Talk:Camp Delta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Merger

How do you feel about merging Camp Delta, Camp X-ray Camp Iguana, and Camp Echo as a subsection to Guantanamo Bay? Wouldn't it be better to have one, well-written, NPOV article, without all the mispellings and typos. Joaquin Murietta 22:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite megre is in order: remove all camps into a separate article or articles, leaving Guantanamo Bay to purely geographical and historical info, with a brief summary about camps/abuse, according to wikipedia traditions.. There are two articles, Camp Delta and Camp Iguana, (with X-ray and Echo redirecting to Delta) which is reasonable division of topics. mikka (t) 19:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss

Based on the discussion and lack of objections at Camp X-Ray, I merged Camp X-Ray to this article. Please discuss whether to merge this article with Guantanamo Bay.Also merged to this article Camp Echo. Again, shall we edit this into something better and then merger to Guantanamo Bay? Joaquin Murietta 15:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You are doing a good job. Keep it up. WAS 4.250 20:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and your edits. I'll wait a week and see how the edit of Camp Delta evolves, then if there is no objection, I will merge to the other topic. I am still concerned about achieving a NPOV tone. Joaquin Murietta 01:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge Camp Delta in to Guantanamo Bay, since Camp Delta is a part of Guantanamo bay.(210.214.11.181 07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)) - yeah right, shall we merge Texas with USA for the same reason? --Daz 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the Guantanamo Bay entry should be geographical and historical focused on the bay and base as a whole with references to the individual camps. The camps themselves should be covered in a separate article or articles since they have a different focus, i.e. their uses primarily as prisons. Reverendlinux 10:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reverendlinux

DO NOT MERGE Camp Delta & Guantanamo Bay, rather simply camp delta is a short term poltical reference, Guantanamo Bay is a geographical area that has long history that pre dates Camp Delta by nearly 100 years. Camp Delta is a part of Guantanamo Bay (geographically & historically) they are are only synonymous due to popular media reporting. They should remain seperate as they are 2 distinct entities, they are not the same! --Daz 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments on Sourcing

There are a lot of articles, news articles, legal papers etc. cited under External references. Do we need all of them? Which ones? Joaquin Murietta 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pleas don't delete SOURCES (i.e. references). Sources are not just a bunch of "further reading". They are the EVIDENCE that the content is accurate and not a bunch of POV blogging. It would be helpful to tie specific claims in the article to specific sources, but this is volunteer labor so you have to give it time until someone volunteers to do that. So the answer is ALL references that are actually references ARE indeed needed. WAS 4.250 08:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper so don't delete based on being "out of date". The prison population history including every arrival and every departure is encyclopedic (we have plenty of room here at wikipedia). Rather than delete the population count of a particular date, more such counts need to be added. WAS 4.250 09:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't touch them.Joaquin Murietta 15:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should we merge this topic to Prisons of Guantanamo Bay?

Should we start a new article, drag all this over to it and put a redirect on Camp Delta's page? Someone commented over on [{Guantanamo Bay]] that the prisons deserve their own topic. Joaquin Murietta 15:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More editing questions

  1. This comment on the top appears dated to me. Should it be rewritten to past tense or maybe even deleted? As of July 22, 2005 there are "about 510 prisoners at Guantánamo." Please advise. Joaquin Murietta 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The most recent estimate I have read was 502. That would reflect the repatriation of Sami Al Laithi. 502 is about 510. -- Geo Swan 19:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Response -- why not say that the prisons house approximately 510 prisoners, rather than insert a dated source? Joaquin Murietta 23:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The article still reads like a Fibber McGee closet. What can be done to improve the writing, and maybe even the POV? Joaquin Murietta 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Please be more specific about what is, in your view, POV. Blanket labelling of whole articles as POV don't help other contributors focus on what you see as a problem. Other contributors, who aren't familiar with your editing history, can't even know whether you think the POV is unbalanced to favour the detainees or whether you think it favours the camp authorities. -- Geo Swan 19:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Response -- Joaquin Murietta 23:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC) posting as 71.140.134.102 21:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)1. The writing needs to be tightened up. 2. The long description of the criticism of the detention condiditons in the Camp X-Ray section should be tightened-up and moved into the Internantional concerns section, which in turn could be re-named to encompass all criticism, whether international or national. 3. Writing -- The following is a partial list of sentences that need work. I will add more later...

