Wikipedia

Talk:List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay

(Redirected from Talk:Afghan captives in Guantanamo)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by J947 in topic "SHABIR AHMED" listed at Redirects for discussion
Learn more about this page


Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages Moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Afghan captives in Guantanamo → Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay — There is currently debate as to the appropriateness of using either 'captives' or 'detainees', in reference to persons being held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The consensus currently appears to be agaist using 'captive' with a demonstrated preference for 'detainee', and to a lesser extent 'prisoner'. I am not of one side or the other but wish to see consistency. Labattblueboy (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Google Books stats:
  • "guantanamo bay captives" -wiki: 38 hits[1]
  • "guantanamo bay captive" -wiki: 0 hits[2]
  • "guantanamo captives" -wiki: 36 hits[3]
  • "guantanamo captive" -wiki: 2 hits[4]
  • "guantanamo bay detainees" -wiki: 1,210 hits[5]
  • "guantanamo bay detainee" -wiki: 206 hits[6]
  • "guantanamo detainees" -wiki: 4,100 hits[7]
  • "guantanamo detainee" -wiki: 1110 hits[8]
Google Search stats:
  • "guantanamo bay captives" -wiki: 44,800 hits[9]
  • "guantanamo bay captive" -wiki: 11.300 hits[10]
  • "guantanamo captives" -wiki: 44,500 hits[11]
  • "guantanamo captive" -wiki: 31,800 hits[12]
  • "guantanamo bay detainees" -wiki: 79,700 hits[13]
  • "guantanamo bay detainee" -wiki: 3,100,00 hits[14]
  • "guantanamo detainees" -wiki: 248,000 hits[15]
  • "guantanamo detainee" -wiki: 157,000 hits[16]
Google News stats:
  • "guantanamo bay captives" -wiki: 0 hits[17]
  • "guantanamo bay captive" -wiki: 0 hits[18]
  • "guantanamo captives" -wiki: 2 hits[19]
  • "guantanamo captive" -wiki: 1 hit[20]
  • "guantanamo bay detainees" -wiki: 717 hits[21]
  • "guantanamo bay detainee" -wiki: 326 hits[22]
  • "guantanamo detainees" -wiki: 859 hits[23]
  • "guantanamo detainee" -wiki: 341 hits[24]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "MiamiHerald2009-12-19":

  • From Faruq Ali Ahmed: Carol Rosenberg (2009-12-19). "Guantánamo detention census drops to 198". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-12-20.
  • From Ayman Saeed Abdullah Batarfi: Carol Rosenberg (2009-12-19). "Guantánamo detention census drops to 198". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-12-20. A Justice Department statement Sunday said those freed included a Yemeni surgeon who the Obama administration approved for release in March. Ayman Batarfi, 38, had echoed other Guantánamo detainee claims that he was a humanitarian worker at the time of his 2001 capture in Afghanistan, who admitted to treating al Qaeda wounded at the battle of Tora Bora while Osama bin Laden was in the area.
  • From Abdullahi Sudi Arale: Carol Rosenberg (2009-12-19). "Guantánamo detention census drops to 198". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-12-20.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

RfC

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

There is no consensus in this RfC to delete these redirect articles. Furthermore, RfC is not the proper forum for deleting redirects. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is the proper forum. There is no prejudice against creating a new discussion at WP:RFD to discuss these redirects. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A fair number of the people in this list fail GNG and have an article with their name as a title, which serves as a redirect to this article. Should these redirect articles be deleted?

