Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high value detainees


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. (4d, 8k) - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

List of high value detainees

 * This is somewhat duplicative of List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Further, the characterization of some detainees as "high value" and others as ordinary is not encyclopedic. Joaquin Murietta 00:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In anticipation of the User:Geo Swan's usual and customary attacks on me, let me point out my good faith my edit tonight of his other new article, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan. Please compare the before and after before you misjudge me. Joaquin Murietta 00:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No overlap -- Civilian intelligence officials have retained the couple of dozen detainees who have the most intelligence value. They are not held at Guantanamo Bay.  So there is no overlap between the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and a list of those with an intelligence value so great they are not held by the military, are not held in Guantanamo Bay.
 * Dick Cheney made the distinction. On October 20, 2005, VPOTUS Dick Cheney tried to get John McCain to change his proposal to restrict American interrogators to only those interrogation techniques authorized the official Army interrogation manual.  Cheney wanted McCain's proposal to only apply to those detainees in military custody, and not to the smaller group of detainees with real intelligence value, who were in the custody of civilian intelligence agencies.  I contend that circumstances of arrest, detention, interrogations of the detainees in civilian custody, and the allegations against them, merits inclusion in the wikipedia.  And I contend that an article devoted to those held in Guantanamo Bay is an innapropriate place for that inclusion.  None of these guys is held in Guantanamo Bay.  I wasn't completely happy with the name I picked when I started this article.  And the confusion expressed suggests the article should have a different name.  But it certainly merits inclusion.  --  Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 *  Delete Undecided for now my main problem with this article is the question "what makes a detainee high value?" I agree that List of Guantanamo Bay detainees better covers the topic I think most people would be looking for. -- Malo 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As above. The List of Guantanamo Bay detainees -- all of whom are in military custody -- does not cover detainees who are not held in Guantanamo Bay, and who are held by civilian intelligence agencies.
 * As above, the wikipedia needs this article, but it needs a different title.
 * Rumsfeld, and other senior officials, have claimed that the interrogations at Guantanamo Bay have produced "invaluable intelligence". There is a long tradition in war-fighting to use disinformation.  I think it was Winston Churchill who said that, in wartime, "the truth must be guarded by a bodyguard of lies".  I think accepting the "invaluable intelligence", and "worst of the worst" claims, at face value, is POV.  I think balanced, neutral coverage of the detainee issues requires having articles also present verifiable information that allows readers to test the Bush administrations claims.  If the Guantanamo Bay facility really included the worst of the worst it would contain Abu Zubaydah, al-Libi, and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.
 * The USA has, in custody, some guys who are believed to be senior members of al Qaeda, guys who had foreknowledge of, or helped plan, the attacks of 9-11. And the USA has, in custody, some guys who are believed to have been the directors of terrorist training camps.  These are the guys who are really  "the worst of the worst", the ones with real "intelligence value".  US civilian intelligence agencies have held on to them.  They are not held in Guantanamo Bay.  And the Bush administration is fighting very strongly to continue to hold them in secret interrogatin centres and to continue to interrogate them using more extreme interrogation techniques.  --  Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - In response to the comments you left on my talk page, Geo Swan: My other problem with this article is how inherently American the POV is. Even if you removed the subjective term high value, a List of detainees, does not mean only those detainees held by the US, as this article implies. And honestly, I don't think that is the kind of article you are trying to create here. All articles should try very hard to attain a neutral point of view (NPOV).  Not only does the title of this article fail to do so, it fails to do so on two accounts.  The rest of this article follows the suit of the title and maintains a very non neutral point of view. -- Malo 19:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a poor choice of title. My mistake.  How would you feel about Terror suspects held by US inteligence agencies or detainees held by US intelligence agencies in the "global war on terror".  It would be more convenient to use something like Terror suspects held by the CIA.  But we don't know that they are held by the CIA.  Afghanistan is one of the world's most prolific opium growing areas.  So the DEA may be working there.  There is a slim possibility that the CIA delegated the detention of some suspects to the DEA or other more junior agencies.
