![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just for starters:
The use of the word "terrorist" is emotive and should not be used.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The NPOV header was removed. I do not feel the use of the word terrorist in this document impinges on the article's neutral presentation of the US's stated opinion of the nature of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. If you'd like to suggest specific modifications to the neutral presentation of the opinions in the Periodic Report of the USA to the UN CAT, please do so, but I'm positive that the Periodic Report references several of the detainees as terrorists. Surely you don't mean to suggest that it does not?
Additionally, the "Reaction to" section contained several dead-links and addressed a tangential issue entirely. It was removed. -- (unsigned comment from User:169.229.94.163 18:17, 2005 December 8 -- from the office of the President of the University of California)
I am re-instating the NPOV tag because this article makes no attempt to represent a balanced point of view whatsoever.
It presents the US government view, without any attempt at objectivity, even though many aspects of the official US position have been exposed as blatant falsehoods.
For what it is worth the IP number 169.229.94.163, the wikipedian who removed much of the limited attempts to introduce balance to this article, traces to the Office of the President, University of California, I wrote the following email to President Dynes.
My two cents - OH BURN! Guitar George 13:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the report - I think it needs to be decided what the scope is within that. At the moment it looks like a paraphrase/summary of the report (to an uniformed observer). That's fine, but it should be crystal clear that's what it is. Alternatively if the article is to include criticism of the report, it should be seperated from the summary/paraphrase, and well sourced. Having the sentence "Of at least two of them we know for sure they have been mistreated by US operational staff: Habibullah and Dilawar. See Bagram torture and prisoner abuse for full story." in the middle of the summary is almost surreal. It's also written in a way that ould barely be acceptable on a talk page. I'll change that - but I haven't the stomach for re-writing or re-organising the whole article. However if anyone can take it on and wants help with parts, just ask. Rich Farmbrough 03:28 7 March 2006 (UTC).
I went through the references last night, changing how they were presented. This article isn't so much a summary/paraphrase of the original report as a cut-and-paste inclusion of almost the entire original document.
If the works of the employees of US Federal agencies are in the public domain then this is not a copyright violation. But I believe it violates WP:NOT and should be transferred to wikisource. -- Geo Swan 16:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The text originally placed in this article was cut and paste from Update to Annex One of the Second Periodic Report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture.
The wikipedia contributor who first created this article didn't attribute the source of the article. Everyone who has contributed to it since then assumed that the article was a (long) summary of the report -- not the report itself.
I do not believe this article belongs in the main article space.
I believe that if it belongs anywhere on the mediawiki servers at all it belongs over on wikisource. Further, I am afraid the hours of work that I and other contributors put in to improving it have been wasted. If this is to be transferred over to wikisource it should be transferred without the editing improvements made here, in good faith, by contributors who thought it was an article, not a press release.
I believe that the work I did wikifying the references could fairly be transferred over a wikisource article -- except that it followed editorial improvements. And I believe those editorial improvements should not be transferred over to a wikisource article. I believe the wikisource article should contain the original US position statement, and nothing else.
Without regard to whether the original U.S. position statement belongs on the wikisource, I believe it should be removed from the main article space. I have no problem with an article that is a true summary. But I think it would be far easier to start over, than to try to excise all the material from the official U.S. position statements.
There is a tag that puts a prominent image on articles that directs readers to the wikisource of a document.
Here are the instructions for how to do a Transwiki. -- Geo Swan 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This article started as a cut and paste job. It seriously detracts from the quality of the wikipedia, because it is so obviously biased. And because legitimate wikipedia contributors find themselves tempted to tune bits and pieces of it, not realizing that it was originally plagiarized from executive branch press releases.
Several of us discussed its drawbacks. No one suggested any redeeming qualities. Since then no one has felt motivated to rewrite it.
I think it is time for it to be deleted.
