Talk:Ashraf Salim Abd Al Salam Sultan

Could you please explain...
In these edits, with an edit summaries of "clarify and unlink interpretation of questionable source", another contributor removed a bunch of valid and useful wikilinks.

I think this kind of extensive and controversial edit requires further explanation on the article's talk page. In particular I think that explanation should include a clear explanation of why the excising contributor consider the source "questionable".

This contributor has similarly excised valid and useful wikilinks from several articles. I don't care if they offer a single explanation, somewhere. But I am leaving this note here, so that the need to deal with this issue in this article doesn't get forgotten. Geo Swan (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Already explained here and here. I have told you that here and  here. It is also in this post where i have ask you about that and other open questions. You have not answered my questions concerning these content issues nor have answered many of these posts at all. As well as many others posts concerning content issues. I would like to ask you not to ignore questions and to work more constructive to solve the outstanding issues. IQinn (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
In this edit, with an edit summary of "replace big PDF primary source references with fast loading secondary references (same documents)", a contributor has made a series of edits widely repeated across a series of articles, substituting one reference for another.

Should this substitution be done? I don't know. I think it should be discussed, in a discussion that includes, at least, all those contributors working on these Guantanamo related articles. Following that discussion would be the time to make the changes. There wasn't a discussion prior to this initiative.

One argument against this initiative is that for some of these documents multiple versions were published. If we cite the original we knwo which version we are citing. The NYTimes doesn't indicate which version they copied. Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is absolute nothing wrong with the edits. We have already started a discussion about this topic at another place. And i have given you a lot of good reasons for this change. You did not answer my post nor my questions there.


 * Some more points. If there are multiple versions. How do you choose the relevant and notable version to mention in the article? IQinn (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)