Camp Echo is a detention center where pre-commissions are held.

However, the term "Camp X-Ray" has come to be used as a synonym for the entire facility where prisoners from the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan are detained.

The U.S. government justifies this designation by claiming that they do not have the status of either regular soldiers nor that of guerrillas, and they are not part of a regular army or militia. (pov -- JUSTIFIES)

The U.S. government has denied all charges, but on May 9, the Washington Post obtained classified documents that showed Pentagon approval of using sleep deprivation, exposure to hot and cold, bright lights, and loud music during interrogations at Guantanamo

Joaquin, may I be so bold as to make a suggestion to an obviously competant editor? Make a couple of non-data-deleting changes a day. That way, each change can be reviewed by all those watching this page. I fully expect most such chages by you will recieve no comments or reverts at all with each watcher silently approving the change. A big change or a data removal change is very likely to be reverted by somebody for some reason. This is a very touchy subject with emotions running high. Treatment of prisoners and other Iraq and civil rights related issues are among the elections issues in the United States and thus REAL power is at stake over this and related issues. WAS 4.250 07:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, and I appreciate your input. By the way, I don't plan to make any changes to the text described above. I was responding to George's question (Please be more specific about what is, in your view, POV. Blanket labelling of whole articles as POV don't help other contributors focus on what you see as a problem). Joaquin Murietta 07:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns from 66.61.77.65

I believe the Neutrality of This Article is Disputed. It has a clear, obvious bias aganist the United States and, I dare say, a pro-British bias.

