historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump
.
Problem #1: A number of articles on Guantanamo detainees get proposed for deletion every month, some go "Keep", some go "Delete" and there's little consistency...
Problem #2: Somebody claims that the text of a paragraph dealing with ARBs is not neutral and updates it...however, it will remain in its old state on 800 other articles...we need a centralised discussion on what these paragraphs should look like.
Solution: A task-force to decide on the ideal 'template' for an article on a Guantanamo detainee, which information to include, which information to not include...and then slowly implementing the changes consistently across the articles.
/List of Templates
Names
I'm personally in favour of using first names, common sense on any middle names (Abdul Rahman Rafiq should not be shortened to Abdul Rafiq, but Abdul Muhammad Rafiq could be shortened to Abdul Rafiq) and surnames from an Arabic-language perspective for the article title, while using the full name for the introduction. I also support consistent use of al-X surnames rather than "al X" "Al X" "Al-X" or anything else. We do not title Percival Lowell's article "Percival Lawrence Lowell", let's not treat Guantanamo detainees differently. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 09:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opening paragraphs
Right now opening paragraphs state "X is a citizen of Country who is held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba. His Guantanamo Internee Security Number is Z. Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts estimate he was born in Year, in City, Country." - I think this really doesn't do enough to establish any notability for the detainee, we should focus on bringing the allegations against the detainee right up into the introduction, X is notable because he is "alleged to have served as a bodyguard to Osama bin Laden, and fought in the 2001 skirmishes around Tora Bora before being captured by bounty hunters" or something. Anything other opinions? Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 09:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
".
From July 2004 through March 2005, a CSRT was convened to make a determination whether each captive had been correctly classified as an "enemy combatant". Approximately two-thirds of prisoners chose to participate in their tribunals.[1]
It needs to be shorter, it's a brief primer on introducing the concept of a CSRT to the reader, then can click the link to discover the history behind it.
Since it doesn't mention the detainee's name at this point, this part could be templated if we can sneak past the template Nazis
Image caption needs to be chopped down for length
I'm mutable on the issue of the first reference to the "Bush administration", but feel the second one is definitely replaceable.Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 08:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use [[George W. Bush|Bush]] [[United States President|Presidency]] in new material I add. And change instances of Bush administration to
Presidency
.
Templating, or something like it, would be extremely useful. It would allow changing the text in one place, and having it change everywhere. But, the original uses I made of templates were, I learned last fall, counter to policy. I learned this when Template:TalibanBounty was nominated for deletion.
The policy is, if I understand it, that templates have to have some tune-able aspect. The simple transclusion of text, into article space, is not allowed. I didn't know that. A lot of people don't know this.
I can see some arguments for prohibiting the simple transclusion of text. I think most wikipedians don't know how to use transclusion. So it makes the transcluded part of the article basically inaccessible to them. It is not transparent.
Maybe some mechanism that is like a template could be authorized for the simple tranclusion of text into article space?
I've written, in the past, that the Tribunals were convened from July 2004 to March 2005. The rules on their operation were finalized in late July. Apparently the captives all had some kind of notice read to them in July 2004. But, recently, I read some stuff that suggests that Al Ajmi, the suicide bomber, was the first captive to have a CSRT convened, on August 22004. From my more recent reading it seems like the last CSRT that convened, when the captive could be present was in mid January 2005. There were some CSRTs convened after that -- but I believe they were all "do-overs". FWIW it looks like there may have been some do-overs for captives whose initial CSRT confirmed their enemy combatant status. Geo Swan (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "although 241 out of the 558 captives chose not to attend the hearings."...
I think a more than 317 attended their Tribunals;
I think the DoD has violated its court order and withheld a few, like
habeas
petition on his behalf, but his habeas package is not one they released.
The DoD seems to have withheld, at least, several dozen habeas petitions.
What about this replacement:
These Tribunals provided the captives' their first opportunity to officially learn some of the justifications for their detention.
