Talk:Guantanamo Review Task Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

The actual name of the task force doesn't include the word "Detainee". What is the procedure to change the name of the article? Guantanamo Review Task Force does not exist as an article. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Found out. Moved page. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

user:27.122.16.74 blanking the page

User:27.122.16.74, you've blanked the page a number of times with some explanation in the comments field that would be better expressed in talk.

You've also violated WP:3RR even after you've been warned.

Please discuss it here before you continue on. Logging in with a stable name would be nice as well.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Randy2063 why don't you discuss here where i have started a discussion a long time ago and i have told you that. Your behavior is very disruptive. 27.122.16.74 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment in GeoSwan's talk page didn't explain anything other than establish that you're not serious. Concerns about a specific article, particularly whether it should or should not exist, should be in this article's talk page.
The link you gave does not explain why this article should be deleted.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not right. The explanation is there but i can write it here again for you.

"blank the page and redirect because the sources have been misinterpreted and mischaracterized, just have a look at the Washington post article"

It seems to me very odd that you do not address this. Do you have an opinion?

Have the sources been been misinterpreted and mischaracterized?

You agree or disagree with that? Have you read the Washington post article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.122.16.74 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that there are or aren't errors in this article. Since your intent was to remove this article, the main discussion is not whether something is wrong but whether or not this article should exist.
Your link clearly mentions the Guantanamo Review Task Force. Therefore, your source agrees that the task force exists, or did exist.
If the Guantanamo Review Task Force existed, and is sufficiently notable, there may be an article about it.
The only question then is whether it's sufficiently notable. At the moment, the consensus is that it is notable.
You can argue that in this talk page. I may or may not agree with you, but we need to discuss it first. And for that, you have to explain why you think it's not notable.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Randy2063 who are you? A military contractor? (joke) I have given you the reason and arguments. It does not make any sense to discuss something what is not in question. So could you kindly answer my questions so that we can make progress. Thank you 27.122.16.74 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you've given real reasons, they haven't been made clear enough.
In what way is this source mischaracterized? Could you give a short quote from the source?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though i think all would be easier if you could give answers to easy questions. I do not even know if you completely read the Washington post article. Did you? So you think the article is not mischaracterized? So let's start with the headline. 27.122.16.74 (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In what way does the headline ("Most Guantanamo detainees low-level fighters, task force report says") suggest that this article should be deleted?
I don't think it's a controversial headline. Most of the detainees were not "high-value" detainees. It's irrelevant, though. The article itself doesn't go into that.
If you're going to delete the page then you need to explain why the article should be deleted. As it is, the headline says very clearly that this task force exists.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guantanamo Review Task Force. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Parked section

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI