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)

• I believe this discussion at BLPN applies here too. Geo Swan (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• The link goes to a biased OUT OF CONTEXT part of the discussion. This link is misleading and your behavior is uncivil and disruptive. Please stop this. IQinn (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2010 (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)

No need, my userpage lists all articles which I have created or put any real work into. I counted, I have "worked on" the articles of five Guantanamo detainees, one lawyer, zero camps, zero lists, zero procedures, and zero safe houses (unless you include Najim Jihad, in which case, one safe house).

In order, they are Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Omar Khadr, Abu Zubaydah, Ammar al-Baluchi and Mohamed Jawad.

Of those five articles on which I have worked, I am the creator of zero of them. That's right, not a single article I've created...yet you claim I've created 800. See a slight discrepancy here? See why I'm reaching the end of my patience for your accusations? See why I don't trust your statements when you say "X has done Y"? Because you're claiming that I'm responsible for nearly a thousand articles, of which I'm responsible for five of them...and created one of them. (I created Dirty thirty (Guantanamo Bay Naval Base) two years, and 300 pages, ago). You can view the last 100 pages I've created here, where you'll notice there's not one even vaguely related to Guantanamo.

Take the high road, or if it's too late for that, stop shredding your own credibility by making ludicrous claims about editors who issue warnings to you on talk-pages. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Some mathematics first. "Nearly all (800 Guantanamo articles) created by you two." I fully stand by that statement. Creating does not only concerns the first edit. I see you have not mention all the Templates you have created and that are dominating a lot's of this pages. The link you provide here shows only the recent history of your page creations. You both were even running talk pages together in the past when you had created the bulk of these articles. Yes i stand by that. You issued a warning to my talk page?. Another bogus accusation and talk page harassment. Because you want to draw the attention away from the fact that you were edit warring on this page? IQinn (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"I fully stand by that statement. Creating does not only concerns the first edit." Yes, as I mentioned, I have STARTED one article and "CREATED" five...for a total of 6 articles, less than 1% of the number you're claiming I'm responsible for. 99% of Guantanamo articles I've had no significant participation in, other than reverting vandals and trolls, and those such as yourself who seem to think that personal opinion trumps community consensus. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a misrepresentation. Specially if you take all the templates in consideration that you have created. I am going to look up all the diffs and post them here. Happy Holidays. IQinn (talk) 21:21, 24 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)

It is no secret that everybody who finds themselves in common circles with other editors "works together very closely with them" unless they want to be an obnoxious troll and try to force their will on the entire project. It's how things get done, it's why we have things like wikiprojects, talk pages and consensus, because we expect all established editors to "work closely together" to determine how information should be presented. You've probably seen Geo_Swan and I butt heads and disagree more often with each other than with any other user - I have spent hours writing messages on his talk page, on the talk page of articles he's edited, doing all the same things I do with you. One notable example would be a year ago I suggested that we should move articles like "Omar Abdullah Mohammad Turki al-Hamdani al-Kabouli" to "Omar al-Kabouli" - he vehemently disagreed as he felt it would lead to disambiguation issues, while I felt the overly long names lent an innate POV to the article. We fought over the subject for weeks, possibly months...and we had to "work very closely with each other" to determine how to proceed. Neither of us just started moving articles and ignoring the other - neither of us went whining to our mothers and administrators because the other one disagreed with us or said our personal opinion was less reasoned than their own. It's how progress happens, with determined cooperation. It's the same reason why I asked you to set aside our differences and let you and I work cooperatively on some unrelated articles, although you responded by simply erasing the invitation and calling me "uncivil".

It would be nice if, instead of dodging direct questions, you answered them. I've put up with your weakening of WP for six months now, I'm at the end of patience with you. I'll also point out that while reinserting the Uyghar information, I posted a five-point list on the talk page of each one of them.

And yes, for my part, I think somebody can re-insert information that was removed without consensus by an autonomous user who has personal objections he won't clarify against listing American government allegations that are properly cited to their author.

Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's wrong. Check your links. I never called you uncivil. That's simply wrong i have never done this and this is not an personal issue. I have no problem with you at all.

This here is a well defined content issue and i will ask you politely one last time to remove this information.

