Talk:Cage (organisation)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Prison cell images

Another editor added the two prison cell images that i removed from the lead (as they do not represent this organization) and placed one in the "Stated purpose" section and the other one next to the "Background" section. Could you please explain what the reason is for that? How are they related to these sections and what purpose do they have there? (It might be also helpful if you would not use a edit summary that claims "Undid revision 439516659 by Iqinn" when you in fact moved the images to another section) Thank you. IQinn (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  • You removed two long-standing images. Without any discussion. Your complaint/reason, in your edit summary, related to their being in the lede. BTW -- you then failed to locate the images elsewhere, and since your complaint had to do w/their placement next to the lede, I find that disruptive -- their blanket deletion was not explained by your edit summary. (I frankly don't agree w/your complaint, as they relate directly to the focus of the organization, but sought to "work" with you). Do you really not understand how the images related to the organization's stated purpose and background? I think you are pulling my leg.  ;) --Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 1) The removal of these images was explained in the edit summary and nobody needs to discuss edits in advanced per WP:BOLD. These image did not belong in the lede and they might do not belong in the article at all, what needs to be discussed 2) Your personal attack ad hominem and ganging up on me is very disruptive. Please discuss in a civil way and do answer the relevant questions instead of personal attacks and do not use misleading edit summaries. After it is clear that these images did not belong into the lede. Could you please explain what purpose they have in these sections ("Background", "Stated purpose" ) and wouldn't be one image enough? Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There seems to be no reason for the inclusion of these two images. If nobody can provide an explanation why and how these images are related to these section were they have been newly added than i am going to remove them in a few days. Cheers. IQinn (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The stated aim of the organization is "to raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees held as part of the War on Terror." The image relates to the imprisonment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as part of the War on Terror. You complained as to the positioning of the images. Your complaint was addressed in its entirety -- as you worded it -- by moving the images down closer to the indicated phraseology. I've also now deleted the more recently added of the two photos, as it was redundant. You've changed your original complaint, but I've addressed your second version of your complaint as indicated.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually there are many different cells in Guantanamo and Bagram. Many of them look like cages. Why did we choose this one here? Was that the cell Begg was held? IQinn (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Is there any place where i can read this reference without paying? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AreaYUY (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you show us the original link? The one you gave is the error page.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Should be the right link. (ref 9 in the article). I can not get to it either. AreaYUY (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There's one here:
http://www.human-rights-for-all.org/spip.php?article2
It has a different title but it's the same article as this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece
I don't know if we have the title wrong, or if the newspaper changed it later. They often change titles.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it up... the publishing date seems to be different as well.
Shall we just replace the current cite with the one you have looked up? AreaYUY (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That wouldn't be proper, seeing as how the original link still works for those with a subscription.
I'll put it in as the archive listing.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me... maybe someday someone with a superscription can tell us what is going on. AreaYUY (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

user AreaYUY:

I'm removing the first item about the "U-turn on policy," and editing the second. I don't see how it could be important enough for the lede. There's no reason to have it in the article twice.

It's been a couple of years, and we can clearly see that there hasn't been any kind of a U-turn on policy. Yes, I understand that you're saying that it's verified by a reference. But it wasn't technically true at the time, and isn't true now. You really need better references. I haven't seen other refs read the same way. If there had been a U-turn then it would be worth a separate section.

A real U-turn would be if the U.S. sided with the Taliban's fight against the majority of Afghan people. But there hasn't been any inkling of a change. The U.S. still supports the elected Afghan government. Cageprisoners still opposes the elected Afghan government. There wasn't even a temporary or partial U-turn.

If you really insist on keeping the "U-turn" language, you'll have to say that the Guardian writer calls it a U-turn.

The source says Cynthia Stroum, the (now former) ambassador, offered the praise, such that it is. I'm only assuming they're correct, as I don't see the docs explicitly saying it was her. But it's good enough for me for the moment, so I attributed the statement directly to her.

I'm reinserting the YouTube link again. Asim Qureshi is a senior figure in Cageprisoners, which is a pretty small organization. This isn't some minor goon in a large organization whose leaders may not know what he's up to. Moazzam Begg feels the same way as Qureshi. (This article even says so.) It is their ideology.

And as I said, it is discussed in the other video at 5:33. Some article readers who view that video will want to know what they're talking about. This link allows them to see it for themselves and make up their own minds. You shouldn't try to cover it up. That's why we have external links.

We only have four external links, one of which appears dead and needs to be updated. There's no reason not to have this one, and every reason to keep it.

Seeing as how you seem to be a single-purpose account, may I ask what affiliation, if any, you might have with Cageprisoners?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

