Talk:Minors detained in the global war on terror

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

While it is concomitant upon American citizens and military personnel to adhere to and, in the ideal spirit of Democracy, aspire to the principles of the United States Constitution, it is not unreasonable to expect rational though criticizeable deviations from the letter of the law. If this topic is meant to showcase an example of American hypocrisy, it was poorly chosen. I don’t believe any reasonable adult of any cultural background would agree that children should be treated as in some way having the latitude of an adult. I expect that a vast majority of these imprisoned minors did not willingly take up arms with their adult exploiters. Additionally, even if any of these minors claim to have become willing combatants, I believe their relative innocence would invalidate their being taken seriously; they should be handled patiently and protectively by their captors though their combat knowledge, however little, should be the right of the captors, and should be extracted within the bounds of common reason.

I now turn upon the aforementioned “adult exploiters”, they being the children’s “comrades”-in-arms. These adults, the true “enemy combatants”, should be the ones held accountable for the children’s plight. These adult detainees should ultimately be held responsible for abusing the “rights” of these innocents. (I am using the American definition of “rights” here, as this definition seems to be a great deal more flexible in the East when it comes to children). It is also not difficult to find the irony in the fact that these children are now a great deal safer and have a greater potential to be successfully reintegrated into the more stable portions of their society after they are released. Certainly, military imprisonment of child combatants is not the ideal, nor could it be considered strictly Constitutional, but only those with a political agenda or an incomplete education would not agree that it is the most reasonable option. --KihOshk 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the Wikipedia talk pages are not political forums and should be used to discuss how the article in question could be improved. Crito2161 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I felt that the way the table was confused a little as it took me a second to realize the middle column was for the date of birth. I have added titles which I felt were appropriate to clarify the columns, however, I am so familiar with wikitables that I can say I have put it in the right way. If you think it should be structured differently, go right ahead, I just wanted to clarify the columns of the table. Crito2161 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] restoring names removed without explanation...

Six names were removed from the list, without explanation, in this edit. I am going to restore them. -- Geo Swan 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of non-minors?

There are some names (anyone born before November 1983) who could not possibly have been minors when they were detained, as they would have been 18 or older at the time. Shouldn't those names be removed? dcandeto 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge?

A {{mergeto}} tag was placed on this article.

• I don't think this is a good idea, because an excessive urge to merge strips from the wikipedia all the advantages a digital encyclopedia has over a paper encyclopedia. Paper documents are inherently linear, because paper is inherently linear. A digital encyclopedia, on the other hand, can allow readers the freedom to traverse the multidimensional universe of human knowledge in the way that best suits them -- provided we can rein in the urge to merge from people who can't imagine an encyclopedia that isn't like a paper encyclopedia.
• Linking works best when articles are relatively small and focussed. Omnibus articles betray our readers, by trying to shoehorn their search for knowledge to the paths that make sense to us.

The person who put the {{mergeto}} offered this justification in the edit summary.

"This is not an article that would appear in an Encyclopedia. The information is important information and should not be deleted, but this is not an encyclopedia-type article..."

The edit summary is the wrong place for the person who places a tag to explain their reasoning. When the tag expands it tells readers where to look for the discussion of whether the merge makes sense. This is where the person who places the tag should initiate that discussion.

Unfortunately, the person who placed the tag made several other mistakes when doing so.

1. The merge tag they placed {{Mergeinto|War on Terror|date=January 2007}}, when expanded, directed interested readers to discuss the merge at Talk:War on Terror. But war on terror is a redirect to war on terrorism. No one who reads talk:war on terrorism will see any comments left in talk:war on terror.
2. The person who placed the {{mergeto}}, didn't place the corresponding {{mergefrom}}.

Consequently, there was absolutely no way readers of the war on terrorism would ever see the proposal, or its discussion.

Consequently, I am removing the tag.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)