Talk:Afghan jihadist camp

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MetalliKathryn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ksmith1717.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

change name?

There are now various reasons to believe the accounts of the various Guantanamo captives that the Khalden training camp was not an al Qaeda camp. So, I think that "al Qaeda training camp" should redirect to "Afghan training camp", not vice versa. If no one objects I am going to request a move.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. There's been no opposition so I went ahead and did the move. I also think that the majority of the camps in the template are little more than "minor" camps and do not need their own articles - most of them have little, if any, information beyond "It is/was a training camp in Afghanistan". Unless there is some objection I will merge the minor camp articles into a list on this article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Origins

'Al Qaeda' (literally 'The Base') wasn't the name of an organisation at all. Al Qaeda actually referred to any number of safe havens in Afghanistan where prospective fighters would receive basic training. To quote Osama bin Laden directly: "The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed." [1] Shouldn't the page reflect this ? smb 20:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

revert -- see talk

I am reverting the wikilink in the middle of the article title.

The convention is that the first sentence of an article is supposed to contain the article's title. It is supposed to be in bold, and without wikilinks.

If someone wants to wikilink training camp in this article they should do so elsewhere.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Only in Afghanistan?

I notice terrorist training camp redirects here. Are there no terrorist training camps outside Afghanistan? What about the School of the America?[2] Also, there are terrorist training camps in Iraq.[3] I'm going to change that redirect to a standalone article. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

explanation

I changed the lead paragraph so it only asserted what could be backed up by the reference. Geo Swan (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think redirection has advantages over piped links. When redirection is used the "what links here" button shows the different names used. This can be useful. Piped links obfuscate the actual name as it appears in the article.

I removed Category:Al Qaeda -- it is innappropriate because only a small minority of the camps were al Qaeda camps. Geo Swan (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

uncollapsing templates as per [4]

Another contributor has over-ridden the default state on navigation templates 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 I asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#When should navigation templates be collapsed? I believe the consensus there was that there were limited circumstances where the default state for a nvigation template should be over-ridden. However, those instances should be explained on the article's talk page -- something the contributor in question did not choose to do.

After I restored {{TrainingCamp}} to its default state that other contributor reverted to the collapsed state, with the edit summary:

"very long template that is also POV and that is better collapsed to not overwhelm the reader and to comply with WP:NPOV"

In the limited number of instances where the contributor in question has explained why they collapsed template they asserted all the templates they collapsed violated NPOV. I have said there, and I will repeat here, that:

1. If a contributor is concerned that a template itself lapses from compliance with a policy that concern should first be shared on the template's talk page. Collapsing instances of the template is not the correct way to address a genuine concern of NPOV.
2. If a contributor is concerned that a valid template is being applied to an article where it is inappropriate, and thus lapses from NPOV, they should be able to explain why they think its use is inappropriate. If they can make convincing arguments its use is really inappropriate they template should not be used at all, on that article. Collapsing that instance of the template is not the correct way to address a genuine concern of NPOV.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

rough work

This document lists a dozen major camps, and 27 other camps that are, presumably, not major.

• Joseph Felter, Jarret Brachman (2007-07-25). "CTC Report: An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries" (PDF). Combating Terrorism Center. mirror

Major

1. Al Farouq training camp
2. Al Ghuraba training camp
3. Al Jihad training camp
4. Al-Saddiq training camp
5. Durunta training camp
6. Jihadwal training camp
7. Khabab training camp
8. Khalden training camp
9. Libyan training camp / Torkham training camp
10. Malek Center
11. Malik training camp
12. Saman Khaela training camp
13. Tarnak farms training camp

Minor

1. Syed Ismail Shaheed Camp
2. Camp run by the Islamic Movement of Tajikistan near Dushanbe, Tajikistan
3. The Khalid Center near Baghram, Afghanistan
4. The Dimaj Institute
5. The Mullah Omar Compound
6. Camp run by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan near Lajard, Tajikistan
7. Khoja Khar in Afghanistan
8. The Mansehra Jihad military training camp
9. The Taliban Center near Khwajajaghar, Afghanistan
10. Camp Vietnam in the Philippines
11. Moasqr Kari Bilal Camp
12. An al-Qa`ida sponsored camp two hours north of Northwest Jalabat, Afghanistan
13. Abu Obeida training camp, Jalalabad, Afghanistan
14. Uighur camp in the Tora Bora mountains, Afghanistan
15. Lashkar-E-Tayyiba camps in Afghanistan
16. Camp outside of Konduz, Afghanistan
17. Pakistani Center #5 in Pakistan
18. Taliban Office of Intelligence, Division 2 in Mazar-e-Shariff, Afghanistan
19. Zubair Center near Tora Bora, Afghanistan
20. Taliban training camp, “Post” near Imam Saheb, Afghanistan
21. Terrorist training camp in Georgia
22. Qulio Urdo Taliban training camp
23. Dara Sufe
24. Mousauwal Compound
25. Gund Talimi Military School; Zakar Khel Village, Pakistan; Shamshato Refugee Camp, Pakistan
26. Shaker-Dari, Afghanistan; Pul Sayad, Afghanistan
27. Quralemsha, Pakistan

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 May 2010

Could you please provide the reference. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

merge

On March 29, 2010, I drafted a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?.