Captives were allowed to chose whether to participate in their tribunals.
Close to two thirds of the captives did participate in their Tribunals.
Or this replacement:
These Tribunals provided the captives' their first opportunity to officially learn some of the justifications for their detention.
Close to two thirds of the captives did participate in their Tribunals.
I'm getting permission to use templates for this from the relevant Wikiniches - I also tweaked the wording a bit per your suggestion to use "approximately two-thirds" since you're right, there's "no indication" for some detainees whether or not they participated, and our numbers might not be exact. Could we get a citation nonetheless to add to the template? Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for a non-DoD reference. In the meantime there is the DoD list, entitled: "Index to Transcripts of Detainee Testimony and Documents Submitted by Detainees at Combatant Status Review Tribunals Held at Guantanamo Between July 2004 and March 2005" -- which lists 360 captives. It is one of the lists the DoD published in September 2007. It took me about two dozen hours to interpolate it two years ago. My interpolation had some gaps. But their list contains a couple of errors too. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, added it as a citation - it's perfectly valid. We'll want "third-party media" links somewhere in each Guantanamo detainee article if we can, but it doesn't need to be specifically in this section. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In November 2008 The New York Times put up what it calls its Guantanamo Docket.
The project consists of about 200 pages of scaffolding, and about 16,000 pages of original
OARDEC
documents.
The scaffolding consists of a list of all the captives, and lists of the captives by nationality.
IMO the information in these lists is not copyrightable, as per
Feith v. Rural
.
The scans from the original public domain documents is also not copyrightable.
Each of pages from the published OARDEC allegation memos and transcripts has the information from those documents in two formats.
First each page of the large OARDEC
portable document format
files has been converted into an image -- one image per page.
Second, each page has been optically scanned, to convert it into searchable text.
The New York Times provided a search capability. Readers can search the whole docket. Or they can search for words within the documents for a single captive.
Unfortunately, automated optical scans are imperfect. Dust, or manual notations, on the original documents can produce gibberish. It can also generate typographical
errors, when a letter is scanned in as a similar letter, or letter pair, or when digits are scanned as letters, and vice versa.
Even cursory manual correction of automated optical scans adds at least one order of magnitude more work. Manual correction intended to eliminate almost all typos adds
several orders of magnitude more work. The New York Times did not perform this level of corrections, so some searches will fail, due to typographical errors. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each captives' dossier
Each captive has a dossier within the "docket".
If the captive was transferred or released prior to having a
CSR Tribunal
convened on his behalf the New York Times has a short page with a short paragraph, stating his nationality, age, and date of repatriation.
When a captive had a CSR Tribunal allegaitn memo, links are provided to the captive's CSR Tribunal memo, and to the ARB memos, and to the transcripts from the Tribunals and ARBs. Captives can have up to eight documents in their dossier.
The NYTimes did not republish the decision memos, or the habeas dossiers. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capturing the optically scanned text
It is possible to capture the optically scanned text. Becasue the original was in the public domain, the NYTimes optical scans are also, IMO, in the public domain.
Using the view source feature of a browser like mozilla firefox one can fairly easily capture the optically scanned text from the first page of memo or transcript.
The page that opens up when one invoked the view source feature is mainly scaffolding. The text of the document constitutes about one eighth of the web-page, and is embedded about in the middle. You have to scroll down to find it.
It is possible to capture subsequent pages, but it is more work.
Unfortunately the NYTimes next page button presents the reader with the next page of the document. But the view source feature still show the text from the first page.
To get to the text of a subsequent page a readers has to:
scroll to the subsequent page;
pick a phrase that occurs on the subsequent page, and type it in the box that lets readers search within a single captive's documents;
clicking search should present the reader with a list of pages where the search term occurred within the captive's documents. If it doesn't find the phrase it means the optical scan produced a typo, and the reader should pick a different phrase, and try to search again.
The reader should ten select the appropriate page from the list.
