Talk:List of juveniles held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp

message: While it is concomitant upon American citizens and military personnel to adhere to and, in the ideal spirit of Democracy, aspire to the principles of the United States Constitution, it is not unreasonable to expect rational though criticizeable deviations from the letter of the law. If this topic is meant to showcase an example of American hypocrisy, it was poorly chosen. I don’t believe any reasonable adult of any cultural background would agree that children should be treated as in some way having the latitude of an adult. I expect that a vast majority of these imprisoned minors did not willingly take up arms with their adult exploiters. Additionally, even if any of these minors claim to have become willing combatants, I believe their relative innocence would invalidate their being taken seriously; they should be handled patiently and protectively by their captors though their combat knowledge, however little, should be the right of the captors, and should be extracted within the bounds of common reason.
	 
- 		 
- 	
I now turn upon the aforementioned “adult exploiters”, they being the children’s “comrades”-in-arms. These adults, the true “enemy combatants”, should be the ones held accountable for the children’s plight. These adult detainees should ultimately be held responsible for abusing the “rights” of these innocents. (I am using the American definition of “rights” here, as this definition seems to be a great deal more flexible in the East when it comes to children). It is also not difficult to find the irony in the fact that these children are now a great deal safer and have a greater potential to be successfully reintegrated into the more stable portions of their society after they are released. Certainly, military imprisonment of child combatants is not the ideal, nor could it be considered strictly Constitutional, but only those with a political agenda or an incomplete education would not agree that it is the most reasonable option. --KihOshk 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind that the Wikipedia talk pages are not political forums and should be used to discuss how the article in question could be improved. Crito2161 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted. However, this article is political in nature, and I have chosen here to discuss why I believe this article is hypocritical. I have not suggested that the article should be expunged although, based on the concern you'd pointed out, perhaps it should be. I would not attempt to delete others' disenting words though, as "Kingboyk" had silently done to me. --KihOshk 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I felt that the way the table was confused a little as it took me a second to realize the middle column was for the date of birth.  I have added titles which I felt were appropriate to clarify the columns, however, I am so familiar with wikitables that I can say I have put it in the right way.  If you think it should be structured differently, go right ahead, I just wanted to clarify the columns of the table.  Crito2161 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: Six names were removed from the list, without explanation, in this edit.
I am going to restore them.  --  Geo Swan 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  restoring names removed without explanation... 

message: There are some names (anyone born before November 1983) who could not possibly have been minors when they were detained, as they would have been 18 or older at the time.  Shouldn't those names be removed?  dcandeto 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of non-minors? 

message: A  tag was placed on this article.
*I don't think this is a good idea, because an excessive urge to merge strips from the wikipedia all the advantages a digital encyclopedia has over a paper encyclopedia.  Paper documents are inherently linear, because paper is inherently linear.  A digital encyclopedia, on the other hand, can allow readers the freedom to traverse the multidimensional universe of human knowledge in the way that best suits them -- provided we can rein in the urge to merge from people who can't imagine an encyclopedia that isn't like a paper encyclopedia.
*Linking works best when articles are relatively small and focussed.  Omnibus articles betray our readers, by trying to shoehorn their search for knowledge to the paths that make sense to us.
The person who put the  offered this justification in the edit summary.
:"This is not an article that would appear in an Encyclopedia. The information is important information and should not be deleted, but this is not an encyclopedia-type article..."
The edit summary is the wrong place for the person who places a tag to explain their reasoning.  When the tag expands it tells readers where to look for the discussion of whether the merge makes sense.  This is where the person who places the tag should initiate that discussion.
Unfortunately, the person who placed the tag made several other mistakes when doing so.
#The merge tag they placed , when  expanded, directed interested readers to discuss the merge at Talk:War on Terror.  But :war on terror is a redirect to war on terrorism.  No one who reads talk:war on terrorism will see any comments left in talk:war on terror.
#The person who placed the , didn't place the corresponding .
Consequently, there was absolutely no way readers of the war on terrorism would ever see the proposal, or its discussion.
Consequently, I am removing the tag.
Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge? 

message: War on Terror is capitalised. Furthermore, you ought to be able to come up with a somewhat more neutral-sounding/encyclopedic title. --kingboyk (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name needs to be changed 

message: Someone slapped a  tag on this article in September 2007.
They didn't leave a note here on the talk page, explaining what they thought needed cleaning up.  If no one places an explanation here, within a reasonable period of time, as to why they think this tag belongs here I suggest we remove it.
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As promised.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  responsible use of tags... 

message: I can't see the logic behind including :Category:Terrorism, a root category with many more relevant sub-categories. Specifically, the article is directly linked to the War on Terror, and is in that category, an appropriate sub-category of :Category:Terrorism. Including this article in any sub-category of :Category:Terrorists is equally inappropriate, as these people do not all meet the requirements listed there, notably the absence of war. The only reference in the entire article to anyone being a terrorist is Abdulrahim Kerimbakiev's alleged "family ties to known terrorists". - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of juveniles held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. 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:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5Y1AgJBZR?url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ju2OwMCVeX3Zua1Wpbssv4MMDScgD90Q8IK80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ju2OwMCVeX3Zua1Wpbssv4MMDScgD90Q8IK80
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified