This template has serious original research issues, serious coatrack issues and violates NPOV and WP:coatrack. Calling something a "controversy" when it does't have any references stating it is such is original research. The Coatrack is obvious as is the NPOV. Further there are BLP issues as most of the people listed are alive. At the very least anything listed here should be labeled a controversy by a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

1)Not controversial? Let's start just with one example. All the torture debates surrounding people captured during the "War on Terror" is not controversial?

2)How does this violate WP:BLP? Could you please pick one example Individual and explain it how his rights are violated. IQinn (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

For the edit warrior, find a source that says these instances are "controversial" or it needs to be removed. The sentence "All the torture debates surrounding people captured during the "War on Terror" is not controversial?" does not make any sense in the English language. Your opinion on whether or not something is "controversial" is completely irrelevant. It has to be cited as such by a reliable source otherwise it is just you attributing things to sources that aren't there, again.

It violates BLP because many of these people linked are alive. You running around sating they were involved in whatever without any citation is a vilation of WP:BLP. (Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced;)V7-sport (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If somebody is edit warring that this is you according to the page history. You are gaming the system again. WP:GAMETYPE.

You have not given any example how the BLP rights of any of these individuals is violated. What you have done so far is pure WP:GAMETYPE. Please do show that this is the case. IQinn (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally i suggest you submits this template to TFD as it seems to be the case that you do questions the existence of this template. Let's see what the community says to it. If you do not do this that i will do so. IQinn (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Finally i suggest you submits this template to TFD as it seems to be the case that you do questions the existence of this template." What the hell does that even mean? If you don't have the competence to edit here you shouldn't. BLP states Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced. It's poorly sourced, among other reasons, because most of these aren't called "controversies". I don't happen to thing it would be particularly "controversial" to toss someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into a cage and forget about him until al qaeda issues a formal letter of surrender. If you don't understand that this encyclopedia relies one reliable sources and only publishes verifiable information you don't belong here.,. V7-sport (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As it seems to be the way that you are not familiar with all places of our community, here is the link WP:TFD. How about we are putting the template up there for discussion to prove if the community agrees with you. You have any problem when i do so? IQinn (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Help yourself. (yet another forum where you state the same thing over and over and disgust anyone who would otherwise have an opinion). V7-sport (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This reply shows that you are not willing do engage in a civil content focused debate. IQinn (talk)

Meanwhile you are going around mindlessly reverting everything I have done today... "civil"V7-sport (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been ask to stop and to engage in a civil debate but you refused. No i did not revert everything you have done today. That is simply false. I checked them very carefully. IQinn (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the removal - as per WP:BRD these are related Related media that address "Controversies surrounding people captured during the War on Terror" and therefore give additional information of the topic to the reader. V7 why do you keep breaking WP:BRD? IQinn (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Addressed above. These are movies, not controversies. Find a source that calls them "controversies" or I'll remove it Per WP:NOR and WP: coatrack. Stop claiming sources say things that they don't Iqinn. V7-sport (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Has not been addressed above unless you mean WP:GAMETYPE. This is a template and we do not add references to it. These movies do cover controversies around the "war on terror" and that is verified in the articles where these links go. Do you agree that all in these movies and documentaries is true? Obviously they make a claim and the US rejects these claims. That is what is called a controversy. As suggested above do submit the template to TFD or get a third opinion as it seems from no value to discuss with you. Please do also stop name calling as per WP:CIVIL. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's been addressed, if you don't understand it you don't have the WP:competence to edit here. Go ask someone to translate the relevant policies into a language that you understand. These are movies. Not controversies. Find a go find an RS that calls them a controversy. V7-sport (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ad hominem again why don't you respect WP:CIVIL. If there is an issue with competence that that would be with you. It says related media that address controversies around the "war on terror" what has been explained. That you do not understand this shows in my view that you either have a competence problem in understanding or you refuse to get the point what is even worst. IQinn (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

As said i did not create this template. This movies are obviously about these controversies. That you refuses to get this and that you often uses ad hominem arguments shows that you are not willing to have a civil content focused discussion. IQinn (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi a "forced disappearance" is original research. You just reverted another edit. You still don't understand what edit warring means. Tell me, is it just your abysmal english comprehension or is there some other malfunction? ""If, after having read the attempt I have made to clarify the matter, and having read the policy, you still don't understand what edit warring is, then it seems you must lack the comptence to edit without making the same mistake again JamesBWatson"V7-sport (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You better stop your uncivil attack on me. The one who does not understand seems to be you. Why didn't you even perform an easy Google search as it seems that you do not have an idea what you are talking about. Sorry but i can this only explain by thinking you do not even have a clue what you are talking about or you are extreme POV pushing. IQinn (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't claim that someone is a "forced disappearance" unless you have the sources to say it's a "forced disappearance". Read WP:NOR.

