The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages Moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan captives in Guantanamo → Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay — There is currently debate as to the appropriateness of using either 'captives' or 'detainees', in reference to persons being held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The consensus currently appears to be agaist using 'captive' with a demonstrated preference for 'detainee', and to a lesser extent 'prisoner'. I am not of one side or the other but wish to see consistency. Labattblueboy (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yemeni captives in Guantanamo → Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Somali captives in Guantanamo → Somali detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Moroccans captives in Guantanamo → Moroccan detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Saudi captives held in Guantanamo → Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Uzbekistani captives held in Guantanamo → Uzbekistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Tunisian captives in Guantanamo → Tunisian detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Pakistani captives in Guantanamo → Pakistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Kuwaiti captives in Guantanamo → Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Bahraini captives in Guantanamo → Bahraini detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Palestinian captives in Guantanamo → Palestinian detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Australian captives in Guantanamo → Australian detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• British captives in Guantanamo → British detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• American captives in Guantanamo → American detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Danish captives in Guantanamo → Danish detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Swedish captives in Guantanamo → Swedish detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Kazakhstani captives in Guantanamo → Kazakhstani detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Mauritanian captives in Guantanamo → Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Indonesian captives in Guantanamo → Indonesian detainees at Guantanamo Bay
• Libyan captives in Guantanamo → Libyan detainees at Guantanamo Bay

• Comment I have assembled some search results that may help in determining the most appropriate name on a WP:COMMONNAME basis. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books stats:

• "guantanamo bay captives" -wiki: 38 hits[1]
• "guantanamo bay captive" -wiki: 0 hits[2]
• "guantanamo captives" -wiki: 36 hits[3]
• "guantanamo captive" -wiki: 2 hits[4]

• "guantanamo bay detainees" -wiki: 1,210 hits[5]
• "guantanamo bay detainee" -wiki: 206 hits[6]
• "guantanamo detainees" -wiki: 4,100 hits[7]
• "guantanamo detainee" -wiki: 1110 hits[8]

Google Search stats:

• "guantanamo bay captives" -wiki: 44,800 hits[9]
• "guantanamo bay captive" -wiki: 11.300 hits[10]
• "guantanamo captives" -wiki: 44,500 hits[11]
• "guantanamo captive" -wiki: 31,800 hits[12]

• "guantanamo bay detainees" -wiki: 79,700 hits[13]
• "guantanamo bay detainee" -wiki: 3,100,00 hits[14]
• "guantanamo detainees" -wiki: 248,000 hits[15]
• "guantanamo detainee" -wiki: 157,000 hits[16]

Google News stats:

• "guantanamo bay captives" -wiki: 0 hits[17]
• "guantanamo bay captive" -wiki: 0 hits[18]
• "guantanamo captives" -wiki: 2 hits[19]
• "guantanamo captive" -wiki: 1 hit[20]

• "guantanamo bay detainees" -wiki: 717 hits[21]
• "guantanamo bay detainee" -wiki: 326 hits[22]
• "guantanamo detainees" -wiki: 859 hits[23]
• "guantanamo detainee" -wiki: 341 hits[24]

• Support all Whether or not they were "captured", they are certainly detained. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all Detainee is the more likely search term. --Haruth (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A fair number of the people in this list fail GNG and have an article with their name as a title, which serves as a redirect to this article. Should these redirect articles be deleted?

• I'm concerned that search engines will pick these people (many of them still alive) and redirect them to this article. I really don't think this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia, that is to advertise their detention status. So for the individuals who do not have a proper BLP, but only a redirect I think we should delete.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above user. I think the individuals who do not have their own BLP and are listed as redirects, should be deleted. There is no need for them to be listed if they fail to meet WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Meaning no offense, I'm confused by the OP's concerns. Failure to meet GNG is not reason in itself to delete redirects; indeed, one of the more common outcomes of a decision to remove a non-notable topic is to establish a redirect to a connected topic which is notable (and presumably that is exactly what happened with regard to some of these individuals). As to "advertising" the detention of these individuals or artificially inflating their importance as a topic in search engines, I don't understand how the OP thinks this would happen. Any automated links connected to these redirects which might be (or more likely, already have been) cataloged by search engines will not be within even an astronomical distance of a scale likely to attract notice and cause increased attention or appreciation for the existence of these individuals or their detention. The only impact upon search engine results that will be that, in the event someone is already searching for one of those names, and chooses to use Wikipedia as a resource on the topic, they will be redirected to our parent article on the topic--which is exactly the outcome we want anyway.