User Randy2063 when did Wikipedia stop relying on reliable sources and instead writes it's article based on WP editors opinion?
I have attributed the it to the sources. The Guardian. I do not claim it is true. It does not matter. We need this to balance the statements on Begg. After your deletion it is extremely biased and i do think such bias is a violation of the core values Wikipedia claims to have.
I do not see the reason to further attribute it to the writer of the article as it is not an Op-ed. But i will do this after you explain to me why this is necessary. The Guardian says so as it is not an Op-ed.
You say: "A real U-turn would be if the U.S. sided with the Taliban's fight against the majority of Afghan people. But there hasn't been any inkling of a change. The U.S. still supports the elected Afghan government. Cageprisoners still opposes the elected Afghan government. There wasn't even a temporary or partial U-turn."
We are not discussing that. The Guardian statement is on Begg and it is needed to balanced the text on Begg.
Qureshi is not even mentioned once in the article so i do not see the reason to feature him in External links that much but keep it for the moment if you like. I will have a closer look at this section later.
Why are you assuming bad faith? I do not have any affiliation with Cageprisoners whatsoever. I think the only reason i started editing this article was because it was/is extremely biased in my opinion. Let's work on it together. AreaYUY (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm just curious why you apparently chose this article to start editing.
Qureshi is a senior officer in Cageprisoners. He writes many of their articles, and drives much of their policies. What he says is highly relevant to Cageprisoners. The same goes for Begg.
Note that Assange interviewed both Qurechi and Begg, and that he also thought the speech was worth addressing. People are curious about these things.
Bias is not a matter of making sure that we have an equal number of good and bad things to say. What we really want is WP:BALANCE. That doesn't mean we try to put anything up there in an effort to sound nice.
The reason to attribute it to the writer is because he's saying something that isn't true. Normally, we'd simply leave it out. In cases where there is a dispute over its truthfulness, we'd use attribution. But this is the first time I've seen that we're arguing over a point that neither of us really believes to be true. You need to explain that, or the text can't stay.
Perhaps you need to consider that you're looking at it too much from a western liberal POV, and you miss what Begg's and Qureshi's perspective. The very next line (in the lede's version) is about Begg's support for fighting "foreign occupation." Personally, my problem with that is that he's on the wrong side. But to an Islamist, that's a positive.
Even beyond that, generally speaking, it is often quite positive to support a fight against occupation. If anything, we're biased by not letting the readers know that most Afghans prefer their government and the U.S. presence, and fear the very Taliban that Cageprisoners supports.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading WP:BALANCE i think it summarizes what i meant by reducing bias. We need this to balance the text on Begg. Well The Guardian says that the cables show a U-turn on Begg true or not does not matter. I am sorry but i trust The Guardian's reputation more that i have trust in your opinion. The Guardian is a widely published reliable source so i have to assume that is it is true what they say. What i have seen from the cables i would say it is probably true. Anyway as i said it does not matter i have attributed it to the source {The Guardian) as it is not an Op-ed. I do believe The Guardian is reliable. AreaYUY (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a matter of my reputation. They also discuss weight. This point doesn't have enough weight -- if any.
It might help your case if you could rephrase the paragraph, and explain what is meant by a "U-turn."
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. It has weight and is one view point that needs to be presented.
For the second part i also respectfully disagree. It seems to me sufficiently explained. AreaYUY (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not sufficiently well explained for me because I don't understand what it is that you mean by a U-turn.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I also am puzzled as to what is meant by u-turn, and why Area thinks it significant enough for the lede. I don't agree w/Area here. At the same time, I do agree that the Guardian is, as new editor area says, an RS ... but that isn't the issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. The Guardian partially explains it by giving the example of an ambassador. Epeefleche, did you read all the relevant Embassy cables and sources? Has there been anybody in the US government praising Begg for anything before that? As far as i can see exactly the opposite took place so i have no problem with the Guardians claim of U-turn and the Guardian as RS knows better than we. AreaYUY (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's a piece from the text in the Guardian's source:
"An American ambassador in Europe applauded in a leaked cable Begg's campaign to persuade European countries to take in remaining Guantánamo detainees."
And here is the relevant text of the cable via Wikileaks:
"Mr. Begg is doing our work for us, and his articulate, reasoned presentation makes for a convincing argument. It is ironic that after four years of imprisonment and alleged torture, Moazzam Begg is delivering the same demarche to GOL as we are: please consider accepting GTMO detainees for resettlement. Despite Begg's optimism, the Prime and Foreign Ministers continue to publicly state that the GoL supports the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and stands ready to assist from a financial and logistical perspective, but cannot accept detainees for resettlement."
It kind of reminds me of how, when various insurgent groups are fighting among themselves, we could also say they were doing our work for us.
Not much of a U-turn. A more precise excerpt would solve this.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
AreaYUY: A more fundamental problem is your desire to find a nice thing to say about people who support terrorists, and your mistaken idea that this is required for balance.
One funny thing about this is, in trying to find "balance," you wind up making Cynthia Stroum look pretty stupid. It might be a BLP violation when we move this to the article on her.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Randy: "A more fundamental problem is your desire to find a nice thing to say about people who support terrorists,..."...Oh boy...what a personal attack... You mean Wikipedia has different rules for terror suspects? Seems to me that you really hate Begg? If this is the case then you might stop editing text about him now. He has never been charges leave alone convicted of any terror related crime. The Guardian verifies that the cables show a u-turn and it does not matter how much original research you perform RS is RS. I took your concerns and i have directly attributed it to The Guardian. No matter how much personal research you perform and no matter if you are right or not... and i think you are wrong. Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. AreaYUY (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Please read more closely. Although Begg was a terror suspect who was only released as a favor to Blair, that's not who I was referring to.
I specifically said, "people who support terrorists," which Cageprisoners certainly does. While they did initially claim to support those who were not yet tried, they have continued to write in support of those who've already been tried and found guilty.
In addition, let's make clear that neither U.S. law nor the Geneva Conventions requires that GTMO detainees receive a trial while the war is still ongoing. Not that this really matters to Cageprisoners, which does not itself support the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, it's true that verifiability is what WP wants, but that's not the only thing. Right now, you still haven't said that you believe the text to be true. This leaves you unable to summarize it without quoting them directly. But there is a way to rephrase the article in a way that is both verifiable, and true. I think you should agree that you'd want this, too.
Besides that, I seem to recall reading somewhere that unbelievable claims require more than one reference.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The claim is not that unbelievable and The Guardian is a highly reliable sources. The claim has been attributed to the source The Guardian. We do not need another source that verifies that the Guardian made this claim. That absolutely unnecessary. I am not sure why you get this so wrong. Regarding the rest. Please leave your opinions at home when editing Wikipedia. The UK government is free to arrest Begg if they would have anything to charge him for. But they did not. The US could charge him if they would have something. But they did not. Any other country in the world could charge him but nobody did. Begg supports terrorism. Really? Why isn't he running around on the street as a free man. What's wrong? AreaYUY (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC) AreaYUY (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Main image

‎Benedictus,
I see that you want to insist on replacing the main image for this article with the one from the detainees' first day. Your comment says it's, "highly representative for the condition in GITMO and for the work of CAGE."

