Talk:Zaid Binsallah Mohammed Il Bhawith

I think default sort is a mistake for individuals with Arabic names

I think default sort is a mistake for individuals with Arabic names.

People with Arabic names don't inherit a surname, like people with an European do. Traditionally the closest thing they have to a "last name" is their father's first name.

And it is absolutely clear to me that it is a mistake to use default sort for the Guantanamo captives -- because the US Department of Defense can't consistently figure out what their names are.

Therefore I just reverted an edit where a well-meaning contributor imposed default sort on this individual.

Please don't impose default sort on these guys without discussing it first.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The man is referred to as Al Bahooth four times in the article that I counted. No other abbreviation for the name is used by the authors of the article. If one accepts that the authors of the article know whereof they write then the {{DEFAULTSORT}} and |listas= values should be "Al Bahooth, Ziyadbin Salih bin Muhammad". Would that be better?

explanation

I am reverting this edit.

I asked the individual who added the "al Qaeda member" category to this and a bunch of other articles to explain why they were adding the individuals to the categories. Some of the other individuals were alleged to be al Qaeda members, or allegedly confessed to being members. But Ziyad Al Bahooth was not alleged to have acknowledged to being an al Qaeda member. He was not alleged to have been an al Qaeda member. He was alleged to have been the target of recruiters. He was alleged to have been named on a suspicious list. I reverted this categorization because I suggest it is too speculative to comply with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to material contained in the body of the article, specifically "One of the detainee's known aliases was on a list of captured al Qaida members that was discovered on a computer hard drive associated with a senior al Qaida member." Ray^Talk 02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I responded on RayAYang's talk page, because they made basically the same edit to dozens of articles. Basically I regard the allegations as merely claims, not facts. I would have no problem including this article in something like Category:Saudi Arabians suspected of being members of al Qaeda. Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 11 May 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) 02:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all i would like to correct a few things that are not true.

• I have not changed the identity section of a large number of articles as you claim. That's false.

• I have edited the "identify" section here in this article and in a few other articles to get rid of the multiple " Captive 272..."

• A discussion about this type of section started after that. It was agreed on my proposal to avoid "Captive xxx..." in this type of sections. And as i understand it was also agreed on to rename this section.

• I am still in disagreement with the bullet points and bold text of each name variation and name of the section. I see your point and argument and may can go for it in the most articles. For me it depends also on other things. Like the proper name of the section the used language in the paragraph and the style and position of this section inside the article.

• Let's also not forget that there are some similarities in the about 650 articles biographies we are speaking about. But i doubt the section should or could look the same in all of these 650 articles.

• I am sill not happy with the section as it is now and i and other may improve on it over time in this article and in other articles. Please do not feel offended by that we know you put a lot of time into the creation of these articles. Sure you are always welcome to further improve it by re-editing and i have and will be always open to discuss valid questions about content issues and improvements. Cheers. IQinn (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

removal of valid and useful wikilinks

This article is one of a series that had a number of valid and useful wikilinks removed with an edit summary "unlink interpretation of questionable source". I don't think this is a sufficient explanation, and I don't think this removal of wikilinks was a good idea.

I think the wikilinks should be restored to this article and the other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Already explained and under discussion here and in a related discussion here as you know that. I have told you that and i have ask you multiple times in a friendly way to continue the discussion and to answer my questions. here and here and on other places. I would appreciate if you could do so. Thank you IQinn (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)