Talk:Muhammad Ismail Agha

Serious NPOV Issues
The original article was non-neutral about conditions in Guantanemo, and also implied that the youngster was arrested by the Americans. This was at variance with the reference to the National Review article:

"Muhammad Ismail Agha, aged 15, is back with his family in Afghanistan after two months' imprisonment at Bagram airbase north of Kabul, followed by a year in the U.S. holding facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Human-rights groups have criticized the detention of minors like Ismail, but the lad seems to have profited from his time at Gitmo. He lived with two other Afghan boys in a house with several rooms. Each day the boys were taught English, Pashto, and basic math by Afghan-American teachers. Dietary and religious preferences were scrupulously observed. 'For two or three days I was confused,' Ismail testified, 'but later the Americans were so nice with me. They were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer.' Added the boy's father: 'My son got an education in America.'" Joaquin Murietta 17:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Image of Ismail Agha
The article used a non-free image of Ismail Agha, for a decade or so. Recently a contributor removed that image, on the grounds that guidelines on the use of non-free images bars them from being used in infoboxes. Since their concern was over its placement, I moved it to another section. See. Geo Swan (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan as it was deleted under F5 you should make your request at Requests for undeletion KylieTastic (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, deleting administrator has not been online since July 17. Well-meaning contributors regularly remove images, for all kinds of reasons.  When, as in this case, their justification for removal is not one that would bar using the image, merely a technicality, I think requesting restoration from the deleting administrator is the responsible choice.  If the contributor who removed the image actually thought they could make a case that the image should not be used here, under any conditions, I think they should have said so, in the first place.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting administrator did restore the image, and, if I understood them, encouraged the contributor who excised it to consider explaining their reasoning further.
 * Original exciser merely excised the image a second time. I've restored it.
 * Note, recent edits to the article make Ismail Agha's age more of a concern. For Afghan youths, like Agha, and Mohammed Jawad, DoD spin-doctors routinely claimed that the ages recorded in their medical files were based on "bone scans".  Mohammed Jawad, who was charged with a war crime, had his age recorded as 17.  However, hi medical records showed that he was barely five feet tall, when captured.  Like all Afghans, he has no birth certificate.  His family says he was born after a battle, in 1991, which would have made him just 12, when captured.  There are photos of Jawad, after his release, towering over his relatives.  It seemed to me that this confirmed his family's account of his age was more accurate, as he hadn't finished his puberty growth spurt.
 * So, no, I do not accept that a verbal description that photos of him appear to show he was still a youth, are sufficient, given DoD spin-doctor's misleading claims of accurate age estimates, using bone-scans. Geo Swan (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another contributor excised the image, with edit summary "Please discuss and reach consensus first". Closing administrator said: "Except Geo Swan made a case justifying the use of the image. This is not a straight-forward situation of it being a replaceable non-free image; the context of which it is used in the article matters here." and: "And how does one determine consensus? By discussion, which you've taken no interest in facilitating. WP:FFD is there, but I don't see your initiative. It is the next reasonable step."  I offered my best advice to the first contributor to excise the image, here. I said it was the advice I would have offered him or her if we were best friends.  Sadly, that contributor seems unwilling to accept that just because they say they have an opinion, other people are not bound to accept that opinion, if they can't make the effort to explain themselves.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In this edit a contributor excised the image again, calling my reversion a "mass revision".
 * I don't know  what a "mass revision" is.
 * I think I know that a "mass reversion" would be -- making the same reversion across a relatively large number of articles -- ie something I didn't do.
 * I think the advice of the closing administrator was that since I had offered an explanation as to why I thought the image measured up to our rules, it was up to those saying it didn't to explain themselves.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no "closing" administrator. NFC policy requires a valid use rationale, not a hand-waving "explanation". The claim that the 2004 image " allows reader to form their own opinion" about whether the article subject was born in 1988 or 1989 falls flat, and in any event has nothing to do with the relevant NFCC criteria. Per NFCCE, since there is no valid rationale, the image is subject to immediate removal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please comply with our policies, and guidelines. In particular, there are guidelines that make recommendations as to how to respond to earlier comments, so later readers can figure out who is responding to what.  As a courtesy to later readers could you comply with these guidelines?  I changed the indentation of the comment immediately above, but it would be much better if you used the correct indentation.  You first contributed over a decade ago, so you should have become familiar with the indentation conventions well over nine years ago.
