Talk:Hamidullah

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

Another contributor reverted my recent restoration of material I believe to be policy compliant, with the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Geo Swan (talk): These people are not independently notable and "Hammdidullah" isn't credible as a name."

Disambiguation is necessary between these individuals, as they are easily confused.

Redlinks are allowed disambiguation pages if there are redlinks to the topic in genuine articles. Several years ago the standards shifted, requiring a bluelink to one of the pages where the redlink can be found. Please see WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links.

As to whether any of us consider "Hammdidullah" a credible name, the clearly documented fact is that it is this individual's name.

Please understand, most Afghans are illiterate. They can't spell their own names in their own language. And, unlike Chinese, there is no standard transliteration scheme for either Arabic of Pashtun. What this means is that when we encounter individuals whose names are very similar, but are transliterated slightly differently, we are really encountering individuals who were all namesakes for one another. For example there are three individuals whose names the DoD transliterated as "Abdul Ghafour", "Abdul Ghaffar", and "Abdul Ghafoor". Geo Swan (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that it is appropriate to discuss contested edits on the talk page.

My remark about "Hammdidullah" should be taken as just a comment in passing. I don't find the name credible, but I don't intend to move the article or propose it for deletion, so my opinion on this matter can safely be ignored.

I am a little surprised at the tone of the last paragraph above. Afghans know what their own name is. There is no reaon why they should know how to represent it in the Latin alphabet, a task which does often seem to be beyond the competence of the DoD.

Redlinks in disambiguation pages are appropriate where a corresponding article is likely to be written, or where there is an article which covers the name concerned in some depth. In this case I propose a compromise, where a sinlge entry is made, saying somthing like

Hamidullah is also the name of several Guantanamo prisoners, as listed in Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Uzbekistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay

I hope we can agree about that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]