Talk:Binyam Mohamed

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

POV[edit]

I have edited this to cure the obvious POV issues and have added basic facts for any bio, such as date of birth, full name, the dates of events. The problem, Geo Swan is that when you create these hundreds of politically motivated stubs, for the sole purpose of getting more hits on Google, that you forget to include the basic information. Joaquin Murietta 15:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not "obvious"[edit]

No one would question the value of improving a biographical article, by adding in the birth date, and the dates of other significant events. JM can pat themself on the back for having added some dates to this and other biographical articles.

But I think JM is making mistakes that they can justify removing material, in order to restore what they regard as a NPOV, merely by claiming the need for those changes was "obvious". -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious why his alleged extraordinary rendition is POV[edit]

JM removed the information that Mohammed had been identified as a subject of the controversial technique of extraordinary rendition, without saying why. I restored that information. It is verifiable. The Amnesty International link identifies his that way. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious why external links were removed[edit]

In particular, JM removed a bunch of external links, without giving a justification for their removal. I have restored them. I don't see any downside to including links that talk about the subject of biography. I replaced one link which quoted five paragraphs from Mohammed's August 11th statement to another link that quoted all eleven paragraphs. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious how Mohammed's participation in the hunger strikes could be POV[edit]

Before JM's edits the article talked about Mohammed's participation in the current hunger strike and the previous hunger strike. JM removed the references to the hunger strike, without explanation. Mohammed's claim to participation in the hunger strike is verifiable. That passage, IMO was not written in a POV way. If my best effort to write it in an NPOV way, I would welcome any civil explanation of what I did wrong

I expanded that section. I think I did it in an NPOV way. If JM, or anyone else, can find an offical reply to Mohammed's statement, or an official denial that the first hunger strike was ended through negotiation, of course they should expand that section to reflect that. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The value of meaningful explanations of edits[edit]

I've explained my edits. I encourage JM, if they choose to add or delete anything to do the same. Maybe if they identify what they regard as problematic we can arrive at a compromis that leaves everyone satisfied?

Wikified dates -- external link format[edit]

There is a team working hard to wikify dates, to enable articles to be processed mechanically, in new ways. This team has automated tools to assist them. It takes them about one minute each for them to examine an article, approve the changes to the wiki dates. Let me suggest it is a courtesy to them to refrain from undoing their work. JM routinely undoes the date wikification in the external links of articles he edits. I'd like to encourage them, as a courtesy to others, to stop doing so. JM also routinely unlinks the name of the actual publication in the external links of the articles he edits. This is not only the way everyone else edits article, but, it is useful in cases where the publication moves an article from the current server to their archive server, to have a link to the publications home page. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits[edit]

Creating stub articles in order to score google hits? This idea would never have occurred to me. I guess some people do use a simple count of google hits to determine the importance of a person, or event.

I always tell the truth. I never have a secret agenda. I contribute to articles on detainees in the "war on terror" for the same reason most other wikipedians contribute to articles. Most of contribute to articles in topics we are interested in, where we think we know something, that other people might be interested in it too. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"By his own admission"[edit]

There seems to be a dispute about whether we can say definitively that this man trained in the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camp Al Farouq. I think we can agree on the following:

  1. The Summary of Evidence Memo says he did
  2. He is reported to have admitted that he did
  3. He now claims that this admission was extracted under torture

It seems to me that the evidence that he did actually attended this camp is disputed. I have therefore changed the line "who, by his own admission, trained in the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camp Al Farouq" to one that I believe is supported by the evidence cited here: "...who, the US authorities claim, trained in the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camp Al Farouq". If anyone wants to add more text to the introduction that he admitted this attendance, then I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the previous wording implied that it was an undisputed fact that he did actually attend this camp - and I don't believe the evidence supports that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.28.152 (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone a little further and removed the word 'terrorist' from the sentence - it's a word that is perhaps best avoided in *any* article (except for the eponymous one), and in any case is implicit in the name 'Al Qaeda' for those that believe that the organisation is a terrorist organisation. Many such training camps existed in this area during the war against the Russians in the 80's, conducting exactly the same type of weapons training, therefore a more neutral description might be appropriate? Little grape (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MJD. 213.106.28.152 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in the Tribunal documents that he admitted anything [I'm sure he did confess eventually, but where does it say so?] I've let it stand but tagged it 'failed verification': if someone can find it, then please correct the citation to be more specific. --Red King (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from Works related to PR NOTES FROM INITIAL INTERVIEW WITH DETAINEE 1458 (Binyam Ahmed Mohammed) at Wikisource

"Detainee admitted items 3A1-4 on the UNCLASS summary of evidence, but stated he went for training to fight in Chechnya, which was not illegal. The detainee stated that the other items were rubbish or made under duress."

