Talk:Hozaifa Parhat

Hey!

How come I can't (minorly) edit the Combatant Status section? There's some unexpected stuff there. Is NSA on to this? (haha) Mashford (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you can edit it. Just use the "Edit this page" instead of "Edit this section" to edit anything beneath the template - and if you want to change the wording of the template itself (while keeping it applicable to all 450 detainees whose page it will appear on), you can do that as well. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

removal of questionable information

The "Parhat v. Gates" section had this passage that i have removed for the following reasons: 1) The introduction of this passage (hidden in the template) does not make clear the real source for the text. 2) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 3) The introduction to this text presents the information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 4) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 5) The introduction to this text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor. I have strong concerns to present this information in the way it has been done here. Please discuss. IQinn (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1) If the introduction does not make something clear, fix it! :)

2) I'm unsure how the tribunal proceedings of the US military can be dubbed "questionable", we qualify all the statements explaining they're American allegations.

3) I re-loaded the 78-page document to which you are referring, the biography is absolutely present. Your failure to find it reminds of your failure last week to notice there were two pages to a cited document - and your subsequent attempt to remove sourced information from the article. Read things more closely before assuming sources are lying.

4) The text does not require multiple sources, it has a valid, reliable source which is reporting on itself. We are not using the military source to cite facts about the prisoner, we are using the military source to cite facts about the military's claims.

5) See #3. Your failure to read sources carefully is not cause to delete sourced information.

Reverted your removal of information, do not act again without consensus. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sherurcij you are edit warring! And you are acting against the consensus of the whole Wikipedia community!

You have re-inserted controversial negative material into this BLP of a living person.

You have done this against the fact that the editor who has removed it has stated his BLP concerns clearly in the edit history and talk page.

You have not waited until consensus would have been achieved for re-inclusion.

Your edit summary and the five points you list here as your response to my concerns are mostly wrong. The material is controversial and problematic and i am willing to discuss this in an orderly manner.

I have checked the article, sources and your comment again carefully. I still have strong concerns.

It is strong consensus on Wikipedia to remove and not to re-insert material that has been marked as possible problematic by other editors.

I ask you in a friendly way to end your edit war and to remove this controversial negative material from this BLP article now until things for re-inclusion and way of presentation has been discussed and solved. IQinn (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Another user" did not mark them as problematic, you marked them, you removed them. They were added/restored by multiple users that shows from a cursory look that consensus is apparently against you. If you feel this is not the case, use the talk page to garner support and consensus before you remove the information. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not getting the point here. There were only two user who have added this information. User Geo Swan added the information and you created the template where half of the information is hidden in. You both have created nearly all 800 Guantanamo related articles. And you both show extended ownership behavior. Nobody need to establish consensus with anybody to remove possible controversial negative material in BLP's of living people that is clear community consensus and supported by many people up to Jimbo Wales. You started an edit war to re-insert this problematic material. You are working against the community and cause trouble to any other editor on Wikipedia. I politely ask you again to remove this material now and to engage in a constructive debate. Edit warring is not the right way. IQinn (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. This is the entirety of my "contribution" to the article, a year ago I changed {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}} and added a template linking to other ETIM captives. I see from the edit history that 33 people have edited the article, you and Geo_Swan are the two major contributors. I have no idea what you consider an "edit war" since again, I have edited the article once in the past year, and in the year before that I edited it once just to move words to a transcluded state to make NPOV easier across multiple articles simultaneously which didn't affect the content. How two edits in two years makes an "edit war", and how you accuse me of "ownership" when you are one of the two majority editors (with twice as many edits as I have) and you are the one on the talk page saying "consensus isn't necessary to do what I want"...again, I'd suggest you review WP policies and work from the assumption that any edit you make in the future that involves removing information is going to require consensus. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you i have not smoked anything or drank anything. I am in full capacity of all my scenes and intelligence.

