NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Uighur detainees in Guantanamo

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition Prisoners captured in Afghanistan by the U.S., and determined to be members of an anti-Chinese organization not opposed to the U.S.; they are in limbo as they cannot be sent to China but other countries have been reluctant to take them [d] [e]
Fountain pen.png
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
No "from wikipedia" disclaimer is necessary because I was essentially the sole author of this version.
George Swan 10:05, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
the names and individual cases, based on original research, are not encyclopedic and are unnecessary. What is needed is an explanation of why these Chinese citizens are unwilling to return to China--and what country wants them.Richard Jensen 02:36, 7 April 2008 (CDT)
I'd appreciate some guidance here please.
Is it possible I could get an explanation as to how citing verifiable sources constitutes "original research"? I would appreciate guidance on this.
Maybe the real objection is that the material was not "encyclopedic". I am not sure what this means on this wiki. Perhaps Richard meant that he thought it was too detailed to be useful to Citizendium's intended audience. First year college students, right?
I was admonished for using an acronym on a talk page here. I am going to try not to. I just fully spelled out "Citizendium" to comply. May I suggest that using "encyclopedic" is almost as bad as using an opaque acronym?
What country wants them? Albania agreed to take the five Uyghurs who were determined never to have "enemy combatants" at all. Albania agreed to take five other of the captives the USA officially acknowledged were innocent. But they weren't really "free". They had to live in the refugee camp. I believe one of the Uyghur's sent to Albania was able to get political asylum in Scandinavia. No other Uyghurs have been accepted by any country.
Why don't they want to return to China? Because the Chinese government says they are all terrorists, and they fear prison, torture, or a possible death sentence.
Richard, forgive me, but may I suggest that it is a mistake to treat the cases of all these men as one amorphous blob. Their cases have diverged.
  • Their lawyers say all the remaining men were cleared for release in late 2004 or early 2005. This is not true. We know Ahmed Mohammed had annual Administrative Review Board hearings in 2005 and 2006. (The last year for which records were released.)
  • Very controversially, at least three additional captives were initially determined not to have been "enemy combatants" after all. But new Tribunals were convened, which overturned those initial results. Critics have accused the Bush Presidency of allowing itself "do-overs".
  • The rules for how captives are held in Guantanamo say that the case of every captives, who isn't facing charges, is supposed to be reviewed, annually. These reviews are authorized to recommend the captives release, because the no longer hold intelligence value, and/or they no longer pose a threat. About a third of remaining Uyghurs have officially been cleared for release.
  • But what the records show is that, with the exception of Ahmed Mohammed, the other Uyghurs have not officially been cleared for release, and are not having the annual review boards convened for them.
I think that is noteworthy, and is an argument for coverage of some details of their individual cases.
Perhaps, after reading what I wrote above, others will agree with Richard that the table Richard removed was not the way to address these issues, but will agree with me that some details from individual cases merit coverage.
I'd appreciate feedback on this.
Cheers! George Swan 12:08, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
I just saw Richard's edit summary, which is a bit different than his comment above. He wrote:
Trim article to make it encyclopedic and fit CZ criteria of neutrality and importance.
I am the newbie here. Again, if I am going to be making an ongoing contribution here I would really appreciate a further explanation of how this material lapsed from the Citizendium's neutrality policy.
And I am not familiar with the policy where I could read about importance criteria. If I am going to make further contributions here I will, of course, do my best to fully comply with the policies. But I'd like to know what they are.
Cheers! George Swan 12:15, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
Hi George, for more general input here you might want to raise these questions in the forums. Chris Day 12:25, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
"::we have to avoid the impression that we somehow sympathize with the prisoners. Encyclopedias summarize well-known information, and generalize.Richard Jensen 12:48, 8 April 2008 (CDT)

Incorrect summary of legal issues and unnecessary deletion of text

Richard's summary of some of the legal positions concerning the Administrative Review Board is incorrect and the original explanations should be reinserted. Inaccurate generalisations are not an improvement on very detailed individual cases, although I accept that it was difficult to make sense of some of the detail in the older version.