Those first four allegations were:
  1. The detainee is ########## who lived in the United States from 1992 to 1994, and in London, United Kingdom, until he departed for Pakistan in 2001.
  2. The detainee arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2001, and traveled to the al Faruq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.
  3. At the al Faruq camp, the detainee received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.
  4. The detainee was taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaida operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.

Removed NPOV Tag[edit]

I have removed the NPOV tag. The article as it stands seems to me to be well balanced and well sourced. There is nothing there that cannot be verified by reference to the sources cited. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your edits. Agree with removal of tag. Joaquin Murietta 15:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
except for the last phrase. Please compare. Also it is peripheral to Beyam Mohammed. Also removed current tag.
Joaquin, I have compared the versions. Without an explanation of the reason for resumption of the hunger strike the last sentence becomes orphaned and meaningless. The reasons for the strike resuming are well documented in the sources listed and should be included. I have reworded slightly. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your new langauge because the detainees believed the US authorities failed to honour promises to meet their demands as opposed to The hunger strike started in July 2005, and resumed in August 2005 when the US authorities failed to honour promises to meet the demands of the detainees.Thank you for your edits which now have made the article NPOV Joaquin Murietta 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Placed Dispute Tag[edit]

I thought we had a neutral edit on 18 October. After that, the addition of the self-serving quote skewed this article back. Dispute veracity or need for the lenghty quote, as opposed to linking to it. Joaquin Murietta 05:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We still have a neutral article. Are you really disputing the veracity of Mohammed's statement, released by Clive Stafford Smith and reported in the Guardian? The hunger strike is a significant issue, detainees may die as a result. The quotation clarifies the context in which it was resumed. If you feel this unbalances the article, source a suitable US government statement that balances it and add that to the article. If it is verifiable, great. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to repeat my request to JM to explain their edits. -- Geo Swan 06:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what exactly is disputed in this article? The veracity of the quote cannot be questioned. If it is the need for the quote, I am open to persuasion. But just slapping a tag on (numerous) articles then leaving them for weeks is not acceptable. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charges filed[edit]

I added the reference to the Guardian regarding the charges filed yesterday and the description of the allegations of the complaint. Joaquin Murietta 07:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did a minor edit to this section JM, some re-wording and spacing. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Took out a comma and added parens, CM. Joaquin Murietta 15:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, an improvement. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that Binyam Mohamed is an Eritrean not Ethiopian. When Eritreans get in trouble, they claim to be Ethiopians.

Malfunction in References: #12 (On Main Page)[edit]

Please note: Reference #12 is not functioning. Please update reference. Thank you. Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.93.114 (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea or Ethioia?[edit]

? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the references I've read (including those in the reference section of the article) state Binyam is Ethiopian, or does this question mean something else?--Sully (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing Obama from knowing things that he should know[edit]