Numbered contributor, if you aren't prepared to cite specific instances of biased passages, you can hardly expect anyone to take your concerns seriously. -- Geo Swan 23:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that, lets try these out for size: "In addition there are 'ghost prisoners' undeclared by the State, some of whom may be British or British resident." So, to me, and maybe JUST me, but this quote shows that the author is concerned more about the British citizens that may be ghost prisoners, as well as it is JUST speculation, we could go on forever with "some of whom MAY be (insert any nation here) or (insert same nation here) resident." Also, there is no citation to go along with the strong wording of "there ARE "ghost prisoners". Here is another one: "In late January 2004, U.S. officials released three children aged 13 to 15 and returned them to Afghanistan. In March 2004, twenty-three adult prisoners were released to Afghanistan, five were released to the United Kingdom (the final four British detainees were released in January 2005), and three were sent to Pakistan." Here is another example of focusing on British nationals and pretty much ignoring the rest of the prisoners were released (besides the three that was sent to Pakistan). Also, the writer says the final four British detainees were released in Jan. 05, but earlier, the writer says some of the so-called "ghost" prisoners some of whom MAY be British....hmmmm, so either the final four British detainees were released, period, or all KNOWN British detainees were released (you know, so you can keep going with the writer's Ghost Prisoner theory). Yet another strongly worded statement with absolutely NO citations: "Many of the released prisoners have complained of enduring beatings, sleep deprivation, prolonged constraint in uncomfortable positions, prolonged hooding, sexual and cultural humiliation, forced injections, and other physical and psychological mistreatment during their detention in Camp X-Ray." Okay, "Detainees are kept in isolation most of the day, are blindfolded when moving into Camp X-Ray and from place to place within the camp, and forbidden to talk in groups of more tha**n three. American doctrine in dealing with prisoners of war state that isolation and silence are effective means in breaking down the will to resist interrogation", where did the writer get THIS information, it seems this article needs to be cleaned up and cited as well as disputing the neutrality of the article. More info that should be cited "On June 15 Brigadier General Janis Karpinski at the centre of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse in Iraq said she was told from the top to treat detainees like dogs "as it is done in Guantanamo". The former commander of Camp X-Ray, Geoffrey Miller, was the person brought in to deal with the inquiry into the alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq during the Allied occupation. Ex-detainees of the Camp have made serious allegations, including alleging Geoffrey Miller's complicity in abuse at Camp X-Ray." How much more do you need, I'm basically going to have to write the writers whole article here, because it is a mess. --User:66.61.77.65 15:10, 2005 December 14
Greetings 66. Let me encourage you to register, then you can sign your messages, and help the rest of us can know to whom we are replying. We sign and date-stamp our messages by appending four tildes ~~~~. And, the convention is that when you reply to a comment on the talk page you prefix each paragraph with one or more colons. The colons are replaced by tab stops. The convention is that your followup should be at one further tab stop than the comment you are following up. I added colons to your recent followup.
For my own reference I am going to number your concerns:
  1. Too much concern for ghost detainees who are British or British residents.
  2. Assertion that "there ARE ghost detainees" without citation.
  3. Assertion of released child prisoners unsubstantiated.
  4. Focus on the final four British detainees.
  5. Confusion over the nationality of British "ghost prisoners" and released British detainees.
  6. Reports of beatings, without sufficient substantiation.
  7. Ex-detainees have alleged Geoffrey Miller was complicit in abuse
Am I missing anything?
First, you will have to forgive some of the missing substantiation. There are wikipedia contributors who excise the kind of substantiation you complain is missing. A guy who had a blanket objection to articles about Guantanamo detainees took it upon himself to merge several articles on "Camp Delta", "Camp X-Ray" and "Camp Echo". He is someone who has accused others of writing articles solely to increase the number of hits topics they think are important will get when innocent google searches try to research those topics. I think this could explain why he did such a terrible job merging these articles. The terrible job he did could be explained if he was not interested in making one better, longer article, but merely in reducing the number of google hits topics he doesn't like being discussed turn up.
  1. British detainees...
    1. There were nine detainees known to have been detained in Guantanamo Bay who were British citizens. It is believed that the last four were released in January 2004. There are other detainees who were long-term British residents, but who weren't citizens. The British government position is that they are not entitled to British support, because they aren't citizens.
    2. British detainees, and detainees who were British residents, are better documented than the detainees from other countries because:
      1. Britain is an English speaking country, and this is the English wikipedia. I expect you would find more coverage of Francophone detainees in the French version of the wikipedia.
      2. Britain is a populous country, which has taken in many refugees.
      3. Britain is an open country where information about detainees is available.
  2. The existence of "ghost detainees" is well documented. I heard Rumsfeld when he acknowledged Triple X (aka Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul). At that time Rumsfeld implied he was the only ghost detainee. The definition of ghost detainee I prefer is to consider someone a ghost detainee if they are held in military custody, without being registered, issued a prisoner number, and hidden from the humanitarian inspectors from the International Committe of the Red Cross. Approximately 750 suspects have entered Guantanamo Bay. The names of approximately 400 of those detainees have become known. Some people consider the other 300 to be ghost detainees. Army, CIA Agreed on 'Ghost' Prisoners
  3. I have done my best to document the child prisoners in Guantanamo. And the guy who did the crappy job of merging these articles regularly excised references to Camp Iguana, where the three privileged children were incarcerated. He also regularly excised references to the other minors.
  4. The final four Brits? See above.
  5. Confusion over the nationality of Brits? See above.
  6. Missing substantiation of beatings, abusive incarceration, etc... That various detainees have reported abuse is very well documented. Many released detainees have reported abuse. The same guy who did the crappy job of the merger was regularly removing those references, on the ridiculous grounds that the information came from the suspect's defense attorneys.
  7. Was Miller complicit in abuse? He is entitled to the presumption of innocence. And, FWIW, IMO, so do the Guantanamo detainees. Were there indications tying Miller to abuse? Well the Fay and Church inquiries thought so, so I'd say that is a big yes.
I believe you are mistaken if you think Miller was brought in to conduct an inquiry. General Taguba conducted the first of many overlapping inquiries. Miller was brought in to run Abu Ghraib following the embarrassing release the Taguba inquiry. Here is an account of Miller's role in abuse: Local physician and author Steve Miles examines the forensic record of U.S. abuses in Iraqi prisons: The American Way of Torture
"...Miles began collecting all the available medical records of prisoners who had died in U.S. custody...
"That research turned into an August 2004 article in the British medical journal The Lancet...
"[Rumsfeld] then sent that plan south to Guantánamo, where [base commander] General [Geoffrey] Miller implemented it and created a specific mechanism called a Biscuit--that's BSCT, for Behavioral Science Consultation Team--to perform that function. Biscuits are a standard military type of committee. For example, if you need a combination of medical and military advice, say, to evaluate the flight-readiness of a depressed pilot, or to help POWs integrate back into society, that's a standard BSCT-type role.
"What Miller did was to create these counter-therapeutic Biscuits that took clinical information, either by direct consultation or by accessing medical records, and then devised ways to exploit detainees' weaknesses. And they passed this information on to military intelligence as military intelligence was developing an interrogation plan--which was unique for each prisoner.
"The other thing that Rumsfeld did that was new, and that Miller was enthusiastic about..."
When you refer to the abuse at Abu Ghraib as "alleged" abuse are you trying to suggest abuse didn't occur?
Janis Karpinski did say Miller told her that the prisoners should be treated like dogs. Is she telling the truth? Maybe, maybe not. But she did say it, so it is appropriate for this article to repeat she said it, provided the quotation is properly cited and phrased in a non-inflammatory manner. -- Geo Swan 04:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the concerns cited above, after Geuhene's changes (particularly adding "torture" to every other sentence), it can no longer be disputed that this article is not written from a neutral point of view. Rather than get into a revert war, I have tagged it POV. Allegations of torture (however true I think they may be) are allegations. They are not indisputable facts, and it should not be implied (or outright stated, as it is here) otherwise. Kafziel 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern about the concern on the neutrality of this artcicle

