Talk:Charles Stimson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Stimson article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] Assessment

Couldn't rate at B, because it doesn't cover much outside 2 years of his life, B needs "a majority of the material needed for a completed article." Nicely written prose, but needs even more wikilinks and a bit of rephrasing. The "These comments are in direct contradiction to longstanding American legal tradition" bit needs to be rearranged so the emphasis is on the quotes of the legal scholars; currently it sounds like we're saying that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revert -- see talk

I am reverting these edits. I found this one the most troubling. Excising wikipedian asserted it wasn't relevant to Stimson, and wasn't sourced.

I dispute that the connection to Stimson wasn't sourced. I've quoted the passage in the reference.

I dispute that the connection to Stimson wasn't relevant. Stimson was the responsible for DETAINEE AFFAIRS. His comments on this controversy, if he had chosen to make some, would have been highly relevant. And his decision not to comment was just as relevant.

I also fixed the excising wikipedian's reference to the Heritage Foundation. Please don't use bare inline references. They are very inconvenient for other wikipedians, if the bare reference is taken offline. References remain valid, and should not be removed, just because they are taken offline -- provided the reference provides information like that date of publication, title, name of publication that would provide a dedicated reader to look up a paper copy.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, the use of the phrase "albeit equivocally" is POV language - it is Wikipedia saying that the apology was equivocal. Can you re-word the sentence so that it says that others were reported to say that they considered the apology equivocal? The later passage about insincerity works in those terms. FWIW, I agree entirely that the apology was equivocal - it's a question of how to present it to conform to BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)