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 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. IQinn (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Iqinn, WRT the questions in this comment -- would I revert an edit that had an edit summary that asserted it was based on BLP? The answer is, I dunno, maybe, it would depend on the circumstances. More detailed answer here. Geo Swan (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are paraphrasing me a little bit. So let me put my question here again:

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) 12:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Hozaifa Parhat → Ablikim Turahun — The name of the subject of this article according to the most reliable sources: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]]... IQinn (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Parhat's appeal under the Detainee Treatment Act is overwhelmingly the most important DTA appeal. It completed on June 20, 2008, with a panel of the DC court of appeal ordering his release. His was the only DTA appeal to run to completion, because the DTA appeal process was shelved after the captives' right to habeas was restored.

Please note Parhat's DTA appeal, just like his habeas appeal, is filed under the name Parhat.

I was extremely disappointed with your previous refusals to discuss the common elements of renaming the captives' articles in a single place, to ensure consistency. I urge you to reconsider.

With regard to the references you assert justify renaming -- you haven't said why you consider these sources the most reliable, or how they back up your suggestion.

Consider your fourth reference, to historian Andy Worthington, the author of The Guantanamo Files. In my personal opinion he is the most hardworking WP:RS to delve into the details.

The Worthington reference you cite uses both names. Worthington has 77 pages that use the name Parhat. Worthington has just 11 pages that use the name Turahun. In his "definitive prisoners list" Worthington calls him Parhat.

If you do web searches on Parhat Guantanamo you get 28000 hits, versus just 5650 hits for Turahun Guantanamo.

You selected 8 references from those 33,650 google hits.

One could argue that you selected 8 recent references which chose to change the name they used for this individual to show respect for what he said his real name was. One could argue that it is "dehumanizing" to keep using the wrong name, when we know what he says his real name is.

Was it your intention to make this argument?

If so, why do you keep touting the NYTimes. You listed the NYTimes first here. And you generally represent it as the most reliable source. In fact the NYTimes is INCONSISTENT as to whether it honors what the captive say their real name are. So, by putting forward the NYTimes as the reliable source, and trying to get us to always follow their example you are, in effect, trying to make us follow their inconsistent lead.

If we are going to ignore that his DTA and habeas appeals are under Parhat, and honor what Parhat says his real name is, I think we should do so for every captive who says his name is different than the official names the DoD lists.

I am going to encourage you, again, to reconsider your refusal to engage in a serious discussion of the renaming issue in general, so that if we rename articles we do so in a thoughtful consistent manner. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is obviously one more of your filibustering responses to prevent correction of the misinformation and propaganda in the Guantanamo section that has been almost entirely created by one user who is disrupting Wikipedia by gaming the system and spreading misleading information.

Your claim that the NYTimes is inconsistent is simply false and it does not become true by putting words into bold. The NYTimes is with no doubt the most reliable source and the only one that shows research on the names. They explicitly use Ablikim Turahun and use the one from your chosen name as one of the alternative names. In addition we have the BBC, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Newspapers that operate very near to the subject, and Uighur source, a source from Bermuda.. and and and... Want me to post more recent sources here? Come on you are smart do not waste our time with misleading Google searches and unjustified requests. The sources are absolutely clear about the name.

Your examples of Google results of various keywords are not helpful and misleading. You have to put them into a time line. There have been a lot of confusion about the prisoner names intentionally or unintentionally. Many sources repeated the wrong information of the DoD source and they had little chance to find out the real name of the person while there where detained.

Have a look at the sources and the date of the sources Ablikim Turahun is the name that is used by the reliable sources after his release from Guantanamo and the NYTimes confirms that with their research. IQinn (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WRT to The reliability of the NYTimes choice of names... I've made some suggestions. I look to you to

1. agree to my suggestions;
2. offer a civil, meaningful alternative;
3. drop your claims that the NYTimes choice of names relied on experts in the transliteration of non-European name from languages that used non-European scripts.

WRT to honoring the captive's assertions of what they say their real names are... Please confirm that this is your justification for suggesting this renaming -- or that it is one of your justifications for suggesting this renaming.

I am going to repeat there are multiple captives who said their name was something other than what the DoD said their name was.

I am going to remind you that some other good faith contributors regard the captives are liars, and may be skeptical of captives who claim they are being held under the wrong name.

If you have multiple justifications for this renaming please offer them all.

I repeat I think it is important to make the choices of new names consistently, across all the articles.