In that proposal I wrote: "I think the camps for which the only sources are OARDEC allegation memos, and those allegation memos merely say a few captives attended the camp, but don't provide any other details, should be amalgamated."

After drafting that proposal another contributor initiated separate {{afd}}s against most of the articles on the training camps for which the only references were OARDEC allegation memos.

One of those {{afd}} was for the Al Fand training camp. Or perhaps I should say several of those {{afd}}, as a single contributor kept it continuously at {{afd}}, with consecutive nominations, from May 23rd, 2010 to July 13th, 2010.

After its last closure I placed a {{mergeto}} on the article on the Al Fand training camp, suggesting we discuss merging it with this article.

Merging the article on the Al Fand training camp, and other articles on other training camps, for which we lack robust WP:RS, to this article is one possibility. Alternatively, we could consider merging them to an article with some overlaps with this one.

Problem #1: A number of articles on Guantanamo detainees get proposed for deletion every month, some go "Keep", some go "Delete" and there's little consistency...

Problem #2: Somebody claims that the text of a paragraph dealing with ARBs is not neutral and updates it...however, it will remain in its old state on 800 other articles...we need a centralised discussion on what these paragraphs should look like.

Solution: A task-force to decide on the ideal 'template' for an article on a Guantanamo detainee, which information to include, which information to not include...and then slowly implementing the changes consistently across the articles.

---

/List of Templates

Names

• I'm personally in favour of using first names, common sense on any middle names (Abdul Rahman Rafiq should not be shortened to Abdul Rafiq, but Abdul Muhammad Rafiq could be shortened to Abdul Rafiq) and surnames from an Arabic-language perspective for the article title, while using the full name for the introduction. I also support consistent use of al-X surnames rather than "al X" "Al X" "Al-X" or anything else. We do not title Percival Lowell's article "Percival Lawrence Lowell", let's not treat Guantanamo detainees differently. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

• Right now opening paragraphs state "X is a citizen of Country who is held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba. His Guantanamo Internee Security Number is Z. Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts estimate he was born in Year, in City, Country." - I think this really doesn't do enough to establish any notability for the detainee, we should focus on bringing the allegations against the detainee right up into the introduction, X is notable because he is "alleged to have served as a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden, and fought in the 2001 skirmishes around Tora Bora before being captured by bounty hunters" or something. Anything other opinions? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Combatant Status Review Tribunal

• It needs to be shorter, it's a brief primer on introducing the concept of a CSRT to the reader, then can click the link to discover the history behind it.
• Since it doesn't mention the detainee's name at this point, this part could be templated if we can sneak past the template Nazis
• Image caption needs to be chopped down for length
• I'm mutable on the issue of the first reference to the "Bush administration", but feel the second one is definitely replaceable.Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I use [[George W. Bush|Bush]] [[United States President|Presidency]] in new material I add. And change instances of Bush administration to Bush Presidency.

• Templating, or something like it, would be extremely useful. It would allow changing the text in one place, and having it change everywhere. But, the original uses I made of templates were, I learned last fall, counter to policy. I learned this when Template:TalibanBounty was nominated for deletion.
  • The policy is, if I understand it, that templates have to have some tune-able aspect. The simple transclusion of text, into article space, is not allowed. I didn't know that. A lot of people don't know this.
  • I can see some arguments for prohibiting the simple transclusion of text. I think most wikipedians don't know how to use transclusion. So it makes the transcluded part of the article basically inaccessible to them. It is not transparent.
  • Maybe some mechanism that is like a template could be authorized for the simple tranclusion of text into article space?

• I've written, in the past, that the Tribunals were convened from July 2004 to March 2005. The rules on their operation were finalized in late July. Apparently the captives all had some kind of notice read to them in July 2004. But, recently, I read some stuff that suggests that Al Ajmi, the suicide bomber, was the first captive to have a CSRT convened, on August 2 2004. From my more recent reading it seems like the last CSRT that convened, when the captive could be present was in mid January 2005. There were some CSRTs convened after that -- but I believe they were all "do-overs". FWIW it looks like there may have been some do-overs for captives whose initial CSRT confirmed their enemy combatant status. Geo Swan (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding "although 241 out of the 558 captives chose not to attend the hearings."...
  • I think a more than 317 attended their Tribunals;
  • I think the DoD has violated its court order and withheld a few, like Abdel Hamid al-Ghazzawi's. Note: Candace Gorman filed a habeas petition on his behalf, but his habeas package is not one they released.
  • The DoD seems to have withheld, at least, several dozen habeas petitions.
  • What about this replacement:

These Tribunals provided the captives' their first opportunity to officially learn some of the justifications for their detention. Captives were allowed to chose whether to participate in their tribunals. Close to two thirds of the captives did participate in their Tribunals.