They are clear proofs of acts of tortures on the prisoners and on the illegitimacy of this prison. Should this article be tagged as not-neutral?

Yes, as I stated above. Even your statement right here is not neutral. I believe it's quite possible (and even likely) that these things are taking place, but that doesn't mean it's okay to make unfounded accusations. Save that for the zillion other anti-Bush and anti-war websites out there, and keep Wikipedia neutral.
Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Kafziel 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
They aren't merely rumors. Abusive interrogation has been confirmed.
If an authoritative source can be cited, it is not rumor-mongering, and it definitely belongs in the article. -- Geo Swan 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The source you have there states that the treatment was humane. Therefore, not torture. Kafziel 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The Schmidt Report also acknowledged the treatment was abusive and degrading.
Just because a 2 star officer calls the treatment "humane" doesn't mean the wikipedia should accept that interpretation, without question. What makes Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, or Randall Schmidt any more qualified to decide whether treatment crosses the line into torture than, say, Clive Stafford Smith?
Individual wikipedians, like you and I, shouldn't be putting our own interpretation as to whether the treatment we know has occurred should be classified as torture. But we can and should cite the documented interpretations of notable commentators. Both the interpretations of the official US spin-doctors, and the interpretations of responsibile critics. -- Geo Swan 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait. First you called that cite "an authoritative source", and now you're saying that we should question it? Which is it?
You're not going to find any reliable source that definitively proves "torture" took place there. If there was proof, it would have come to light. Since there is none, the allegations should not be artificially transformed into facts. Your own cite proved that there was no conclusive evidence of torture. You picked the source, not me.
A significant portion of this article is dedicated to addressing the accusations of abuse. It is well covered in its own section. But there is more to the camp than just that; it has a purpose and a story. The rest of the article needs to remain neutral, and as long as it is filled with claims of torture, it will not be. Kafziel 20:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear all. First, sorry for not signing properly my earlier question. I am quite new to Wikipedia.
Second, I see this could be an endless debate as whether or not Wikipedia should morally put forward events/acts/information, which is believed to be true by half the world and wrong by the other half. I understand the position that individuals should not put forward their own interpretation. However, even though I am not familiar with this rhetoric, we should just not write this encyclopedia althogether then, because whatever we may write is subject to the writer's interpretation. And that's the greatness of Wikipedia: Everybody can contribute and, at the end, a form of consensual truth-ness emerges, isn't it?
Now, back to the article: I believe (my own subjective interpretation) that there is a sufficient body of knowledge regarding what's happening in Guantanamo to state with a high degree of confidence that, sadly, the prisoners are subject to tortures. Obviously, there are also other trustworthy sources stating that no such tortures are taking place. They might as well be right. However, to the best of my knowledge, the number of independent sources stating that tortures take place is greater than the number of independent sources stating that no such acts are being commited.
To conclude, at this point in time, I believe that this article is neutral. I might be proved wrong later obviously, also unlikely. Triskell 19:00, 11 January 2006 (EST)
"...we should just not write this encyclopedia althogether then, because whatever we may write is subject to the writer's interpretation." Not true. It is not subject to interpretation that the camp exists. It is not subject to interpretation that the camp is in Cuba. It is not subject to interpretation that there are prisoners there.
What is subject to interpretation (and verification) is that these prisoners are being mistreated. Therefore, we present one side of the argument which covers the evidence of abuse, here, and one side of the argument that covers the official findings that there is not abuse, here. Because there is debate about it, the rest of the article must be free from speculation either way. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is not the forum to express displeasure with the practices of any government or group. Kafziel 00:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear all. I believe we should all calm down and, Kafziel, you should put this gun down, you are going to hurt someone :-) The debate has whether everything is subject to interpretation is another subject altogether, a good place to start is this page [1]. Anyhow, I do not believe that anyone would tag Human Right Watch or Amnesty International as propagandists. Therefore, I do not believe that reporting their conclusion transforms this articly into a soapbox. On the other hand, reporting the views of a biased source, such as the views of the U.S. government on their own behaviour, is, indeed, making this article a soapbox. Please, could anyone provide independent sources stating that no tortures are taking place in Guantanamo? Triskell 22:20, 11 January 2006 (EST)
First of all, I am quite calm, and have been since my first post. I think that by telling others to "calm down" you are hoping for an even bigger argument, but I'm not going to give it to you. I'm not sure how good your English is, and it is possible that the language barrier is causing this misunderstanding, but if you are able to read my user page you will see that we agree on this subject. I know you are new here, and I'm trying my best not to bite but you're making it very difficult. If you only knew how many times I (and many other users) have seen your arguments before: "If we can't have POV, why have Wikipedia at all, etc., etc., etc." This is nothing new, and I'm not going to get into it any more. If you want a soapbox, try Usenet as is suggested at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Since you're not willing to make constructive conversation or remove your POV edits, the POV tag has to stay. Kafziel 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear all. It reminds me of the "good old time" when people were flaming newcomers on Usenet and other forums :-) My argument has never been "If we can't have POV, why..." as my previous comments show. My point is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is numerous independant sources stating that, sadly, tortures are taking place. Thus, based on these verifiable [2] sources (Human Right Watch, Amnesty International and possibly others), we can write that tortures are taking place and remove the POV tag. Please, if anyone have independent sources stating that no such acts are taking place, could you provide them to us?
On a more personal note, please Kafziel, refrain from threatening people: You can sure bite, and so can I. Also do not write disparaging comments on other's people language. If I make mistakes in an article, you can still correct them, can't you?
Triskell 9:09, 12 January 2006 (EST)