Once a page has been brought up through the search function, page view shows the text of that page of the document, which can then be captured, and worked with. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the NYTimes efforts
The peeling apart of the original OARDEC pdf files, the optical scanning of them, and the integration of them, so the text can be searched must have represented a very considerable effort. It may have represented several person-years.
It has been an excellent resource.
Nevertheless, I consider it a much more limited resource than another contributor. That other contributor has asserted that we should place great confidence that the NYTimes didn't just go to a very considerable clerical effort in the tasks of scanning the text, collating it, and making it searchable. That other contributor has repeatedly asserted that the NYTimes (1) employs subject field experts; (2) that those subject field experts brought their subject field knowledge to certain aspects of how the presented the information. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of the NYTimes choice of names
For many captives there are multiple incompatible transliterations of the captives' names. In some cases the names aren't just different transliterations -- the multipled names the DoD called the captives are wildly different, or don't even resemble one another.
The other wikipedian has assured us that the NYTimes experts on the transliteration of names written in non-European scripts reviewed the different names, and made an informed choice of the primary name for the captive. They have argued that we should rename several dozen articles to follow the NYTimes lead.
I see no sign that the NYTimes ever claimed its choice of names was reviewed by language experts. I am skeptical that it was.
They offered no crtical intepretation of any other aspect of the document. Some of the age figures proved to be unreliable. But they repeated the DoD figures without question.
One possible justification for using a different name for a captive than one of the names the DoD used could be to show respect for what the captive says his name was. And in this I have asserted that the NYTimes has been inconsistent. For some captive they have used wht the captive said his real name was. In other cases they continued to use the DoD's name. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How to resolve whether the NYTimes called upon its subject field experts
We could request the NYTimes reply to a letter from us with a letter to the OTRS committee, that confirms or refutes theories abot the scholarship they applied.
If we are going to contact them, I think, out of courtesy, we should agree to one brief, simple letter ahead of time.
I'd be very reluctant to take into account a reply to a letter I didn't share in the drafting. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with
Afghan training camps
?
The wikipedia currently has articles on about two dozen Afghan training camps.
I now think some of these article should be amalgamated.
I started most of these articles. At the time I started them I was going through the transcripts of the captives' Tribunal sessions, and creating articles about each camp, as I came across them.
At the time I started them I honestly thought sufficient sources for all of them would come to light.
Sources have emerged for some of them.
I found a source that quoted Indian intelligence officials who estimated that there had been over one hundred training camps in Afghanistan, and in the FATA -- ie camps run by outside groups that the Taliban allowed to operate, or were run by groups rebelling against the Taliban, or run by tribal militias in the FATA.
Privately, not for article space -- I suspect that many of the camps the
OARDEC
documents list as separate camps, were duplicates -- camps which were known by several different names.
There are various indications that the
are all the same camp.
Those indications don't rise to the level of
WP:RS
, so no speculation belongs in article space. I am noting this here because I am
going to keep my eyes peeled for
WP:RS
that can confirm which camps had multiple names I'd appreciate a heads-up.
I think the camps for which the only sources are OARDEC allegation memos, and those allegation memos merely say a few captives attended the camp, but don't provide any other details, should be amalgamated. Geo Swan (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The West Point Study has two lists of camps. The most important list includes 11 camps.
Update -- Since I drafted this proposal another contributor has nominated most of the articles on training camps for deletion, one by one. I do not think the individual nominations were collegial, or otherwise consistent with wikipolicy. Some closed as redirects, others closed as deletes. I am considering initiating a DRV for all of them, so that their histories can be restored, to facilitate merging with a broader article. Geo Swan (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After the last closure of
Afghan training camp
on it. I drafted the following, to place there. But I decided to try to transclude the material both here and there.
The Felter study listed 38 camps by name. The Felter study does not list all the camps named in OARDEC allegation memos. It doesn't even list all the camps named in the CSRT allegation memos, just the first 516 memos to be published. So far 572 CSRT allegation memos have been published. In addition the allegation memos published from the annual Administrative Review Board hearings were more detailed. Over one thousand ARB memos have been published, some of which list previously unnamed camps.
