Talk:ETIM training camp

rough work

I am assembing some relevant references that I think may merit addition to this article. Geo Swan (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Elizabeth Van Wie Davis (2008-01). "Uyghur Muslim Ethnic Separatism in Xinjiang, China". Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. Retrieved 2010-03-21. A January 2007 Chinese raid on a training camp in Xinjiang killed 18 terrorist suspects and one policeman. Seventeen more suspects were reported captured and explosives were seized. The raid was said to have provided new evidence of ties to "international terrorist forces." The raid marks the latest clash between Uyghur Muslim separatists and Chinese security services, reflecting a limited challenge to China's mainland stability. In Beijing's view, however, instability in Xinjiang could also bring instability to Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Taiwan. As with many of these disputes throughout Asia, the root causes of the problem are a complex mix of history, ethnicity, and religion, fueled by poverty, unemployment, social disparities, and political grievances. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This looks useful. I would advise adding as many recent sources as possible, and correcting the current overreliance on an outdated document (that USDOD report is from 2004, and many of their paranoid beliefs about Uyghur terrorism have since been disproven). I don't remember clearly, but this newer (only ever so slightly newer) article might have said something about the camp:

• Gunaratna, Rohan (2006). "An Al-Qaeda Associate Group Operating in China?" (PDF). China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly. 4 (2). Retrieved 22 March 2010.

It's by Rohan Gunaratna, though, which makes me take everything in it with a large grain of salt. But who knows. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure it depends how the sources are used and for what but i specially see the source Geo has provided as problematic. As it has been paid for by the US military. IQinn (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean the Davis one above, or the USDOD one in the article? rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean the Davis one, the one in the article is pure US military intelligence. IQinn (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On page 12 of the Davis paper we find: "The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) is a regional study, conference and research center under the United States Department of Defense. The views in this paper are personal opinions of the author, and are not official positions of the U.S. government, the U.S. Pacific Command, or the APCSS." So, even though the paper says the article is the author's position, not the DoD's, are you claiming that without regard to what the paper says, this article is nevertheless conveying an official DoD positin without regard to claims of independence?

FYI, some DoD sites publish or re-publish articles written from positions across the spectrum -- presumably so key decision makers don't get tunnel vision.

Official government documents are typically recognized as WP:RS for the respective government's official position. Controversially, the George W. Bush administration in some political appointments, appointed some young and poorly-informed non-scientists in positions of authority over experienced, senior scientists. Some of these political appointees acted as if they had the authority to censor and filter the scientific opinions of government experts to make sure those scientists publications conformed to the Bush administration's position on climate change, global warming, and some other issues. No matter how transparent the censorship of the scientists was these publications positions on global warming, they were representing the US government's official position. No matter how lacking in credibility you or I might personally regard the positions on global warming were, they were representing the US government's official position. No matter how wide the criticisms of these position on global warming from informed, verifiable, authoritative third party observers, they were representing the US governments official position.

Our policies on the neutral point of view, on original research, and on verifiability prevent us from not covering a government's official position, based on our personal doubts on their credibility.

Similarly, even if lots of third party experts, or even all third party experts, are extremely skeptical of a government's official position on global warming, that does not authorize a total suppression of that govermnet's official position. It merely means we should do our best to present the positions fairly and neutrally.

I believe the same holds true for these official positions on intelligence. To whatever extent you or I, or other contributors can find WP:RS that are skeptical of the claims in these documents we should do our best to neutrally balance the official positions with those other WP:RS. That is as far as policy allows us to go.

I respect our readers. Sometimes my google searches turn up instances where someone seems to be quoting material I drafted for the wikipedia, where the conclusion they reached was the opposite of my personal conclusion. I do not regard that as a failure on my part, because the wikipedia is not a venue for me to push my personal opinion, your personal opinion, or any other contributor's personal opinion. Our goal should be to fairly and neutrally present the information our readers need to be informed, and draw their own conclusions. Those readers who draw conclusions the opposite of my personal opinion, or your personal opinion, may know something you or I don't know. It is possible that if we knew everything they knew, we would hold their position as well.

I am sorry, I know I have told you this before, and you have interpreted it as a personal attack. This is not a personal attack. On a great many articles you have objected to the information from references I regard as valid WP:RS by arguing that those references are "questionable sources". But, look though I might, I have not seen you offer a policy-based justification for characterizing those references as "questionable sources". This is not meant to be a personal attack, but I am afraid it continues to seem to me that your characterization of references as "questionable sources" is based solely on your personal judgment of their credibility -- not on alternate references that challenge the positions in those references.

