Talk:Mehrabanb Fazrollah

Cleanup/notability
In the spirit of boldness, I have performed the cleanup I was considering in October 2006 when prompted by another user who wanted to know what should be cleaned up.

I have also re-applied the notability template. WP:BIO is the relevant measure of notability, and the references cited do not conform to that guideline. There are two sources, but one is a list of names. Erechtheus 05:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have participated in many discussions of whether or not the Guantanamo captives were "notable". No offense, but it seems to me that the reference to notability, is highly subjective.  I can't guess what prompted Erectheus to conclude Mehrabanb Fazrollah is not notable.  But many of the other people who were ready to conclude that Guantanamo captives weren't notable did so because simply because they were misinformed.  They believed that there was no controversy over the Bush administration assertions that all the captives had already been proven to be terrorist.  They believed that there was no controversy over the Bush administration assertions that denying the captives the protections of the Geneva Conventions was generally accepted as legal and legitimate.


 * The wikipedia's readers deserve to know what the allegations against the captives were, so they can reach an informed conclusion as to whether they want to believe the Bush administration assertions.


 * IMO being at the centre of a controversy -- or rather several controversies -- fulfills the criteria of the notability guidelines. PW:BIO says: ''"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."


 * During the middle ages suspects underwent trial by ordeal. They were considered guilty until they could prove they were innocent.  Well, we have had 1000 year of progress in the administration of justice.


 * It is universally recognized that it is unjust to imprison or punish people without allowing them to hear and challenge the evidence against them.
 * It is universally recognized that it is unjust to imprison or punish people based on anonymous hearsay evidence.
 * It is generally recognized that it is unjust to imprison or punish people based on coerced testimony.
 * It is widely recognized that it is unjust to imprison or punish people based on testimony bought from jailhouse snitches. At Guantanamo a small number of the captives have denounced the rest of the captives.


 * All these protections were stripped from Mehrabanb Fazrollah.


 * Here is a thought experiment. Somebody invades a country where there are some Americans, they capture all the Americans, throw them into a prison, call them terrorists, without offering any real evidence.  So, how many people wikipedia participants would challenge the notability of American captives who were stripped of the protections of the rule of law?


 * Cheers! --  Geo Swan 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

what should be covered?
Another wikipedian made what they called a "bold" excision with the following edit summary:
 * ''"perform cleanup to remove details that are not about Fazrollah and should be covered, if at all, in a general article."

This editor left the allegations, but stripped the context of why the allegations were compiled, the ostensible purpose of the Tribunal for which they were compiled, the limits under which those Tribunals operated. I know this context is necessary, because, when I wrote some earlier articles about other Guantanamo captives, before I composed the paragraphs the bold editor excised, I got feedback from readers, saying they needed the context. Hence those paragraphs.

I find the phrase "should be covered, if at all" disturbing. No offense, but it gives the unfortunate appearance that someone wants to suppress informing the wikipedia's readers that there has been any controversy, at all.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD
WP:BOLD would be one of my top candidates for most misinterpreted guidelines. It is aimed at newbies, encouraging them to feel confident enough to think they can make a contribution. It is not supposed to loosen the portion of WP:NOT that says wikipedia is not a battlefield. -- Geo Swan 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

references don't conform to guidelines?
Please explain more fully.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No response to attempt to discuss other editors concern
So, I am reverting... Geo Swan 02:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)