User:Geo Swan/opinions/Should we have some topic specific notability criteria for extrajudicial captives...

I have suggested that it might be useful to have topic specific agreement on what constitutes an "event" when considering whether individuals who have been held in extrajudicial detention merit separate articles.

One of the general factors we consider when we consider creating a separate article for a particular individual is whether they are known only for a "single event".

However, there is a broad range of interpretations as to what constitutes a single event.

Consider Bowe Bergdahl, an American GI held captive by the Taliban. Prior to his detention he was just another GI, and couldn't possibly have been justified a separate article. If he had been jailed for, let's say, drunk driving, at home in the USA, or when posted to Germany, South Korea, the UK, WP:CRIMINAL would apply, and he wouldn't justify a separate article. Should his detention by the Taliban a single event? If so, is his detention one of the exceptional cases WP:BLP1E allows, where someone is recognized as meriting a separate article, even though he is known for just a single event?

As Bergdahl's narrative has evolved alternate versions of how he came to be captured have been advanced -- that he was captured when he fell behind on a patrol, versus he was captured when he left his base alone when he was off duty. Was that a separate event? Was the release of each separate capture video a separate event?

I have listed here some suggested reasons why we might have a separate article on a captive held in some kind of extrajudicial detention.

I phrased the explanation around whether the reason would constitute a second event, so BLP1E no longer applies.

I have listed these reasons in a rough hierarchy of how likely I think readers are to agree those individuals will merit a separate article. I invite readers to look at the list, and stop when they get to a reason they don't think is sufficient to be considered a separate event.

Please add your comments on the talk page

Reasons why a given extrajudicial captive is not a BLP1E

reason	discussion
either wrote a book, or had a book written about them	Approximately a dozen, or two dozen former Guantanamo captives have had books written specifically about them. Omar Khadr has had at least three books. I suggest that anyone who has had a book written about them, even if the book is largely about their internment in Guantanamo, should not be characterized as a {{blp1e}} To the best of my knowledge none of these books were self published. To the best of my knowledge all of these books were reviewed by third parties, albeit, for those published in non-English-speaking countries, the reviews are largely also non-English, and hard to track down. For those books I suggest a reliable source that confirms the book was written should be sufficient to establish a second event, and reviews should not be necessary.
faced charges before a military commission	Approximately three dozen Guantanamo captives have faced charges before Guantanamo military commissions. I suggest that anyone who has faced the unprecedented charges before the Guantanamo military commission system should not be characterized as a {{blp1e}}
The DIA has named them as a "recidivist"	The DIA has named about 30 former Guantanamo captives as confirmed or suspected "recidivists". The DIA has claimed these 30 "recidivists" represent merely the tip of the iceberg, and that 10, 15, 20 percent of the former captives have "returned to support of terrorism", after their release. This meme has been strongly challenged by legal scholars and human rights, who found, when one looks closely at the named individuals, it seems that for some of them all they had to do to get listed as "recidivists" was to agree to be interviewed about conditions in the camp. I suggest that anyone listed as a "recidivist" should not be characterized as a {{blp1e}}.
agreeing to be interviewed by a western journalist	Tracking down the former Guantanamo captives, particularly those in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or an Arab country, is extremely difficult. I suggest that when a western journalist makes the effort to track down a particular captive, and writes a whole article about them, this is a second event, even if the interview focuses largely on their internment and its after-effects. The McClatchy News Service mounted the monumental effort to seek out, interview, and profile 66 former captives. They published a dozen context setting articles, and one article each on the former captives they interviewed. Other journalists have sought out other former captives. So, maybe something like 100 former captives have been the subject of this kind of profile
Being named on a "most wanted list" after release	Saudi Arabia has a rehabilitation program for former jihadists, including former Guantanamo captives. For years it was described as a complete success. It consisted of first staying in a spa-like retreat, where they had to attend occasional sessions where Saudi religious scholars explained to them why militant jihadism was wrong. But, in 2009, Saudi authorities published a new Saudi most wanted list of 85 suspected jihadists -- and eleven of them were former Guantanamo captives. I suggest that anyone named on a most wanted list after their release should not be characterized as a {{blp1e}}.
Captives who were tried, jailed or otherwise detained after repatriation	I suggest being convicted after repatriation should not be characterized as a {{blp1e}}. I suggest being acquitted after repatriation should not be characterized as a {{blp1e}}. I suggest being held without charge after repatriation should not be characterized as a {{blp1e}}.
being offered compensation after repatriation	Former UK captives may be offered substantial financial compensation as the UK government was complicit in violating these individuals' rights. I suggest financial compensation should not be characterized as a {{blp1e}}.
Captives who have been the pivotal in other news stories, like reporting of Koran abuse or hunger strikes	There are multiple former captives, who were interviewed, upon their release, who offered news-breaking accounts of developments in the camp I offer, as an example Mohammed Sulayman Barre. Barre worked for Dahabshiil a Somalia-based remittance company -- in Arabic, a "Hawala". Prior to 9-11 it was the 2nd most important Somali hawala. There was, and remains, a persistent meme, that the 9-11 hijackers used Somali hawalas for the covert reception of funds. However, according to the 9-11 Commission, all the hijackers funds transfers were via conventional mainstream banks. Dahabshiil became more successful, following 9-11, as the USA shut down its main competitor. The owner lives in the UK, and he hired a UK public relations firm Bell Pottinger to sanitize the wikipedia's coverage of Dahabshiil.