And, to repeat myself, even if we found good, authoritative, reliable, verifiable references that challenged an official position our policies require us to provide neutral balanced coverage of all but fringe opinions -- not to pick and choose among the positions, and give preferential treatment for those we personally regard as most credible. Geo Swan (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No offence but please stop disrupting Wikipedia with overlong filibustering responses that are IMO not much more than Gaming the system.

It is irrelevant that the US military wrongly claims in the paper that the view is independent because it is NOT as the US military paid the author. That's what i said. IQinn (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, the paper says:

"The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) is a regional study, conference and research center under the United States Department of Defense. The views in this paper are personal opinions of the author, and are not official positions of the U.S. government, the U.S. Pacific Command, or the APCSS."

Unless you are claiming you have reason to believe the author is lying I don't know why we should have any doubts as to the independence of this paper.

Even if a document was the official position of a DoD agency that document would still be an WP:RS -- for the DoD's official position. The comment immediately above is one I believe you have an obligation to do your best to read and understand. I do my best to understand what you really mean, even when I find what you have written wasn't clear.

I am mystified as to why you aren't making a corresponding good faith effort to read, try to understand, and try to offer a meaningful, substantive reply to good faith respondents. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No offence but let me repeat it again that you are IMO Gaming the system.

I am mystified why you are coming up with the same stuff. I have addressed that and i can only give you the exact same answer.

It is irrelevant that the US military wrongly claims in the paper that the view is independent because it is NOT as the US military paid the author. IQinn (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To accuse me of "gaming the system" is tantamount to an accusation of bad faith. It is offensive. Please understand that every wikipedians' contributions is subject to good faith review. Trying to avoid your obligation provide good faith replies to good faith concerns is a mistake -- and I believe, counter-policy. If you think I am repeating the same concerns and questions it is because your edits and your answers continue to show what I believe is an alarming misunderstanding of basic wikipolicies.

You wrote: "It is irrelevant that the US military wrongly claims in the paper that the view is independent because it is NOT as the US military paid the author."

First, your use of the term "wrongly" -- I regard this an obvious lapse from WP:NPOV. Who says the paper "wrongly" claims the author is not independent? Beyond you that is? No one. Second, even if, for the sake of argument, the position of the paper was the official position of the DoD, that would not alter that the paper remained an WP:RS.

You routinely try to base your excisions on your personal beliefs about the credibility of what WP:RS. This is always counter-policy. Geo Swan (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

details please

This edit implied that the camp was known by other names. I am curious why the contributor who made this edit didn't list these other names they implied they could document. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, i do not think that this is implied. I also curious why you are speaking about a single camp? One? Ten? Any location? All based on US military intelligence and we all know how wrong they often are and sure there are always politicians who repeat these claims for there political game no matter if they are right or wrong. The fact is that specially the Uighur's in Guantanamo where innocent and fact is that the United States did not take responsibility in granting these innocent men asylum into there own country after it became clear that they never posted any threat and they were wrongly detained in Guantanamo for many years. IQinn (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you know that with the exception of Sadik Ahmad Turkistani, who was born, raised, and became a drug addict in Saudi Arabia, all the Uyghur's testified that they were in the same construction camp outside of Jalalabad, in Nangarhar Province. I know you know that all the US government statements about these captives, and all that has been written about them by informed commentators, acknowledge that all of these men were in one single camp. So, again, you mystify me.

Is it possible that there were other camps where Uyghurs stayed in Afghanistan? It is possible that there were other Uyghur camps in Afghanistan. But if so they were camps that were destroyed with no survivors, or camps that closed prior to the 9-11, or camps where all the survivors escaped capture.

I don't believe that you, or anyone else, can find a single source to suggest there were other Uyghur camps, so while I acknowledge there may have been other camps, since there are no sources to support your speculation it simply does not belong in article space.

If you come up with sources for other camps I would welcome you bringing them to article. If you don't feel up to drafting material to cover those WP:RS then feel free to leave the references here, and if they are good WP:RS someone else will draft coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You mystify me. So again - all your personal believe without sufficient WP:RS and in violation of WP:OR. That is all not clear the article not even mention Nangarhar. Please stop spreading your personal believes that border propaganda and provide us with the relevant sources that could back up your claims. IQinn (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I find the English in the comment immediately preceding this one too fractured. It contains several truncated sentence fragments no good faith contributor should be asked to decrypt. Normally I might make a good faith attempt to paraphrase what I guessed a contributor meant, but User:Iqinn vociferously objects to being paraphrased, and claims all good faith attempts to paraphrase them are bad faith attempts to misrepresent them.

