Talk:Ismael Ali Faraj Ali Bakush

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Identity

I removed the "Identity" section with the "Captive 708...", there i no good reason or need for such a section in this article and it was dehumanizing and based on WP:OR by WP:SYN. IQinn (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation above, IMO, falls short. Genuine lapses due to WP:SYN insert a novel interpretation. I do not believe this section, or the dozens of similar sections User:Iqinn removed, with even less explanation than they supplied here, inserted a novel interpretation.

I have repeatedly asked User:Iqinn to be specific as to how he believes these passage lapse from compliance with WP:OR. They haven't chosen to offer a specific explanation or point to the specific passage they believe lapses from WP:OR.

This captive was identified, on official documents, by four very differnt names. I believe it is important to identify which documents used which names. Geo Swan (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims what User Iqinn has done and not done are mostly false and this part is once again ad hominum and uncivil. Please do not do this.

Why? do you believe that is important to have a section of a list of misspellings based on "primary sources" that has been put together based on your personal research?

Why? do you think is it not enough to list the notable alternate names in the info box?

Sure we can verify it as we can verify millions of other information but this is not a reason for inclusion. Why? do you think this section would improve the quality of the article? What is the value for our readers? What is the topic of the section?

The section is a clear violation of WP:OR by WP:SYN as it creates an idea that is not stated in any of these sources WP:NOT#OR. The change of the title to "Inconsistent identification" as you suggested does not fix this.

Such a section is unnecessary without value for our readers. Another serious problem with this kind of section - that has been mass added to hundreds of biographies of Guantanamo detainees by only one editor - is that it dehumanize the detainees as it deprives them of their individuality. You think depriving these detainees of there individuality is not dehumanizing? It surely is and it is unnecessary. IQinn (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions in fora in the wikipedia name space, and on articles' talk pages, are supposed to be confined to editorial issues, and not stray into issues of personal conflict. The wiki-id Iqinn asserts that they are being misrepresented, so often, or that descriptions of the wiki-id Iqinn's activities are "mostly false", so often, I have decided not to offer specific replies to each assertion. Instead I decided to link to a single reply on his talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right they should be content focused so please avoid such incidents in the future. I would welcome your specific reply but i guess you avoid specific replies as looking at your post above everybody can see that i am right.

I am looking forward to your reply concerning the content issue. IQinn (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to return and respond here. As I have written elsewhere our more diligent readers, and our fellow contributors, may choose to try to verify that individuals like Ismael Ali Faraj Ali Bakush really was officially identified using all these quite different variants. Stripping the article of the passage where the different variants are referenced makes this much more difficult.

We have articles on Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain and Joseph Stalin, when those individuals real names were "Charles Dodgson", "Sam Clemens" and "Lavrenti Djugvali". Those three articles need references for diligent readers and other wikipedians to confirm that they were in fact known by multiple names. And so do articles on individuals like Ismael Ali Faraj Ali Bakush. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the contributor who excised this section still has not offered a meaningful collegial explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removal of valid and useful wikilinks

This article is one of a series that had a number of valid and useful wikilinks removed with an edit summary "unlink interpretation of questionable source". I don't think this is a sufficient explanation, and I don't think this removal of wikilinks was a good idea.

These four excisions remove thirty valid and useful wikilinks. They also removed five {{sic}} templates.

User:Iqinn made 246 similar excisions, removing several thousand valid and useful wikilinks, based on his assertion that they relied on a "questionable source".

I am going on record here that all 250 of these excisions of valid and useful wikilinks should be reverted. Geo Swan (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to record here that this has been discussed on your talk page and that you have chosen not to continue the discussion after it was shown that your arguments are weak. Instead of discussing you started and edit war about this and after you did not succeed with that you are now posting misleading false post like this one to talk pages. Please do not do this. It is very disruptive. IQinn (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asserting that you have offered a meaningful, substantive, policy based explanation of your edit summary "unlink interpreation of questionable source"? If so where is that meaningful, substantive, policy based explanation? I honnestly believe that you have not offered a meaningful, substantive, policy based explanation.

In my opinion, so long as you do not offer a meaningful, substantive, policy based explanation of your excision of these valid and useful wikilinks it you who has abandoned discussion, or rather you never really took up the obligation of entering into that discussion.

Further, I have drawn your attention to the advice of WP:Reverting#When to revert, which states (emphasis as in the original):

"If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.

I do not believe you have offered a meaningful, substatntive, policy based explanation as to why we shouldn't take that advice. Even if, for the sake of argument, you had offered a serious explanation of your excision, because I am a good faith contributor I still think we should follow the advice of WP:Reverting#When to revert. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely wrong. You may check your talk page where this has been explained and discussed. And were you refused to discuss and started and edit war and after that did not work you are posting misleading posts to talk pages. Please do not do this. That is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your statement at face value, and assuming what you say is true, it is still not sufficient to say that you left a message on somebody's (over-crowded) user_talk page...and that constitutes the necessary consensus to make 246 autonomous removals of information from articles based on your personal preference. You must discuss your issues, and frame your arguments, on the talk page of the articles themselves, simply saying "I have already left a message to User:X about this issue and he did not respond" does not come close to meriting widespread removal of information from Bakush's article, or others. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not speaking about one message there where extended discussions with the main author of the Guantanamo section who has created most of the articles and all these links inside these primary sources. After the discussion came to a point where it was shown that his arguments are weak he did not reply to the relevant discussion and started edit warring and spreading misleading post to talk pages. I have ask this contributor to have the courtesy to go back to the previous discussion and to answer my questions and to provide valid counter arguments.IQinn (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that (1) my arguments were shown to be weak; (2) that my arguments were weak; (3) that I have ever edit-warred on this topic, related topics, or any topics; (4) that I have declined to answer any civil and specific questions.

My own personal preference, and the wikipedia's civility policies and conventions, oblige us to do our best to offer civil, meaningful and substantive answers to civil and specific questions. I believe my record shows I have done a good job at doing that. Sometimes I choose to try to offer civil, meaningful and substantive answers to questions that aren't civil, or that are vague, where it is hard to plumb what point the questioner is trying address. But I do not believe I am obliged to continue to answer the questions or other concerns of individuals who continue to phrase their concerns in vague terms. I do not believe I am obliged to continue to answer the concerns that are expressed in a manner that is not consistent with our civility policies. I do not believe I am obliged to continue to answer the concerns of individuals who choose to ignore my meaningful, substantive and policy-based counter-points, or who choose to ignore my meaningful, substantive and policy-based counter-questions.

I have told my User:Iqinn several times in the last month or so, that I am willing to take at face value that they honestly believe they have offered meaningful answers to my request for an explanation as to which policy, guideline or established convention authorized them to excise wikilinks that they consider relied on a "questionable source". I have asked in return that they take at face value that I have re-read everything they have written about "questionable sources", and cannot find that explanation. I have asked them to rephrase the telling argument they remember making, or to provide a diff to where they made that telling argument, or to cut and past the key passages of that telling argument.

I repeat that request here. Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told my User:Geo Swan several times in the last month of so that this has been discussed here User_talk:Geo_Swan/archive/2009-October-to-December#Request_to_update_CSRT_allegations_missing_from_the_transcripts and at other places. Instead of providing meaningful substantive arguments he started edit warring User_talk:Geo_Swan/archive/2009-October-to-December#Could_you_please_stop_your_edit_war.3F. I have ask him here User_talk:Geo_Swan/archive/2009-October-to-December#May_i_ask_you... and here User_talk:Geo_Swan/archive/2009-October-to-December#May_i_ask_you_again... and at multiple other places to stop his uncivil disruptive behavior. IQinn (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]