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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
There was a discussion, several years ago, about the Guantanamo categories. The clear consensus from that discussion was that
Category:Guantanamo detainees known to have been released should supplement not supplant the categories you deleted. Of course if you have some reason to suggest the one category should supplant the others you are perfectly free to advance your arguments. But could you please stop this initiative until you have taken in the feedback of other contributors?
Geo Swan (
talk)
02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)reply
In other discussions I asked you whether you were arguing that we should use the names captives said were their names, in place of the names the DoD used on its 2006 official lists of names.
While you said that was not your position, you subsequently used many arguments that implied you wanted to follow their preferred name.
I know you attribute great scholarship to the NYTimes choice of names -- although they have never implied any scholarship.
I regard constitency as very important, and I find your ongoing unwillingness to have a central discussion of the common issues around considering whether or not to rename these articles extremely disturbing.
Geo Swan (
talk)
03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)reply
No that is wrong i do not think and never thought we should base our name choice on the primary source of the DoD when we have better sources. I suggest to base the name choice on reliable secondary sources as we always prefer reliable secondary sources. Do you have other reliable sources than the NYTimes? The NYTimes even list the alternate names of the detainee.
I told you before the NYTimes is one of the most reliable sources with the highest reputation for fact checking in the world. And i suggest you bring it to the administrator notice board if you want to challenge common knowledge.
No need for a central discussion I find your continues filibustering posts and discussions disruptive and it prevents us from further improving the articles.
Did you do at least a Google search for the best name of this article. Did you check my suggestion in the search and compared it with other sources? What sources do you have that supports the name that is used now?
IQinn (
talk)
03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)reply
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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
There was a discussion, several years ago, about the Guantanamo categories. The clear consensus from that discussion was that
Category:Guantanamo detainees known to have been released should supplement not supplant the categories you deleted. Of course if you have some reason to suggest the one category should supplant the others you are perfectly free to advance your arguments. But could you please stop this initiative until you have taken in the feedback of other contributors?
Geo Swan (
talk)
02:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)reply
In other discussions I asked you whether you were arguing that we should use the names captives said were their names, in place of the names the DoD used on its 2006 official lists of names.
While you said that was not your position, you subsequently used many arguments that implied you wanted to follow their preferred name.
I know you attribute great scholarship to the NYTimes choice of names -- although they have never implied any scholarship.
I regard constitency as very important, and I find your ongoing unwillingness to have a central discussion of the common issues around considering whether or not to rename these articles extremely disturbing.
Geo Swan (
talk)
03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)reply
No that is wrong i do not think and never thought we should base our name choice on the primary source of the DoD when we have better sources. I suggest to base the name choice on reliable secondary sources as we always prefer reliable secondary sources. Do you have other reliable sources than the NYTimes? The NYTimes even list the alternate names of the detainee.
I told you before the NYTimes is one of the most reliable sources with the highest reputation for fact checking in the world. And i suggest you bring it to the administrator notice board if you want to challenge common knowledge.
No need for a central discussion I find your continues filibustering posts and discussions disruptive and it prevents us from further improving the articles.
Did you do at least a Google search for the best name of this article. Did you check my suggestion in the search and compared it with other sources? What sources do you have that supports the name that is used now?
IQinn (
talk)
03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)reply