 * I can't tell if you think that the article, as it stands, is too sympathetic to the detainees, or too sympathetic to the stands taken by the Bush administration. Would you care to clarify that for me?
 * Do you have any concrete suggestions, beyond a change of title, as to what the article needs to seem NPOV to you? I made some changes to take your comments into account.  In particular I changed many of the uses of the term "high value detainees" to "suspects held by US Civilian Intelligence agencies".
 * You made a guess at the "kind of article am I trying to create here". Well, you don't have to guess.  I will tell you.  I believe that a NPOV requires more than merely echoing the positions of the Bush administration.  I believe that the presentation of pertinent, verifiable information, that does not use inflammatory language, is not POV.  Did I use noninflammatory language?  I thought so.  But if you disagree, I'd appreciate you pointing me to specific passages where my efforts fell short.
 * A limited number of wikipedia contributors seem to have the view that merely trying to write about certain topics is biased, and POV. I disagree.  Some topics may be harder to address in an NPOV way.  But I am willing to make the effort.  And I am going to count on others who can assume good will, to help me out with that.
 * Thanks for your reply. --  Geo Swan 21:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can provide a better title for this article, I've been racking my brain about it. And I think that you are correct about NPOV and how other users deem them to be POV based upon the topic.  (myself potentially included).  So I applaude you for attempting to do something that I wouldn't personally feel comfortable with.  One problem I have with this is in the first line United States intelligence agencies are widely believed to maintain covert interrogation centres  Widely believed is not really verified.  It's mighty close, and in all likelihood it's true, however proving it becomes difficult when a government that likes to keep its secrets is involved.  Hence the rest of this article is built upon a widely believed statement (or not so much for conspiracy theorists).  And I suppose there are other articles that do this, even more from further back in history, however this is a developing topic and real information isn't exactly plentiful and verifible just yet.  I suggest you mention somewhere in here the term Unlawful combatant and how it relates to the Geneva Convention, and the status of these detainees.  Perhaps this article could be shortened and added as section upon another article such as War on Terrorism. Or perhaps it needs to be expanded.  I think the problem you face still is that most people see this as a work created by someone who has strong or bias views one way or the other.  And that consequently this article is being used to push someone's agenda of either absolute truth or half-truths.  Which comes back to why I don't feel comfortable on these sort of things.  However I am willing to change my vote, I just haven't decided fully what is best for this article. -- Malo 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Pov article implies there is low or no value to the other detainees. Let's not go there. List of Guantanamo Bay detainees covers the topic w/o inherent PoV. KillerChihuahua 11:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As above, the detainees who are not in military custody, are not detained in Cuba, who were retained by civilian intelligence agencies, because they were senior al Qaeda who had real knowledge of participation in the planning of the attacks on 9-11 merit separate coverage from the detainees who are in military custody. The possibility exists that the interrogation techniques used on those in the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees will be scaled back to just those authorized in the Army's field manual on interrogation, while those in civilian custody remain interrogated by more extreme techniques, like "waterboarding" and mock executions.  That alone, IMO, merits a separate article.  --  Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as inherently POV - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in current form, the article is unrecognisable from the original and now has a genuine purpose. I note the author(s) have included the comment "needs a name change" - I quite agree.  As it stands this is a completely different article with an apparently different subject. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain why this article is "inherently POV"? --  Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you check the criteria for deletion in Deletion policies you will see that a perceived POV problem is not grounds for deletion. --  Geo Swan 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless some appropriate source can be cited for the origin of the term "high value detainees". TheMadBaron 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As above, the wikipedia needs this article, but undera a better name. A google search on the term "high value detainee" turns up over 600 links.  --  Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * keep, but rename. Disclaimer, I started this article.