Insofar as I am concerned, there was no issue of the neutrality policy with this article: there is an issue of how to make it more suitable for an encyclopedia. There is no set of guidelines to refer you to, George, because this was Richard acting on his own opinions. Feel free to reinsert or change anything that you feel makes the article more useful to our readers. I do not understand what Richard means about avoiding giving the impression that we sympathise with the combatants. On the contrary, I think we need to avoid giving the impression that we sympathise with either the US government or the combatants.

THe invoking of "no original research' is unreasonable in this case, and anyway is not a clear policy on CZ at this time. Indeed, many editors feel that their own contributions require some degree of original research and I do not see why that should be confined to editors. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:55, 8 April 2008 (CDT)

I got involved because George requested an editor's help and i'm a politics editor. Here's what I told him: To be an encyclopedia article it has to concisely summarize the major points, taking into account all positions. The original article did not explain the main issues or why they were at all important. I don't think the original version was trying to be fair to the Chinese or US positions--that is a fatal error for a CZ contributor. It seems to be mostly based on one person's research --by a person who does not claim any expertise in international or criminal law, and who does not cite any legal opinions. That certainly violates the spirit of an authoritative, nonbiased resource that people know is based on expert research. Richard Jensen 19:40, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
The issues of international law are important here, so I have put this article also into the Law workgroup. I don't know why you think the original version was not fair to the US or Chinese positions, Richard: perhaps you could elaborate. The whole issue is actually that Guantanamo Bay is operating outside of international law; and every citizen of every country has the right to seek asylum outside of his own country. The opinion of the Chinese on that point is irrelevant. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:06, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
the original article did not even attempt to say what the basic issues are, nor what the positions of the different parties are. That's pretty poor encyclopedia work, which I tried to salvage. As for law category, do we have any active editors in law? Richard Jensen 21:24, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
Well, we do need to identify conceptual issues, this is true. I understood George to be asking for guidance on that, and perhpas he makes the error of thinking that the listing of factual data is easier for neutrality. It is the interpretation of the facts that needs to conform with the neutrality policy, but I am sure that we can make some progress with that. Please do not be discouraged, George: these are notable contemporary issues and belong on CZ. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:42, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
as Martin notes, "every citizen of every country has the right to seek asylum outside of his own country" but there is no corresponding obligation of any country to accept them, and several dozen countries have rejected these men. That is an issue that needs to be a central point in the revised article. Albania took five, but China says that action violates China's rights under international law. Albania then reversed itself and said it did not want the 5. Since some of the people involved say they went to Afghanistan to train to fight against China, then CHina is very much a party, andinsists on that point with apparent threats. I don't believe CZ at present has any active law editors--anyone out there??? Richard Jensen 22:02, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
I appreciate all civil comments on my contributions, whether they are from other Citizendium authors, Citizendium editors, or just random joes and jills. As I said above, if I am going to contribute here I will respect the author/editor structure, where editors get the final say. Just to be clear on this Richard, is it your opinion that I would be lapsing from policy by including details about individual captives, after you removed them?
Yes, thanks Martin, I am used to confining myself just to what can be verified, and leaving interpretation to the readers, precisely to avoid challenges over neutrality, over on the wikipedia.
Richard part of your addition was:
[ They are free to return to their homes in China, and China wants them, but they refuse to go and the U.S. has decided not to force them to return.
I have been following their cases pretty closely, and I am pretty sure China never said that they are "free to return to their homes". I am pretty sure China has said it considers all these men criminals, and they would go straight to jail.
I have no problem acknowledging I am not a subject field expert, and that you are.
So, as a subject field expert, can I ask you whether the USA isn't bound, by both domestic and international law, to refrain from returning individuals to their home country if they have a reasonable fear they will face torture there? If that is the case, can I ask if, to use your phrase, the USA "forced them to return", whether it would not be lapsing from compliance with its obligations under domestic and international law?
Cheers! George Swan 06:58, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
Does this statement do the job? from the US perspective they are free to go to any country that will accept them. The US has asked scores of countries to admit them but each country refused, and the US itself refuses to admit them. Their home country China is the only country that will accept them, but the men refuse that destination because of fear of punishment. The US will not forcibly return them to China. Hence they remain in limbo. Richard Jensen 07:25, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
Bearing in mind that I am not an expert -- I believe that we know the USA has negotiated with other contries to take the Uyghurs, and several dozen other captives cleared for release or transfer, who cannot be sent back to their home countries. But there has been no official confirmation of the terms the USA has set.
A year or so ago some of the negotiation the USA and the UK were engaged in, over the release of Bisher al Rawi was leaked. The UK wanted Al Rawi back. And, IIRC, the USA said you can only have him back if you accept the other former UK residents we don't want to keep here anymore. But you have to agree to keep them under surveillance. The UK balked at this condition. And their release was delayed for a considerable period of time.
  • Since 2002 the Bush administration has pressed foreign governments to prosecute the Guantánamo prisoners from their countries as a condition of the men’s repatriation. But many of those governments — including such close American allies as Britain — have objected, saying the American evidence would not hold up in their courts.Tim Golden, David Rohde. Afghans Hold Secret Trials for Men That U.S. Detained, New York Times, April 10, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