 * Further, I gave you the same advice about the appearance of a bad attitude suggested by your antagonistic signature, and your apparent unwillingness to consider that other contributors can disagree with you, and still be operating from a position of good faith. You gave such a strong appearance of challenging closing administrator 's motives that he or she suggested you take your concern to ANI.  Your signtature says you THINK you have been treated him like shit.  Your comment style suggests you think it is therefore okay for you to pre-emptively treat everyone who disagrees with you like shit.
 * You refer to WP:NFCCE. Why?  It does say an image without a "valid non-free use rationale" can be deleted.  But, as Explicit tried to explain to you, it falls to you to explain why you think the rationale I offered isn't valid.  For all we know, Explicit may privately agree with you, but feel that the wikipedia requires you to actually measure up, and offer an explicit rebuttal of the rationale I offered.
 * You haven't done so. At University I had some friends who were super Math wonks.  They took some hard Pure Math courses, where they learned about difficult formal proofs of Pure Math theorms.  Pure Math theory invaded their non-course arguments.  They would name genuine Pure Math theorms in their non-course arguments.  And they would use made up theorms, to mock one another.  Their favorite made up theorm was "Proof by Assertion".  When they thought someone was trying to claim some counter-argument was correct, without going to the work of demonstrating it was correct, they would point their fingers, and mockingly trumpet "Proof by Assertion"!
 * If my friends were here they would point their fingers at you, and mockingly trumpet "Proof by Assertion"! Geo Swan (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The purported use rationale does not assert anything resembling a reason for use under NFCC requirements. You don't argue that it does, but that we should make an exception to NFCC policy. That's not allowed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * excised the image, again, with the edit summary "as before, facially invalid use rationale".
 * I can't imagine what a "facially invalid use rationale" would be.
 * I can imagine what a "farcially invalid use rationale" would mean.  I am going to assume this is what HB meant.
 * HB is entitled to hold the opinion that the fair use rationale offered is not valid. However, no one, not even Jimbo Wales, is entitled to act as if their opinion is so super important that it should be accepted without explanation.  At User talk:Explicit the closing administrator said https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Explicit&diff=792417 428&oldid=792373755  "Except Geo Swan made a case justifying the use of the image... I'd rather not waste the community's time by having this file being sent to WP:DRV, which would only result in it being listed at WP:FFD, the latter of which is the approach you should have taken upon the restoration of the image." Here is your frankly inflammatory reply. Closing admin followed up with explicitly suggesting your "next reasonable step" is to take this to WP:FFD.
 * I offered you my best advice, the advice I would offer you if we were best friends, on your talk page, on July 26th. Don't you use inflammatory language in your signature?  Doesn't your general pattern of comments suggest you routinely level accusations against those who disagree with you, rather than good faith explanations?  The closing administrator is not a crony of mine.  I have no prior association with them.  They gave you clear suggestions, which you chose to respond to with insults, and which you are clearly ignoring here.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Chiming in with my unasked for opinion, which never ends badly. The rationale advanced for it's use appears to be that it shows Agha is youngish in 2004, which means he was even more youngish in 2002.  This could be important in light of the (alleged) attempts by the U.S. to obfuscate regarding his age (locking up minors doesn't play well).
 * However, I don't see a particularly young boy when I see that image - I'd have guessed he was significantly over 15. And there's a reasonable amount of clarity about his age - DoD documents claim he was born in 1988, journalists (presumably via family) indicate he was 15 in Feb 2004, so it's not really a big deal.  I don't see that this creates a pressing need to use a non-free image of him.  I'm not a non-free expert though, so there may well be another reason for keeping it.
 * Incidentally, assuming that there's a small amount of concern regarding my removal of "Believed to be age 12-13 (estimated)" from the Lead, I'd note that (a) it wasn't in the body, (b) the cite that apparently supported it didn't, and (c) I've not seen any support for 13. I have noticed that the Guardian is raining on my OR parade though by saying he was 14 at the 2004 interview, so I might have to generalise his birthyear if I can't find more cites for 15 years old.  Bromley86 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Little OR on the DoB
Aged 15 - on 11 Feb 2004. Aged 13 - When taken 14m previously in early Dec 2002.