Not all the camps were in Afghanistan. Some seemed to be in Pakistan's
Afghan training camps
. But other camps were near disputed Kashmir, near the Indian border. Still other camps were alleged to be Chechnya, Bosnia, the Phillipines and Indonesia.
Not all of the camps were fly-by-night jihadist camps. A few of the captives had, listed as allegations that justified their continued detention, attendance at training camps back in their home countries, in their youths, when they were undergoing compulsory military service. One guy had listed what sounded not like a military training camp, but a mundane summer camp, for kids, that included a rifle range.
Some camps seem to have been official Taliban camps, not camps run by al Qaeda, or the
Hezbi Islami Gulbuddin, or the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. And I wonder whether there are grounds to treat the official Taliban camps differently. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
It has always been my position that the OARDEC allegation memos are themselves secondary sources, because the authors of those memos were charged with the responsibility to go through the reports from half a dozen or more other agencies.
It was their responsibility to detect duplicative material, and strip them out.
It was their responsibility to detect contradictions, and reconcile them, or assess which version was the most credible, or, at least, make clear there were contradictions.
it was their responsibility to assess whether material in the reports they reviewed was no longer credible, and had been superceded by newer information.
I believe that by all reasonable definitions of the distinction between a primary source, and a secondary source, the responsibilities on the authors of the OARDEC memos clearly make them secondary sources. So camps that are named in an OARDEC memo, but aren't named in a press report, or a scholarly article, like the Felter articles, are, nevertheless, named in an
WP:RS
.
Therefore I think it would be appropriate to list all the alleged training facilities listed in the OARDEC memos, without regard to whether they were also listed in the Felter memo, or any other non-OARDEC source.
If there is no
WP:RS
don't say that.
However, I believe it is not
WP:RS say. I do not believe it would be original research to say that alleged attendance at one of these camps was offered as a justification, in part, for continued detention in Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
As I think I suggested considerably earlier, I agree that a merged article on them all would be best. I think a request for undeletion to permit the merge would probably be the best course. I like his new suggestion for Training facilities allegedly attended by Guantanamo captives. as a title--there were various suggestions in some of the AfDs that the inclusion of "Afghan" in the title was in some way undue weight or POV; I still do not see this, but it answers the objections. and is better than any title I was able to devise. I remain confident that over the course of the next 10 years or so there will be adequate academic and non academic sources in various languages for individual articles, but this does not appear to be the case yet. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guantanamo CSR Tribunal and ARB images and captions
Images of the trailers where the CSR Tribunals were held, and where the ARB hearing were held are used on a large number of the articles on Guantanamo captives.
I suggest that the captions used for these images should be consistent. I suggest that we a central discussion of the captions here.
I drafted most of the captions used. Another contributor has made clear they don't like the captions I offered, and has supplied a brief, alternate caption. I don't own the images, or own the caption, and I don't believe I ever claimed to own either. However I did revert instances of the new, brief caption, because it was (1) inaccurate; and (2) unreferenced. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective use of relevant images are a good thing. They can be over-used. IMO approximately one relevant image per screenful is extremely helpful. Since the CSR Tribunal, if they attended it, would be one of the most significant events in the captives' entire stay in Guantanamo, I believe an image of where it was held is highly relelvant. The ARB hearing, while not quite as significant, I also believe to be highly relelvant. And, for those captives who apparently chose not to attend their Tribunals, the reading of the notice informing them that the Supreme Court had ordered that they should be provided with an opportunity to learn, and try to refute the allegations that justified their detention is also a very significant event, and images of the reading of that notice is an excellent image to illustrate that portion of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should the caption state that the captives were shackled?
