Talk:Osam Abdul Rahan Ahmad

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

page move?

I plan to move the page to "Osam Abdul Rahan Ahmad". The old name is mostly based on the primary sources and sometimes questionable sources. The new name is based on the NYT's and many other secondary sources. I did a very carefull checking of multiply secondary sources and plan to move the page. Any objection? IQinn (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to names used by secondary sources. These moves aren't controversial and don't need discussion unless a valid point is raised against the move.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move the page now. IQinn (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

calling for discussion

I asked User:Thargor Orlando, the person who made this redirection, to explain why they thought it was appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why most of these need individual articles, and I felt this was one of them. If you feel strongly about it, you can reverse it, but I haven't had much of any time to look at these detainee pages. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The McClatchy News Service made a major effort, marshalling a team of reporters to seek out former captives, to compare the reality of who captives were, with the myth that they were "the worst of the worst". They were able to reach about ten percent of the captives. Given the efforts made I think being sought out for a profile by reporters who traveled halfway around the world satisfied the "significant coverage" criteria.
I'll tell you what I found with some other people who share your opinion. It seemed to me that among the hidden assumptions they were unaware of was that conditions under which the Guantanamo captives were apprehended, the conditions of their detention, the conditions of their interrogation, the nature of the military commissions are all routine, mundane. In fact everything about their capture, detention, interrogation, charges, and the conditions of their detention is extraordinary, unprecedented.
Other people who want to scale back the wikipedia's coverage of Guantanamo do acknowledge that everything about these captives -- they argue the extraordinary nature of Guantanamo is irrelevant -- saying the only thing that matters is the coverage in verifiable, authoritative sources. Well, this individual has been covered, in detail, in verifiable, authoritative sources. This article, for instance, devoted 2375 words to Osam. Geo Swan (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]