Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo

 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)

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)

Combatant Status Review Tribunal

 * 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)


 * I use Bush Presidency in new material I add. And change instances of Bush administration to Bush 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 2 2004.  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)


 * 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 Abdel Hamid al-Ghazzawi's. Note: Candace Gorman filed a 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:
 * {| class="wikitable"

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:
 * {| class="wikitable"

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.
 * }
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)