I will repeat that I have advised User:Iqinn, literally dozens of times, that unsubstantiated claims that others are spreading propaganda are extremely damaging.

If Iqinn were to return here, and rephrase this last concern in civil and coherent English I would be happy to respond. Geo Swan (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

choices

The current version of this article is only about the Uyghur camp in Nangarhar.

The articles I found yesterdays seem to indicate that security officials assert there were training camps, in various countries, in the years since then.

The topic of this article could be broadened, to cover the Nangarhar camp, and all the others too. Alternatively, the current article could be renamed something like ETIM training camp (Nangarhar), with ETIM training camp becoming a disambiguation page, or with it being devoted to cover all the alleged ETIM camps other than the Nangarhar camp.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nangarhar? You found more new sufficient sources for such an article? Could you please post these sources here? IQinn (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nangarhar is the province that includes Jalalabad, Afghanistan's most populous city, Daruntah, Torkham, Tora Bora and the Khyber Pass. The camp where the Uyghurs say they were constructing a refugee camp was near Jalalabad -- in Nangarhar.

We have more than enough sources already for this camp. Geo Swan (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your personal research? The word Nangarhar is not even mention in the article. Please provide us with sources for your claims. IQinn (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to how to react to your comments. Could you please take a look at them? Do you regard them as substantive? Can you think of a way I could respond to your comments that wouldn't be an escalation? Geo Swan (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just provide us with the sources for your claims. Nangarhar is not even mention in the article. IQinn (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your demand for references is inappropriate. Assertions in article space require references. Not every assertion in article space requires a reference. We do not expect a reference for assertions like "like the sky is blue". Suggestions in talk space require references less frequently. In an instance like this, where there is absolutely zero doubt that the Uyghurs were in Nangarhar, your demand for references is simply disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a reference that could back up your claims is not disruptive. There is no reference that the camp(s) where in Nangarhar and the article does not even mention it. Making repeated claims that you than fail to verify is disruptive. Asking for reference not. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I repeat -- this is a talk page, not an article.

I know you have read the "Information paper". I know you have read allegations memos. Those references, as well as the comments of experts all place the camp near Jalalabad, or near Tora Bora -- both locations in Nangarhar Province. The Uyghurs' testimony also located the camp near Jalalabad. I know you know all this. So your demands for references for information I know you are already well aware of seem very disruptive to me. Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion here has been disrupted. There are recent references for the existence of other ETIM training camps, post 2001 ETIM training camps, ETIM training camps that weren't in Afghanistan.

I asked whether additional ETIM training camps should be covered in a separate article, or separate articles, or whether all the alleged ETIM camps should be covered here.

I welcome meaningful, civil responses to this question. Geo Swan (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I also welcome meaningful, civil responses to my questions. And specially i would like to ask you to provide references for your claim. No i can not confirm your claims. I doubt them and there are no references for your claims. Wikipedia is not the place to spread propaganda.

You started this thread with the claim The current version of this article is only about the Uyghur camp in Nangarhar. I doubt this and there are no references for this. Please provide us with the reference for your claim.

So far "ETIM training camp" is just a term. No evidence that they existed. No location. The article is very limited and short now. My suggestion is if you have more valid notable reference for "ETIM training camp(s)" add them to the article or post them here so we would have something to discuss. IQinn (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are the only individual who doubts that the 21 Uyghurs from China who ended up in Guantanamo were all alleged to have attended the same camp. I believe you are the only individual who disputes that Tora Bora and Jalalabad are in Nangarhar Province.

I kniw you know that in other articles you remove what you describe as excessive links. Here you demand a remarkable amount of work for references that really aren't necessary. Why shouldn't I regard this as a waste of time? Geo Swan (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please discuss...

WRT Senator Jeff Sessions comments... those comments were reverted with the edit summary nothing in this source that wasn't already said in the lede, the only difference is that it was a letter written by a congressman (hardly a reliable source or an expert in international terrorism).

First, as a United States Senator I suggest Sessions should be considered an expert on United States politics. His comments can be seen as, essentially, political comments. I suggest they are notable as political comments.