Where did I threaten anyone? Quote that for me, please. By "bite" (which I linked to an article explaining it) I meant that I'm trying to be nice. Do you really think I'm going to literally bite you?? Clearly, again, this is a language barrier problem.

I do not mean to "disparage" your language skills, and have no problem correcting your mistakes; I've been trying to do that in the article for the past couple of days. What I meant was that my user page is very long and complicated but I wanted to let you know that if you are able to read it you will see that we agree on this subject.

Finally, you claim your argument "has never been 'If we can't have POV, why...'", but your argument was exactly that. You said, "We should just not write this encyclopedia althogether then, because whatever we may write is subject to the writer's interpretation." Then you sent me some link to the meaning of existence. I have to tell you, you're not making a lot of sense here.

I'm really not one to do this, but I'm going to have to have to ask for arbitration to decide this one. I can't spend any more time on this bizarre argument; all I want is to make the article NPOV. Kafziel 14:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kafziel, what do you mean by making this article NPOV? (Sorry, as you noticed I'm a newcomer and I am not sure what NPOV means.) If this means removing the POV tag, I agree with you and that would be the end of this discussion :-).
Unfortunately, you (mis-)quote my sentence out of its context: I wrote "I understand the position that individuals should not put forward their own interpretation. However, even though I am not familiar with this rhetoric, we should just not write this encyclopedia althogether then, because whatever we may write is subject to the writer's interpretation." as a meaning to say that we should write in Wikipedia.
Sure, you can ask for arbitration. I would be happy to have a third-person weigh the pros and cons of our discussion. To summarise, my position is that (1) tortures are taking place in Camp Delta; (2) there are verifiable and independent sources to support this view (thus, making it a fact); (3) therefore, the POV tag should be removed.
Triskell 10:17, 12 January 2006 (EST)

This will have to be my last attempt to show you what I'm saying about maintaining a neutral tone. I've spent too much time on this already. Performing a word search for "torture" brings up 19 results in this article. By searching for "torture" in other articles, this is what I found:

As you can see, the article on Camp Delta, just a little prisoner camp in Cuba, has more instances of the word "torture" than the Spanish inquisition, the Tower of London, and the Holocaust put together. Do you think that's an accurate representation?

Hopefully someone from the mediation cabal will be here soon to have a look at the situation, but in the meantime I hope you will consider revising your edits; if articles can be written about Goebbels and Himmler without using the word "torture" even once, then certainly we can do the same here. Kafziel 16:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kafziel, I do not understand you argument. What does this count of words show? In my humble opinion and with all due respect to all previous contributors, it only points out that the article on Camp Delta needs some rewriting. This does not change anything about our discussion on whether or not the term torture should be used and the POV tag should be kept; discussion on which I maintain my position, as stated above. (By the way, would you happen to have some verifiable and independent sources stating that no torture are taking place? That would be most interesting for the article and convincing for me.) Triskell 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, I only changed my signature to show my first name, but it is still me, Triskell.)
I came by this article by chance and my eyes glazed over at the number of times the word, "torture" is used. I think Kafziel's argument is pretty clear. By using the word repeatedly, it gives the impression that Wikipedia backs this interpretation, and, given the amount of controversy surrounding the word, that is not NPOV (neutral point of view). Asking him to provide evidence that NO torture is taking place is not only unfair, but completely irrational. Kafziel only needs to show that the use of the word "torture" is very controversial, and I don't think evidence is needed of that since it's been plastered all over the news and the internet. I, along with Kafziel it seems, agree with you that what's happening there probably IS torture, however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and neutrality must be observed; in other words, we can't take a side one way or another. We can certainly present valid evidence that what's happening there is torture, and we can present arguments made by both sides, but we can't unequivocally marginalize one perspective or the other by taking a stance. It's this reason that we have articles on "Holocaust denial" and include the arguments that deniers make. Are Holocaust "revisionists" mostly anti-Semites who are denying clearly established historical facts? Probably. But it's not Wikipedia's job to judge them. We present facts; the reader makes the judgement.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 22:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hinotori, I agree with you. The article need to be revamped to suppress a (certainly great) number of words "torture". This discussion started because the neutrality of the whole article (when using the term "torture") was questionned (see second discussion, in particular "[...] that doesn't mean it's okay to make unfounded accusations."). I see that TDC removed the POV tag. Do we all agree about removing this tag?
(I do not understand why you qualify as irrational the idea of asking for evidence that no torture is taking place! So far, sadly, various independent sources bring proofs that such act is taking place, however this fact will eventually and hopefully become false in the future. Then, we should absolutely report the finding of these organisations when they report that no more torture is taking place.)
Triskell 18:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about, "revamped"? You are the one who put all those "torture"s in! No fewer than 12 out of the 19 instances of "torture" are from your edit, right here! The version on the left is mine, the version on the right is yours. Are you under the impression that we're not able to look at the article's history and see that it was you who put them in there?

TDC removed the POV tag because he removed all of your changes. He changed it back to the way I had it, removing all trace of your POV, and therefore it didn't need the tag anymore. Hinotori agrees with him. The fact that you haven't noticed the changes to the article tells me you're just here to argue, and you don't care about the state of the article itself at all. Kafziel 00:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kafziel, TDC and Hinotori, I deeply apologize, I indeed did not take the time to compare the current version with previous versions. This is my mistake. Well, could I possibly add the following links to the current version: [3], [4] and the comment that "The U.S. government claims authority to detain prisoners ``like [in] other wars" but denies POW status and rights to this prisoners."?
In any case, for the record, I agree that using "torture" all around the place was not a smart move, but using the term "abuse" [5] in the place of "torture" [6] is an insulting understatment for the people subjected to such practices.
Triskell 19:53, 12 January 2006 (EST) (This edit has been made concurrently with the following :-))
---
Kafziel, I understand your incredible frustration, but I don't think I have to remind you to WP:AGF. It looks like the right changes have been made. If it stays as is, it should be alright yes?
Triskell, it's true that TDC hasn't just removed the tag but also reverted most of your edits which seemed rather POV. In that case, yes, I think I'm alright with the tag being taken off.
As for why asking for evidence that no torture is taking place is irrational, it's because Kafziel ISN'T saying that no torture is taking place. He even said he agrees with you that it probably is. What we're both saying, I think, is that it's controversial, and thus Wikipedia needs to remain neutral on the subject. Cheers. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hinotori, thank you for moderating this discussion. I must say that I do not understand Kafziel frustration and found his tone and remarks somewhat agressive, but I will also WP:AGF! Let me know if I can add the links (not the comment, I won't put it) I suggested above. Cheers, Triskell 19:59, 12 January 2006 (EST)

