Talk:Aziz Abdul Naji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in January 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] tags

[edit] {copyedit} tag?

Another editor applied a {copyedit} tag, with the edit summary: "I think the tone needs work."

But they didn't say what their concern with the tone was. -- Geo Swan 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another editor responded to this {copyedit} tag. The other editor didn't explain the purpose of his or her edits. The problem I have with them is that they degrade the accuracy of the article. In particular:

original wording replacement wording comments

Initially the Bush administration asserted that they could withhold all the protections of the Geneva Conventions to captives from the war on terror.

Initially, the Bush administration considered the detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be enemy combatants from the war on terror. Under this status, the protections of the Geneva Conventions would not apply to them.
  • The use of the passive voice in the 2nd sentence in this passage is a mistake.
  • The wording of the 2nd sentence in this passage gives the very unfortunate appearance that "enemy combatants" was a pre-existing classification, and the individuals classified as "enemy combatants" were already legitimately recognized to not be protected by the Geneva Conventions. This is not true. It implies that "enemy combatant" is recognized, under international law. This is not true. No doubt this was just an innocent mistake, by an poorly informed editor, who was merely trying their best to make an improvement. But it gives the appearance of POV pushing.
  • I have a problem with the replacement of "asserted" with "considered". It gives the unfortunate appearance that President Bush was not the active agent here. That other parties, had authority, and played a role in the classification the captives as "enemy combatants".

The Tribunals, however, were not authorized to determine whether the captives were lawful combatants -- rather they were merely empowered to make a recommendation...

The Tribunals were intended to make a recommendation...
  • I think it is more accurate for the wikipedia to cover what the Tribunals were authorized to determine, rather than what they were intended for. We aren't mind-readers.
  • What the Tribunals were -really- intended for is a matter of conjecture. We could quote the critics who think that the Tribunals were intended solely to prevent the Judicial Branch from
  • There are documents that lay out what the Tribunals were authorized to do. And the Tribunal Presidents routinely explained to the captives what the Tribunals were authorized to do. I don't know where the other editor arrived at their opinion of what the Tribunals were intended to do.
Judicial branch Supreme Court

This replacement is a mistake. Numerous aspects of the Bush administration's policy have been over-ruled by lower courts. For instance:


  • I disliked the phrase "withhold"; I feel that it implies that the Bush Administration deprived them of something to which they were entitled, which seems to be the the issue debated in the courts. I agree that "considered" gives the wrong impression as well. I included the part about "enemy combatants" because I felt that, considering that it was the phrase used to defend the continued detainment of the prisoners at Guantanamo by the administration, it was important. That I applied it to Naji was wrong, but I feel that a sentance of two should be given to the label of "enemy combatant". Also, the "Critics argued that the USA could not evade its obligation..." implies that the US had an obligation to do so, which Bush disagrees with, and the word "evade" gives an implication of slyness. If you find a quote from a critic that says that, then that would be fine.
  • The phrase "merely empowered" gives the implication that they should have been empowered to determine whether the prisoners were lawful combatants or not.
  • The "supreme court" replacement was stupid of me, and I apologise.

Anyway, that's the explaination for my changes, which I should have given in the first place. Mostly, it is what I feel the phrase implies. In other words, it's my opinion, and I don't know how valid it is, if at all. If you would like to change the article back to the way it was before I edited it, feel free. I'm sorry that I took so long in getting back to you. Defenestrating Monday 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {references} tag?

The other editor applied a {references} tag.I'd like that editor to return, and explain what they think requires references.

  • That Aziz Abdul Naji was a captive in Guantanamo is authenticated by the reference to the official list of captives.[1]
  • Readers who want references to the implementation of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal can go to the CSRT page.[2]
  • The allegations are taken directly from the transcript, which is referenced.[3]
  • I summarized Aziz Abdul Naji's testimony, after reading his testimony, in the transcript, which is referenced.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aziz_Abdul_Naji&action=edit&section=3 Note: there are almost 800 captives known to have been held in Guantanamo. The wikipedia has articles about over half of them. Most of those articles use the same wording as this article. If the wording in this article should really be changed, then the wording of the several hundred other articles should be changed. That would be a lot of work. Consequently, it is worth a lot of effort to discuss the wording here.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Combatant Status Review Tribunal section has no references at all, and considering the amount of press court cases involving the issue received, there should be sources available. Defenestrating Monday 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent copyedit

I left a note about a recent minor copyedit on the contributor's talk page.

I think it is fair for me to restore the original wording if no one addresses the points I raised about the {{copyedit}} of January 14th within a reasonable period of time.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The use of "whether"

My recent copyedit involved the use of the word "whether". The use of "whether", I believe, means inclusion of an opposite, and my deletion of that opposite was only in the interest of removing unnecessary words for clarity. It was not done to change the nature of the substance of the article. With respect... Outlook 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert, see talk

I believe there is no record that Aziz Abdul Naji attended his CSRT. Geo Swan 18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)