Talk:Al Silm Haji Hajjaj Awwad Al Hajjaji

disputed picture

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{npov}} tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 05:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think default sort is a mistake for 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) 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

explanation

This edit removed the identity section, based on the assertion it was "not notable". However the the names this individual was identified by are wildly different. I restored it. I have pointed out to the individual who keeps removing identity sections that we always document when an individual has multiple names. I have cited the examples of Joseph Stalin, Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll. Those individuals original names were "Lavrenti Djugvali", "Samuel Clemens" and "Charles Dodgson". The contributor who keeps removing the identity sections hasn't responded to this point. Geo Swan (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt about the Identity of this individual. And i do not see how Joseph Stalin, Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll would have even the slightest think to do with this section.

This is a single mixup of the name and ISN in one primary source document. Where is the relation between that and Mark Twain.

Did you have a close look at the primary source and the names that follow the mixed up entry?

We do have enough secondary sources, there is no question about "Identity".

The single name mixup in the primary source has not been found notable by any secondary source and is simply based on your personal research.

We had quite some discussions about the problematic of such section at the administrator noticeboard and i guess we have to go there again if you do not come up with some very good reasons how this section increases the quality of our encyclopedia. IQinn (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)