You told me i need consensus before removing the information. Constant reverting and asking other editors to establish consensus before doing edits IS one sign of ownership behavior. Simply doing a lot of edits to an article is not. (or read WP:ownership) I am not only speaking of one particular article. I have explained and have discussed that on Geo's talk page as you know.

You may have not made many edits to this article but you have done to many other Guantanamo related articles. And you have created for example all the templates like this one where half of the controversial information is hidden in.

Edit war. Yes, we have the same problem in 20 articles and you re-inserted the controversial negative information by reverted all of them in a very short time. Before even taking part in the discussion on the talk page. That's edit warring and it is even more troublesome if you re-insert controversial negative material in a BLP. Please remove them. IQinn (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Every edit I made was explained with a message on the talk page at the same time I made the edit, I simply restored information that was in the article with consensus for over a year - and which you autonomously dubbed "controversial" and removed (really? It's "controversial" that he was alleged to be a member of ETIM?). I am merely telling you to get consensus before making large-scale removals of properly sourced material. It's neither edit-warring, nor troublesome. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No offence but you are missing the point again. Nobody need to establish consensus with anybody to remove possible controversial negative material in BLP's of living people that is clear community consensus and supported by many people up to Jimbo Wales. You started an edit war and cause trouble by re-inserting this problematic material. You are working against the community and cause trouble to any other editor on Wikipedia. I politely ask you again to remove this material now. IQinn (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

800 articles?

Point of clarification... comments above refer to 800 articles on Guantanamo captives. 779 captives were held in Guantanamo. So we should never have articles about 800 of them. Currently we have articles about something like 550 captives -- not 800. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have overlooked. I said Guantanamo related articles. Take the detainees plus articles about procedurals, lists, camps, attorneys, safe houses... Nearly all created by you two. Want me to list them all here in detail? But you have to pay me a beer when i am not reaching 800 :) - unlikely IQinn (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

User:Iqinn perhaps it would be helpful if you tried to explain why you describe some sources as "questionable" or "problematic"?

BLP doesn't proscribe the publication of information that could be seen as negative. It says contributors should be careful about publishing descriptions that could be seen as negative, to make sure it was presented from a neutral point of view, and relied on good, verifiable, authoritative sources.

I think I already try to do that. I think Sherurcij already tries to do that. I challenge contributors when I think they have contributed non-neutral material, or material that does not rely on good, verifiable, authoritative sources -- even if that material is consistent to my personal point of view.

I think I have done a pretty good of writing about controversial material, from a neutral point of view, using good, verifiable, authoritative sources. Likewise I think Sherurcij has done a pretty good job. I don't expect to succeed one hundred percent of the time -- which is why I committed myself to do my best to really understand any civil and specific challenges to material I have contributed. I think Sherurcij does a pretty good job at understanding challenges to material he has contributed too.

Now, in this particular case I don't want to paraphrase you. I don't want to guess. I want to respond to a clearly laid out explanation as to why we should consider these sources as "questionable" or "problematic". You are the one who has described the references as "questionable" or "problematic". So I think the responsibility for this explanation lies with you.

Environmental Protection Agency officials could make statements on Global Warming. Coverage of their statements on the wikipedia should never be taken as the wikipedia endorsing the positions taken in those statements -- because we should always be writing from a neutral point of view that makes clear who is responsible for the position. In the case of global warming there are a limited number of genuine scientists who take a contrarian position on global warming. It is a controversial topic. We should present coverage of all serious positions -- from the WP:RS where those are expressed.

Can you see us letting a wikipedia contributor who had taken a contrarian position suppress the use of EPA sources, after characterizing them as "questionable" or "problematic"? Geo Swan (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It is no secret that you and Sherurcij work together very closely. Let me ask you a question first. Do you think to re-insert material that has been removed by any author under this edit summary "rm - strong BLP concern - the removed part is a misinterpretation and misrepresantation of a questionable primary source - I see this issue as taken to the talk page where i left a message" Should be re-inserted by anybody without discussing the issue first on the talk page and to wait until problems have been solved and consensus by the community has been reached? IQinn (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)