Talk:Zalmay Shah

message: ::About your concern about Zalmay's feelings -- I've got to ask you something.  Usually when someone asks some variation of, "Are you being serious?", it is a prelude to mockery.  But in this case I really want to know.  
::Are you being serious?  About a month ago another wikipedian voiced a similar concern, claiming I had abused the Guantanamo captives, by using the Summary of Evidence (CSRT) memos prepared for their Combatant Status Review Tribunals, and their Administrative Review Board hearings, and the transcripts and other documents arising from those proceedings.  I gave him a long, thoughtful reply, and in that reply I addressed his professed concern for the captive's welfare, at length.  His reaction was surprising.  He was angry.  For a moment he let his real agenda slip out.  His real view was that the DoD was doing a good job in Guantanamo!  It seemed all his claims of concern for the feelings  of the subjects was just a duplicitous ploy.
::So, trusting that the concerns you expressed are sincere, may I suggest that since Zalmay sought out a journalist to tell his story you can set aside your concern that citing, quoting and paraphrasing that reporter's account would violate his rights.
:::(interjecting)
:::You tell me that Zalmay sought out a journalist - unfortunately I have to take your word for that because I don't have access to the single source used in writing this article. Generally WP:N etc require multiple sources independent of the subject. Now if Zalmay sought out a journalist - is even this first article independent of the subject?
:::By the way - if Zalmay is in a country with a political regime which results in individuals being incarcerated without being charged and potentially tortured or just outright assaulted - then yes, I am pretty wary of Wikipedia having an article which says not only did he act as an informant against his countrymen to what many see as an invading army, but he then turned his back on that invading army as well. We should ensure that we have irrefutable sources to both statements.Garrie 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zalmay's feelings and {{tl|blp}}?

message: ::Concerning "notability" -- I know many people treat it as if it were an official wikipedia policy.  Last time I took the time to closely read WP:BIO it was just a guideline -- an unofficial essay.  It was an opinion piece, and stated so right in the first paragraph.  In my opinion it would be a mistake for notability to ever become an official policy.
::In my experience "notability" is a deeply flawed metric -- at least for articles on controversial topics.  Notability is far too vulnerable to being colored by the unconscious judgments of those making the judgment.  In my experience the more willing people are to accept the press releases of DoD spin-doctors at face value, the less willing they are to accept that there is anything notable about the GWOT captives.
::This seems to be the case with all controversial topics.  Some people don't bring the objectivity to the table to recognize that ideas or topics that they don't personally accept can be notable.
::The citizendium, a project similar to the wikipedia, has abandoned the whole notion of "notability".  The first sentence of WP:VER says: 
::This was a very wise choice.  Verifiability is lot easier to reach agreement on, than "truth".  And the citizendium's decision to abandon "notability" in favor of "maintainability" was a similarly wise decision.  IMO the wikipedia would be well advised to deprecate notability.
::Note what WP:CSD#A7 says about notability as a criteria for deletion.  It specifically exeCmpts articles on controversial topics from being speedy deleted on the grounds of notability.
:::(interjecting again)
:::While WP:BIO is only a guideline - WP:BLP is an official policy. It has a lot to say about Articles about living people notable only for one event, and IMO (I know your opinion varies from mine) this article is such an article (very few local translators / informants have been written about in newspapers and chances are most of the articles would be about being an informant, probably using pseudonyms and relying on anonimity). Shah was written about because of what is presented as an unverified claim that he was mistreated while incarcerated without just cause. That is one event.
:::Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional levels of referencing. If mistreatment at that place is so widespread then there should be more than one source. If Shah was so mistreated - to a level that he is individually notable for his level of mistreatment - then there should be sources for that.
:::An analogy: genocide of the jews during WWII is extremely well documented. However it was so widespread that in general, being one of the jews who was killed because they were a jew is not notable and it is likely that there is very little information published in reliable sources about most individual jews who were murdered. I'm not dismissing the genocide as an atrocity: but we don't need individual articles about every victim.Garrie 00:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One last point is, why mention WP:CSD#A7? There was no attempt to speedy this article.Garrie 01:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning notability

message: Someone placed a  on this article, and when no-one noticed, they redirected this article to a larger article.
However, they did not actually try to merge this article to the larger article.  So I reverted their redirection.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true; the content was merged verbatim in this edit and still exists in the article. Jfire (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation