Talk:Casio F91W

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember I had a Casio F91W way before 1997, so the date of introduction referenced in the article is no correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cirilobeto (talk • contribs). 16:09, 2006 July 2

Contents

[edit] I had one, too.

I had one since about 1992. Though now the area where the strap pins go through has broken off on one side, I still keep it running since I think it keeps particularly good time. Not to mention this watch gets rather astounding battery life. It's only on it's second battery since I got it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.93.6 (talk • contribs). 20:10, 2006 July 20

I will remove the date of introduction in the article while it is stablished in which date it was actually introduced. I'm positively sure that this watch was from the late 80's / early 90's. --Cirilobeto 17:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am on my fourth of these. They last about 4-5 years (the last two I bought at Fry's in San Jose or Palo Alto, the most recent less than a year ago). They are remarkably reliable and accurate (all four gained time slightly, but no more than a second a week) 65.91.54.2 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy

I don't see how the stuff about terrorists it relevant, especially in so much detail. Maybe some background, and cult following information would be better? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.200.13.168 (talk • contribs). 17:25, 2006 October 20

You are joking right? The alleged association with terrorism is the most interesting thing about this watch. -- Geo Swan 07:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly relevant, but yes the detail is unnecessary in this article. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate you explaining yourself more fully. The details are (1) verifiable; (2) Not original research; (3) and, IMO, does not represent a biased point of view.
IMO many of those who challenge whether potentially embarrassing instances of gaffes and failures on the part of the Bush administration merit coverage on the wikipedia are unconscious victims of the wikipedia's demographic-based systematic bias.
All reasonable people recognize that even the most competently run organizations will have the occasional thing go wrong. It seems to me that many of those who want to suppress aspects of the Bush administration's policy of holding suspects, for years on end, without charge, and without providing them with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence against them unconsciously assume that the errors that occur that flow from that policy are the very limited kind one can expect even in well-run organizations.
Advocating the removal of these well-documented details is, IMO, a POV. Removing well-documented details of failures of this program, on the assumption that they are of a very limited nature, is, IMO, a failure to conform to the policy of writing from a neutral point of view.
I strongly encourage you to read a random selection of the transcripts of the Guantanamo detainees Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings for yourself. Is justifying the continued detention of a Guantanamo detainee because they were wearing a casio digital watch reasonable? Is justifying the continued detention of fifteen or more men because they were captured wearing a casio digital watch reasonable? You or I or other wikipedia contributors can't offer our opinions on the reasonableness of this policy, in the article without violating NPOV, just as censoring the embarrassing details violates NPOV.
I believe it is important to provide the detail necessary to allow responsible, open-minded readers to form their own opinions as to this aspect of the policy's reasonableness.
If you read a random selection of detainee transcripts you will find other aspects of where the Bush administration's description of this policy is wildly at variance with its actual implementation:
  • The Guantanamo intelligence analysts, even after four years, have not been able to figure out a consistent system for transliterating the detainees names.
    • The Department of Defense has released two official lists of detainee names, nationalities, and internal ID numbers. Although the two lists were only released 25 days apart, on April 20, 2006 and May 15, 2006, the two list differ significantly on how detainees names were transliterated.
    • The Department of Defense routinely thwarted the attempts of Mani Al Utaybi's lawyers to contact him. They told them that they must be spelling his name wrong. Mani Al Utaybi was one of the three captives alleged to have committed suicide on June 10, 2006. His lawyers never had a chance to tell him that he wasn't facing a lifetime in Guantanamo, but had been cleared for transfer home to Saudi Arabia. This is the kicker. Although the deaths were reported just 26 days following the release of the full official list of all the names of all the Guantanamo detainees, the DoD spelled his name wildly, unrecognizably different on June 10th than they did on May 25th and April 20th.
    • You are probably familiar with the case of Khalid el-Masri, the innocent German citizen who spent five months being tortured by the CIA in the salt pit because his name matched that of an al Qaida suspect. Well, if you read the detainee's transcripts you will come across dozens of detainees who seem to have been detained as a result of mistaken identity. The kicker here is that, even after el-Masri's story has made the front page of newspapers around the world, even after Dr Rice and the German Chancellor personally discussed his case, el-Masri, whose innocence has been established, without question, was refused a visa when he wanted to enter the USA to file suit for his kidnapping. Was he still on the list of suspects after all this attention?