The ironic aspect is that the person who cut and pasted dozens of pages of press releases, verbatim, tried to chastise me for occassionally summarizing from the press releases of the defense attorneys of Guantanamo detainees. -- Geo Swan 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just for starters:
The use of the word "terrorist" is emotive and should not be used.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The NPOV header was removed. I do not feel the use of the word terrorist in this document impinges on the article's neutral presentation of the US's stated opinion of the nature of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. If you'd like to suggest specific modifications to the neutral presentation of the opinions in the Periodic Report of the USA to the UN CAT, please do so, but I'm positive that the Periodic Report references several of the detainees as terrorists. Surely you don't mean to suggest that it does not?
Additionally, the "Reaction to" section contained several dead-links and addressed a tangential issue entirely. It was removed. -- (unsigned comment from User:169.229.94.163 18:17, 2005 December 8 -- from the office of the President of the University of California)
I am re-instating the NPOV tag because this article makes no attempt to represent a balanced point of view whatsoever.
It presents the US government view, without any attempt at objectivity, even though many aspects of the official US position have been exposed as blatant falsehoods.
For what it is worth the IP number 169.229.94.163, the wikipedian who removed much of the limited attempts to introduce balance to this article, traces to the Office of the President, University of California, I wrote the following email to President Dynes.
My two cents - OH BURN! Guitar George 13:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the report - I think it needs to be decided what the scope is within that. At the moment it looks like a paraphrase/summary of the report (to an uniformed observer). That's fine, but it should be crystal clear that's what it is. Alternatively if the article is to include criticism of the report, it should be seperated from the summary/paraphrase, and well sourced. Having the sentence "Of at least two of them we know for sure they have been mistreated by US operational staff: Habibullah and Dilawar. See Bagram torture and prisoner abuse for full story." in the middle of the summary is almost surreal. It's also written in a way that ould barely be acceptable on a talk page. I'll change that - but I haven't the stomach for re-writing or re-organising the whole article. However if anyone can take it on and wants help with parts, just ask. Rich Farmbrough 03:28 7 March 2006 (UTC).
I went through the references last night, changing how they were presented. This article isn't so much a summary/paraphrase of the original report as a cut-and-paste inclusion of almost the entire original document.
If the works of the employees of US Federal agencies are in the public domain then this is not a copyright violation. But I believe it violates WP:NOT and should be transferred to wikisource. -- Geo Swan 16:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The text originally placed in this article was cut and paste from Update to Annex One of the Second Periodic Report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture.
The wikipedia contributor who first created this article didn't attribute the source of the article. Everyone who has contributed to it since then assumed that the article was a (long) summary of the report -- not the report itself.
I do not believe this article belongs in the main article space.
I believe that if it belongs anywhere on the mediawiki servers at all it belongs over on wikisource. Further, I am afraid the hours of work that I and other contributors put in to improving it have been wasted. If this is to be transferred over to wikisource it should be transferred without the editing improvements made here, in good faith, by contributors who thought it was an article, not a press release.
I believe that the work I did wikifying the references could fairly be transferred over a wikisource article -- except that it followed editorial improvements. And I believe those editorial improvements should not be transferred over to a wikisource article. I believe the wikisource article should contain the original US position statement, and nothing else.
Without regard to whether the original U.S. position statement belongs on the wikisource, I believe it should be removed from the main article space. I have no problem with an article that is a true summary. But I think it would be far easier to start over, than to try to excise all the material from the official U.S. position statements.
There is a tag that puts a prominent image on articles that directs readers to the wikisource of a document.
Here are the instructions for how to do a Transwiki. -- Geo Swan 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This article started as a cut and paste job. It seriously detracts from the quality of the wikipedia, because it is so obviously biased. And because legitimate wikipedia contributors find themselves tempted to tune bits and pieces of it, not realizing that it was originally plagiarized from executive branch press releases.
Several of us discussed its drawbacks. No one suggested any redeeming qualities. Since then no one has felt motivated to rewrite it.
I think it is time for it to be deleted.
The ironic aspect is that the person who cut and pasted dozens of pages of press releases, verbatim, tried to chastise me for occassionally summarizing from the press releases of the defense attorneys of Guantanamo detainees. -- Geo Swan 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)