Talk:Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mar'i

Untitled

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting the Identity sections

You have been reformatting the identity sections of the Guantanamo captives articles.

I used bulleted points so that the names all began on the same vertical column. This makes the differences in the transliteration much more easy to notice. And your collapse of the the bulleted points obfuscates the differences in transliteration. I think those edits erode the value of those sections. I think this collapse is even more of a problem when the transliterations differ by only one or two characters.

Why did you think reformatting these sections was a good idea? Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC) (I moved this here - previously posted on my talk page IQinn (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes of course i thought changing and reformatting this section was a good idea? And after reading you comment here i must say i still think it if a good idea and i fully disagree with your opinion that this would erode the value of this section.

Let's have a look at the version before i started editing it. To be honest and i have showed this section to other people they and i strongly believe that the old version not only erodes the value of the article. It also erodes the value of the whole Wikipedia project.

The article is biography of Jamal Muhammed Alawi Mari. To create a section called "Identity" and then seven times to repeat: "Captive 577 was named...", "Captive 577 was named...""Captive 577 was named...""Captive 577 was named...""Captive 577 was named...""Captive 577 was named...""Captive 577 was named..." just blows my mind. I do not question the good intention of the author and other people may think very different about this but i found it highly troublesome.

Sure to make people aware of minor misspelling in the documents has been brought forward for this but i do think when writing and BLP one should not lose the view on the overall implications.

To call this individual seven times in a row "Captive 577" is dehumanizing.

Furthermore the whole section is solely based on original research by the editor who created it. He took various questionable primary sources combined them and created a section "Identity". But this section did not describe the identity of Jamal Muhammed Alawi Mari Instead it reduced the various aspects of this individuals identity to that of the number 577. No secondary sources at all involved in this section.

I do believe that my version has fixed some problems. Go ahead and improve it further. But i have to tell you i do see strong arguments to rename this section. As well i see arguments to reduce this section to something that comes from secondary sources. The whole section is based on original research by evaluating primary sources. IQinn (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iqinn that we should use the prisoner's name, not "Captive 577" as often as possible, or it will have dehumanising effects. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since there are only a handful of us working on this, I will accept the consensus to drop the "Captive Nnn" from the bulletted points. But I continue to believe using bulleted points -- so that the differences between the different versions of the names is easier to see, is important. As I work on these articles, if I work on one that has an identity section, I will remove the "Captive Nnn" was known as" preamble. I suggest that when we do this however, we preseve the bulleted points format, so the names line up.

User:Iqinn asserts "Furthermore the whole section is solely based on original research by the editor who created it." Well, that would be me. I strongly disagree with the characterization that this is "original research". This would be a lapse from original research by synthesis if I had inserted a novel conclusion between the referenced facts, that was not found in the original references. I don't believe I did that.

Further, all of us who have worked on these articles have to be aware of how many different names get applied to the captives. Sometimes it is easy to recognize that the different names are alternate transliterations of one another. And for some captives the different names bear little or no relationship with one another. Our readers, and potential new contributors, really need to know all the variations of a particular captives name(s), and to know of the existence of other captives, and other individuals, when their names are so close that the various individuals could be confused with one another.

• A couple of months after Time magazine published Mohammed al Qahtani's interrogation log I saw a contributor who I hadn't noticed working on the Guantanamo articles before adding material to the article about one of the half dozen other guys named some variation of "Al Qahtani", about his long period of sleep deprivation. Was it possible that two of the captives named Al Qahtani had been subjected to sleep deprivation? Sure. One of the other Al Qahtanis also faced charges before a military commission. But I thought it was more likely that this contributor was mistakenly adding documentable material that belonged in ISN 63's article to an article about another guy with a similar name. I asked them, and they confirmed this.
• Shahzada is another name ripe for misidentification.

If I sat down and was methodical about this I could probably come up with a very long list of captives for whom the identity issue has been a real problem. Yes, the wot template has a field for aliases. But that mechanism is insufficient to address what is a really large problem. Geo Swan (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good you both now agree not to use "Captive xxx" in any articles anymore.

For the original research - let me put is here again what i said: Furthermore the whole section is solely based on original research by the editor who created it. He took various questionable primary sources combined them and created a section "Identity". But this section did not describe the identity of Jamal Muhammed Alawi Mari Instead it reduced the various aspects of this individuals identity to that of the number 577. No secondary sources at all involved in this section.

I am sorry when i offended you in any way with this statement. That would have never been my intention. My phrasing could maybe have been better.

Have a look on the original version.

The section is called "Identity". I think you are implying a new idea.

Does this section say anything about the identity of "Jamal Muhammed Alawi Mari"?

As well i do not see a strong need for this section. What is the value of a long list of misspelling without any context? This context could only come from secondary sources. They draw conclusions. What ever conclusion. :) For example Guantanamo staff can not spell Arabian names. We do not have anything that could provide context.

And where you want to draw the line what is notable? One letter misspelling. Complete misspelling... I think it would be better to rely on secondary sources who figure out witch spelling versions are notable and add them mostly into the info box.

If we still have such sections in articles then i do see the need to rename this section. IQinn (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We could rename the section "Variant spellings", although I would not have any problem leaving it how it is, or moving the one-letter variants type of differences to the talk page - while keeping the "at least one name different" on the article. I don't think it constitutes Original Research however. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WRT your frequent descriptions of my contributions constituting "original research" -- reading information in verifiable, authoritative, WP:RS, is part of what wikipedia contributors are supposed to do. Covering information from WP:RS, in a neutral way, that does not introduce novel interpretations, is part of what wikipedia contributors are supposed to do. Introducing new conclusions that aren't present in the WP:RS is what is proscribed. I don't think I have done that. I don't think Sherurcij has done that.

I think if you think Sherurcij, or I, or any other contributors is making a novel association or interpretation in an article, that was not present in the original references, that the most helpful thing you could do would be to spell out, spefically, the passage you think introduces the novel association or interpretation.

If I had supplemented the information that a captives' name had been rendered multiple incompatible ways, with a comment like, "this shows Guantanamo staff can not spell Arabic names...." and I didn't have a reference to back that up -- that would be original research. Geo Swan (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

rough work

These links to the page numbers within the OARDEC documents may be useful to other contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

habeas documents

59-103

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 Jamal Muhammed Alawi Mari. IQinn (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)