Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo images

Images widely used on the articles of Guantanamo captives
There are some images that have been used on articles about Guantanamo captives that have been the subject of disagreement.


 * 1) We have images of the trailers where the CSR Tribunals and annual reviews have been held.
 * 2) We have an image of a captive having a notice read to him that the Supreme Court had ruled the DoD had to provide him with a list of (some of) the allegations that were used to justify his continued detention, and that he had a choice to appear before his CSR Tribunal and to try to refute those allegations.
 * 3) We have images of the leaflets widely distributed in Afghanistan, announcing that Afghans could earn a bounty by reporting foreigners or Taliban members
 * 4) For some captives we have graphs showing their recorded weights in Guantanamo.  Some captives' weights show fluctuations.  Others don't.
 * 5) For a handful of captives we have maps showing locations the OARDEC documents assert he was associated with.

I see two general issues here: how widely should these images be used; and when they are are used, what should the captions say. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Embedding images in templates
Back in 2006 or 2007 I started using transclusion, in order to transclude consistent captions where the images were used. Transclusion works differently in article space and user space. Currently only templates can be transcluded in article space. So I included the images, and my preferred caption in a template. I didn't really understand that invariant text weren't supposed to be used in templates back then, or that my use of templates to transclude images was counter-policy. In my defense no one else did either. When a patient administrator explained it to me I cleaned up after myself.

I now recognize weaknesses in my former transclusion of templates. Ordinary contributors who had concerns over the caption couldn't figure out how to edit the caption.

After I abandoned the transclusion of templates another contributor started using some other templates in a similar fashion. They worked hard to learn the details of creating templates, so that the transcluded text would have a special edit button. The templates they created also included images.

Those templates went through a couple of tfd. One concern expressed expressed in those tfd was that the templates should not include images.

There is a contributor who participated in those tfd, who started to remove inline instances of images, based on what I regard as a serious misinterpretation of the views expressed in the tfd that the images placement in the template was inappropriate.

IMO the lesson to be learned from these tempates is that those who are working on future versions of the wikimedia software should consider adding better support for viewing and editing transclusions.

A great strength of ourrent software is the markup language is both simple and powerful. Addition of new features that would make the markup language no longer be simple would be a mistake.

Nevertheless I would like to be able to select what I am editing in some other way than clicking on an "edit" button. I would like to be able to select a smaller section of an article to edit than a whole section. I'd like to be able to sweep my mouse across a section of text, and then select from my context menu that I want to edit that text. I'd like to be able to choose to view/edit not just the article's text, when I make that selection. I'd like to be able to open for viewing or editing text that had been transcluded in the selection I made. I believe this would address the concern that transcluding ordinary text made it hard for ordinary contributors to find it, in order to edit it. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OARDEC trailer images


Some challengers have stated the opinion that the appropriate use of these images would only be on the articles Combatant Status Review Tribunal and Administrative Review Board. They feel strongly that the images should not be used on the articles of the individual captives. Unfortunately, I can't repeat their justification for only using the images on those two articles, because frankly, try as I might, I didn't understand them.

Careful use of relevant images, with appropriate captions, greatly add to readers understanding of topics. IMO one relevant image per screenful works best.

About three fifths of the captives attended their CSR Tribunals. For those captives their Tribunal was a key event in their detention. So, since we have a relevant image, I really don't understand why we shouldn't accompany the section on their attendance at their Tribunal with a relevant image.

WRT the caption... I have supplied a couple of different captions. I have changed my preferred caption after taking feedback from other contributors.

The contributor I mentioned above, who argued that the consensus from the tfd above subsequently replaced captions I drafted with a much briefer caption. Their caption was inaccurate, contradicted our WP:RS. And I have been reverting those captions, when I come across them.

I don't own these images, or their captions. And neither does the other contributor. I welcome the input of others over what the caption should say. I welcome any civil, collegial, meaningful, substantive, policy-based input the contributor who formerly argued they had a consensus to remove the images, and then tried to substitute an inaccurate and unreferenced caption, without any discussion.

That other contributor challenged the assertion that captives always sat with their hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor. But it is well documented that their hands and feet were shackled in every single Tribunal. The OARDEC officers lacked the authority order the captives unshackled, even if they wanted to, because it was a JTF-GTMO rule, and OARDEC officers weren't in the JTF-GTMO chain of command.

In theory, members of the press were welcome to observe the unclassified sessions of CSR Tribunals and annual hearings. In practice the proceedings were only very occasionally observed. A "senior DoD spokesman" purposely unidentified, asserted 37 of the first 558 Tribunals were observed by members of the press. A very small handful of instances of reporters observing Tribunals made it into print.

I think the press coverage, or lack thereof, was notable enough to place in the image caption. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the CSRT notice to a captive


That same challenger has objected to the use of this image. I thought it was appropriate to use this image in the CSR Tribunal sections of those captives who didn't attend their Tribunals -- as the reading of the notice was a key event in those captives' detention.

The challenger argued that the image could only be used on the article of the captive whose face was obscured in the background. FWIW we don't know which captive is actually in the image.

I disagree with their objections. I did some of my earliest work on the wikipedia on the WW2 Flower class corvettes. At that time we had articles on less than ten percent of the corvettes. At that time we had a couple of images of flower class corvettes, but most of the articles didn't use those images. I added one of those images to the other articles, with a caption stating that the image was of a sister ship. In the five years since then no one has objected to the use of an image of a sister ship on the articles about a corvette. I see the situation here are comparable. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bounty leaflets
I believe the use of one of these images is appropriate on any article where there is an indication the captive was captured and exchanged in return for a bounty. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Charts of the captives' weight records
The same challenger as above has objected to the use of these charts based on assertions the images
 * 1) are based on a questionable primary source;
 * 2) violate WP:OR;
 * 3) violate WP:BLP.

The challenger has challenged all kinds of material based on assertions it relies on what they regard as "questionable" sources.

I have gone on record that I am concerned that their arguments for suppressing neutrally written material due to what appears to be personal doubts as to the credibility of WP:RS is a serious lapse from WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

WP:OI says contributors are encouraged to prepare images, from the information in WP:RS, so long as they are careful to do so in a neutral manner, without inserting novel conclusions.

WRT to the BLP assertion -- the concerned challenger has argued that if the wikipedia publishes a graph showing the captives' weight records showed large fluctuations it could make it more difficult for them to purchase health insurance. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)