Talk:Saudi most-wanted list includes former Guantanamo captives

What part of this article is original material?

The article points out that six of the eight men were repatriated in spite of their review boards recommending their continued detention in US custody. This is supported by the official documents on the public record, but I do not believe it has been published anywhere else. Gordon England was the Designated Civilian Official]. It was his responsibility to read the review board's recommendations and make the final decision on the boards' recommendations for transfer or continued detention He authorized 133 transfers based on the recommendations of the annual review boards convened in 2005. He authorized 55 transfers based on the recommendations of the annual review boards convened in 2006. Heavily redacted versions of those recommendation memos were published in September 2007. All of the recommendation memos from 2007 were published in January 2009. So whether captives transfer was in spite of the boards' recommendation is on the public record. The only original research I did was to go check what those documents recorded, and point out that transfer of those men was not due to a failure on the part of the officers making the recommendations. Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, working from public documents does not amount to original reporting. --SVTCobra 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

question...

Where is the actual list of 85 names?

I dunno. I can't find it. I wonder whether it was only published in Arabic? If anyone else can find it, where I have failed, my hat is off to you. Geo Swan (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could attract and retain Arabic speakers who could help researching things like this, but a number of ideological divides get in the way. Much like Americans being conditioned to believe socialism is evil when ideals it espouses such as universal health care would benefit them and save them money, many in the Arab world have indoctrinated prejudices which are a barrier to cooperation. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

misleading title

With a list of 85, and only around a dozen confirmed as ex-inmates of Gitmo, the title is misleading in that it implies the list specifically targets ex-inmates. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading the article, and having it trigger this concern, did you have an alternate title in mind? Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I thought was particularly good. How about Saudi most-wanted list includes former Guantanamo detainees? I don't think there is a need to stress that it is the most recently released list, that can be inferred from it being mentioned in a news report. That detail can also be in the article body. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I moved the article to Saudi most-wanted list includes former Guantanamo captives. I think "captive" is more neutral than "detainee". I never heard of any captive called a detainee, until Guantanamo. I think "detainee" implies that the process through which the captive was held was a normal, mundane, routine procedure -- one whose legality was unquestioned. These men were held without charge, no meaningful attempt was made to refute or confirm their alibis. Now that the men have access to proper review of their detention, through habeas corpus, the DoD and DoJ have quietly acknowledged that there had never been enough evidence to justify the mens detention. Calling these guys "kidnap victims" would not be neutral. But, it seems to me that calling them detainees is not really neutral, either. I think a neutral term has to be chosen -- like captive.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Review

Revision 764674 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 764674 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

12 includes 85?

"In the days that followed, close to a dozen former Guantanamo captives were identified, among those were 85 men and boys."

How can 85 men and boys be among 12 captives? I suppose the sentence is supposed to be "...a dozen former captives were identified among the 85 men and boys". How did that pass style check? It's in the lead paragraph. --86.159.223.93 08:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)