We don't know whether the USA dropped all its conditions upon their transfer to the UK. If you look at the Administrative Review Board recommendation memos you will see the Boards could recommend (1) continued detention; (2) release; or (3) transfer. Less than half a dozen of these memos recommend release. Almost two hundred of these memos recommend "transfer" -- repatriation to the custody of another country.
After Afghan captives Saudi Arabia used to be the country with the most nationals in Guantanamo. But in the last two years all but a dozen or so Saudis have been sent home -- most to a fairly loose detention in a fairly open rehabilitation centre. But Yemen, which was originally the country with the third most national still has most of its nationals there. Press reports say this is due to Yemen not abiding by the conditions the USA insisted on when it transferred its first captives there.
So, no, if you are asking my opinion, I could not, in good conscience, agree to the wording you suggest. In particular, the passage "they are free to go to any country that will accept them" would trouble me; as does the passage "the US has asked scores of countries to admit them but each country refused". That is not a fair description if what the countries refused was to accept them under the USA's conditions.
I suggest that, if the captives were really free to go to any country that would accept them, the USA would publicly announce that, rather than entering into private bilateral negotiations with individual countries.
Cheers! George Swan 08:12, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
It appears George does not really want guidance. That's too bad. Meanwhile people interested in the issue should read the NY Times coverage online Richard Jensen 08:26, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
Just so there is no confusion, I remain interested in any civil feedback to my contributions to article space, or to my talk page comments.
Just so there is no confusion, I have every intention of trying to make all my contributions here full comply with the Citizendium's policies, and its two-tiered structure of ordinary contributors and subject field experts.
Cheers! George Swan 22:06, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
George, I would encourage you to be more precise about the claims you make. Richard's statement was that "from the US perspective they are free to go to any country that will accept them." (For what it's worth, it would be helpful if we could spell out exactly who in the US holds this perspective-- in general, this discussion could use some more sources.) Richard is not trying to make the claim that these captives are "free to go to any country that will accept them." You have misrepresented his formulation.
Further, I do not believe you have brought forth any evidence that shows that, in this specific case, the US has placed conditions on how the Uighurs are to be handled once they receive asylum (or, at the very least, a place to go). As I read it, you have inferred this from the treatment of Bisher al Rawi and Yemeni prisoners (for which it would be useful to have sources, as well). If Human Rights Watch, or other reputable organizations, have made such claims, though, that's fine, and, phrased carefully, might very well be included in the article. Brian P. Long 09:47, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
I agree with you, George, the wording suggested by Richard is highly misleading and incorrect. And I do not turn to newspapers for correct analysis of complex issues, I am sorry to say. Basically, the USA has got itself into a mess by arresting these people without legal mandate, and is now unable to send them back to their country of nationality [as they refuse] and the USA itself refuses to grant asylum, and it seems that other countries are unwilling to assist. Of course, if they were free to leave and go to any country, then they should be permitted temporary release in order to request asylum personally, rather than have it negotiated by the USA. This is not a simple issue at all, and it should not be simplified because some people think that everything should be easy to grasp. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:22, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
I note that Martin ridicules expert newspaper reports but he does not refer to any sources whatever -- which tends to weaken his claims of expertise on the Uighurs. He might want to read the scholarly sources I provided on our article on the Uighurs. Martin also misstates international law (mixing it up with EU law which does not apply to the US) all of which seems to reflect his explicit political views on the matter. The errors are what happens when people reply on memory rather than check some source. Richard Jensen 17:11, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
Richard: there are no expert newspaper reports. No scholar accepts newspapers as reliable analytic sources, and I do not accept them as being reliable sources of facts either. I do not claim any expertise at all on the issue of the Uighurs. I have no idea what you are talking about, regarding my alleged confusion of international law with EU law, I do not mix things up and I do not have any explciit political views on the matter. It is offensive that you suggest that I do, simply because I stated that the USA has got itself into a bad situation with Guantanomo. In fact, this shows your clear political bias, not mine. Also, I suggest that you refrain from making comments on law, as our previous discussions have shown that you do not understand it at all. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:59, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
Martin, I respect your expertise on this issue-- I think that, of anyone here, on this issue, you are the closest thing we have to an expert at present. On questions of fact, I will obviously defer to you. The basic issue here is that we are sandwiched between two Citizendium policies-- the desire to write the best, most reliable encyclopedia with the assistance of experts, and the desire to eschew unnecessary novelty and original research.
I very much hope that there is a way to incorporate your analysis into the article, by writing it neutrally, and, as much as possible, with reference to specific points of law, specific facts and events, and the analysis of specific people or entities. At the same time, if your analysis is novel enough that it would warrant being published in an academic context, I do not feel that Citizendium is the first place to put it. Caution is particularly warranted when we're talking about political matters that concern real, live people and active political entities. All the same, it's still a quandary, and quantifying expert opinion on a given subject is a particularly tricky endeavor-- just look at the discussion on the Global warming talk page. Brian P. Long 13:51, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