Actually, no. The picture is only representative for their first hour at GTMO. Sadly, this is the only safe way to transport savages.

The original picture was representative of the nights and/or days spent in their cell.

I've often felt that the isolation cell didn't make as much sense as would a typical cell (File:Camp four barracks, May 2006.jpg). That is, after all, where most of them spent their nights.

Or is it that you're trying to capture the spirit of Cageprisoners itself, and how they're trying to falsely portray GTMO as a place where detainees are locked up like that for years? I'm afraid that won't work.

I'm reverting back to the image we've had for years. You need to explain what makes the other one better.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The long-standing image seems appropriate.Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead section of Cageprisoners

It appears that the lead section for the Cageprisoners article does not conform to Wikipedia's lead section guidelines for the following reasons:

  • "Its Director, Moazzam Begg, is a former Guantánamo Bay detainee who was released without charge in 2005 by President Bush over the objections of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI (all of whom were concerned that Begg could still be a dangerous terrorist).[3] In November 2010, The Guardian reported that US embassy cables showed a US U-turn, praising Begg over his campaign for Europe to take in other Guantanamo detainees.[4]"
    • The lead section, per Wikipedia's guidelines, is to summarize the article. These sentences provide biographical information about Mr Begg not related to his founding of Cageprisoners. The fact that he was released with objections from US government agencies is a biographical detail of his life, which belongs on his separate Wikipedia article, or, at the very least, in the "Background" subsection.
  • "Referring to 2010 Afghanistan, Begg said he completely supported the inalienable right of the people to fight "foreign occupation".[5]"
    • This quote does not provide any insightful information about Mr Begg's founding of Cageprisoners. It should be removed completely from the article.
  • The organization has worked closely with a number of former detainees held by the United States. It has been criticized[by whom?] for championing Anwar al-Awlaki after he was released from 18 months' detention without charge by Yemen. He was alleged to be a senior al-Qaeda member. Cageprisoners invited him to address fundraising dinners in 2008 and 2009, and featured material about him on its website.[2]"
    • The lead section already mentions criticism of Cageprisoners for being "an apologist for the Taliban and for terrorism". This makes information about Mr Al-Awlaki is excessive in the lead section.
    • The sentence station that Cageprisoners has "criticized" for their association with Mr Al-Awlaki does not contain a reference in neither the lead section or in the "Anwar Al-Awlaki" sub-section. Unless an appropriate reference can be found, it is subject for removal per Wikipedia's guidelines.

Please share your thoughts so that we all can help make the lead section conform to Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. Djrun (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You're missing that Begg's position on the war is highly relevant to the subject matter.
If Begg had some controversial personal issues about drunk driving then, yes, you'd have a point that it's not all that important to the lede -- unless he was director of MADD.
But when Begg's organization trots him out to speak about torture, it makes a difference to at least some in the audience whether or not he actually opposes torture.
The "US U-turn, praising Begg" doesn't need to be in the lede, but I wasn't the one who put it in there.
Yes, the statements on Al-Awlaki need better referencing, but it's safe to say one can be found. (I'll look later this week when I have more time; there's probably something in his article.) I don't have my heart set on putting that in the lede as long as the general theme is covered. Cageprisoners' mission is #28 in Al-Awlaki's 44 Ways to Support Jihad, which was written earlier in the same year they invited him to their conference.
-- Randy2063 (talk)
Hello again. I can see Begg's position on the war is somewhat related to the topic matter, as the cases that the organization works with includes individuals accused of terrorism in Afghanistan. If the quote is meant to highlight the founder's views on torture, in my opinion, citing the quote as-is does not clearly communicate that. If that is the intention of using that quote, what would be appropriate would be citing a quote or an article written about him that clearly states his stance on torture or, a quote from him that that directly relates to his involvement with Cageprisoners
e.g.: "In a recent speech, Begg revealed his motivation of launching Cageprisoners is due to his belief in the inalienable right of the people of Afghanistan to fight foreign occupation."
e.g.: "Begg's belief in the inalienable right of the people of Afghanistan to fight foreign occupation has been criticized by some as being hypocritical to his organization's aim of speaking out against torture."
See the lead section of Spirit Fruit Society as a good example of tying in a quote from an organization's founder that is relevant to the organization.
I went ahead and removed the Anwear Al-Awlaki mention in the lead section, as discussed previously on here. I am holding off on editing mention of Begg in the lead article until I complete reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines on the lead section and look up examples of WikiProject Organizations articles that contain a high rank of quality. By the way, I notice that the "...apologist for the Taliban and terrorists" sentence in the lead section is still missing a citation. Do you happen to know of any RS that we can use to put there? Thank you. Djrun (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for slipping away like that. I hadn't been paying enough attention to this article.
It's not Begg's position on torture per se, but his support for the Taliban and the jihad. Although one cannot support the Taliban without supporting torture, my point is rather that his support for the jihad is what drives him and Cageprisoners. Begg isn't working against abuses but for his cause.
I was confused by the quote, "an apologist for the Taliban and for terrorism" but I see now that this wasn't a quote. Information in the intro needs to be supported by the rest of the article. That particular line is supported by the section on the Cageprisoners#Amnesty International controversy.
And if you doubt that Begg's current legal troubles pertain to Cageprisoners, the British government seems to think they do. The Sunday Times also has a piece on it, but I'm not a subscriber. It appears that they're also looking into Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Peter Oborne wrote a new rant on the subject. He's sympathetic to the extremists but there's a lot there.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Short section on Mohamed Emwazi