I just posted you the sources. Why don't you get familiar with them? IQinn (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

A google link isn't a reliable source. If you don't understand that you don't belong here. If you don't self revert your last reversions you are edit warring again, proving that you are completely unsuitable to be an editor here. V7-sport (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That is obviously true. Did you check the sources this Google link is pointing to. That are the sources. IQinn (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not my job to source what you want to put on wikipedia. V7-sport (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That is right but i think it is a reasonable request that you check provided references and to explain why you disagree with these sources. IQinn (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just scanned the edit history and this talk page and I think things have gotten a little over-personalized here. Can you both explain succinctly the problem as you both understand it? I am keen to resolve this amicably by recourse to our content and policies lest this become a user conduct issue, in which case I would hand this off to another admin to look at. Meanwhile I will try to open this up to wider review, something you both should both have done a few electrons ago. --John (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

The secondary problem is this is full of original research. It calls things "controversies" without attribution. It states that there are "forced disappearances" when there is no source to back them or even when the people involved are accounted for. He has mindlessly reverted edits of people who's whereabouts can be accounted for and returned them to the "Forced disappearances who were never found" category. I've explained to him over and over on dozens of articles now that you need to have reliable sources to claim what you want to claim. Either he doesn't understand english or doesn't care.

And the other problem is that I have Iqinn going through my edit history to undo just about whatever edit I make here and demanding that I explain, re-explain and re-explain the reasoning for it. The definition of WP:wikihounding. V7-sport (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully disagree that this template is a "POV coatrack" if so it should be deleted. Proposed solution: Discussion at WP:TFD.

Let me assure you that i perfectly understand English as i live and have studied in England and Australia. No you did not explain and you did not prove and especially you are misinterpreting our policies a la WP:GAME. These issues could also easily been addressed and solved in an WP:TFD what i suggest to do.

No i am not Wikihounding. All these articles are on my watch list and it would not have been necessary to clean up behind you if you would have stopped with the large scale removal as you have been asked to do multiple times but you simply continued until a admin needed to stop you.

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

The solution to reverting original research is to stop it. The solution to you following me around and mindlessly reverting every edit I make is to cut it out. Stop edit warring. The solution for you not understanding what original research is is for you to stop editing here until you do. If you cant understand the explanation (and I have explained, over and over. This is a tactic you have used on MANY other pages to filibuster and continue to edit war) that such and such is original research and not backed by reliable sources what else is there to discuss? V7-sport (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not edit warring. That is simply false. I have learned my lesson but you did not. You did not explain you did not prove and you are misinterpreting our policies a la WP:GAME. That you are not willing to agree to submit this template to WP:TFD suggest that your claims are false and that you want to avoid the input from the wider community on this issue. John what do you think about the proposed solution? That would solve the issue and any action would be based on a broader community consensus. What i think would be good. IQinn (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Both V7 and IQinn have been indef blocked and I don't know if they will be allowed back for awhile. In the meantime, we need to iron out the issues with this template. I was thinking of nominating it for deletion, but some of the categories and articles listed in it do appear to be appropriate. I would suggest starting out by deleting the categories and names of living people per WP:BLP. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy regarding categories (which IMHO would reasonably extend to templates like this one) doesn't prohibit their use. We don't use citations in templates, so we have to be sure that if a name is listed under torture here, their BLP page has a reference to the torture allegation. Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed says he was waterboarded, for example.

In the "Forced disappearances" category things do not look so good. Abdul Quddoos Khan is said to have "disappeared" after KSM was arrested in his home. The disappearance could be forced, or not. He does not belong on this template.

I think the template is worth keeping. We just have to weed out the unreferenced. Thundermaker (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I agree with weed out unreferenced. As long as this is a reboot, may I ask why the category has "Controversies surrounding" at all? Shouldn't it just be "People captured...". Although I would add "by the US" to give it more definition. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a little wordy, but I wouldn't want to drop the word "controversies", that is the core of the concept. That doesn't preclude someone creating a broader or different template about people captured by the US, though. Thundermaker (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse#"Satar Jabar" not the hooded prisoner on box. I will also propose the article Satar Jabar which redirects to the Abu Ghraib page for deletion. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please add Jamil el Banna to the template, under the 'tortured' section? Thanks. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)