I am reluctant to write anything here, because then there would be nobody to approve it. Already, I have made that mistake with another article...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:00, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

write more, discuss changes later

George, I would encourage you to write more about this, and others to give him a little time to message the text before jumping in. Clearly the NYT thinks it is a significant story and so does much of the world, so it certainly belongs here.

As for individual cases, if some are more worthy than others, a separate page could be written for them. That is probably not possilbe right now, but might be when some of these issues are resolved. You should write more in paragraph form and less so in list form. I am thinking of the section that lists the common features of their allegations.

To be well written, some comments on international laws about this issue will need to be put in, especially about sending people to countries to be tortured. Any relevent quotes from either the Chinese or US officials would help with the neutrality issue. "Extraordinary rendition", if an issue here, should be brought up, as well as any countries that participated in it.

If the article becomes too contentious, people can work on it as a group on the talk page. One Editor cannot mandate exactly how you write this article, only give you feed back. If your comments are well referenced, and you present all sides of the issue, the editors will find the article acceptable or suggest changes for you to make, which is what I think Richard was trying to do. So, write away George, and we can all take a look in a few days again.

David E. Volk 09:26, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

Actually, some of the detailed stuff could go onto subpages, like an Appendix. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:24, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
There is a subpage called Addendum that Anthony Sebastion used in the life article. Chris Day 12:35, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

Canada rejects Uighurs

Associated press in The New York Times August 17, 2007 Records Show Canada Balked at Taking Detainees Cleared by U.S. quote: "Canada balked at several requests from Washington to provide asylum to men cleared for release from the United States military prison at Guantanamo Bay, government documents released Wednesday show. Notes prepared for former Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay in February this year, obtained by The Canadian Press news agency under Canada's Access to Information Act, indicate that the Bush administration had asked Canada to accept detainees of Uighur decent from China's Xinjiang region who were deemed to be no threat to national security. "The United States was not prepared to resettle the men in its own territory, but could not send them back to China for fear they would face persecution. Canada -- like other countries -- seemed ill at ease with taking on refugees to remedy a public-relations headache for the United States. Today, 17 of the men are still being held and live in isolation for 22 hours a day. Canadian officials indicated to the U.S. delegation that the men would likely also be inadmissible under Canadian immigration law, says a Foreign Affairs briefing note prepared about a meeting last May.

