Talk:Mohammed Ayub

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) 08:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It is now based on the single source. Making a graph with sourced data is acceptable. Reverted, please do not remove information without gaining consensus first. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not re-insert material that is clearly against policy. Yes it was a good step to remove the "healthy range" from the image description. But if you click on the image you still will find the "healthy range" in the upload information.

I doubt that it is now based on a single source. The author has clearly created this graph based on the questionable primary source combined with the healthy range in mind as he clearly has stated in his upload information.

A serious and reliable interpretation and creation of an graphical representation of these questionable weight records that is worth inclusion into a encyclopedia can only be done with an at least basic understanding of the surrounding details and circumstances. To use something like the "health range" from some website would be for me a sign that the wp author who has created this graphical interpretation does not have this understanding.

Why is this section called "Medical records" anyway? This is not a medical record. Have a look at the source. It's a list of numbers. titled as weight records in other secondary sources.

What is the underlying reason for the creation of this graph? To illustrate the possible health status of the detainee at certain dates? If that would be the reason could such a graph be produced by somebody who is not a medical doctor?

Furthermore do you think the surrounding circumstances of the creation of these records are fully understood? How reliable are these records? How high is the error rate in these records. What does the in-process date mean? How to represent when the detainee had refuses taking his weight? Has this always been recorded?

Or for creating a meaningful graph you needed to make sure the time intervals between the dates are equal? Are these time intervals always the same? A graph can be easily misrepresenting. To save you the time. I just had a look at it. They could not be more differences in the time intervals. Not all months have dates. Many months are just missing. How did the creator of this graph choose the dates he has marked? And what did he want to show by that?

I strongly believe that this graph is an interpretation of this questionable primary source. And interpretations of primary sources are off topic for WP editors. Sure in rare case we can include the primary source directly. For example an image of the original table of numbers would be allowed. But i think that would not be desirable. And i only would do it when we at least find one reliable secondary source that published a picture of these tables of numbers for some reason.

Really, believe me this self made graph does not increase the quality of the article. If it would be possible and notable to have such a graph then there are thousands of secondary sources who would create one. We would find a graph and include it in the article. Preferable with the underlining explanation for interpretation of the graph provided by the secondary source.

I do my evaluations very carefully and i am a bit taken away you re-inserted the image into the article before you let this discussion here take place. I might suggest you remove this image again until the discussion has been finished. IQinn (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

removal of information

The "Identity" section had this passage that i have removed for the following reasons: 1) The introduction of this passage 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) 11:58, 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)} 03:57, 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 have been discussed and solved.

In this article you have also reverted two other edits besides the image and the controversial material. Like the Full-date unlinking i suggest you may fix that as well. IQinn (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WRT Arabic names

This article was recently moved, with no discussion that I can see on this talk page.

I have previously asked the contributor who moved this article to engage in a meaningful dialogue, in a central place, over the common issues that really should be discussed when moving these articles on Guantanamo captives.

I am very sorry to report that the contributor involved has repeatedly refused to engage in a discussion in a central place.

One key issue is whether we should use one of the name the DoD claims is the individual's name, when the captive insists none of those names are his official name. The contributor who has been renaming articles, without any prior discussion. Arguments can be made for either policy. I am not committed to either side in this discussion. I continue to think a central discussion is extremely important.

This particular move is counter to our long established convention that we should only include honorifics in article names in truly exceptional circumstance. So I reverted it to the compliant name. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry to report that this user here has an extended problem with WP:OWNERSHIP. I have addressed all his concerns on the relevant talk pages. He has blocked any meaningful changes on these set of articles that he has created almost entirely himself. Especially the names and sorting has been an huge problem as he has made it almost impossible to find any of these detainees. His request for a centralized discussion are inappropriate WP:CENTNOT what i have told him already. This user has brought up a long list of unusual claims and than put users in endless discussion only to find out at the end that he was wrong. What has prevented a meaningful editing of these articles for years. They are a mess and need to be fixed now.

I move this article to Haji Mohammed Ayub in accordance with all sources. This user has as before reverted an important change and as usual i am going to address his concern here on the talk page.

Your claim that the "Haji" in his name would be an honorific is pure speculation. We follow the sources and the sources call him Haji Mohammed Ayub. You do not have any source for you unusual claim that this part of his name would be an honorific. Have you? And even if it would be one we would include it as the sources commonly use it. We do not do original research. In addition your assumption that this "Haji" in his name would be an honorific is almost impossible. He is an Uighur refugee who was arrested in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region after fleeing China at the age of 17. To think that he would have been to Mecca and has completed the Hajj in his age and situation is almost ridiculous.

I request you stop blocking other users from making meaningful changes and i request you agree to move this article to Haji Mohammed Ayub or to deliver valid sources or arguments that would support you unusual claim. This article needs to move back to Haji Mohammed Ayub quickly. IQinn (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WRT wikitags that oblige tag placers to explain themselves on the talk page

Some wikitags oblige tag placers to explain themselves on the talk page. I asked for advice, on WP:ANI, on how to deal with tage like this, when the tag placer has not fulfilled that obligation to offer a further explanation. I was told, several years ago, that when the tag was placed more than 24 hours previously, and hasn't yet fulfilled their obligation to offer that explanation, that I could simply remove the abandoned tag.

This tag has not been accompanied by an explanation on the talk page.

I asked for advice on WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 80#WRT tags that oblige tag placers to explain themselves on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The tag says "may be found on the talk page". Nothing wrong with this tag. IQinn (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)