is that your justification? (by the way these links in that article are references to information that have not been covered in that article.) "Iqinn added links to other articles so do i" ??? I do not think that this here is the right place to discuss other articles and that can not be your justification, right? So tell us the reason for the link here. He has given countless interviews with many organisation. As Antiwar radio, Democracy now... and and... (there are dozens of other links more important than that one) so why do you think that your link is the most important. EL says the link should be kept the links to a minimum. So tell us instead of attacking other editors and edit warring. Thank you. IQinn ( talk) 07:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
@Epeefleche and Randy your edit summaries speak for yourself the edit history on this page and this discussion and other terror suspect BLP's. I personalty think it borders almost "hate speech". But this is simply my personal opinion. And well Epeefleche you broke WP:BRD 2 times and then starts threatening me for no reason. Ridiculous. Well that has become your edit history. You did not answer my questions regarding the content issue. So i guess you think because you and Randy have the same POV entitle you to not discuss in a civil way and to instead threaten other people? Well then that is your history then. Best.
@Randy, The problem is that there are many other audio links that seems to be more important than this one. So why prefer this audio link over the others? IQinn ( talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Andy Worthington. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)