Talk:Zakim Shah (Guantanamo detainee 898)

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.

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Afghanistan

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles

explanation...

The image that i have removed from the article violates the basic rules of Wikipedia. It is the own work of a Wikipedia editor who took a primary source combined it with other sources and then interpreted it in the image description. This is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that these are mostly primary sources has also further problems as it does not comply with the policies of BLP's of living people. So i see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

representation and factual accuracy

The article claims that he was release to Pakistan. I can not find this in the attached reference. It is also inconsistent with this source where it says he was transferred to Afghanistan.

I also think that the Bagram detention section is not well presented. I have added more sources as external links until i may find more time in the future to work here. I also think the lead section and "Identity" part needs work... IQinn (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 'Identity' section as it was dehumanizing and confusing and the claim that he was released to Pakistan was not given in the source. IQinn (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate title

The article has been renamed recently from Zakim Shah to Zakim Shah (Guantanamo captive 898).

The adding of "Guantanamo captive 898" is dehumanizing and an inappropriate name for the biography of Zakim Shah.

These should be absolutely avoided if there are other possibilities and it should be made an meaningful attempted for each individual to find a better name that is not inappropriate or dehumanizing.

Let's have a look at this article here the biography of Zakim Shah. In my opinion there was no need to rename this article from Zakim Shah to Zakim Shah (Guantanamo captive 898).

I know the author who renamed the article here has also created a new article of an individual with the same name. It is the same editor who knows that the adding of (Guantanamo captive xxx) to the individuals name is controversial and should be avoided if possible.

I know that we have a few articles where it will be difficult to find a solution to avoid in the (Guantanamo captive xxx) but i do think we can avoid this here in the biography of Zakim Shah.

We have now two articles with the same name. Zakim Shah (Afghan election official) and Zakim Shah (Guantanamo captive 898) the former Guantanamo detainee.

I suggest the following solution.

1) we delete the disambiguation page that the same editor has created. Move this article back to Zakim Shah and then add a link on the top of each article to point to the other article.

2} move the new disambiguation page to Zakim Shah (disambiguation) and move the page here back to Zakim Shah and add links from both article to the disambiguation page.

Other editors might also come up with more solution. Either of this solution i have given avoids the dehumanizing and inappropriate article name for the biography of Zakim Shah.

I would like to ask the contributor who has renamed this article to consider and possible to agree to one of the from me proposed solutions and to engage in a meaningful debate that focus on solving the problem with the inappropriate title and i would like to ask contributers to limit their replies to an acceptable size and a few arguments at a time. Cheeres IQinn (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accepting here that there are Guantanamo captives who share the same name, and for whom there is no other practical disambiguator than something like "(Guantanamo captive Nnn)"? If so I thank you for considering points other contributors advanced in good faith, on their merits.

Will you accept that, due to Pashto and Arabic being written in a non-Roman script, for which there is no agreed upon standard for transliteration, names like Bismullah, Bismaullah, Bismallah, are actually the same name, and have to be disambiguated, using the ID number?

Approximately ten percent of the Guantanamo captives' names required disambuation, the last time I did an inventory. It might be more than ten percent then. At the time I did that inventory slightly more of them required disambiguation form other captives than required disambiguation from individuals who weren't captives.

Are you suggesting that those captives who require disambiguation from one another should keep the disambiguator "(Guantanamo captive Nnn)", but that it would be acceptable to you if the remainder used the disambiguator "(Guantanamo captive)"? So this article would become "Zakim Shah (Guantanamo captive)"?

If you meant to suggest this as a compromise I will agree to it.

FWIW, I believe that under this compromise approximately half of those aritcles with disambiguators would have those disambiguators changed to "(Guantanamo captive)". Geo Swan (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to limit this discussion to this article here. I think it is possible.

I have suggested two working solutions above 1) 2) above to improve on the name for this article here and i would like to ask you to respond to this suggest solutions and to work towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you that in December and January you committed yourself, in half a dozen different discussion, to working collegially with other contributors? I suggest that if you are really going to comply with this commitment you have to explain yourself more fully here. You wrote:

"I would like to ask you to limit this discussion to this article here. I think it is possible."

This is possible, and I would happily agree to this -- if you could advance a good reason for limiting it to this article. You haven't done so. You haven't tried to offer any reason for doing so.

I saw you renamed Habibullah (Afghan detainee) to Habibullah (torture victim) -- which is consistent with Dilawar (torture victim). So, it seems you recognize, as I do, the importance of consistency. So I am mystified as to why are you opposing consistency with these names?

Please review "WP:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?". It is only when one of the articles that needs disambiguation is pre-eminently more important than all the others that it gets pride of place, and the disambiguation pages is moved to article (disambiguation). Otherwise Zakim Shah remains the disambiguation page. Feel free to write what you think of this recommendation, at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Geo Swan (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want a reason why we should discuss the name for the article here on the talk page? Sure, because it is possible. And i have suggested two workable discussions. And i would like to ask you again to work towards consensus and discuss the solutions instead of filibustering. Unfortunately for me it looks like that you reject to work out a solution for this article here. What is possible to do here on the talk page.

For Habibullah (Afghan detainee) to Habibullah (torture victim) you might start a discussion on the talk page there. Speaking about consistency the renaming follows Dilawar (torture victim). You are welcome to discuss this on the relevant talk page. Thank you IQinn (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I found the two paragraphs above far from clear and thus I don't know how to give them a good response.

I have responded to your suggestions.

You suggested this article should have pride of place, and that the disambiguation pages should be moved from Zakim Shah to Zakim Shah (disambiguation). I responded to this in the final paragraph of my last comment, where I pointed out this proposal is counter to WP:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?. So I regard that proposal as moot, as against the recommendations of the guideline.
In the first comment in this thread, you also seemed to acknowedge a point I have regarded as important -- that the only practical disambiguators for some of the Guantanamo captives, those who share a name with other captives, will have to include their ID number.
1. I asked you to confirm that you were making this concession. You haven't responded.
2. I offered a compromise to you. That all the Guantanamo captives whose names required disambiguation from non-captives have the ID number you object to trimmed from the base name of their article -- so Zakim Shah (Guantanamo captive 898) would be trimmed to Zakim Shah (Guantanamo captive). You haven't responded to this either.

With regard to your move of Habibullah (Afghan detainee) to Habibullah (torture victim) -- did I say I had a problem with this move? Personally, I do not have a problem with this move. I anticipate other people may have a problem with this renaming. If you are advised that this renaming is being challenged, please let me know. I'll speak in favor of this move.

I brought up Habibullah (torture victim) and Dilawar (torture victim) solely because I regard consistency as important and your renaming suggested you did too. Your comment above seems to suggest that, in some cases at least, you too recognize consistency as important. Geo Swan (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment where you address the second solution i have proposed i would like to ask you to voice your opinion also about the other solution that i have proposed before i will reply to your post.

1) we delete the disambiguation page that the same editor has created. Move this article back to Zakim Shah and then add a link on the top of each article to point to the other article. IQinn (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the first paragraph of your response above is not clear to me.

I honestly don't know what you mean when you refer to your "second solution" and your "other solution". I make a big effort to understand what you really mean. Could you please make the effort to read WP:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic??

Your proposals run counter to WP:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?. WP:Disambiguation says that in that case the disambiguation page gets pride of place. Yes, frequently hatnotes, that point to one another, are added to a pair of articles, but I don't think that is what WP:Disambiguation recommends. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captive --> Detainee

Following these three discussions [1] [2] [3] i have moved the page from Zakim Shah (Guantanamo captive 898) to Zakim Shah (Guantanamo detainee 898). IQinn (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]