"The Pentagon confirmed that the government had talks with other countries over the possible transfer of detainees.The government has long stated that we have no desire to be the world's jailer. To that end, we continue to discuss with other governments the possibility of transferring detainees once humane treatment and continuing threat concerns have been satisfactorily addressed by the receiving country, a Pentagon spokesman, Greg Hicks, said in an e-mail message. ... American officials traveled to Ottawa on three occasions in 2005 to press their case. By May 2006, Washington had succeeded in persuading Albania to take five Uighurs, who now live in squalid conditions. A week after that transfer, the Americans were back in Canada, meeting with both political aides and bureaucrats from several departments and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office. The obstacle seemed to be a point of principle. Under the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement, refugees cannot make claims to enter Canada from the United States except under a few specific exceptions, like fear that they would face the death penalty in America. The documents suggest the Canadian government was still uncertain about whether it had the appetite for any future transfers." [end AP story] Richard Jensen 14:05, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

Covering conditions at the camp, and in Albania?

I'd welcome opinions on how much coverage should be devoted to the conditions at the camp, and in Albania. One correpsondent suggested to me it was unnecessary to cover the fact that the Uyghurs who had been determined to be innocent were still routinely shackled for their remaining two years at Guantanamo.

Ten of the innocent men were transferred to Camp Iguana -- it had formerly been the camp were three of the younger children had been kept, until they were sent home in January 2004. It was reopened and ten of the men the Tribunals determined had never been "enemy combatants" were sent there, prior to being transferred to the Albanian refugee camp. The DoD called those captives "No Longer Enemy Combatants".

In 2006 it was learned that these ten men had salvaged some viable seeds from their food and planted a garden, dug with plastic spoons, where some plants had grown to two inches tall.

Yesterday I read something I could have guessed, but didn't know for sure. The USA insists that all captives leaving Guantanamo have to be shackled. When the Australian Government brought Mahmoud Habib back the USA would not allow him to travel unshackled unless the Australian Government chartered a plane, and took custody of him on the tarmac in Guantanamo. But I had not realized they insisted on shackling the men who they had deemed had never been enemies in the first place.

Now, if I understood him, one of Dr. Jensen's criticisms was that the version of the article prior to his edits lacked a critical analysis.

  • Does information like this belong here?
  • If so, to what extent does it really require, or benefit from, analysis?

Cheers! George Swan 07:14, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Te behaviour of the US government in shackling persons unlawfully detained without even the accusation of crimes is clearly illegal under international law and this information belongs in the CZ article. That they should even do so when releasing the prisoners is all the more disgusting, and also needs to be mentioned here. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:24, 10 April 2008 (CDT)


I am excising the sentence: "They do not explain what they were doing in a war zone in a foreign country." from the paragraph:

However the captives deny most of the allegations. They do not explain what they were doing in a war zone in a foreign country.}} ...because most of the Uyghur captives did testify before their Tribunals and they did offer explanations as to what they were doing in Afghanistan. Further, they all traveled there prior to 9-11, so I question whether it is correct to call it a "war zone".

Cheers! George Swan 08:38, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Huzaifa Parhat

I ported an article an Huzaifa Parhat, one of the more important Uyghurs, because he is the lead petitioner in Parhat v. Gates.