Personally, I can see some merit in the argument we should use the name the captives have said was their real name. But I ask anyone participating in this discussion to consider that, sometimes, an individual's real name is not as important as what they were usually known by. The name "Mark Twain" is widely known -- but "Sam Clemmens", the real name of this famous author is much less well known. The main article is under the most usual name. The same of "Joseph Stalin" and "Lenin". Those were nommes de guerre, not their real names.

Hufaiza Parhat v. Robert M. Gates was a very important case. And I believe this is a strong argument for sticking with Parhat as his name.

I am not trying to insist that we stick with Parhat as his name. What I am very disappointed in is your ongoing refusal to agree to have a central discussion of the common issues in selecting which articles should be renamed, and what replacement names we should select.

Abu Zubaydah is not Abu Zubaydah's real name either. His is another instance where the nomme de guerre is so widely known I think we would need very strong arguments before we replaced it with his actual name.

Please don't claim I am "filibustering". This is a serious project, which I take seriously. And there are serious issues in the editorial decisions we make. Wehn there are disagreements the contributors involved are supposed to make serious attempts to engage one another in civil, meaningful, constructive, substantive, policy-based discussions of those issues. Sometimes that is hard work. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(I didn't properly indent my first reply. I am indenting the comments to clarify who is responding to whom... Sorry. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

That's all WP:TL;DR.

Yes i agree that this is a serious project and i believe you are filibustering please do not disrupt Wikipedia.

NYTimes not a reliable source? That claim is unusual and wrong and you might go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

No the name i have suggested is not based on the possible lies of detainees or possible mistakes of the Dod. The opposite is true. As i said it is based on the most reliable secondary sources many of therm published after after the release of the detainee. The from me suggested name is widely reflected in these sources. [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]]. Yes Wikipedia is serious work and we base it on WP:RS not WP:OR. The reliable sources are clear. No doubt the right choice is to rename the article to Ablikim Turahun unless you want to confuse the reader. IQinn (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is asserting here that the NYTimes is, in general, a WP:RS. I certainly didn't assert that. You asserted it was "the most reliable source" for picking the names to use for these individuals. You have implied or outright asserted on various articles' talk pages that the NYTimes picked the names they used based on the advice of genuine experts in the lnaguages of the individuals were named in. But the NYTimes deosn't claim this.

I do not agree that the NYTimes is the the most reliable source for picking the names we use.

Initially you offered no justification for renaming this article, other than that 8 references used the new name. At least one of the references you picked used both names.

I asked you to clarify whether you are offering as a justification that Parhat/Turahun says his name is Turahun. You implied that with your first response. In your second response you seem to refute that. Could you please unambiguousely refute or confirm whether you are basing this suggestion on respecting what Parhat/Turahum says his real name is?

I continue to be disappointed by your reluctance to have a central, general discussion of the common issues that arise when we consider renaming or not renaming these articles. Geo Swan (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for another filibuster "central, general discussion". This case and the sources for this article are overwhelming clear. Please stop claiming WP:OWNERSHIP over Guantanamo related articles and do not disrupt Wikipedia by making a point WP:POINT and with filibustering responses.

Please understand we do not need to proof for every information that comes form secondary sources that they do responsible work. The New York Times is one of the most reliable sources in the world and that includes the information about the names. As i said Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be a good place go if you want to challenge common knowledge.

Witch reference uses both names? Did you put it in contest of the timeline? What is your point about that? I have explained that. Recent sources and the recent statements are more reliable. And now the sources are very clear about the name.

I have clearly answered you where my name choice is based on and i am sorry i can only repeat myself:

No the name i have suggested is not based on the possible lies of detainees or possible mistakes of the Dod. The opposite is true. As i said it is based on the most reliable secondary sources many of therm published recently after the release of the detainee. The from me suggested name is widely reflected in these sources. [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24]]. We base it on WP:RS not WP:OR. The reliable sources are clear. No doubt the right choice is to rename the article to Ablikim Turahun unless you want to confuse the reader. IQinn (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I lean toward the current title, simply because it has more google hits, and because of the case, although "Ablikim Turahun" gets a few more gnews hits. But I wonder why "Ablikim Turahun" is not mentioned in the article currently. Whatever the title is, the other name must be mentioned. And why Ablikim Turahun is currently a redirect to 320.John Z (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User Geo Swan might answer why he redirected Ablikim Turahun to 320. It is his Internment Serial Number number but i think that is not very helpful.