  • I'm concerned that search engines will pick these people (many of them still alive) and redirect them to this article. I really don't think this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia, that is to advertise their detention status. So for the individuals who do not have a proper BLP, but only a redirect I think we should delete.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete - I agree with the above user. I think the individuals who do not have their own BLP and are listed as redirects, should be deleted. There is no need for them to be listed if they fail to meet WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak oppose Meaning no offense, I'm confused by the OP's concerns. Failure to meet GNG is not reason in itself to delete redirects; indeed, one of the more common outcomes of a decision to remove a non-notable topic is to establish a redirect to a connected topic which is notable (and presumably that is exactly what happened with regard to some of these individuals). As to "advertising" the detention of these individuals or artificially inflating their importance as a topic in search engines, I don't understand how the OP thinks this would happen. Any automated links connected to these redirects which might be (or more likely, already have been) cataloged by search engines will not be within even an astronomical distance of a scale likely to attract notice and cause increased attention or appreciation for the existence of these individuals or their detention. The only impact upon search engine results that will be that, in the event someone is already searching for one of those names, and chooses to use Wikipedia as a resource on the topic, they will be redirected to our parent article on the topic--which is exactly the outcome we want anyway.
I think there might be some confusion here as to some of the technical mechanics involved with how search engines source our content. Again, having these redirects will not in any realistically significant manner lead to increased exposure for this topic, on-project or off--nor impact anyone not already searching for information on the detainees, so the notion of inappropriately leveraging Wikipedia to increase the profile of any individual beyond their existing notability seems misplaced. Having those links will, however, take those using a search engine to search for these names already directly to our article on the topic, aiding them as our readers and saving on the resources they would otherwise expend in an extra search, miniscule and insignificant as that bandwidth might be, in the grand scheme. Still, unless I'm missing something obvious, and I don't think I am, the status quo seems fine here. Snow let's rap 21:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Allow me to explain my concern. Google's SEO does index article names. Googling prospective employees names is a common practice. Having your name linked to an article that says you were a Gitmo detainee might be prejudicial.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, of course that's true of any article or redirect ultimately. I'm still confused as to how you envision this indexing (which takes place project-wide on a daily basis) would lead "advertise their detention status" or lead to "prejudicial" coverage? You say "I'm concerned that search engines will pick these people (many of them still alive) and redirect them to this article", but that's exactly what we want to happen. If someone has already typed a relevant name into a search engine, they are already interested in finding more information on the topic, and if Wikipedia is one of the resources they are going to utilize, we want to redirect them directly to this article. It's not like having one extra entry in Google's index is somehow going to lead to the company tweaking its search results such that these names pop up in completely unrelated searches. Still meaning no offense, but I still fail to see a problem in the vein of promotion or advertisement the topic covered here (at least beyond the degree to which every article is "advertised" on Google) and see only upside to retaining these links--though admittedly it's a very small issue. Snow let's rap 23:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
That's exactly what we don't want to happen with BLP. Pretend you work at an investment institution. The FBI raids your office and arrests everyone for insider trading. Let's say the Star, Moon & Snow insider trading incident article is created. You, Mr Snow (while a nice lad are thoroughly unnotable) are eventually cleared of all wrong doing, and is stated such in the article. Mr Snow is shown to have some involvement. Yet someone creates Star Rise ( roommate of Moon Fall and immediately redirects to the incident article. Would you want your name to show up in a google search, linking you to this incident? BLP policy is stringent for a reason. Just because you are mentioned in the incident article, having an article and DAB could have serious consequences for you. I hope we aren't talking in circles, by the way, no offense taken. I appreciate your responses.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I appreciate your civil tone as well. But with respect, you cite BLP vaguely, but you don't give any further detail on what particular policy language from that large body of guidelines applies here. You'll have to be more specific if you want to win me over to the notion that there is something wrong here, or that the present approach is in any way inconsistent with how redirects are routinely used on this project. Broadly, you seem to think it's somehow atypical or inappropriate to list these men via redirects. I don't see how that position is consistent with policy or general practice. As to the idea that they will somehow become more connected (on this site or the web broadly) as a consequence of these redirects, that's not what would really be going on here. As you mention yourself, those names are already listed on this article, which is indexed. And anyway, these facts are a matter of public record, to the extent they are covered here. The only practical difference of the two approaches being considered here is how incoming traffic is handled. There are arguments either way on that, but I think your deeper concern is moot in this instance, though I agree with the larger principle motivating that concern. I mean, I'll be happy to eat my words if someone provides a technical argument I haven't considered, honestly, but so far I have not seen anything more specific than a vague concern without any discussion of the actual mechanics. Snow let's rap 03:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • The contributor who started this rfc has raised very similar concerns in a number of fora. It seems to me that all these related concerns are based certain fundamental misinterpretations of key policy.
One key misinterpretation of policy... This contributor has stated they believe BLP protects individuals from "harm". Wrong, it protects individual from coverage that it poorly referenced, or unbalanced. Neutrally written, properly referenced material belongs here, even if it looks like it could "harm" the individual. It could be argued that neutrally written coverage of OJ Simpson harms him. Tough. Policy compliant coverage stays.
Another key misinterpretation of policy centers around his serious misunderstanding of wikipedia notability. WP:Notability, and all the special purpose notability guidelines, explicitly state that some individuals measure up to the criteria for meriting a standalone biographical article, while some other individuals are notable, just not that notable. GNG and the special purpose notability guidelines specifically say that coverage of individuals who are notable, just not notable enough for a standalone article should be covered in related articles.
I could cite the specific passages, but this contributor has repeatedly told me that they won't read any counter-arguments I offer. Geo Swan (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

"SHABIR AHMED" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect SHABIR AHMED has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 24 § SHABIR AHMED until a consensus is reached. J947 † edits 05:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Afghan_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay&oldid=1252379600"