Talk:Jamil al-Banna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Consensus on this article

I came across this article as I was doing a systematic tidy-up of articles with Arabic titles. You can see from the history of the edits that I added the Arabic of Jamil's name, and applied Arabic naming conventions throughout. The page was automatically added to my watchlist, and so I was presented this morning with what looks like an edit skirmish between Geo Swan and Joaquin Murietta ([1]). I would really like to assume good faith, but this is difficult to when large portions of the page are rewritten without any attempt at commentary. I have readded some parts of this article that were removed and appear to be a straighforward comment on a controversial subject. A large section of the article, based on the tribunal report, could probably do with reworking if it is to be added. In future, please describe any wide-ranging edits to this article here. --Gareth Hughes 11:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edit is a good compromise and is neutral. I see no reason to change it. Thank you!Joaquin Murietta 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gareth, I try to "assume good will" too. I bent over backwards to assume good will and offer JM opportunities to discuss the issues they have. Those efforts have been completely disappointed.

I believe JM's last edit of this article was in bad faith, because, among the criticisms of other articles, on other Guantanamo detainees, was the criticism that those articles neglected to name the charges against the detainees.

Of course, only four of the detainees have been charged. But the unclassified allegations Jamil were available. And I put them in this article. I think JM's removal of the US allegations against Jamil suggest the earlier criticisms were insincere. -- Geo Swan 18:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is getting somewhere, and the others will follow along in time. Part of the difficulty of Wikipedia is collaborating on articles with people you don't know and can't see. There is some quite detailed information about Jamil's case that I didn't edit back in. That wasn't because I felt it didn't belong, but because I feel that difficult articles need to be edited bit by bit. I think that these sections could be rewritten in a news prose style and added back into the text. If we discuss what works and what doesn't here, we should end up with an article that we're all happy with. --Gareth Hughes 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well said Gareth. Co-operation is the name of the game. Your work on the Arabic names is also very valuable, keep up the good work. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article has improved, but I would like to add that Gareth Hughes is a breath of fresh air and that it has hurt my feelings very much to be continually accused by Geo Swan and his buddies of being a. a Mexican Bandit, b. a right wing Cuban, c. a Troll, d. one who conspires to block information, e. one who is attempting to "whitewash" an issue, or f. one who acts in bad faith. Joaquin Murietta 16:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)