 * As above, in addition to the detainees with little intelligence value held in Afghanistan and Guantanamo US Civilian intelligence officials maintain small, covert, interrogation centres where they have been holding and interrogating the most senior al Qaeda captives, those who may have helped plan the 9-11 attacks.
 * The article needs to be renamed. The original name is confusing.  I am not sure what name might be better.  How about List of al Qaeda captives in CIA custody?
 * Both US officials, and media correspondents have used the term "high value detainee".  But, since I started the article, with that name, I realized that US officials did not restrict that term to the most senior al Qaeda, they also used it for the most senior members of Saddam's regime.  All of the other 51 people on those famous playing cards are "high value detainees".  My mistake.  The article definitely needs a better name.  --  Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep since government officials and the media have made a distinction between these prisoners and apparently "low-value" or "worthless" prisoners. This article is no more inherently POV than is the Axis of Evil article, which designates Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as more evil than other countries. The article could be moved to a more NPOV name, though, leaving List of high value detainees as a redirect. In either case, I think high-value should be hyphenated. --TantalumTelluride 21:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable/inherently POV. --Carnildo 22:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you check the criteria for deletion in Deletion policies you will see that a perceived POV problem is not grounds for deletion. --  Geo Swan 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you check, "article cannot be made NPOV" (ie. inherently POV) is grounds for deletion. --Carnildo 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I did just double-check Deletion policy. I do not see the "article cannot be made NPOV" there.  The closest was:
 * "Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Wikipedia:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, renaming, merging, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem."
 * Surely, before applying the extreme measure of deletion, you, or someone who agrees with you, should have made a sincere, good faith effort to try discussion, renaming, merging or simple editing. I have been doing my share, good faith edits to address those who have concerns.  Yes, we are discussing the article, now.  But no one tried discussion before filing an {afd}.  That does not conform the to deletion procedures.  I contend that what the passage I quoted from the policy means is that an {afd} is the last resort to be tried, once good faith attempts at discussion, etc., failed.  --  Geo Swan 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Verifiable and not POV. Ashibaka (tock) 03:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect per ashibaka, relavent and pertinent to the gitmo situation. possible redirect.  Newyorktimescrossword 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment re Definitions of High Value Detainee The  argument is that the U.S. govt particularly mistreats those detainees that it defines as high value.  The problem with the list  is that the U.S govt has never disclosed the names. A U Mich site defines the phrase  -- High Value Detainee  A detainee who, due to his or her senior position in the military, security, scientific/technical, or government structures of Saddam Husayn's [sic] Regime, may have knowledge or insights of relevance to ISG's mission.  [www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer3_e.pdf  1]. If this is the correct definition, then many of the names on the list are incorrect. However, we have no way of confirming this until the US Govt releases the names. Eventually that will happen, but at this stage, any list we put up would be based on speculation. An OpEd piece could properly speculate on the identities, but is it encyclopedic? Joaquin Murietta 07:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a poor choice of names when I started the article. I already said this, several times.  The article needs to be renamed.  My current favourite alternative name is Terror suspects in CIA custody.
 * The US government has admitted using extended interrogation techniques on the detainees in CIA custody, including "waterboarding" -- an interrogation technique where you immerse a detainee in water, to the point they think they are about to drown -- and mock executions. Most people would regard this as mistreatment.
 * In answer to your question: As I understand wiki policy, the authors of wikipedia articles are not supposed to include their own speculation in the contributions they make. But quoting articles, and op-eds, that speculate, is completely legit, as long as they are properly cited, so the reader can tell the cited material is a speculation.
 * As to whether the US government has acknowledged the detention of any of the senior al Qaeda that are in the custody of Intelligence angencies, not the military. You asserted that the US government has not.  You are simply mistaken there.
 * Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi is said to have been the first senior al Qaeda operative to have been captured. He is said to have been the first senior al Qaeda to have been the subject of more extreme interrogation techniques.  Under interrogation he made admissions that were regarded as extremely important.  The news from his interrogation were regarded as so important that a cabinet level decision was made to sacrifice the keeping his information under wraps.  Al-Libi was mentioned, by name, in the famous speech Powell gave to the UN, where he cited evidence that bolstered the case that there was a tie between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, and that Saddam did have a dangerous arsenal of WMD.