So, birthday is between 1 Dec - 11 Feb. Perhaps he's one of the many 1st Jan birthdays in Afghanistan? That would make his birthday 01/01/1989. Not a million miles off the DoD year of 1988. And that circle is easy to square if he was born <6m prior to 01/01/1989 and he (or his family) chose 01/01/1989 as the nearest 1st Jan birthday.

Not suitable for inclusion in the article, but it might help editors understand the various age claims. Bromley86 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, we can use the ages given in those sources to generate the Dec 1988 - Feb 1989 range, we just can't narrow it further than that. Bromley86 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to have to use remote footnotes to do the trick. Mentioning it here in case another editor is wondering what's up with the unusual referencing. Bromley86 (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you please use fuller sentences in your comments? I am not sure what you mean here.


 * As above, Afghans don't have birth certificates, and most Afghans don't know when they were born.


 * As above, DoD spokesmen claimed the age estimates they recorded for Afghan youths were based on "bone scans". These claims are dubious.  They certainly aren't accurate to the level of "between 1 Dec - 11 Feb" -- or anywhere close.


 * DoD routinely over-estimated the age of the youths in Guantanamo. According to the first official list of captive's names, published on 2006-05-15, as many as 22 of the captives were minors.  But DoD spokesmen would later try to claim that they had only held 4 or 8 youths.  One senior DoD spokesmen said the camp only held 3 youths, who were held separately, and provided with a school teacher.  This senior DoD spokesman said that Omar Khadr was one of the youths held separately, and provided with a school teacher.  Khadr wasn't, but Agha was.  Note: Holding youths with adult captives, and not providing a school teacher for them, was a violation of the Geneva Conventions -- a war crime.  It is one of the reasons to be skeptical of DoD claims.  Note: International standards place the age-cutoff for who gets special treatment, due to their age, at 18.  The DoD arbitrarily decided to use 16 as their cutoff -- without, so far as I am aware, ever providing an explanation.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Geo. "Could you please use fuller sentences in your comments? I am not sure what you mean here."  I assume this is the key point.  For the record, I tend to accept government statements as reliable, at least as statements of what they claim.  Doubly-so if leaked.  If something is a big deal, and RS are all over it, then I'd include that too.
 * In this particular case, my guesstimate has nothing to do with the DoD, and everything to do with what RS have reported (admittedly, with a huge degree of room for error, either accidental or deliberate (presumably on his part)). I added a couple of "aged"s above, in case that helps others.
 * Two reporters are present at the same interview (date unknown, but on or prior to 11 Feb, probably 7 Feb, IIRC). One records his age then (15), the other his age on capture (13).  I know, these are subject to the vagaries of memory, deliberate bullshit, or just a lack of interest leading to a roughly-accurate figure being given.  And then there's the (strong) possibility that they likely don't know their actual date.
 * Ignoring that, we know he was 15 on 11 Feb 2004, and 13 in December 2002. So his birthday has to fall twice within that period, which means it's Dec-Feb.  He's 15 in Feb 2004, so it was Dec 88 to Feb 89.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromley86 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Damn, you put 2 journos in the same room, and they can't even report consistently on someone's claimed age! The guardian claims he was 14 on interview, so that shoots down my OR.  I've amended to say he was born in 1988-1989.  Bromley86 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I continue to see his age as unknowable.
 * List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 says he was born in 1984. This would make him 20 years old in that photo.
 * I first started covering these kids early in my wikipedia career -- before the DoD was forced to publish any information about the captives. I remember when I first read the claims he became a Taliban member.  Back then the DoD claimed he was 17.  That would mean he had aged several years in just four months.  That is clearly impossible.
 * Did you notice that his height and weight records said he weighed just 122 pounds, when he arrived? Yes, there are adult men who weigh 122 pounds, or even less.  Note also that his records said he refused to be weighed, on several occasion...  All of those occasions when his records say he refused to be weighed?  They are all months after he had been repatriated to Afghanistan.  Would you believe he is not the only captive to have anomalous weight records, that date to after they were transferred?  There are dozens.  About half of them record actual weights, when the men had already been repatriated.  All of this is a reason to distrust those bone-scans.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)