I think there might be some confusion here as to some of the technical mechanics involved with how search engines source our content. Again, having these redirects will not in any realistically significant manner lead to increased exposure for this topic, on-project or off--nor impact anyone not already searching for information on the detainees, so the notion of inappropriately leveraging Wikipedia to increase the profile of any individual beyond their existing notability seems misplaced. Having those links will, however, take those using a search engine to search for these names already directly to our article on the topic, aiding them as our readers and saving on the resources they would otherwise expend in an extra search, miniscule and insignificant as that bandwidth might be, in the grand scheme. Still, unless I'm missing something obvious, and I don't think I am, the status quo seems fine here. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain my concern. Google's SEO does index article names. Googling prospective employees names is a common practice. Having your name linked to an article that says you were a Gitmo detainee might be prejudicial.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course that's true of any article or redirect ultimately. I'm still confused as to how you envision this indexing (which takes place project-wide on a daily basis) would lead "advertise their detention status" or lead to "prejudicial" coverage? You say "I'm concerned that search engines will pick these people (many of them still alive) and redirect them to this article", but that's exactly what we want to happen. If someone has already typed a relevant name into a search engine, they are already interested in finding more information on the topic, and if Wikipedia is one of the resources they are going to utilize, we want to redirect them directly to this article. It's not like having one extra entry in Google's index is somehow going to lead to the company tweaking its search results such that these names pop up in completely unrelated searches. Still meaning no offense, but I still fail to see a problem in the vein of promotion or advertisement the topic covered here (at least beyond the degree to which every article is "advertised" on Google) and see only upside to retaining these links--though admittedly it's a very small issue. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what we don't want to happen with BLP. Pretend you work at an investment institution. The FBI raids your office and arrests everyone for insider trading. Let's say the Star, Moon & Snow insider trading incident article is created. You, Mr Snow (while a nice lad are thoroughly unnotable) are eventually cleared of all wrong doing, and is stated such in the article. Mr Snow is shown to have some involvement. Yet someone creates Star Rise ( roommate of Moon Fall and immediately redirects to the incident article. Would you want your name to show up in a google search, linking you to this incident? BLP policy is stringent for a reason. Just because you are mentioned in the incident article, having an article and DAB could have serious consequences for you. I hope we aren't talking in circles, by the way, no offense taken. I appreciate your responses.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your civil tone as well. But with respect, you cite BLP vaguely, but you don't give any further detail on what particular policy language from that large body of guidelines applies here. You'll have to be more specific if you want to win me over to the notion that there is something wrong here, or that the present approach is in any way inconsistent with how redirects are routinely used on this project. Broadly, you seem to think it's somehow atypical or inappropriate to list these men via redirects. I don't see how that position is consistent with policy or general practice. As to the idea that they will somehow become more connected (on this site or the web broadly) as a consequence of these redirects, that's not what would really be going on here. As you mention yourself, those names are already listed on this article, which is indexed. And anyway, these facts are a matter of public record, to the extent they are covered here. The only practical difference of the two approaches being considered here is how incoming traffic is handled. There are arguments either way on that, but I think your deeper concern is moot in this instance, though I agree with the larger principle motivating that concern. I mean, I'll be happy to eat my words if someone provides a technical argument I haven't considered, honestly, but so far I have not seen anything more specific than a vague concern without any discussion of the actual mechanics. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The contributor who started this rfc has raised very similar concerns in a number of fora. It seems to me that all these related concerns are based certain fundamental misinterpretations of key policy.

One key misinterpretation of policy... This contributor has stated they believe BLP protects individuals from "harm". Wrong, it protects individual from coverage that it poorly referenced, or unbalanced. Neutrally written, properly referenced material belongs here, even if it looks like it could "harm" the individual. It could be argued that neutrally written coverage of OJ Simpson harms him. Tough. Policy compliant coverage stays.

Another key misinterpretation of policy centers around his serious misunderstanding of wikipedia notability. WP:Notability, and all the special purpose notability guidelines, explicitly state that some individuals measure up to the criteria for meriting a standalone biographical article, while some other individuals are notable, just not that notable. GNG and the special purpose notability guidelines specifically say that coverage of individuals who are notable, just not notable enough for a standalone article should be covered in related articles.

I could cite the specific passages, but this contributor has repeatedly told me that they won't read any counter-arguments I offer. Geo Swan (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.