• • Or this replacement:

These Tribunals provided the captives' their first opportunity to officially learn some of the justifications for their detention. Close to two thirds of the captives did participate in their Tribunals.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting permission to use templates for this from the relevant Wikiniches - I also tweaked the wording a bit per your suggestion to use "approximately two-thirds" since you're right, there's "no indication" for some detainees whether or not they participated, and our numbers might not be exact. Could we get a citation nonetheless to add to the template? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for a non-DoD reference. In the meantime there is the DoD list, entitled: "Index to Transcripts of Detainee Testimony and Documents Submitted by Detainees at Combatant Status Review Tribunals Held at Guantanamo Between July 2004 and March 2005" -- which lists 360 captives. It is one of the lists the DoD published in September 2007. It took me about two dozen hours to interpolate it two years ago. My interpolation had some gaps. But their list contains a couple of errors too. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• OARDEC (September 4, 2007). "Index to Transcripts of Detainee Testimony and Documents Submitted by Detainees at Combatant Status Review Tribunals Held at Guantanamo Between July 2004 and March 2005" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2007-09-29.

Excellent, added it as a citation - it's perfectly valid. We'll want "third-party media" links somewhere in each Guantanamo detainee article if we can, but it doesn't need to be specifically in this section. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/The NYTimes Guantanamo Docket

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?/Merge less well referenced articles to Afghan training camp... or to a new article...

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Terrorism/Guantanamo/CSRT and ARB images and captions

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Terrorism/Guantanamo/"Extrajudicial detention" and-or "unlawfully detained"

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

In this edit another contributor has over-riddent the default state of a navigation template, for the second time, offering the following edit summary for their justification: " very long template that is also POV and that is better collapsed to not overwhelm the reader and to comply with WP:NPOV".

I have requested this wikipedian, literally dozens of times, to not explain controversial edits solely in their edit summaries. I have explained that this is a provocative practice, one likely to trigger edit wars.

I have also explained how puzzled I am with their claim that collapsing a template is the correct way to address a perception that a template lapses from WP:NPOV. I have suggested that if any of us feel we can explain how we think a template lapses from a policy, like WP:NPOV, we should raise that concern, so that the template is fixed. I have suggested they raise their concerns at the template's talk page.

Please see the discussions on Talk:Aafia Siddiqui and Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates. One disturbing aspect of the collapsing contributor's statements there is that they seemed to be saying they did not recognize the clear consensus as to when templates should be collapsed. I assumed they were disgruntled, and that they would not infact flout the clear consensus of the preceding discussions. However this collapse is about a week after those discussions.

I am going to wait a reasonable period of time, to see if the collapsing contributor can offer a substantive, meaningful, policy-based explanation. If they can't I am going to remove the state=collapsed. Geo Swan (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Parked resources

Here are some sources to use to revamp this article:

Reuters story from Russian report to UN in March 2001. 55 bin Laden camps with 13,000 men. Moscow Times - mirror - Telegraph (shorter).

Good background description of Khost area camps, end of September 2001, but holds up very well. Guardian

Another good source for camps near Khost. Los Angeles Times

There are two Farouq / Farooq / Farouk camps. One outside Khost, mentioned above. And another outside Kandahar. This article talks about the Kandahar camp New Yorker.

David Hicks said there were three or four camps in Afghanistan called Farouk. Sydney Morning Herald

- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Gitmo detainee chart

I deleted the chart taken from a 2007 report based on CSRT's of Gitmo detainees. While the report is useful for a listing of Afghan training camps, and still should be used as a citation, the chart is misleading. It conflates the two major Farouq training camps, one outside Khost and the other outside Kandahar. It is also based on 181 Gitmo detainees who are not at all representative of those who attended the camps. File for reference: [5]. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afghan training camp. 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:

• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchives.cnn.com%2F2001%2FWORLD%2Fasiapcf%2Fcentral%2F09%2F19%2Finv.afghanistan.camp%2F&date=2009-02-06 with http://www.webcitation.org/5eOvLBHJZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Farchives.cnn.com%2F2001%2FWORLD%2Fasiapcf%2Fcentral%2F09%2F19%2Finv.afghanistan.camp%2F on http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/19/inv.afghanistan.camp/

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).

• 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) 03:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

I chose to evaluate this article "Afghan training camp.” This article is rated C-class and clearly is still in the early stages of development. When going into the talk page I noticed that there was quite a bit of editing done, whether it be taking out camps or merging some together, there was a lot of activity and conversation about the article. The article had little information to give but from what I evaluated it was unbiased and most of the information was sourced. There was however one blank source that was sill needed. Is anyone planning on adding a citation to that piece of information anytime soon? Also I think it would be helpful to readers to define exactly what resources are needed to plant a training camp. I would say that the article could have substance if edited and given more information for readers to actually consume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalliKathryn (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)