I have added a short referenced section on Jihadi John and CAGE's official response to his radicalisation. Cpsoper (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for help with Guardian citation. This quote is not likely to be forgotten for a long time, nor was it made in reaction to this formal identification, but before it, so I don't think 'recentism' is an appropriate characterisation. Perhaps other editors will agree the stand alone quotation better underscores a basic attribute of the page subject. Cpsoper (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cpsoper. From the Sky link it looks like it was made in reaction to the formal ID, not that that makes any difference. The level of reported public/official reaction to the statement has so-far been fairly muted and, as such, drawing attention to is as if it were a defining feature of the organisation would be a mistake. Bromley86 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, happy to leave and let time be the judge, or await other editors, esp older hands on this page. Cpsoper (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, IRL I all but cheered when I heard Boris on LBC, but that's different to here. Still, as you say, older hands may agree with your position. Bromley86 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

with an Islamic focus in the lead

We need a source that says that Cageprisoners has an Islamic focus, preferably themselves but it's not in their 'About Us'. We are just picking it out of the website at the moment because it's one of thing in the menu. Someone could have picked the "for the families" link and put 'with a family focus' in the lead. :) There must be an RS out there that says it has an Islamic focus or something similar. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you Sean.hoyland, I have placed a [citation needed] tag on the text but I think that the claim needs to either be made more specific or removed. GregKaye 13:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section of Cageprisoners (Part 2)

I have made the following changes to the lead section of this article based on Wikipedia lead section guidelines and updated content on the CageUK website.

  • Removed statement "exists solely to raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees": This statement was used on the organization's previous website however since moving to www.cageuk.org they have changed their purpose/aim to "working to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror" on their current website.
    • Changes have also been made to the infobox and stated purpose section
  • Removed "Islamic focus" statement: again, this is not used in any of their current CAGEUK mission purpose/aim statements.
  • Removed statement "Referring to 2010 Afghanistan, Begg said he completely supported the inalienable right of the people to fight "foreign occupation": In context of the article, this statement does not meet the criteria of WP:LEAD
    • "summarize the most important points covered in an article": Begg's personal opinions (not specifically pertaining to Cage Prisoners) do not appear anywhere in the article.
    • Thank you for your previous comment regarding the relevance of the quote in this article. In the previous talk page you countered the proposed removal of the quote with the argument, "Although one cannot support the Taliban without supporting torture, my point is rather that his support for the jihad is what drives him and Cageprisoners. Begg isn't working against abuses but for his cause." My response to that, is if that is indeed what drives CagePrisoners than let's keep it in the article. However a reference from a reliable source stating that conclusion is required for that quote to remain in the article. At the moment, I could not find anything any sources that reference the "Afghanistan occupation" quote (or a similar quote) to draw the conclusion that it is a drive for the CagePrisoner organization. Please let me know if you were able to find any sources so that we can address adding it back to the article. Thank you.Djrun (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Added back the Islamic focus point. Statements by subjects are not definitive - I'm having trouble locating the non-Muslims that they represent, so it's looking like they are indeed Islamic focused. Imagine everyone's surprise! Bromley86 (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the group's stated aim, I noticed that the quote changed in the article from "working to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror" to "highlights and campaigns against state policies". Both of which are correct, however using one without the other does create bias. If the "highlights and campaigns against state policies" quote is used, then to be fair one must also include the first sentence. I suggest using both statements to strike balance. For example, the groups's stated aim is to "empower communities impacted by the War on Terror" and "highlight and campaign against state policies." Please share your thoughts.
Also, I am still having trouble seeing the justification for using Begg's "Afghanistan 2010" quote in the lead section for the Cageprisoners article. I responded to Randy's justification earlier this year and am still waiting for a response. For those who support keeping the quote, I kindly request to add reliable sources in a reasonable time that state Begg's support for fighting foreign occupation in Afghanistan is what drives him to support Cageprisoners. Otherwise I assume the quote will be open for removal. Thank you. Djrun (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't this be now moved to CAGE (organsiation) or similar? Maybe even just to CAGE, as there is no similar name at CAGE. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. BTW, how should the article handle the name change? Are all non-quote references to Cageprisoners changed to CAGE, do we use the date at which they changed name as a terminator or do we reflect what the source used to support the point uses? Bromley86 (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm really not sure. I am beginning to see not why no-one has suggested this before. It's not just pop-stars who change names. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that CAGE is the wp:COMMONNAME.Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
How does one determine that usage? BBC certainly uses CAGE. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the existing references are to Cageprisoners -- it appears the bulk. See, e.g., here, and here. Per the policy, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.... Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.... If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that the right test? Per the quote you supply, "more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." So the fact that books used Cageprisoners back when that was the only name available doesn't override the fact that all news outlets now seem to be using CAGE/Cage. I'm sure there's scope for this Google test to be wrong, but the search for "Emwazi" and "Cage"[2] or "Cageprisoners"[3] looks definitive regarding current usage. Bromley86 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
BBC, Sky, Al Jaz, Daily Mail, ITV, Telegraph, HuffPo, Express, Guardian, IBT, The Indi Got bored there, but it looks pretty convincing to me.
A lot of them call it "Cage", but I assume that's for the same reason that they call it "Ukip" (rather than UKIP, which WP opts for). Bromley86 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Among those currently calling it Cageprisoners are the Telegraph, Al Jazeera, Voice of America, the Wall Street Journal, Birmingham Mail, and Daily Mail. Clearly, a split. Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Not so. All mine were current, whereas yours were: Telegraph (03/2014), Al Jaz (12/2014), VoA (Jan 2015), WSJ (02/2014), Birmingham Mail (03/2014), Daily Mail (12/2013). I've already supplied current ones for the Telegraph, Al Jaz and the Daily Mail. Current VoA[4], WSJ[5] are both Cage. Couldn't find anything recent, either way, on the Birmingham Mail also now uses CAGE. Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And when did they change their name? Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Judging from the WP edit log, about this time last year. Bromley86 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a better source than looking at the wp edit log? I'm thinking, an RS ... rather than OR? Tx. Also -- most of my examples were after the date you point to. Epeefleche (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
No, sorry, haven't tracked it down. Let's assume it was Jan 2014; that new sources didn't immediately change their naming format is immaterial, surely?. The fact is that every news source now calls them Cage, rather than Cageprisoners. Given their recent news profile, that will be what they're called on Twitter etc, so that's the name that Joe Public will know them by. Bromley86 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If it helps, they used their old website listing press releases with their new name until 13 Feb 2014. They use the name cageprisoners on 24 Dec 2013. They use the new name on 10 Jan 2014 but don't have a press release about their name changing. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I was waiting for a clear consensus, but I see that User:Dai Pritchard has now changed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why's it been moved back? Consensus is absolutely in favour of the move (3:1). Okay, that's on a sample of 4, but it's pretty clear. I'd also suggest that Epee's argument for retaining has been convincingly refuted (but I would say that!), as every reliable source that he's pointed to has made the switch. They call themselves CAGE and have for over a year (there doesn't seem to have been a formal announcement of the change, but it happened sometime in the 2 weeks bracketing 1 Jan 2014). They've received a relatively large amount of publicity recently under that name, which will easily have overcome any vague memory of Cageprisoners in the public's mind. Bromley86 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is in favour of the move, they changed their name in 2014 and media outlets picking up their stories use their new name. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess User:Epeefleche was just following convention that no conclusion had been reached here. As this is not a formal RfC, I suggest we agree a deadline and then assess all comments. I first asked the question on 28 Feb, so I'd suggest waiting until the end of this week. Any views? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. Bromley86 (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Move makes sense to me; all current RS call them CAGE. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to formalise

