Talk:Said Ali al Farha

move justified with a misleading edit summary
It seems to me this article was moved in a move justified with a misleading edit summary, namely: "The old name is mostly based on the older primary sources. The new one is based on the secondary sources specially the NYT's". This edit summary implies the NYTimes said it based the transliteration of the name it chose as the primary name for this captive after conducting some research, or consulting an expert. In fact, the NYTimes did no such thing. Every name the picked is one used on the older documents the contributor who moved this article has decried. It seems they arbitrarily picked one from among the several names. I regard it as misleading to imply NYTimes choice is different than the "older documents".

FWIW I have asked the contributor to explain why he called the OARDEC memos "primary documents", when they are summaries based on the independent collation, analysis, and summaries of other reports from other agencies. I don't believe I have received a meaningful answer so far.

Normally I wouldn't leave a note on like this on every page changed in a series of changes. Normally I would leave a note on that contributors talk page. But this contributor has requested me to leave the note on every article's talk pages. Geo Swan (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing misleading in my edit summary at all. The only misleading thing is your post here. I really wonder - to directly revert just you think the edit summary is not perfect? Have you checked the new name in secondary sources? Did you leave a message here before you reverted? You can not leave messages regarding content issues on my talk page. That is wrong. You are welcome. You have done that frequently just in the last couple of days and i have answered you every post or question regarding content issues. Abour the OARDEC documents i have explained  that to you here] and never got an answer from you.


 * Could you please provide me with the sources for this name? And could you please provide with the rational that these sources are the most reliable once? And if multiple source had been use for the creation of this name. How did the editor who created the name combine the sources to come up with a new name and why did he do it that way. This is an ongoing event. More and more reliable secondary sources are now available. We should use them all to chose the right name. Thank's in advance. IQinn (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Identity
Another contributor made two changes to the identity section of a large number of articles. They argued against identifying the captives by their ISN number, in the identity section. I disagreed. I was also concerned that this other contributor changed the section from point form. I argued that point form makes the different versions of the captives' names line up -- making it a lot easier for readers to see how they differed.

There was a discussion. Another contributor concurred over the use of the ISN number, thought it was dehumanizing. I agreed to yield on the use of the number. But I continued to think point form was more appropriate, said so. No one demurred. So I am restoring the point form. I have also changed the name of the section from "identity" to "Inconsistent identification".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * '''If you copy and paste the same message onto multiple talk pages you might check if your statements are true in the context of the article you paste it on.


 * I have never edited the Identity section in this article.


 * I have changed the identity section in very few articles and not in a large number of articles as you claim. That's false.


 * The Identity section was exactly as you have created it with the multipe "Captive 341..." and as a bullet list before you just edited it.


 * I have said that the multiple use of "Captive xxx..." in a section called "Identity" as it had been done is dehumanizing and i have changed it in a few articles.


 * You have not restored the point form in this article because nobody ever edited this section in this article here and it was exactly as you have created it with "Captive 341..." and as a point list. Your statement is false.


 * Please be more careful when you copy and paste the same message onto multiple talk pages. A lot of your statements in your message here are false. IQinn (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)