Talk:Taliban Five

my recent edit

.... note: not that I'm against slamming McCain in principle, or calling out a flip flop of his. but make sure it's germane to the article subject. a slam is OK for outsidethebeltway.com, but Wikipedia has to be more careful about this I think. Tangy 303 Mamet Sauce (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

calling for discussion

In this edit @Tango303: excised the following passage with the edit summary "not sure what McCain's position change has to do with anything. also, "inclined to support.. depending on a lot of details" is hardly the stark, absolute opposite of "oppose". .. The cited article narrative is kind of a slam... probably not encyclopedic"

This reverses a position McCain held only four months earlier. McCain said his stance has changed only because the previous proposal was to release five “hard-core” Taliban leaders as a “confidence-building measure.” The current proposal would be an actual exchange of prisoners. “I would be inclined to support such a thing, depending on a lot of details,” he said.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Mataconis|first1=Doug|title=John McCain Was For Trading Taliban Prisoners For Sgt. Bergdahl Before He Was Against It|url=http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/john-mccain-was-for-trading-taliban-prisoners-for-sgt-bergdahl-before-he-was-against-it/|website=Outside the Beltway}}</ref>

WRT Tango303's question of "what McCain's position change has to do with anything." Excuse me, but isn't McCain a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee?

WRT the assertion "The cited article narrative is kind of a slam... probably not encyclopedic" -- Tango303, are you are arguing that Outside the beltway is not a WP:Reliable Source? Did you check the archives at WP:Reliable source noticeboard? My search shows nothing.

Very few of the references our articles use are, in and of themselves, written from what we would regard as a neutral point of view. You do understand that it is the responsibility of wikipedia contributors to make sure the generally biased sources we use as references are used in a non-biased way? Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

fine. I conceded everything, bro. don't hang all this on me. it's whatever. do your thing, man. everything's gravy. Tangy 303 Mamet Sauce (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixing inadequate references

The article had three references unnecessarily duplicated five times. I wrote to the contributor who was too careless or inexperienced to write the references they used in the standard way, and they told me my concerns were "OCD". So, I fixed it myself. Geo Swan (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Was money paid along with their release?

This article outlines the basics:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/inside-the-ring-ransom-paid-for-bergdahl/

The story is widely reported on less reputable right-wing sites as "Obama paid $5 billion in ransom", which seems implausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Involved in new Afghan government

Someone update articles with this:

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/current-taliban-leader-was-freed-exchange-deserter-bergdahl-obama-2014

https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/

Too afraid any edits I make will get reverted due to violating some rule 73.65.167.168 (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)