Proposal is to move the article from Cageprisioners → CAGE (organisation).

Comment WP doesn't present organisation names precisely as they're displayed in the media. Many media outlets change UKIP, which is the correct form per UKIP themselves and is used by WP, to Ukip, which is how it's said. This appears to be the case with CAGE, which capitalises it's name on it's webpage.[6] However, in this particular case, even the BBC calls them "Cage" (whereas they call UKIP, "UKIP"). Not sure which way to jump on this one - I'd tend to display it as per their website. Bromley86 (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support CAGE (organisation) as the correct name. We're way behind the curve on this one, both in terms of the actual name of the group and how the media commonly refer to it. Not sure why the article's still at the current name, but if more support for the move is needed, here it is. Robofish (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved. Bromley86 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CAGE (organisation). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 05:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Implementation of Sharia law section

User:Wenceslas23 I reverted your edit on the above section for two reasons, mainly because Begg and Quereshi (sp?) were speaking in a private capacity, not giving a CAGE position or policy. Secondly, the text is a fairly selective representation of what they said. The content MIGHT belong on the Begg article in an amplified and modified form.

Briefly, both people refused to condemn, but they also said that the necessary evidence for 'adultery' could never be in place if the full rules were followed and consequently stoning would never actually happen. Begg is on record as condemning current implementations of Sharia and he does not condone them. Both of them believe certainly in Islamic countries finding Islamic political solutions (and Begg is on record as 'speaking up for' British legal and political being implemented in Britain). They refused to condemn certainly, but they also refused to condone.

IF Begg's beliefs are to be represented (on his page?), they deserve a balanced account of the various interviews he has given on these subjects. "Refusal to condemn" is a well established position - adopted by Irish Republicans for example who did not agree with terrorism, but nonetheless continued to be Republican.

I am myself slightly mystified by some of Begg's religious beliefs, but would analogise it to some Christians, who would be totally opposed to 'stoning' (which is suggested in the Bible I believe), but who would nonetheless continue to maintain that every word of the Bible should be taken literally as the 'word of God'.

I still believe the content does not belong on THIS page and needs to be balanced by other reporting of their beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with Pincrete. This is important that leading person of that organisation do held the controversial political opinions. I propose to discuss the changes, and later to apply to avoid revert war.Cautious (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
IF we are going to have this section (and I am not persuaded that it would not be better on Begg's page), let it at least be a full and balanced account of their beliefs. They both explicitly said in the interview cited that if implemented fully, stoning would never happen and they both refused to condone it. I cannot 'off the top of my head' recall everything Begg has said about implentation of Sharia etc, but I know that he is on record as criticising much of the human rights and legal practices of the Taliban for example (he also believes that they at least imposed some order in a lawless state, but were over-zealous on some issues). The interview(s) DID spark some controversy (and some very selective reporting), but at present our text implies 'refusal to condemn' = condone/endorse. Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This is completely irrelevant. Important is that Cage is led and managed by hardcore islamists. This is exactly why we need to mentioned that leadership is contreversial.Cautious (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
"Important is that Cage is led and managed by hardcore islamists". Says who? WP:BLP is a very strictly enforced policy here and applies even on talk pages, unless you can find a WP:RS for that last remark, you should strike it. Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
You have a source, where they say they are in favor of Caliphate and Sharia law. Cautious (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think either has ever said they are in favour of [present) caliphate, I think Begg has said that the Ottoman caliphate had many good things (as do most historians btw). If you think that anyone who defends Sharia law AT ALL is a 'hardcore Islamist', you are obviously incapable of editing on this subject neutrally. Not every Irish Republican is an IRA terrorist, not every US Protestant in a member of the KKK. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete thanks, presenting strong POV and negative opinions about other editors effectively disqualify yourself from beeing neutral, so we both have similar opinion about each other. The main point here is that obviously you didn't listen to the interview. I am reading a transcript and I will come back with conclusions. Cautious (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Since the only one presenting strong opinions which are NOT based on sources is yourself ..... ! I have read the interview many times, it is one of many interviews Begg has given on this subject, using ONLY this one, would be deliberate misrepresentation. There is no need to name me, this article is on my watchlist. Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Borh guys are Islamists, nevertheless they are smart in using very neutral language to express extreme views. They support caliphate and Sharia including stoning. Cautious (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Your opinions are fascinating. Find somewhere to publish them. Pincrete (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete your perception problem is huge. Guys are saying that they support Khalifa, which means ovethrowing all governments in Muslim countries ergo global war. However, they do not say explicite they want war therefore you buy their views as peaceful. Hitler also only wanted that Sudeten Germans could openly practice their German World view... You are completely blind. By the way, Khalifa lovers Muslim Brotherhood is banned in most of Muslim countries. I suppose you fail to understand why? They are so peaceful people. Stoning is only religious belief, isn't it? Except it is really practiced in several areas on our planet, mostly after compromise peace with terrorists groups. Cautious (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, I barely understand what you are saying. If you object to anything here, you can take it to RSN or an RfC. It was not even me that inserted this text. … … As previously said, there is no need to 'name' me every time you leave a post here, this article is on my watchlist. ... btw, none of the sources used even mentions khalifa, so what it means is academic. I don't 'buy' anything, I am here to accurately reflect what the balance of sources say, you are clearly here to impose your own beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not advocating any edits here, as they are too smart to be cought red handed. I barely try to educate you on the political Islam. This is purely educational, if you do not want to be smarter in this area feel free to skip it.Cautious (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"they are too smart to be cought red handed "= they are guilty of something, you can't find a source that says what they are supposedly guilty of, so you will simply do your best to imply guilt. Pure WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Pincrete (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, they say they support Khalifa, Sharia and stoning. Why do you use WP:SYNTH against me??? Did I say I support stoning??? You are using forbidden by wiki methods against me.Cautious (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No again, two individuals, not CAGE itself, refused to condemn stoning (but both said it should never happen according to Islamic law). I cannot find any reference in their texts to Khalifa. The basic problem here is that you want to interpret primary sources, I don't so my private PoV is irrelevant. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