    • One of the more extreme cases of mistaken identity concerns Abdullah Khan, who was captured when he was denounced as really being Khirullah Khairkhwa, the Taliban regime's chief reader of press releases, and, in 2000 and 2001, the Governor of Herat Province. All of Khan's interrogations consisted of his interrogators insisting he was really Khairkhwa, Khan denying that he was Khairkhwa, and his interrogators insisting he was lying. This pattern continued for the first year and a half he was held in Guantanamo, in spite of his repeated pleas for them to check the prison roster, so they could see that they already held the real Khairkhwa, had held him for over a year, in another section of the camp.
  • The most recent Denbeaux study documents that, contrary to the repeated insistence of the Bush administration spokesmen, the detainees were not, in practice, allowed to call witnesses in their defense. Some detainees were allowed to call other detainees as witnesses. Others were told that their Tribunal's President had ruled that the testimony they requested was "not relevant". Other detainees were told that the witnesses they requested couldn't be found, even though they were fellow Guantanamo detainees -- possibly due to the failure of the camp authorities to figure out how to maintain a reliable prisoner roster.
    • Tribunal Presidents didn't rule out all "off-island" witnesses. They frequently ruled that they were "relevant", then set in motion a diplomatic process to contact those witnesses, that failed in each and every case. (Not 98 or 99% of the time, but fully 100% of the time.)
      • The Tribunal President would authorize sending a request to the State department...
      • The State Department was then supposed to pass on the request to the Washington embassy of the country the witness was supposed to be residing in.
      • The Tribunal President was then counting on the Washington embassy to pass the request on to the civil service back home, and was then counting on the foreign government's civil service to find and contact the witness, to see if they would give their testimony on the detainee's behalf.
      • The Tribunals usually allowed only three weeks for all the steps in this process to take place.
It is, in my opinion, extremely important for the coverage of Guantanamo, and the Guantanamo detainees, to be full and complete, because I believe our safety hinges on it. It is, in my opinion, important that those who make decisions on how to spend our counter-terrorism resources do so in a professional, clear-headed, well-informed, unemotional manner. And, if those making those decisions are going to do so in a well-informed manner, they need to be able to rely on trustworthy intelligence, gathered, collated, compiled by professional, clear-headed, well-informed, unemotional intelligence analysts.
Have the senior officials responsible for the intelligence gathering at Guantanamo taken the necessary steps to ensure that the intelligence effort was run in a professional, clear-headed, well-informed, unemotional manner? That is not for you or I or other wikipedia contributors to state, in article space. But I am certainly going to argue here for the importance of fully documenting, in detail, every well-documented instances that suggests the intelligence effort there has been unprofessional, ill-informed, incompetently performed, tinged, at times soaked, in malice, and a blind, and entirely inappropriate thirst for vengeance and retribution.
Remember, those arguing that Guantanamo is well-run, and producing worthwhile intelligence, are the same people who assured the World that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed a vast arsenal of WMD that represented an imminent threat.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 12:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is about a wristwatch. This is not so much about the policies you quoted, but about whether this level of detail belongs in this article. It appears that you have quite a bit to say about this and I have no reason to believe any of it is out of line. I would probably create a separate article for this subject, however, and link it from here. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


I agree with the comments that the level of detail is irrelevant to this article. Especially since the same details are included in the biographical articles for the detainees. This article should mention the subject but the detail should be elsewhere. 169.3.168.209 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to offer the reasoning behind your agreement?
Take a look at the other watches in Category:watches. They are mainly mere stubs. If the connection to terrorism was taken out, the Casio F91W article would be little more than a stub. Let's be frank, by far the most likely reason anyone would look up this watch is due to the alleged link to terrorism. So how does removing that material, or putting it in a subsidiary article enhance the utility of the wikipedia?
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indirect Source

Source #3 does not have the original document as the link, It should be this instead: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj4.htm

Other links may also be references to original articles... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.192.206.19 (talk • contribs). 21:50, 2006 October 20

In last time terrorists used the Casio DB-36 model. :) http://www.watch.watchzone.ru/casio/Casio_DB-36-9.phtml--Sergei Frolov 17:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] that watch is the most cheap watch and the the most reliable

That is why bombers use that. You can not find that accuracy for this price. And a qualified basic electronic circuit, strong building.That was my first watch, i am keeping that since 1993...And it still works correctly. -- canerinmersin 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleting unexplained tag

I deleted the unexplained {dispute} tag.

