Template talk:Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror

src: www.slate.com

Video Template talk:Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror

Fringe dan OR.

I returned the deletion - as per WP: BRD is related Related media that discusses "Controversy surrounding people captured during the War on Terror" and therefore provides additional information about the topic to the reader. V7 why are you continuing to violate WP: BRD? IQinn (talk) 23:17, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Aimed at the top. This is a movie, not a controversy. Find a resource that calls them "controversy" or I will delete it Per WP: NOR and WP: coatrack. Stop claiming sources saying things they are not Iqinn. V7-sport (talk) 23:30, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Not discussed above unless you mean WP: GAMETYPE. This is a template and we do not add any references to it. These films include the controversy surrounding "war on terror" and are verified in articles where these links go. Do you agree that all these movies and documentaries are correct? Surely they make a claim and the US rejects this claim. That's what's called controversy. As suggested above, submit the template to TFD or get a third opinion because there seems to be no value to discuss with you. Please also do not stop calling names according to WP: CIVIL. thanks. IQinn (talk) 23:49, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Again, already handled, if you do not understand, you do not have WP: competence to edit here. Ask someone to translate the relevant policy into a language you understand. This is a movie. Not controversy. Discover go find the RS who calls them a controversy. V7-sport (talk) 23:55, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

ad hominem again why you do not respect WP: CIVIL. If there is a problem with the competence that will be with you. He said the related media that discussed the controversy surrounding the "war on terror" has been described. That you do not understand this shows in my view that you have a problem of competence in understanding or you refuse to get even the worst points. IQinn (talk) 00:34, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

It's a movie, not a controversy. You just want to keep your little POV coatrack. V7-sport (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said do not create this template. The film is clear about this controversy. That you refuse to get this and that you often use the ad hominem argument shows that you are not willing to have a discussion that focuses on civil content. IQinn (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror

" Enforced disappearances. "

Calling Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi "enforced disappearance" was original research. You just returned another edit. You still do not understand the meaning of warring editing. Tell me, is that just a poor understanding of your English or some other damage? "If, after reading the effort I've made to clarify this issue, and after reading the policy, you still do not understand what editing the argument is, then it seems you should not have the suitability to edit without making the same mistake again JamesBWatson" V7- sport (talk) 00:27, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

You better stop your unbalanced attacks on me. The one who does not understand seems to be you. Why do not you even do an easy Google search because you do not seem to know what you're talking about. Sorry, but I can explain this just by thinking you do not even have a clue what you are talking about or you are pushing POV extreme. IQinn (talk) 00:38, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

You can not claim that a person is "enforced disappearance" unless you have the source to say it is "enforced disappearance". Read WP: NOR.

I just sent you the source. Why are you not familiar with them? IQinn (talk) 00:59, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Where? V7-sport (talk) 02:08, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Did you click on it? to do an easy Google search? IQinn (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Google links are not trusted sources. If you do not understand that you are not included here. If you do not revert back your last reversal, you will be fighting again again, proving that you are not at all suitable to be an editor here. V7-sport (talk) 02:12, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

That's obviously true. Have you checked the source addressed by this Google link. That is the source. IQinn (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not my job to search for what you want to include on wikipedia. V7-sport (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true but I think it's a reasonable request that you check the given references and explain why you disagree with these sources. IQinn (talk) 03:04, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

src: s19453.pcdn.co

Reboot

Ok, I just scanned this editing and discussion page and I think everything has been slightly personalized here. Can you both explain the problem briefly when you both understand it? I would like to solve this problem peacefully by asking for help with our content and policies so that this is not a user behavior issue, in which case I will leave this to another admin for viewing. In the meantime I'll try to open this up to a wider review, something you both should have done some electrons ago. --John (talk) 02:15, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is this is POV coatrack. (COATRACK comes in because this material can give the impression that all these incidents are part of a larger conspiracy, something that again no evidence is provided to support.)

The secondary problem is that this is full of original research. It calls these "controversies" without attribution. It states that there is "enforced disappearance" when there is no source to support them or even when the people involved are taken into account. He has painstakingly restored the editing of those whose existence is accountable and returns him to the category "Enforced disappearances never found". I have explained to him over and over in dozens of articles now you must have a reliable source to claim what you want to claim. Either he does not understand english or do not care.

And the other problem is that I have Iqinn through my edit history to undo anything I've created here and demand that I explain, explain and re-explain why. WP definition: wikihounding. V7-sport (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this template is "POV coatrack" if so it should be removed. Proposed solution: Discussion on WP: TFD.

Let me assure you that I understand English perfectly when I live and have studied in the UK and Australia. No, you did not explain and you did not prove and especially you misinterpreted our policy a la WP: GAME. These problems can also be easily addressed and resolved in WP: what TFD I suggest to do.

No I am not Wikihounding. All of these articles are in my watchlist and there is no need to clean up behind you if you will stop with large scale deletion because you are asked to do some times but you just continue until admin is required to stop you.

I have done everything possible to engage in civil debate with you and I have proposed a solution. So can you agree with this solution? If not please tell me why? IQinn (talk) 02:39, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

The solution to restore original research is to stop it. The solution for you to follow me around and without a second thought of every edit I make is to cut it. Stop editing war. The solution for those of you who do not understand what native research is for you to stop editing here until you do. If you can not understand the explanation (and I have explained , repeatedly.This is a tactic you have used on MANY other pages for filibuster and continue editing wars) that this and that is original and unsupported research by what other reliable sources can be discussed? V7-sport (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not edit the battle. That's just wrong. I have learned my lesson but you do not. You did not explain that you did not prove it and you misinterpreted our policy a la WP: GAME. That you are not willing to agree to submit this template to WP: TFD suggests that your claim is false and that you would like to avoid input from the wider community on this issue. John what do you think about the proposed solution? It will solve any problem and any action will be based on broader community consensus. What I thought would be good. IQinn (talk) 03:01, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

src: longreadsblog.files.wordpress.com

Restart again

Both V7 and IQinn have been blocked and I do not know if they will be allowed back for awhile. In the meantime, we need to solve the problem with this template. I was thinking of nominating it for deletion, but some of the categories and articles listed in it did seem right. I would suggest starting by deleting the category and name of the living person per WP: BLP. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy on categories (which IMHO will extend to templates like this) does not prohibit its use. We do not use quotations in templates, so we must be sure that if the names are registered under torture here, their BLP page has references to allegations of torture. Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed says he is waterboarded, for example.

In the category "Enforced disappearances" things do not look good. Abdul Quddoos Khan is said to have "disappeared" after KSM was arrested at his home. Loss can be forced, or not. He is not included in this template.

I think the template is worth saving. We just have to get rid of unlicensed ones. Thundermaker (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. --John (talk) 15:59, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with getting rid of not referenced. As long as this is a reboot, may I ask why the category has "Controversy around" altogether? Should not "People get caught...". Although I will add "by AS" to provide further definition. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:19, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit long-winded, but I do not want to drop the word "controversy", that's the essence of the concept. That does not prevent someone from creating a wider or different template about the people caught by the US. Thundermaker (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Removing Satar Jabar

See Talk: Abu Ghraib's torture and abuse of prisoner # "Satar Jabar" is not a hooded prisoner in the box. I will also propose a Satar Jabar article that leads to the Abu Ghraib page to be removed. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:16, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia