Jump to content

Talk:Adnan Farhan Abd Al Latif

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Life at Guantanamo" section appears to be presented as fact however...

[edit]

The first paragraph of the "Life at Guantanamo" section appears to be presented as factual but the only source given is something called "Poems from Guantanamo" which is sourced from Amnesty International (A.I.). When I went to the linked page I could not find anything called "Poems from Guantanamo." To attempt to factually represent a situation like conditions at a prison using now-unavailable poetry from the A.I. website seems to me very highly suspect without additional evidence/sourcing. It is nothing more than hearsay. Further, this article does not make clear why A.I. is used as a source nor does it establish the objectivity of A.I. as a source. Having followed the Gitmo prisoner issues somewhat closely during the 2000s, I recall that A.I. was often politically opposed to the United States, placing into question A.I.'s objectivity and reliability.

I would submit that a lot more work needs to be done in this section. As I recall from the news reports of that day, prisoners were treated reasonably well at Guantanamo Bay; Muslim prisoners were given korans and prayer rugs, allowed to pray 5 times a day, fed a Muslim diet, and so forth. This contrasts sharply with utterly inhumane conditions in which Americans who were captured by Al-Qaida or ISIS were held, if they came back alive at all. Tpkatsa (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption

[edit]

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 14:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think default sort is a mistake for Arabic names

[edit]

I think default sort is a mistake for individuals with Arabic names.

People with Arabic names don't inherit a surname, like people with an European do. Traditionally the closest thing they have to a "last name" is their father's first name.

And it is absolutely clear to me that it is a mistake to use default sort for the Guantanamo captives -- because the US Department of Defense can't consistently figure out what their names are.

Therefore I just reverted an edit where a well-meaning contributor imposed default sort on this individual.

Please don't impose default sort on these guys without discussing it first.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Name

[edit]

I don't know which of the given names is correct, but this article's title is definitely wrong and a DoD error. Arabic names don't really end with "Abd", it is always followed by "-ul" or "-al", and then one of the 99 names of Allah. Abd-al Kareem (servant of the charitable), etc. Suggest a rename to the name by which he identified himself. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, in general, I think we should stick with one of the versions of an individual's name used in a verifiable reference, even if some of us wikipedia contributors have soaked up some expertise in Arabic names, and can recognize some of the problematic transliterations. The way I see it, our corrections to transliterations are unverifiable. Some of the Guantanamo captives had names offered for them seemed to be obvious errors. One guy had "emdash" as part of his name -- very likely a misplaced typographic code. Another guy was had "Adbul" as part of his hame -- very likely it should have been "Abdul".
However, in this guy's case, perhaps one of the other five versions of his name is compliant with the naming rules you mention? I'd pick version 6, the one from his habeas petition.
  1. Allal, Ab Aljallil;
  2. Allal Ab Aljallil Abd Al Rahman Abd;
  3. Abdelrahman Abdulla Abdel Galil;
  4. Adnan Farhan Abd al Latif;
  5. Afnahn Purhan Abjillil;
  6. Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rough work

[edit]

These links to the page numbers within the OARDEC documents may be useful to other contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSRT allegations 58
CSRT transcript 85-93
habeas documents 1-40, 56-79
ARB 1 allegations 110-111
ARB 1 transcript 46-54
ARB 2 allegations 33-34
ARB 3 allegations 74-75
ARB 3 transcript 76-81
Another useful source is the The Guantanamo Docket. It is an interactive database provided and updated by the New York Times. The database is searchable and has the Pentagon documents (CSRT and ARB) included. Additional documents and reliable New York Times research regarding the detainees at Guantanamo are also provided. This is the link to the documents and research regarding Allal Ab Aljallil Abd al Rahman. IQinn (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move?

[edit]