Advocated strategy

Cage advocates deeper view into the way the terrorists see the world and accomodate to their demands regarding foreign policy and treatment of Muslims in Britain. [1]

Please Pincrete and Marianna251 and help me to summarise the above aricle, where I believe the key paragraph is following: We must begin to openly discuss the root causes of violent incidents in a balanced and intelligent manner. This in turn, must prompt a re-examination of the neo-conservative and violent Western foreign and domestic policy towards Muslims. Cautious (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://cage.ngo/article/after-westminster-its-going-to-take-courage-to-break-the-cycle/
Version1

Cage advocates deeper view into the way the Muslims see the world and accomodate to their demands regarding foreign policy. In addition they demand to change policy towards Muslims to align with mainstream Muslim demands. Cage believes such a policy would influence potential and actual terrorists to prevent them from carrying out the terror acts agsint United Kingdom. Cautious (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your text (there's no polite way to say this), is barely coherent English. Also you continue to interpret primary sources according to your own opinions (CAGE press releases). Even if you were an international expert on CAGE, Islam and other subjects, this would not be allowed here. Please slow down, you appear determined to ignore all WP policies in order to insert your opinion about CAGE. CAGE is opposed to many US and allied actions in the 'war on terror', this is hardly news to anyone and is not proof that they are 'extremists' or 'terrorists' or advocates for same. You are entitled to have any opinion you like about CAGE, you are NOT entitled to use WP to promote that opinion. WHAT ABOUT THAT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND? Pincrete (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Your POV opinion is "CAGE is opposed to many US and allied actions in the 'war on terror'and they are not 'extremists' or 'terrorists' or advocates for same.". Well, do you have any source that supports your POV??? I am trying to base on their own texts, I am not implying anytghing Cautious (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources

User:Cautious I have reverted you series of edits as they are a mixture of WP:OR use of primary sources (such as you interpreting CAGE press releases according to your own opinion) and misrepresentation.

You cannot 'interpret' the CAGE press release about the new antiterrorist force in Africa, and certainly not in the way you do. If included at all (and there is no obvious reason to do so), a brief neutral summary is the most that can be used. CAGE says " a new UN-backed joint antiterrorism force in five countries in Africa, will only increase the likelihood of blowback, and must be halted and justice restored, says CAGE Africa" ... "It will work alongside the current United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, known as Minusma, which has been documented to arbitrarily detain and torture local civilians and worsen tensions" ... "This is nothing short of a silent but sustained war, which impacts civilians and encourages individuals to join violent groups”. ie CAGE believes the new force will be counter-productive and will encourage human rights abuses against civilians. That could be summarised neutrally in a sentence or two, but is not evidence of them engaging in 'political activities'. You may not agree with CAGE, but you have no right to mis-use their own press release to promote your own conclusions.

BTW, what is remotely surprising in a Muslim organisation briefly quoting Koranic verses at a Muslim-themed fundraiser and where do they refer to 'slaves' or PoWs (prisoners yes, PoWs no).

The section about the director recently found guilty for refusing to disclose his cellphone/laptop passwords, MIGHT be notable, but your text makes no attempt to give a full account of the incident (which resulted in a small fine and is being appealed to the UK High Court), even the magistrate who imposed the penalty said "Emma Arbuthnot, the chief magistrate at Westminster magistrates court .... accepted, however, that he was of “good character” and had no previous convictions". Your text implies he was found guilty of a serious terrorist offence, rather than a technical infringement of a fairly draconian law, which journalists and other have already successfully challenged (the right of individual police to demand access to private information, without giving 'good cause'). Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose your move to revert all my edits without any consideration. Despite many edits from your side your last version lacks key recent developments. In order to discuss NPOV I created subchapters to discuss all new items. Cautious (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The onus is on YOU to establish the validity of your additions and that they are phrased in a neutral fashion. Simply recording that someone has been convicted of an offence under terrorism laws, without context or details is not NPOV. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It is you who keep oudated site, because you revert all newer changes if they do not fit your POV. Cautious (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Political activities

