Talk:Ravil Mingazov

As a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?

Another contributor removed an image I consider appropriate and relevant from this article, with the edit summary: "No good reason given for the inclusion of this images into this and further biographies off Guantanamo detainees - please find consensus first".

This other contributor has stated their objection to this image before -- IIRC they called it "misleading propaganda". In response to this claim I requested them to be more specific. Our article on propaganda further breaks down propaganda into types of propaganda. If the image was really being used as "propaganda" it should have been a trivial matter for them to identify what kind of propaganda it was.

Appropriate and relevant images make articles easier to read and easier to understand. I agree some articles have too many images. I believe one appropriate and relevant image per screenful works best.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush was one of the most significant events for the 600 or so captives who remained in Guantanamo in 2004. The reading of this notice to the captives is one of the most significant events for the captives. It signalled that they would no longer be held without explanation. It signalled that they would be informed of some of the allegations that lead to their captivity (other allegations remained classified). It signalled that they would have an opportunity to try to refute allegations that lead to their captivity.

This other contributor has also objected to the use of this image, on the basis that no reference has been provided that the captive in the image is the one having the notice read to them. To this I responded that the caption doesn't claim the captive in the image was the same captive the article was about -- but we know that all captives who had a CSRT review had this notice read to them.

I also responded by talking about my work on the Flower class corvettes. Several hundred of these WW2 corvettes were built. At the time I worked on those articles we had individual articles on less than two dozen of the vessels. And we had two or three images of the corvettes, showing both the original configutation, and the extended forecastle retrofit. I added those images to the articles on the remaining vessels. The captions stated it was an image of a sister ship. I felt it was appropriate to add these images to the other articles. I didn't expect anyone to object to the use of a sister ship on the articles on those vessels. IIRC no one did object.

Similarly, I think it is apropriate to use this image, on this article, and other articles about Guantanamo captives who we know went through a CSR Tribunal.

IIRC this contributor has also stated, as if it were an accepted fact, that this image should only be used on a single article -- Combatant Status Review Tribunal. But they didn't offer a meaningful, substantive, policy based reason why this image shouldn't be used elsewhere. I have asked whether they would object to using an image of the periodic table on the individual articles on the 100 or so chemical elements.

Frankly, since I don't remember the contributor who is objecting now to the use of this image on this article offering any response to my counter-points I had assumed that they were tacitly agreeing with me, or at least had decided the issue wasn't serious enough to pursue.

If this contributor believes they have meaningful, substantive responses I encourage them to state them. Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)