Second, Sessions sits on the Senate Armed Forces committee. Does that make a Senator a real expert on military affairs? Heck, I dunno. That committee may have some hard working Senators who have done enough homework that they really should be considered experts. I have no idea whether Sessions is one of those. But his membership on this committee does make him someone who many people would consider an expert.

And even if he weren't an expert his opinions on military and intelligence matters are influential, likely to be quoted.

I suggest that these factors makes his comments worthy of mention in the article.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Sessions quote adds nothing of substance to the article, it just repeats what was already there (that there is a camp, that it's affiliated with ETIM, and that ETIM was declared a terrorist organization). At the very most, you could say something like "JTF-GTMO analysts assert that the camp was run by a group they called the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, and Sessions thinks so too." There's no need to puff up the article with useless quotes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In September 2008 the DoJ and DoD suddenly dropped all claims that there had ever been any valid reason to keep the Uyghurs in captivity. They were officially cleared of ever having been "enemy combatants". Therefore the camp where they claimed they were constructing an refugee center for other Uyghurs was no longer considered a terrorist camp by the DoJ and DoD.

The wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view requires us present the different positions from a neutral point of view. So when Sessions claims the camp was a terrorist camp, in May 2009, six months after the DoJ and DoD dropped the terrorist claim, we have two different positions, which should both be represented. Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is what you think, then you should actually write it so as to make that clear, rather than keeping the readers guessing. (I would suggest reviewing pages like WP:Writing better articles and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing.) Use transitions, make contrasts clear. Say something along the lines of "In September 2008 the Department of defense withdrew their claim that the camp was a terrorist training camp, although some politicians criticized the move; for instance, US senator Jeff Sessions claimed that the camp was still a terrorist camp" or bla bla bla. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

In another section on this talk page User:Iqinn objected to the idea of splitting this article into one about the camp alleged to be an ETIM camp, in Afghanistan, and one or more articles about ETIM training camps outside of Afghanistan.

Here in this edit Iqinn objects to adding material on other ETIM training camps to this article.

The two positions seem very inconsistent to me. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing than propaganda. The information you have added to the article and that i have removed does not mention "ETIM training camp" and has been added to the article in violation of WP:OR.

Nothing to split because so far there is nothing than your repeated claims that border propaganda. If you have references show them off otherwise please do not waste out time. IQinn (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The default state for navigation templates should not be over-ridden, without explanation, as per Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#When should navigation templates be collapsed?

Another contributor has over-ridden the default state on something like one hundred articles, without explanation. This article is one where they over-rode the default state.

Because I was not an expert on the navigation templates, and was told the default state for navigation templates should not be over-ridden. See Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#When should navigation templates be collapsed?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of my edits and a misrepresentation of the discussion that took place and the collapsing of the template follows common editing practice and increases the quality of the article. It has been collapsed because it is overlong and violates WP:NPOV. IQinn (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me address the NPOV part of your comment first. You repeatedly asserted, on Template talk:Navigation templates and Talk:Aafia Siddiqui, that the template lapsed from compliance with NPOV. And I asked you, several times, why you didn't go to the template's talk page, and raise your concern over what you saw as its inherent bias there, or at BLPN. I am not a mind reader, so I don't know why you didn't reply to this good faith suggestion. Seriously, if a template is biased then collapsing it does not really address the problem.

WRT misrepresentation -- would you please consider, instead of asserting that you are being misrepresented, simply making the effort try to rephrase what you really meant? Geo Swan (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just take the headline. That it's a misrepresentation of the discussion that took place there and it is WP:WL. And it is uncivil and disruptive if that happens repeatedly.

Of course collapsing of the templates helps with WP:NPOV of the article. IQinn (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think you can offer arguments that a template is inherently biased I strongly encourage you to offer a meaningful explanation of your concern on the template's talk page. For all we know those who have questions about your characterization of this tempate as biased would be convinced -- if you explained your concern. Collapsing the template does not really address your concern.

If, on the other hand, you don't think the template itself is inherently biased, but rather think its use on a particular article is inapropriate and biased, I suggest you offer an explanation as to why you regard it as biased. Collapsing a template, in that case, does not really address your concern. Geo Swan (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

DAB needed

I was looking into whether this article could be expanded, and I found this, which admittedly isn't something for notability. However I wonder if ETIM was used more broadly than the context this article covers. Thoughts? StarM 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)