I suggest to move this article to Allal Ab Aljallil Abd al Rahman. Not much of a change. Just the "Abd" at the end will drop. The NYTimes source and other reliable secondary sources support this version. IQinn (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. IQinn (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend you begin to take other contributor's views into account. There was already a section discussing article names -- which you ignored. No, you don't in general, have to get prior approval for your edits. But you can't simply go around ignoring the good faith opinions of other contributors.
In Talk:Allal_Ab_Aljallil_Abd_al_Rahman#Name I suggested we use Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif -- the name used by his lawyers on his habeas petition. I suggested this on the grounds that since they communicated with his family, and communicated with him, their transliteration was the one most likely to be correct.
I continue to be mystified by your confidence in the transliterations chosen by the NYTimes. You initially implied you knew the NYTimes relied on experts in the transliterations of Arabic names. I told you I had not seen a single instance where the NYTimes claimed its choice of names was based on experts in transliteration of Arabic names. Geo Swan (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend you give up WP:Ownership. You are right nobody needs your approval in advance. Nevertheless i started this discussion here prior the edit i made. More than courtesy.
I continue to be mystified about your misinterpretations and unwillingness to accept anything that does not meet your POV. We discussed this, the New York Times is one of the most reliable sources in the world. We rely on these reliable sources and we are assured by the reputation these secondary sources have. Do you have any reliable source that verifies they do not live up to their reputation?
If you read clearly the New York Times is not the only source used for the name choice. You are always welcome to start new discussions.
That Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif was prior confirmed with his family prior the filing of the habeas corpus is pure speculation. Do you have other reliable secondary sources who support this name? IQinn (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per your usual pattern you reply to civil expressions of concern with the claim I am showing WP:Ownership behavior.
Excuse me, but you simply cannot act as if your opinion is the only one that matters.
We did start to discuss your assertions about the NYTimes. But you refused to have a central discussion over the common issues shared by articles that were possible candidates for renaming. You were evasive when asked to state an opinion as to what weight we should give to captives' assertions that the DoD never acknowledged their real names. I have previously pointed out to you inconsistencies -- instances where the NYTimes used a DoD transliteration -- even when the captive has gone on record that none of the DoD's transliterations is their real name, and instances where they used the captives' versions of their names over the DoDs. The New York Times docket does not rely on the 179 habeas dossiers published in 2007, or the habeas documents published since then.
Please note that Carol Rosenberg, the reporter who has done the lion's share of reporting on Guantanamo, uses Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif.
WRT your assertion: "That Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif was prior confirmed with his family prior the filing of the habeas corpus is pure speculation..." No offense, but the meaning of this passage is unclear. I am going to interpret this passage as an assertion that you think there is no reason to believe the transliteration his lawyers used on his habeas corpus petition is based on that used by his relatives.
This makes me wonder how well you have understood the habeas corpus process. In 2002-2005 only ten percent of the captives had habeas corpus petitions filed on their behalf. Why? Because the lawyers willing to file habeas corpus petitions were obliged to only do so when a "next friend" requested the lawyers act on the captives' behalf. And the identities of the captives was still at that point classified, so they were only able to initiate habeas petitions when the captives' families contact them. All the initial habeas corpus petitions were initiated by captive's relatives, acting as the "next friend". Period.
WRT to your claim that I won't accept any POV but my own -- sorry, this claim shows you did not show me the respect of reading what I have written on choosing new names. I have gone on record as being willing to accept renaming these articles to what the captive claims are there names. I have gone on record as being willing to accept renaming these articles to what the DoD claims the names are. I have gone on record as being willing to accept a hybrid approach, provided only that there is consistent reasoning as to when to not recognize what the captive claims was his name. You refused to cooperate in arriving at a consensus. You wanted to continue to rely on the NYTimes, and you continued to refuse to discuss the common issues shared by candidates for renaming. So, please don't claim I am the one with WP:Ownership issues. Geo Swan (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is all to false. No i did not refuse to cooperate in arriving consensus. This is absolutely false as most of your dozens of statements. They are simply wrong i also think you still did not read WP:ownership as your use in the last sentence does not make sense.
As said your assumption about if your preferred name version was confirmed by his family is not verified.
Your writing is very verbose as said before you should limit yourself to a few arguments and points to allow for a constructive debate.
How about you start a move request? It is always good to get some more people involved. IQinn (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

[edit]

As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

When I started to update this article I found a lead section that was too long, and did not use fully populated references.

The lead section did not comply with the consensus at [1] at the WP:Help desk.

Another contributor has restored much of the problematic original wording, without attempting to discuss why they think this wording is superior.

Following this edit the lead section is again too long.

With this edit they added an {{importance}} tag, even though the importance of documenting multiple names has been explained to them literally dozens of times, and they have never chosen to offer a meaningful response.

This edit directly contradicts our WP:RS.

This edit changed the neutral term "captive" with the biased term "detainee". Geo Swan (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy to other contributors could you please stop your WP:ownership behaviour?
The lead section is not too long.
You misinterpret what was the consensus at the discussion at the Help desk.
User Geo Swan changed much of the lead without explaining why his version is superior.
The lead section is not too long with this edit.
No you have never given a policy based justification for the need of such a section. A discussion at BLP has also shown that these kind of sections are problematic. So we need a good reason.
No it does not contradict WP:RS.
Your choose "captive" is biased. It has been decided by the community to use "detainee" in multiple prior discussions. You were the only one in favor of the word captive. You continuously disregards community consensus. IQinn (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death date

[edit]

He died shortly after noon, 2012-09-08. That death was reported 48 hours later on 2012-09-10, and his name 72 hours later on 2012-09-11. Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted unnecessary reformatting of references

[edit]

In the course of making [ these edits] other contributors unnecessarily reformatted the articles references. This is hardly ever necessary, and it is hardly ever a good idea.

I reverted them. Only after reverting them would a diff show how many actual changes to the article's content were made in those edits. Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs chronological ordering and general improvement

[edit]

I will try to move things around to do this, and will insert the standard mainstream sources when that makes sense (and it usually does).Haberstr (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adnan Farhan Abd Al Latif. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Adnan Farhan Abd Al Latif. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adnan_Farhan_Abd_Al_Latif&oldid=1256558686"