Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/"Extrajudicial detention" and-or "unlawfully detained"

"Extrajudicial detention" and/or "unlawfully detained"
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 User:Iqinn, started replacing 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. But I don't think we should rewrite history. The first captives to have their habeas corpus petitions ruled in their favor were in late 2008. So, assuming there are WP:RS to support the use of this term, shouldn't it only apply after the judge(s) made their rulings?

Over on Talk:Said Muhammed Salih Hatim I raised my concerns about this particular change, and some other changes. And, on User talk:Iqinn, I wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iqinn&diff=371410147&oldid=370015437#Various_concerns I don't know how many articles you have made similar edits to. Please consider the comments at Talk:Said_Muhammed_Salih_Hatim apply to all of them].

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)
 * 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)


 * 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.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see enough RS support for "unlawfully detained." IronDuke  03:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked User: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)


 * I left Iqinn a heads-up. Geo Swan (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I mentioned this subpage in a WP:BLPN discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)