Talk:CSRT Summary of Evidence memo for Abdul Ghafour

Best name?
So, what is the best name for this document? Another contributor moved this document recently. I asked them to return here for a fuller discussion.

The other contributor moved the name of the document to a simpler name, that was consistent with the names for the other documents.

That other contributor didn't know why I chose a name that seemed, on the surface, to be inconsistent with the pattern chosen for other documents.

Here is the discussion I had about the issue of disambiguating the captives' named -- w:User talk:Geo Swan

The DoD did an absolutely terrible job at managing the files for the various Guantanamo captives. They regularly failed to bring in the witnesses captives requested, telling them their witnesses were "not reasonably available" -- meaning they were thought to be "off-Island" -- They regularly fail to bring in witnesses they thought were "off-Island", who were actually also captives in Guantanamo.

The DoD record keepers used several different, incompatible disambiguation schemes. I believe various failure at Guantanamo could be attributed to the simple failure of the DoD record keepers.

When I worked on writing articles about the Guantanamo captives for the wikipedia I decided that we should come up with a consistent naming scheme, and not follow the example of the failed DoD attempts.

The official DoD list of all the captives has two men named Abdul Ghafour. If VPOTUS Dick Cheney is to be believed, Guantanamo contained a third man named Abdul Ghafour -- Maulvi Abdul Ghafour. In the case of the two Abdul Ghafour that the DoD acknowledged, the DoD record keepers decided just to spell their names differently. I considered this insufficient.

At this point in time we don't have the summary of evidence memo for either of the other two Abdul Ghaffars.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm.. tricky. I'd say that for now its a moot point because we've only got the one Abdul Ghaffar. I think I understand your concerns though and I appreciate the amount of thought you've put into it. I propose that we keep the names somewhat simple and consistent and in the event of multiple captives of the same name we distinguish them through the page title and perhaps a disambiguation page. In the end this basically means a revert to the old name for this document. If you think this information about the confused identity of the detainee is so important you should add a consise statement in the header notes about this. I only even touched this page because i saw it was orphaned, I presumed that was becuase of the unique naming scheme. --Metal.lunchbox 19:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)