Talk:List of juveniles held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp

Untitled
While it is concomitant upon American citizens and military personnel to adhere to and, in the ideal spirit of Democracy, aspire to the principles of the United States Constitution, it is not unreasonable to expect rational though criticizeable deviations from the letter of the law. If this topic is meant to showcase an example of American hypocrisy, it was poorly chosen. I don’t believe any reasonable adult of any cultural background would agree that children should be treated as in some way having the latitude of an adult. I expect that a vast majority of these imprisoned minors did not willingly take up arms with their adult exploiters. Additionally, even if any of these minors claim to have become willing combatants, I believe their relative innocence would invalidate their being taken seriously; they should be handled patiently and protectively by their captors though their combat knowledge, however little, should be the right of the captors, and should be extracted within the bounds of common reason. - 		 - 	I now turn upon the aforementioned “adult exploiters”, they being the children’s “comrades”-in-arms. These adults, the true “enemy combatants”, should be the ones held accountable for the children’s plight. These adult detainees should ultimately be held responsible for abusing the “rights” of these innocents. (I am using the American definition of “rights” here, as this definition seems to be a great deal more flexible in the East when it comes to children). It is also not difficult to find the irony in the fact that these children are now a great deal safer and have a greater potential to be successfully reintegrated into the more stable portions of their society after they are released. Certainly, military imprisonment of child combatants is not the ideal, nor could it be considered strictly Constitutional, but only those with a political agenda or an incomplete education would not agree that it is the most reasonable option. --KihOshk 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC) -
 * Please keep in mind that the Wikipedia talk pages are not political forums and should be used to discuss how the article in question could be improved. Crito2161 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. However, this article is political in nature, and I have chosen here to discuss why I believe this article is hypocritical. I have not suggested that the article should be expunged although, based on the concern you'd pointed out, perhaps it should be. I would not attempt to delete others' disenting words though, as "Kingboyk" had silently done to me. --KihOshk 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Table
I felt that the way the table was confused a little as it took me a second to realize the middle column was for the date of birth. I have added titles which I felt were appropriate to clarify the columns, however, I am so familiar with wikitables that I can say I have put it in the right way. If you think it should be structured differently, go right ahead, I just wanted to clarify the columns of the table. Crito2161 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

restoring names removed without explanation...
Six names were removed from the list, without explanation, in this edit. I am going to restore them. -- Geo Swan 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of non-minors?
There are some names (anyone born before November 1983) who could not possibly have been minors when they were detained, as they would have been 18 or older at the time. Shouldn't those names be removed? dcandeto 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

EDIT - There are still quite a few who had to be AT LEAST 17 when detained, and several who were 18. Considering 17 is considered a legal adult in most middle eastern societies, they were participating as adults, not children, and shouldn't be considered minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.177.14 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

merge?
A mergeto tag was placed on this article.
 * I don't think this is a good idea, because an excessive urge to merge strips from the wikipedia all the advantages a digital encyclopedia has over a paper encyclopedia. Paper documents are inherently linear, because paper is inherently linear.  A digital encyclopedia, on the other hand, can allow readers the freedom to traverse the multidimensional universe of human knowledge in the way that best suits them -- provided we can rein in the urge to merge from people who can't imagine an encyclopedia that isn't like a paper encyclopedia.
 * Linking works best when articles are relatively small and focussed. Omnibus articles betray our readers, by trying to shoehorn their search for knowledge to the paths that make sense to us.

The person who put the mergeto offered this justification in the edit summary.
 * ''"This is not an article that would appear in an Encyclopedia. The information is important information and should not be deleted, but this is not an encyclopedia-type article..."

The edit summary is the wrong place for the person who places a tag to explain their reasoning. When the tag expands it tells readers where to look for the discussion of whether the merge makes sense. This is where the person who places the tag should initiate that discussion.

