This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Another contributor made some additions to this article -- including adding an image of Shaker Aamer. Maybe the image should be removed, as the article should focus on the camp, and only touch on Aamer as that coverage relates to the camp.
I changed the order, to have a section on "construction history", and one on "use". I thought it might be preferable to place the least contentious part first.
With regard to official statements defending the camp -- they are sparse, or I would have included more.
Good job! for the rewrite... for the image of the prisoner you removed... i think it should be restored... inmates do belong into an article about a prison... in addition his account of the "inhumane" prison condition stands out... i do not see any reason not to have it... the article has only one image so far... 17marks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I know including this kind of material is tempting. But it generates a lot of criticism. There is a widely regarded essay, often treated as if it were a policy WP:COATRACK.
The justification for invoking this essay is that while it is often necessary to offer some coverage of a related topic before we link to it. But that coverage should be the minimum necessary to set some context. As new information comes to light on a topic, our coverage of that topic has to be updated. When a topic is covered in several articles all of those articles should be looked at when new information emerges, to make sure they are all accurate in light of the new information. That can be a lot of work.
When specific details are included in multiple articles, some articles may not get updated -- then different articles contradict one another. That is bad.
Or different contributors may each update different articles, bringing different understanding, of different references to their updates. So, even if they are both intelligent people, contributing in good faith, those multiple articles can end up contradicting one another.
When articles that are related confine themselves to only setting some general context, and then linking to the related article, and leave the specifics in the most relevant article, hopefully on the article with the most detailed coverage needs to be updated.
However, when the articles that relate to, let's say, Camp Five Echo, don't contain more details than necessary to set the context, next to a link to Camp Five Echo, it is less likely those articles will need an update. I think there would be question as to what an image of Aamer adds to this article. I don't think I could defend the image. That is why I removed it.
Specifically, in this article, I think questions will be raised, sooner or later, as to whether this article focuses too specifically on Shaker Aamer. Specifically, in this article, I anticipated questions being raised as to how an image of Aamer adds to this article. That is why I removed it.
Similarly, sorry, I think the paragraph that contains a series of quotes from Aamer will trigger criticisms that it does not comply with the advice in the highly regarded WP:COATRACK essay.
I couldn't offer an explanation as to how those specific quotes from Aamer would add to this article on the camp.
Similarly, what Aamer's lawyers said about the camp is relevant to the article on the camp, to the extent their complaints triggered the photo, triggered the press publishing information on the camp. Geo Swan (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)