Another contributor challenged whether all captives were shackled during their Tribunals. I believe I have documented that all captives were shacked, hand and foot. The Tribunal officers were from
JTF-GTMO rule. The Tribunal officers didn't have the authority to order the captives to be unshackled, even if they had wanted to. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
Should the caption state that only 37 of the captives' Tribunals were observed?
Again I think this is important and significant information. According to a "senior DoD official" 37 of the first 558 Tribunals were, theoretically, open to the press. However, the press was never informed whose Tribunals were being conducted, and, apparently, were only told intermittently that Tribunals were taking place.
The Tribunals of the last 20 captives, ISN 10011-10030, were not open to the press, even in theory. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Guantanamo captives faced charges prior to 2004. So far slightly more than two dozen captives have faced charges. The Geneva Conventions allow signatories to hold combatants, without charge, for the duration of the conflict. But the Bush administration insisted that the captives were not entitled to POW status.
So, until recently, all the Guantanamo captives's articles described them being held in
extrajudicial detention
-- unless they had charges filed against them.
Recently another contributor, the wiki-id
extrajudicial detention
with "unlawfully detained", for those captives who had a favorable ruling in their habeas corpus petition.
Personally, I have no problem adding the term "unlawfully detained" -- provided there are
WP:RS
to support the use of this term, shouldn't it only apply after the judge(s) made their rulings?
Subsequently the wiki-id User:Iqinn has made similar replacements of "extrajudicial detention" with "unlawfully detained". Since two contributors have gone on record as stating that "unlawfully detained", if properly referenced, should supplement the earlier "extrajudicial detention", not replace it, I don't think any more of these replacements should be made. Now, if User:Iqinn does not accept that two contributors constitute a consensus I really think they should (1) wait; (2) engage in civil, collegial discourse, in a central place; (3) and if they remain unconvinced, call for the input of uninvolved third parties.
I am going to ask for input from some other individuals with an interest in the Guantanamo captives. Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We reflect what is in the RSs. At least, that's what we do if we are following wp policy. The described change, if not following the consensus RS approach, is inappropriate. And, under the circumstances, if we apply wp:duck it has the feel of POV-pushing. One last point -- even people released from prison after being charged with, say, a murder ... and found innocent ... are not considered "unlawfully detained". The law routinely detains, makes a finding, and then releases -- without the detention being "unlawful". You may want to post this at the law wikipedia project as well, and point them here, as litigators with any criminal law background at all will be sensitive to the distinction, I suspect.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should keep "extrajudicial detention" and then add that he was "unlawfully detained" as well.
I disagreed with Iqinn's phrasing when he said he was "unlawfully detained for more than eight years." That implies it was unlawful to pick him up, which it wasn't, and that the government is currently breaking the law by holding him now while they appeal.
I askedUser:Iqinn"So, on how many articles did you replace "extrajudicial detention" with 'unlawfully detained'?" He replied"I added unlawfully detained where it is supported by reliable source."
I was going to reply on User talk:Iqinn, but decided to comment here, and merely leave a diff there. Of course the wiki-id Iqinn didn't just add the new term, they deleted the old term.
I don't think any one objects to someone adding the term "unlawfully detained" to a single article, or a series of articles -- provided they cite
WP:RS
that backs up the use of that term.
I am concerned with the replacement of "extrajudicial detention" with "unlawfully detained".
IMO if any of those judges rulings used the term "unlawfully detained" in their rulings, then I think the term can be added to that article. I think it should be added saying something like: "In his August 2010 ruling on the captive's habeas petition US District Court Judge Joe Blow ordered the captive's release, and described him as being "unlawfully detained". When the judges used different terminology, then I think the article should quote the exact same wording as the judge's ruling.
If a good
WP:RS
wrote a summary article about all the rulings, and characterized all of them using a term like "illegal detention", then that term can be used in all the articles, with the appropriate attribution.
I think it is safe to assume that extrajudicial detention has been replaced on all the three dozen or so captives whose habeas corpus petition was concluded in their favor.
I too would like to see the
WP:RS that backs up the use of this term. Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