"Under the bizarre laws the Americans have, they are preventing their commander-in-chief from knowing things that he should know," Clive Stafford Smith told Der Spiegel. "He is being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel." (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,609464,00.html) --217.232.85.39 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is bunk. If you believed it, you've been fooled. Clive Stafford Smith is a <removed libel. See edit summary. Ha! (talk)> lawyer who claims to care about human rights, and he's one of the <removed libel>. <removed libel>
I'm sure you understand that it's only natural that some materials are classified in wartime. It is highly unlikely that Stafford Smith has a secure channel direct to the President's office. Whatever he sends will have to pass through the lower levels, and there is no guarantee they would all have sufficient security clearances. That's why it must be redacted.
Regardless, the materials he did send had all of their redactions clearly marked. There's a copy of this posted online; you can't miss the redaction markings. There is no chance whatsoever that President Obama could not see that -- should he choose to read these materials at all. He can see anything he likes. If he wants the full copy, he only has to ask to see it.
It is quite possible that he won't even need to ask. If his office is efficiently run, the staffers will order that the classified version be sent to him before he even sees the redacted one.
To make this even more ridiculous, President Obama has the authority to fully declassify and release these materials if he chooses to do so. Stafford Smith is blowing an awful lot of smoke here.
Nothing these lawyers say should be trusted as being the full truth. They will play you every chance they get.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: Here are some sources if anyone doubts what I say.
The document is here. The redactions are at the bottom. As you can see, there's no missing it unless someone is blind or extremely stupid.
If Clive Stafford Smith were to be taken seriously, this is actually an insult to President Obama's intelligence. I don't really think that's what he intends but he shouldn't be doing this. In reality, he's probably just making a lot of noise, which is what lawyers do when they don't have a good case but want to pretend that they do.
It came out a couple of years ago that the President can declassify documents on his own. There was also an executive order that allowed the VP to do so as well.
Clearly, President Obama can order whatever classified documents he wishes to see. It's insane to suggest otherwise.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Randy - Correct. People do realize these individuals are defense attorneys and they represent their clients' interests? They are supposed to say their clients are as innocent as a new born babe, and their conditions in detention are horrible. Giving extra credence to these comments is unwise, and should be examined through the prism of client interest.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Personal Representative(s)' notes[edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Did BM acknowledge training at al Qaida camps? Another contributors edit summary said he acknowledged it to his Personal Representative. BM didn't attend his Tribunal. Although the DoD published the transcripts from the unclassified sessions of lots annual review board hearings, when there was substantive disucssion, even when the captive wasn't present, it was rare for them do so for the CSR tribunals. But BM is one of the captives who had their CSR Tribunal package published.

Those documents say his CSR Tribunal was not convened in Guantanamo -- it was convened elsewhere. I would guess Washington DC. The Personal Representative who met with him for 80 minutes wasn't there. A new PR was given the first officer's notes.

FWIW, those notes are riddled with careless errors.

The notes say he acknowledged the first four allegations. But, personally, I would interpret that as BM acknowledged attending a training camp in Afghanistan, which doesn't necessarily establish it was an al Qaida camp.

The notes imply his interrogators encouraged BM not to attend his Tribunal. That sounds like something they should have been prohibited from doing.

The notes state this was from BM's initial interview. Was there a followup interview? The notes state it was drafted on 2004-11-18. His Summary of Evidence memo is dated 2004-11-10. Usually the interview is the day after the memo was drafted. The eight day delay is unusual. His Tribunal was convened on 2004-11-22.

The detainee election form bears two dates -- 2004-11-17 and 2004-11-22. It lists the ranks of both Personal Representatives. A Lieutenant Commander is listed first. That would imply that the notes dated 2004-11-18, signed by the Major, were compiled second hand, possibly after a telephone conversation with the first guy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen the CSRT summary and the note you've just linked.
I agree we need to be careful. The article on Al Farouq training camp still says "alleged" al Qaeda camp. It may well have catered to more than just one terrorist organization.
One of the allegations he admitted to (3A4) includes "received instruction from a senior al Qaida operative." This can only mean that al Qaeda was present at the camp. The line about "no way out of AF other than the groups who could get him out of AF" is an admission he consorted with al Qaeda, if only out of necessity. But these things by themselves don't necessarily make it an al Qaeda camp.
The difference in dates is interesting. I suppose it could be a transcription error from handwriting to typewriter. It could also mean there were other PRs, and that this one didn't meet with BM until after the CSRT.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US pressure detainees to hide torture at Guantanamo[edit]