I provided summary of their press releasess, using NPOV language. Please reason, why appeal to withdraw US and UN forces, is not political? If you believe it could be written better, please spend time and edit changes.Cautious (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No you put your own interpretation on their press release, this would be unacceptable use of a WP:PRIMARY source EVEN if it were a fair interpretation, which it blatantly wasn't. They believe the new Africa initiative will have the opposite effect to that intended. Them thinking it is hardly earth-shattering news but if included in this article it needs to be represented in a neutral fashion. (countless non-Muslims share the belief that many anti-terrorist initiatives post 9/!! have done more harm than good, so it is hardly an 'extremist' belief'). Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I did use only their own words. Charity organisation that set objective at withdrawal of US military forces from the region??? This is purely political aim. Cautious (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
So who says this is a political aim then? Which, incidentally, is opposition to a new initiative, I don't think they say anything about a general US withdrawal from anywhere.
Fairly obviously anything they do is in ONE sense 'political' as they are campaigning against abuses of international law such as Guantanamo and believe that much of the "war on terror' has been counter-productive. At least half of the population of Europe probably share their belief, are they all engaging in overt 'political' aims? Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
you are not reading! I quoted CAGE, and I am going to do it again now: "CAGE Africa calls for the withdrawal of US troops and UN-backed troops"[1]. Could you please reitereite from the false statements above? Cautious (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://cage.ngo/press-release/us-acceleration-of-military-activity-in-africa-must-be-halted-and-justice-restored-cage-africa/
I reasoned the statement that CAGE has political aims with quotes and sources. You are now giving baseless POV. If you want to discuss, please provide exact statements and sources and we could agree on NPOV version. Cautious (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, CAGE Africa does call for the withdrawal of US troops from these five African countries. It hardly matters, it isn't up to us to decide what is/is not political.
Please don't intersperp replies into other peoples text on talk, it makes it almost impossible for any new-comer to the thread to follow 'the thread'. I moved your replies so that they were 'in sequence'. Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies not accepted. Please do not touch answers. Appeal to withdraw troops is political and doesn’t fit into charity activity. Please provide source that says that withdrawal of troops is legitimate aim of charity organization. Cautious (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
'Africa' source. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Conviction of Muhammad Rabbani

Pincrete also reverted very important event of convinction of Muhammad Rabbani. Please spend time and expand the section. Otherwise it is case of vandalism or POV Cautious (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no attempt to represent his conviction in a fair or balanced form, as outlined above. No attempt to identify the details or circumstances of the actual offence, simply a blatant attempt to discredit him and CAGE. 20:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)
It was Muhammad's own decision to discredit himself and break the law. Moreover, he himslef said that the conviction is his success. Therefore I seen nothing POV in stating that he was convicted on terror charges. If you believe we need more details, plaese work on it. Cautious (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I intended to do so, and will try to do so this w/end.
Choosing to 'break the law' isn't the most obvious description for refusing to disclose one's laptop password to a fairly junior police officer, without 'good cause' or grounds for 'reasonable suspicion' being given. Others -such as journalists- have successfully challenged this interpretation of the law. The case is going to be appealed to the UK's highest court (a magistrate is an unpaid, non-expert legal person at the bottom of the UK legal system, they normally deal with driving offences and minor theft etc). But a brief neutral account could go in IMO, I will try to do so ASAP. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
if somebody is convicted breaking the law, he has broken the law. Please provide source saying otherwise. Cautious (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes of course, but we don't intentionally misrepresent the law broken or the circumstances. Not even the worst tabloid would present the facts as you did. Pincrete (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete yet again presenting very strong POV. Are you here to spread some kind of propaganda? I will check your POV version and we need to have NPOV out of it.Cautious (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete you are presented by sources, yet you vandalise the article to follow your biased POV! Quotation from your edits (Purpose of interview in Qatar IS Rabbani claim - but two previous occasions is NOT - no mention in source of either 'demo' nor 'moral victory', stop imagining things) My appeal to you: READ SOURCES and please STOP VANDALISING the articleCautious (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Cautious (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is excellent source https://theintercept.com/2017/09/25/muhammad-rabbani-guilty-of-terror-offense-for-not-giving-passwords-to-uk-police/ Cautious (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a good source and it includes an admission from police that Rabbani was 'targeted', because he was known to be carrying client info about someone allegedly tortured by the US, also that Rabbani believed the guidelines to police (which exclude client info), exempted him from the requirement to 'hand over' his passwords. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Additional source. Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Zakat