Unfortunately, the person who placed the tag made several other mistakes when doing so. Consequently, there was absolutely no way readers of the war on terrorism would ever see the proposal, or its discussion.
 * 1) The merge tag they placed  , when  expanded, directed interested readers to discuss the merge at Talk:War on Terror.  But war on terror is a redirect to war on terrorism.  No one who reads talk:war on terrorism will see any comments left in talk:war on terror.
 * 2) The person who placed the mergeto, didn't place the corresponding mergefrom.

Consequently, I am removing the tag.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name needs to be changed
War on Terror is capitalised. Furthermore, you ought to be able to come up with a somewhat more neutral-sounding/encyclopedic title. --kingboyk (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that either we need to list the minors detained by Pakistan or other countries in the "War on Terror", or the name needs to be changed to note that these are US-held detainees only. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

responsible use of tags...
Someone slapped a cleanup tag on this article in September 2007. They didn't leave a note here on the talk page, explaining what they thought needed cleaning up. If no one places an explanation here, within a reasonable period of time, as to why they think this tag belongs here I suggest we remove it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As promised. Geo Swan (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories
I can't see the logic behind including Category:Terrorism, a root category with many more relevant sub-categories. Specifically, the article is directly linked to the War on Terror, and is in that category, an appropriate sub-category of Category:Terrorism. Including this article in any sub-category of Category:Terrorists is equally inappropriate, as these people do not all meet the requirements listed there, notably the absence of war. The only reference in the entire article to anyone being a terrorist is Abdulrahim Kerimbakiev's alleged "family ties to known terrorists". - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

questionable edits
Since I last looked at this article it has had some questionable edits.

In particular, there are serious discrepancies between the US claim to the United Nations that Guantanamo only ever held eight minors, and the estimated dates in List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006. Further DoD spin-doctors routinely over-estimate the ages of captives -- like Mohammed Jawad. DoD spin-doctors claimed medical estimates put his age at 17 when captured. He and his family claimed he was just 12 years old. Later research confirmed his estimate (no one has a birth certificate in Afghanistan -- so practically no one knows there exact age. A boy is considered a man when he can grow a beard.)  His medical records, when captured, showed he was quite short. Photos of him next to his male relatives, when repatriated, show him towering over them -- strongly suggesting he had not finished his puberty growth spurt -- which also confirmed that the official estimate of his age was a generous over-estimate.

Someone removed all references to the official list, which says that 22 of the captives were minors -- using the international description of who is a minor. I suggest this bias should be remedied by the restoration of the discussion of the official list. Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your are engaging in original research and your suggestion to replace secondary sources (scholarship} with a primary source is a very bad idea. Tocklet (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit startled that ages are a matter that requires a secondary source. They are not "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims."  I wonder how many of the lat/long locations in Wikipedia articles are from secondary sources.
 * I don't know who removed it. I didn't look, but I think we could make a good guess.  I probably don't mind you (Geo) putting it back, but I do think you're making too much of it.
 * Their treatment isn't always determined by "adult" status. Whether by U.S. military regulations (AR 190-8, revised in 1997, before the Bush administration), or by international law (standards taken from the Fourth Geneva Convention), both use the age of 15 to separate children from adult detainees.  The military undoubtedly used that age to comply with the GCs.  You can find the phrase "necessary measures to ensure that children under fifteen" in both documents.
 * That's not to say they're no longer technically "juveniles" at 15. I'm just saying that they're not supposed to be treated like children.
 * On Mohammed Jawad, the bone scan was the only good method they had at the time (we should get a wikilink to a bone scan article, but I see there several types of bone scans). His relatives are obviously biased, both toward their son/nephew and against the U.S. government (and probably against civilization itself).  I have no idea how good those tests are supposed to be, but I really don't think the doctor cares more about legal consequences to his age than he or she does the integrity of the test.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of juveniles held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5Y1AgJBZR?url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ju2OwMCVeX3Zua1Wpbssv4MMDScgD90Q8IK80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ju2OwMCVeX3Zua1Wpbssv4MMDScgD90Q8IK80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)