Talk:Guantanamo captives' documents: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Good stuff; some organizational suggestions: new section) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Merging semi-duplicate articles: new section) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Could you make it clearer to what the long list of cites in the introduction points? Do they eventually become the block sections further down, or something else? This is the sort of article where a map might well supplement the basic table of contents. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:42, 25 June 2008 (CDT) | Could you make it clearer to what the long list of cites in the introduction points? Do they eventually become the block sections further down, or something else? This is the sort of article where a map might well supplement the basic table of contents. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:42, 25 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
== Merging semi-duplicate articles == | |||
In addition to this article, "...captives' documents", there is another article, "...captive's documents". Clearly, both are not needed. | |||
As a start, I will try to improve the flow of this one, and then merge any new material from the other into it. Problems here, for example, include having a major heading for Combatant Status Review Trial and Administrative Review Board documents, followed by an equal-level heading for CSRT documents, which clearly are a subset. | |||
More fundamental are the problems that documents themselves have little meaning outside the process that uses them. For example, would a CSRT document be of any notability if there were not a CSRT? I suggest, then, that it is more important to have an article on a CSRT, which has subsections on how a CSRT is conducted, what documents pertain, who has been through it, etc. | |||
In turn, the CSRT, ARB, habeas corpus hearing, etc., are all legal proceedings that have to do with Guantanamo prisoners, which means that an overall legal article is really needed. Not all Bush administration terror-related prisoners are in Guantanamo; there probably the most in Iraq, then in Afghanistan, and then in "black" detention sites. There is plenty of opportunity to cross link among articles, but the present situation is chaotic. Let me begin to clean up. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 07:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:19, 7 December 2008
 |
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page. |
| No "from wikipedia" disclaimer is necessary because I was the sole author of 212823768 this version. George Swan 17:18, 25 June 2008 (CDT) | |
| Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice. |
Good stuff; some organizational suggestions
I wish we had a whiteboard here, as it seems as if the document is organized as a branching tree, with the introduction going down to sections for the release of documents. The September 10 document section is nicely organized, although perhaps someone, who knows more than I do about Wikimedia table formatting, could suggest a way to break it up so that it doesn't extend over more than one stream. I have the same problem in insurgency.
Could you make it clearer to what the long list of cites in the introduction points? Do they eventually become the block sections further down, or something else? This is the sort of article where a map might well supplement the basic table of contents. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:42, 25 June 2008 (CDT)
Merging semi-duplicate articles
In addition to this article, "...captives' documents", there is another article, "...captive's documents". Clearly, both are not needed.
As a start, I will try to improve the flow of this one, and then merge any new material from the other into it. Problems here, for example, include having a major heading for Combatant Status Review Trial and Administrative Review Board documents, followed by an equal-level heading for CSRT documents, which clearly are a subset.
More fundamental are the problems that documents themselves have little meaning outside the process that uses them. For example, would a CSRT document be of any notability if there were not a CSRT? I suggest, then, that it is more important to have an article on a CSRT, which has subsections on how a CSRT is conducted, what documents pertain, who has been through it, etc.
In turn, the CSRT, ARB, habeas corpus hearing, etc., are all legal proceedings that have to do with Guantanamo prisoners, which means that an overall legal article is really needed. Not all Bush administration terror-related prisoners are in Guantanamo; there probably the most in Iraq, then in Afghanistan, and then in "black" detention sites. There is plenty of opportunity to cross link among articles, but the present situation is chaotic. Let me begin to clean up. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)