 * After the invasion, and after the American failure to find any WMD al-Libi was re-interviewed about the WMD. He acknowledged that the admissions he made were untrue.
 * That was a clear failure on someone's part. Whether al-Libi was clever enough, and determined enough, to outsmart his interrogators, and knowingly feed them poisoned information, or whether incompetent interrogators unconsciously lead al-Libi to confirm their preconceptions is not at issue here.
 * What is at issue is whether US government officials have openly acknowledged holding some of the detainees who were initially held in covert detention centres. The answer is a clear and unequivocal "yes" in al-Libi's case, and in the case of several others on the list, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
 * You seem to be implying here, and elsewhere, that the wikipedia cannot report any speculation on facts or arguments that could be interpreted as reflecting poorly on US policies. You have consistently called that kind of material POV, or "obviously POV".  That is far to high a standard.  The standard you suggest here, that the wikipedia cannot report on the status of these detainees until you recognize that an official US government source has acknowledged the the nature and location of their detention and interrogation is too high.  There are secrets, from World War 2, that remain classified over sixty years later.  But no one would argue that the wikipedia shouldn't report speculation about those secrets.  I am old enough to remember a time before the British wartime decryption efforts had lead to the worlds first digital computers.  If the wikipedia had been around then, surely you would agree that reporting the knowledgeable speculation of experts, and former insiders, was completely legitimate?
 * I am old enough to remember the unfolding of the US Watergate scandal, during the Nixon Presidency. By the standard you seem to be suggesting, the wikipedia would not have been able to report on Woodward and Bernstein stories -- because they were reporting material that relected poorly on a sitting President that had not been confirmed by an official US government official.  By this standard you would have restricted the wikipedia from reporting on expert's speculation as to the identity of the source Woodward and Bernstein identified as "deep throat".  No, the wikipedia is not the place for crusading investigative journalists.  But reporting on the speculation of investigative journalists, in a balanced way, is completely within what the wikipedia is.
 * I know you know, as other people have pointed it out to you, in some of the previous {afd}s you recently initiated on articles I started, that the wikipolicy on deleting articles clearly says a perceived POV problem is not grounds for deletion.
 * Do you remember the course of the US invasion of Iraq. Progress was relatively quick.  It took about a month from when the first elements crossed the border, to the final occupation of the government complex in downtown Baghdad.  During that month the Iraqi Minister of Information kept giving these ridiculous press conferences, where he reported that the Iraqi forces were winning, were on the brink of chewing up the invaders, and expelling them.  He was a laughing stock.  Saddam restricted him from reporting or confirming anything that reflected poorly on Saddam's regime.  If you succeeded, and were able to suppress reports all facts or expert's speculation, that could be interpreted as reflecting poorly on the USA, from inclusion in the wikipedia, you would turn it into the same kind of laughing stock as Saddam's Ministry of Information.
 * The proper role of the wikipedia is not to serve as a US hagiography. The wikipedia is not a US project.  It is an international project.  Even if I were an American I would argue against the suppression of verifiable information just because it could be seen as reflecting poorly on US policies.  --  Geo Swan 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article is no longer orphaned. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - There is absolutely no duplication of the names at List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. This documents an important ongoing political event, regardless of how keenly the Bush administration wishes to suppress information regarding the whole detainee / "unlawful combatant" issue. The article seems to be well sourced and verifiable, but I agree that it needs to be renamed - something for the article discussion page. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep per Cactus.man.--Kewp (t) 10:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, arbitrary fork. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Inquiring minds want to know. What is an "arbitrary fork"?  --  Geo Swan 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is encyclopedic and does not duplicate the Gitmo list. --Meiers Twins 11:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.