Talk:Camp Nama

Use of graphic from NYT article

I'm wondering if we can post the graphic of "No Blood No Foul" graphic that accompanies the NYT article? It's the logo for Nama isn't it? Or is that the property of the NYT?--ksgant 08:11, March 21, 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I think it's technically public domain since it was created by the government. Same with the note to Gen. Boykin, I think.--csloat 08:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrote to Eric Schmitt asking for a glance over on the facts and if graphic was a problem to use here, he said no problem. And you're right, it should be public domain.--ksgant 13:29, March 21, 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you should ask him about the acronym too.-csloat 19:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nasty Ass Military Area"

I haven't deleted this because the NYT article says the name is an acronym for something unpublishable, but this seems a bit unlikely. Can we get confirmation, or a source?--csloat 05:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/03/nasty_ass_military_area.html should cover it

Article based on one NYT article

This article seems to based almost entirely on one NYT article. It either needs more sources, (best solution) or it needs to be made clear that it is. <<-armon->> 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The NYT article itself is based on more than a dozen sources, and no articles have been published since refuting the claims from that article that I am aware of. If you're going to insert weasel words questioning the integrity of the NYT's reporting on this matter, be sure to keep those facts clear in your changes. Thanks. csloat 03:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after re-reading the article, I don't understand your complaint. Nearly every paragraph starts with "the NYT reported" or "according to the NYT article." And that article is the only article in the references. So it already seems resoundingly clear that it is based on one NYT article. There won't be any need for weasel words, methinks (additional articles are always welcome, however). csloat 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added more sources. Hope this helps. csloat 03:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

0 to O

I changed the 03 and 06 in the SGT "Perry" block to O3 and O6, as this is the proper notation. If you choose to revert these changes to reflect the actual writing in the article (assuming it is incorrect in the original article), perhaps a "[sic]" should be added to the block. The O is for officer. Enlisted pay grades begin with E for enlisted. Warrant officer pay grades begin with W. To illustrate the concept: 2LT = O1, 1LT = O2, CPT = O3, etc...Mrmb6b02 22:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)