Well, it looks like the two of you are getting along fairly well now. Since I have other articles I'm invested in, I'm going to pull out of this one for now, but if there are any future problems and you two need a third opinion again, feel free to grab me on my talk page anytime. Cheers. :) -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "medcabal"

Hello -- there was a request for a visit from the medcabal about the "torture" dispute [7] made two days ago. As far as I can tell (the discussion is very long!) this particular dispute has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Please inform me if I'm wrong; best thing is to contact me on my talk page.

One remark: the word "torture" is tough. I would recommend when describing the information from a particular source using the language you find there. If you think a source describes torture but doesn't use the word, don't feel free to use it yourself.

I looked over the article myself, and it seems to need further work. For example, paragraphs seems rather strangely strung together, e.g.:

Physical conditions for detainees at Camp X-Ray are claimed to meet basic standards for maintaining health, but the prisoners are held in small, mesh-sided cells with little privacy, and lights are kept on day and night. Detainees are said to have rations similar to American forces, with consideration for Muslim dietary needs. James Yee, a Muslim chaplain in Guantanamo Bay from the U.S. Navy, was arrested on September 10, 2003, and charged with sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage, and failure to obey a general order. Later, the charges were quietly dropped. Yee maintains his innocence, and has written of his experiences and described mistreatment of inmates at Guantanamo Bay. [12]

In any case, I think the article needs more work, and in particular, better organization and sourcing. The problem here is that a lot of groups (the US government, famous human rights groups, etc.) who would be in other articles considered "authoritative" sources are disagreeing. However, what the article has so far is impressive, and I wish everyone luck on improving this important article.

Sdedeo (tips) 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

With the use of the phrase "concentration camp" in the very first sentence, the lack of neutrality within this article becomes apparent. The principles this community was built upon are being eroding and this article is a great example. No one can factually state that DELTA is a concentration camp (much like no one that contributes to this article can factually state that torture has been practiced). This phrase even contradicts the list of internment camps article which states that it is still being debated whether or not GTMO is a "concentration camp". The article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#Current_Camps C'mon people, kids access these pages seeking information. Leave your political ideologies out of what is supposed to be a neutral, fact database. Grow up and research the phrase concentration camp before being irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.217.165 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move pages

It has been suggested to move Guantanamo Bay to the correct spelling of Guantánamo Bay and create an own article for U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. ROGNNTUDJUU! 18:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Commission hearings Section- Last sentence

"That panel included John Roberts. The panel made the ruling one business day before President Bush nominated Roberts to fill the vacant post on the US Supreme Court."

These last two sentences are non-encyclopedic at best; If there is a connection between the nomination and the ruling then it should be stated and those putting forward the suggestion should be quoted, (eg. "It is believed (Bloggs) that the panel's ruling may have [influence|been influence by] John Robert's nomination for a post in the US Supreme Court.")

If there is no connection between them there is no need to mention either fact here (there is no mention of the other members of the panel, nor what they were doing the next day!)

Either way, I think we need to clearly state the truth here, rather than including two unconnected facts and leading people to connect them based purely on suggestion and insinuation.

I have not made this change as I know this is quite a strongly debated article and didn't want to jump in with both feet! JeffUK 15:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the aforementioned text tomorrow unless anyone comes up with a source --JeffUK 10:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It would have been a lot easier to find a source if you had objected back when the passage was first written. My recollection is that several observers published comments on the connections. In the interests of collegiality and good faith would you mind allowing more than one single day to look for a source? -- Geo Swan 13:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, which is why I posted on here before diving in. As long as we're looking for sources it may as well stay in. --JeffUK 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)