Would it be appropriate for me to include excerpts from his testimony? George Swan 09:00, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Include it, and if deemed necessary we can always take it to a subpage. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:25, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
What goes on these subpages? Would it be appropriate to port Hufaiza Parhat, et al., v. Robert M. Gates, et al., Petitioners' motion for entry of protective order, December 18, 2006 to a subpage?
No this is an encyclopedia that summarizes knowledge that is widely held. There are hundreds of millions of pages of primary sources available for our articles; we do not port them to our subpages. This is not a data dumnp site for original research by an amateur without knowledge of the relevant law or diplomacy. Richard Jensen 10:57, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
I also added an article for Detainee Treatment Act. It is new, not a port from elsewhere.
Cheers! George Swan 10:42, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
There is no actual policy on this matter as far as I know, but my opinion is that you should be very clear exactly what is the purpose of putting primary sources on the pages. Normally, it would be better to link to outside sources. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:53, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
Okay. Thanks. I thought they might serve as something like wikisource. I am still curious as to what purpose the subpages serve. George Swan 12:13, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
They're for information that pertains to the article space, but doesn't necessarily belong in the main body of an article. They are not a data-repository or a space for personal blogs, but let's say there are a lot of images that a a part of an article but obviously cannot fit in the articlespace, it might go on /gallery; or if you're talking about isotopes or a debate guide on a subject it would go on those respective subpages also. --Robert W King 12:17, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

I do not understand why this article should be described as "un-maintainable"

I have taken a break for a couple of months. But I have some more recent sources for this topic, and I don't anticipate any problems bringing it up to date.

Cheers! George Swan 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as maintainability, the U.S. has just gone through a Presidential campaign where this material related to campaign issues, and a reader coming here would have received no up-to-date information. The situations change rapidly, even with court and military commissioner rulings under Bush, and now a significant change of direction under Obama.
For any reasonably current event, especially when the issues are controversial, to me "maintainable" means that there are people that will keep the article up to date. That isn't a lag of months. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see,2563.0.html. The same concern is expressed for multiple issues and is a matter of policy. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was surprised this last fall when I heard on Good Morning America a story about the plight of the Uighur. I thought of you George!
Now that Guantanimo is going to get shut down, there may be another (final?) chapter to these articles.

D. Matt Innis 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

While I am still concerned about the maintainability and accuracy of this article, I have attempted to give some guidance in an edit. One of my problems with this, and some other articles, is it relies on journalistic accounts, blogs, etc., without going back to reasonably available and more authoritative sources.
For example, the lede had the statement, "Under international law, the only country that is clearly obliged to accept a person's entry is that person's country of citizenship. The U.S. does not want them nor does any other country except possibly Albania." This was not actually sourced; the nearest citation was to the Huffington Post.
When I see "international law", I want to know the specific law, and, where appropriate, interpretation. I have given a few references to treaties, and also to Deeks' paper for the Council on Foreign Relations, which addresses some broader issues. It is that sort of reference I see as authoritative. Statements such as "Under international law, the only country that is clearly obliged to accept a person's entry is that person's country of citizenship" need to be sourced; the actual situation (see Deeks) is a good deal more complicated than expressed in even the two Conventions I mentioned. In like manner, "The U.S. does not want them nor does any other country except possibly Albania" needs much better sourcing, and perhaps a more formal explanation. Again, see Deeks for some starting points of sourcing.
The description of [[]Uighur]s as a people, and their issues with the Chinese, is not specific to Guantanamo and should be linked back to the article on them. I note that the original version of that article, radically revised by Richard Jensen, dealt purely with the Guantanamo aspect at first. As Jensen put it, these are a people with 2500 years of history. The statement, in this article, that "The Uighurs call their homeland East Turkistan" is not true for all Uighurs; it is true for Uighur separatists — who may have every reason to want independence, but that isn't an accurate definition.
In other words, not every event centers around Guantanamo, the Bush Admimistration, or news reports. If this specific article is about a Guantanamo-related matter, focus on that matter, not Uighur politics. Do not assume all news reports are precise. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. There's a delicate line to walk; it is more important to get it right than immediate, but, once the article is created, it needs to be kept up-to-date.
If this were an ideal world, there would be many authors willing to keep every article accurate and updated. CZ isn't ideal. I'm working on some general articles that put Guantanamo and U.S. policy in a more thorough context, and perhaps this can link to it. Personally, I am working on policy level articles, to which, I suppose, these individual articles can link, but I really don't want to be personally responsible for keeping them maintained. I'd rather spend my time on a broader, well-sourced context. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)