As the DoD kept the names of the detainees a secret for a long time and not many people had access to the detainees there has been a lot of confusion about the detainees names in the sources.

The name in use now is one version that early sources have used in the time when he was detained and mostly based on a single not very reliable source. But since he has been released all sources that i have seen use Ablikim Turahun other switched from using the old name or versions of the old name to the name Ablikim Turahun. That's also the name that is used in recent Uighur related sources and the name that is used by the NYTimes, the BBC and media from the Bahamas where he is living now. They all refer to Ablikim Turahun when speaking about the individual of this biography. Please check the reliable secondary sources that i have provided.

Once the article has been renamed to Ablikim Turahun i would add Hozaifa Parhat and Huzaifa Parhat (another alternate name) to the info box. IQinn (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

John, ISN 320 is Parhats Internee security number. I thought that is what I put for the redirect. There is a bot that cleans up redirects -- but, of course, it only works when you don't make a typographical error. Its fixed now.

Iqinn, your 2nd paragraph, immediately above? I find it inconsistent with your assertions that your suggestion is not based on respecting what the captive says his real name is.

You wrote: "The name in use now is one version that early sources have used in the time when he was detained and mostly based on a single not very reliable source." We don't know why the 28,000 google hits use Parhat. His lawyers used "Parhat" as recently as June 2008:

Works related to Hufaiza Parhat v. Robert M. Gates -- decided June 20, 2008 at Wikisource

Your assertion that numerous US government documents are a "single not very reliable source" -- sorryt, this seems to me to be your personal, unsubstantiated opinion. It seems to me that reports that use Turahun are also based on a single source, Parhat/Turahun himself. Personally, I believe him. But your personal belief that his assertions are reliable, and my personal belief his assertions are reliable, are far from the only factor.

You haven't addressed the principle that we use the most commonly used name, even when it not their real name, as we did with Mark Twain and Joseph Stalin. I am not fixed on the current name. But I want to have a discussion of the issues.

I continue to feel that a decision to rename a single article based on respect for the individual's assertion it is his real name should be made in the general context of all captives who claimed the names they were officially known by. This is why I continue to be puzzled and disappointed by your continued refusal to engage in a general discussion of the common issues raised in considering renaming these articles.

In your initial suggestion you stated your name was based on "the most reliable secondary sources" but immediately above you wrote that your suggestion was based on "all sources that I have seen". I suggest your second claim is more modest, and more credible than your initial suggestion. But, for me at least, "based on all sources that I have seen" is a less compelling argument. Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not paraphrase me out of context. That is WP:uncivil.

Simple comparing of Google hit numbers that also vary depending on the search term and sometimes are misleading is not helpful without looking at the sources behind the results. Your interpretation of Google hits are wrong. A lot of Wikipedia copies and copies of the DoD source and the Dod has frequently given up to 10 different names for one prisoner. This source is absolutely unreliable regarding the names. And as said in Google news that reflect a vast amount of different reliable sources it is the other way around.

Let's look behind it. The commonly used name is Ablikim Turahun reflected in tons of highly reliable sources [[25]], [[26]], [[27]], [[28]], [[29]], [[30]], [[31]], [[32]].

Yes, they are the most reliable and all recent sources and they all use Ablikim Turahun. The Uighur sources who should know. The sources from the Bahamas who should know. The most reliable secondary sources NYTimes, The Age, UNHCR, BBC...

It would be just unintelligent and encyclopedic not to rename the article to Ablikim Turahun unless someone thinks it would be the aim of an encyclopedia to confuse people. IQinn (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Following the Afd I redirected the article to the Uyghur captives article

In my experience when Afd are closed as merge, they are generally either not merged at all, and the article ends up getting deleted, losing its valuable contribution history, or someone merely cuts and pastes the whole article, or some portion of it, into the target article, without making any real effort to see if doing so makes sense.

I don't think a merge is practical, as there are just too many elements that make Parhat individually notable, and if they were all shoehorned into the article on all the Uyghurs it would overwhelm that article.

I redirected the article to make sure it wasn't deleted, with its contribution history, because no one merged it. Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)