This is the title of a news article here. The allegations come from Granma the news agency of Cuba. The article mentions documents which say: "The accused accepts not to participate or support, in any way, litigation or challenge, in any forum, against the United States or any other nation or official from any nation, whether military or civilian", adding that "the accused assigns the United States all legal rights to sign and present any document, motion or speech necessary to implement this requirement on behalf of the accused." Mohamed’s lawyers rejected the proposed agreement. He was nonetheless released on 23 February 2009. Does this news article rate a mention in the Binyam Mohamed biography?---PJHaseldine (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that source is adequate. It does establish notability for the claims, but because of the polemic in it, I'd want to see more direct sources to verify the alleged facts. The general situation could belong in an article on the whole Guantanamo situation. What is specific about Benyam Muhammad could be put here. The story you cite, for example, doesn't tell us that Benyam Muhammad's lawyers rejected the agreement, though, in fact, they only would have had the power to advise him, not to reject it. Find some more sources, maybe, PJH. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granma February 24. ACLU biography. I'd look for sources on the specifics of the agreement proposed by the U.S. government, and then, as well, for specifics about Benyam Mohammed. Spelling of the name varies. --Abd (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable corroboration of the thrust of the Granma article comes from the BBC News: US 'offered Binyam plea bargain'.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC) And the BBC have just reported that the police are to probe UK torture claims.---PJHaseldine (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a news medium, we should be careful about what was just reported. This is not a specific argument. I'll look at the sources you cited. --Abd (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source is really only saying that the plea bargain included language to ward off lawsuits. That's exactly what we'd expect from any legal agreement like this. It was probably grabbed out of a standard boilerplate document.
Most of this is trumped up reaction from a bunch of lawyers who like to claim they care about human rights. The fact that an arm of the Cuban government joins in is icing on the cake.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who knew about the torture of Binyam Mohamed?[edit]

Mohamed's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, has written a thought-provoking piece in today's Guardian.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's recycling the same spin he's used before. He also said this stuff four years ago. Note how both then and now he abuses the fact that military documents should be classified to pretend it is "censorship". And both times he tries to drag in MI5 -- knowing full well that they can't release much information.
Let's not forget the stunt he pulled claiming (above) that Obama wouldn't be able to see classified documents. Stafford Smith is a real piece of work. It may be worth making a note of any notable people willing to associate with him.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't receive an MBE for being a nutjob, so we are hardly likely to accept the opinion of an pseudonymous about him. --Red King (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Bio[edit]

Would editors please be careful to comply with WP:Biographies of living persons. You cannot make assertions about or concerning someone without providing valid supporting citations - where 'valid' means that it supports what you write [without taking a sentence out of context] and that the citation still exists or at the very least existed on the day you took it. The New York Times reference falls into this category: it no longer exists and the reference to it was undated. I have commented it out.--Red King (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Guardian article' "Five More Guantánamo Detainees Charged" does not exist either: even if the URL might have changed, the phrase (nor indeed any reference whatever to Binyam Mohammed) does not appear in the Guardian archive for 2005 [and besides, The Guardian does not use the American style of capitalising every word in the headline]. I have commented it out too. --Red King (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The heading entitled "update"?[edit]

The article currently has a 2nd level heading entitled "update". I think this section should be renamed. Additilly, it may not be appropriate to be a 2nd level heading, and should be rewritten as a 3rd level heading. The Wikinews article on the event was entitled: "UK loses appeal to conceal Binyam Mohamed torture". Maybe that would be a good alternate title for this section? Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree and will change. --Red King (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muddled content?[edit]

This talk page seems a bit unloved, but I see there are a few watchers. I first visited the article today and just want to point out that there is quite a bit of overlap and consequent lack of coherence and sequence between sections … Accusations of abusive incarceration and UK complicity … Civil suit and … Allegations of MI5 collusion, (especially first and last) while 'Civil suit' should perhaps become plural and deal with UK and US civil actions, though much of the UK civil action ties in with 'complicity'.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Binyam Mohamed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Binyam Mohamed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Binyam Mohamed. 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: 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) 21:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Binyam Mohamed. 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) 19:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Binyam Mohamed. 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) 21:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't link nationalities of BLPs in the first sentence of the lead like that[edit]

@Pincrete: we are not supposed to link nationalities of BLPs in the beginning of the lead like that, for the very reason you gave. Unless we should do that BLPs generally, regardless of which country they are from, which I am OK with. Also, why does the location of Ethiopia matter here?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was normal to link nationality - unless the country was SO well known we decide it is pointless (US, UK, etc). Location doesn't matter, except as an expression of nationality. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, I thought nationality is almost always linked. Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binyam_Mohamed&oldid=1208028183"