Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam

placed commets above mine to make it seem like i responded to those comments. See here. I removed them, he can obviously replace them, but in the correct chronological order. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs
In the interests of brevity I am moving a couple of paragraphs about the comparison between Guantanamo captives and felons convicted of criminal offenses here to the talk page. -- Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Briefly, I agree, your ordinary Supermax convict would not merit coverage on the wikipedia. But Charles Manson, if he were held there, would.  The USA has a justice system that, like those of most other nations, is well-understood, predictable.  Convicts had trials.  Evidence was gathered, witnesses testified, and were cross examined.  If the prisoner was convicted, and sentenced, then we assume he was guilty, will be treated consistently and fairly, and will be released on schedule, unless he commits more crimes while in detention.
 * Briefly, I agree, your ordinary Supermax convict would not merit coverage on the wikipedia. But Charles Manson, if he were held there, would.  The USA has a justice system that, like those of most other nations, is well-understood, predictable.  Convicts had trials.  Evidence was gathered, witnesses testified, and were cross examined.  If the prisoner was convicted, and sentenced, then we assume he was guilty, will be treated consistently and fairly, and will be released on schedule, unless he commits more crimes while in detention.


 * While, I agree your ordinary Supermax convict doesn't merit coverage, I would argue that any Supermax convict for whom there are meaningful references to non-trivial claims he or she was wrongfully convicted would merit coverage.


 * Guantanamo captives aren't convicts. Less than twenty of them have even been charged with crimes.  I think that is an important difference.


 * Guantanamo captives aren't like ordinary convicts -- they are much more like those for whom there is a controversy over whether they were wrongfully convicted -- except, of course, they were never convicts.


 * WRT to your chinese political prisoners -- no, I would not argue for having a separate article for every political prisoner whose name becomes public. But when there are meaningful reliable sources that back up the claim that a prisoner, in China, Iran, or any other country, is a political prisoner, not a felon convicted of a criminal offense, then I would support having an article written about him or her.  I'd insist that the article contain a non-trivial amount of information, be written from a neutral point of view, and cite reliable, verifiable sources.  If you have a concern with that, could you please be specific about which part concerns you?
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * }
 * I snipped these four paragraphs from the main discussion in the interests of brevity -- thinking I could count on any of my correspondents who felt a comparison to ordinary convicted felons was meaningful would want to read the responses I had already made.


 * One of my correspondents repeated the Supermax concern, without, apparently, reading my responses.


 * So I am moving these paragraphs back to their original position on the main page. I am not moving it back not to make anyone look foolish.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)