Like many other tags, the {dispute} tag tells interested readers to look to the talk page for a discussion of the tag. So far as I am concerned, this places a burden on the person who placed the tag to explain themselves. -- Geo Swan 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think this paragraph should go...

The following paragraph was recently added:

"In the Combatant Status Review Tribunal summaries of evidence and hearing transcripts that the United States Department of Defence has disclosed as furnishing its reasons for illegally holding "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it is apparent that numerous persons have been imprisoned for years, largely because they possessed a Casio F91W watch. (See for example the person at page 16 of this DOD summary of evidenceand also the person at page 16 of this hearing transcript)."

I think it should be removed, because it stretches how far we can go inserting our own conclusions. Personally, I too suspect that the current detainee policy will eventually be acknowledged to have been illegal. But it is premature to state, as a fact, that it is "illegal". Citing, or quoting, an authoritative commentator, who states it is illegal is OK. But the unattributed assertion that the policy is illegal is not okay.

Similarly, what is apparent is subjective. Citing, or quoting, an authoritative commentator who states something is apparent is OK. Without a reference it is not NPOV.

The summary of evidence and transcript they cite, are those of Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari and Mazin Salih Musaid... already cited in the table.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Most of this stuff should go in a generic Guantanamo article. But this bit "When the Department of Defense was forced to comply with US District Court justice Jed Rakoff's court order to release the documents from Guantanamo detainees' Combatant Status Review Tribunals it became known that the allegations against at least 17 of the Guantanamo detainees justified their continued detention because they had been wearing this model of watch, when captured." needs to be considered carefully, the source given is a blog. Rich Farmbrough, 14:43 8 February 2007 (GMT).

Could you explain the reasoning behind your suggestion more fully?
In my opinion the wikipedia will work best if it allows readers the greatest range of choices to follow through the multidimensional universe of human knowledge. Those wikipedians -- I don't know if you are one -- who feel an omnipresent "urge to merge" articles do us all a disservice, by artificially chaining us to the inherent restrictions of paper documents. Paper documents are inherently one dimensional. The natural way to read a paper document is to start reading at the beginning, and read through to the end. And mergists want to artificially bind us into those bounds on the wikipedia.
We have an article about the Casio F91W, and we don't have articles about the hundreds of other models of digital watch, because the Casio F91W is the terrorist watch. People who come to this article are almost certainly going to be coming here because they read about the connection between this watch and terrorism.
You suggest putting the material about the terrorism connection in a generic Guantanamo article? You realize that if we followed this suggestion with every thing that touches on Guantanamo that generic Guantanamo article would be far too long to be useful. It would be too large to be rendered.
The alleged connection between the watch and terrorism is not confined to the captives held at Guantanamo. Ahmed Ressam reportedly bought two Casio F91W while on his way to bomb LAX. One of the Afghan training camps reportedly gave every alumnus a Casio F91W as a graduation gift. Would it make as much sense, if we were going to merge the terrorism related material into the article on that training camp as it would to merge it with a "generic Guantanamo article". Face it. Merging the material is going to short-change one reader or another. Far better to leave it were it is.
Can't we do the merge, and have a robot go and amend the several dozen articles that link to this article, so they point to something like [[Generic Guantanamo article#The allegation Guantanamo captives wore a Casio F91W]]? No. This is a broken idea. When an article links to another article, wikipedia editors can check the "what links here" button. But, if we have a big huge article, as you suggest, that covers multiple related topics, an editor has no way of knowing that if they change a sub-heading, it will break dozens of links. Or, an editor could decide that the material about the watch didn't belong in the Guantanamo article, and erase it, or go and try to create a new article, like [[improvised timers for improvised explosive devices]].
But, maybe I should have waited for your explanation before I marshalled counter-arguments?
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting how many captives faced the allegation they wore a Casio?

Cheers! Geo Swan 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/s/Talk%7ECasio_F91W_4c84.html"