Quotations from Quran bring also specific meanings. If it recalls situation of ransoming Muslim slaves for example, and associates terrorist suspects with slaves this is important information. Cautious (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Here you have ransoming captives 'Al-Qurtubi said: “Our scholars have said that ransoming the prisoners with money is waajib (obligatory), even if one dirham does not remain in the Islamic Treasury.' By prisoners they mean capitves taken during the war. There is important question of roles associated with Qurannic quotes. —Cautious (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
"Quotations from Quran bring also specific meanings" Says who? Show me the secondary sources that say that these Koranic verses at this event had any particular significance, otherwise it is blatant WP:OR of a primary source. The most you could conclude from the primary source is that Muslim obligation to help prisoners was discussed at the event, with quotes from the Koran. Is that really surprising at a Muslim event? Pincrete (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC) … … ps one of CAGEs complaints is that there IS no PoW status for anybody caught up in the 'war on terror'. PoWs are at least guaranteed minimum standards of treatment under international law. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Did you read these quotes??? I did. Cage appeals to the people, who do not believe United Kingdom is their homeland. This is direct conclusion from the quotes and explanations provided by CAGE. However, as CAGE is political organisation, let us add a chapter about political direction and let us list their opinions. Answer for PS. ISIS is not state and war on terror is not war with any state. Therefore there cannot be POW status for combatants. I am not satisfied with present state, Gitmo and etc. Nevertheless, I see why it was setup this way. Cautious (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course I re-read them today, I've probably read every source on this page many times. I see no mention of appealing to British people who don't feel UK is their home, but regardless, we can only use primary sources for the most minimal factual accounts. Find a reliably sourced secondary account of the 'sinister nature' of that event and we can discus.
Nobody has ever even claimed that Begg or CAGE are connected to ISIS, Begg was previously accused of being peripherally involved with AQ. The US released him because after 3 years, mostly in solitary, they still had zero evidence. The article isn't here to satisfy you or me, it is to present reliably sourced, neutrally phrased information. You are perfectly entitled to think that Begg is the devil incarnate if you wish, and that CAGE is evil, you can't however use WP to promote your opinion. Pincrete (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Who said that Begg is ISIS? Begg is Khalifa supporter, nevertheless his Khalifa is another than ISIS. I don’t find your answer related to Zakat appeal of Cage. Zakat appeal compares terror suspects arrested by United Kingdom to Muslim warriors abducted by oppressors. Do you need examples from Zakat appeal? Cautious (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Cautious (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
No I need a reliable secondary source that discusses the significance of these verses being recited at this CAGE event, otherwise it's OR. Even if you were a world famous Islamic scholar, YOUR interpretation of the CAGE press release would not be acceptable on WP until it had been published and reviewed elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
We need to quote them. Their meaning is obvious. Cautious (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
IF their meaning were obvious, (to anyone but yourself), we would reasonably expect RS to have reported that. Since they didn't AFAIK, there is no possibility of your interpretation of their significance being included here. Go to WP:RSN if you don't agree. Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
RS is own Cage web page, isn't it? Cautious (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It is a primary source, as has already been explained to you. It cannot be used as a source for anything but the most basic factual info. Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We are going to use primary source as factual info, aren’t we? You have restored untrue quotation. Please restore version based on actual quotation from Cage Web page. Cautious (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes form 'imprisoned', since this is a paraphrase, rather than a quote of: "when Muslims are imprisoned unjustly, as is the case in Guantanamo". Your original is from the opening sentence: "The history of Islam is replete with stories of men and women facing imprisonment and abuse at the hands of oppressors", ie it is 'background', it says nothing about this event or its purpose. Pincrete (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

...except that "when Muslims are imprisoned unjustly, as is the case in Guantanamo" is false quote. You are promoting false information, could you please tell me why?Cautious (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The only word in quotes in that section of the article is "unjustly", everything else is paraphrase - as it should be. There is no benefit to long quotes in a trivial fund raising event. The event barely deserves to be included at all (a muslim organisation holding a fund-raiser during Ramadan WOW! Whatever next? Christian charities making appeals at Christmas I expect!). It is certainly not a vehicle for your - or anyones's WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
apparently CAGE uses quotation comparing the terrorists with fighters in the way of Allah. They are appealing to people, who support terrorists and this is important to mention, instead of false quotation. Cautious (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"They are appealing to people, who support terrorists", do you have a citation for that? WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well. The strongest criticism I have read, from far-rightish US sources, is that they are 'apologists' for Islamism, which is in the article. Pincrete (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Series of edits

Re: this series of edits, firstly the quotes you use are taken out of context, for example "The history of Islam is replete with stories of men and women facing imprisonment and abuse at the hands of oppressors.", this is the history of Islam, not this event. Secondly, the judge and prosecution accepted that Rabbani had previously refused to give passwords, without prosecution, the magistrate even accepted that he had confidential info about a client on his laptop, therefore there is no need for it to be 'allegedly'. 'Rabbani said' means it is his claim, therefore no need to make that 'claimed' either. Lastly, the CAGE press release makes no mention of any demonstration, and it is the CAGE headline, not Rabbani claiming 'a moral victory'. Additionally, you interspersed the 'CAGE statement' text into text which came from the Gdn, thus breaking the link between text and refs. Pincrete (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There is source included, where Rabbani claims moral victory. You havent read the sources again.Cautious (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
That is a new source, the text has been modified to allow for it, although Rabbani actually says won the moral argument, not victory.
I don't see why you think that so important, the magistrate (partially) and Rabbani's solicitor seemed to agree. The dispute is whether a low-ranking police officer can routinely access, and copy if so desired, confidential info on a laptop, without demonstrating 'good cause'. Pincrete (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, you just removed exact quotation that could be interpreted in that way. It says Zakat shall be paid to support jihad sadaqat (here meaning zakah) is only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah [Mujaidhun] and for the [stranded] traveller – an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise. Cautious (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The quotation from Quran shall be discussed in details because it distinguish innocent people from evil phanatics Cautious (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete you didn’t restored political activity chapter despite it has been proven to you that Cage is clearly against whoever who fights terrorists. Cautious (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
More WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Find a reliable newspaper, book etc. that describes CAGE as "evil fanatics" or any of the other opinions you have about CAGE and it can be added as 'criticism', though it is already there. NOBODY IS INTERESTED in YOUR opinion, particularly when it is based on you interpreting press releases made by CAGE themselves. What is difficult to understand about that? Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I would be the most intersting, what political opinions of you motivated you to delete chapter political activities? Cage itself clearly stated their political agenda. It is enough to quote. Cautious (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Zakat chapter, I am trying to make you sensible that choice of Quranic quotation is meaningful to describe agenda of Cage. I am not saying they are evil fanatics, I am saying that the spectrum is from inncoent person to evil fanatics. My proposal is to list the Quranic verses they find worthy of quoting and it is up to reader to interpret it. Obviously we shall skip your false quotation, unless you give exact source. Cautious (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cage_(organisation)/Archive_1&oldid=1079508939"