| Revision as of 08:18, 19 July 2009 editIqinn (talk | contribs)25,844 edits →explanation: Medical records← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:44, 22 July 2009 edit undoSix words (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,572 edits →Medical records: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| Only one of these three reasons would justify a removal. This is not even a border-line case here. The material needs to be removed as soon as possible in accordance with our policies. ] (]) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | Only one of these three reasons would justify a removal. This is not even a border-line case here. The material needs to be removed as soon as possible in accordance with our policies. ] (]) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I totally agree. --] (]) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:44, 22 July 2009
 | Biography: Military Redirect‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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 15:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
explanation
I reverted the poorly explained excision of the section based on the publication of this captive's medical records. The contributor who excised this section from this article excised similar sections from half a dozen other articles -- again without making an attempt to discuss their concern.
I responded to one of those excisions here. Geo Swan (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is simply wrong that i would not engage in discussions. More information about that here: User_talk:Iqinn#question
- The wording of my edit summary might not be the best but it was sufficient for people who are familiar with the cited policies WP:NPF, WP:GRAPEVINE. And i thought you were. I apologies when you think there were words in the edit summary that offended you. That was never my intention. Iqinn (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Medical records
Additional explanation to my edit summary and the related policies.
"not relevant for his notability" The release of medical records of Guantanamo detainees might be interesting in the broader topic of Guantanamo, as for example some of the detainees claim they have suffered health damages. But this is the biography of Hussein Salem Mohammed and there are no secondary sources in the article that discuss his personal health to a level where it could become relevant. The inclusion of this material is not relevant to Hussein Salem Mohammed's notability and can not be included under WP:NPF.
"insufficient sourced" from WP:NPF
"Biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source."
The section is based on a primary source and therefore it can not be included.
"private information that could be possible harmful" Medical information are very personal information. All countries around the world i know have laws against the publishing of medical records. Publishing of medical information is restricted unless the individual agrees to it. Why? I can easily imagine a lot of situations where this could be harmful to an individual. An insurance company could reject to sell him a policy or potential employer could reject to give him a job...
Only one of these three reasons would justify a removal. This is not even a border-line case here. The material needs to be removed as soon as possible in accordance with our policies. Iqinn (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree. --Six words (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)