Talk:Rebecca S. Snyder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
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]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rebecca S. Snyder article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] speedy deletion

Somone placed a speedy deletion tag on this article, within minutes of its first creation, in violation of the advice in the deletion policies. The tagger claimed A7 -- even though the article contained an explicit declaration of notability -- which is directly contradicted by WP:CSD.

I believe this tag should be removed and the tagger should re-read the deletion policies. Geo Swan (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] remove POV term

The use of "detainee" is, IMO, POV. It implies that the captives are held through an established legal protocol.

However, the Bush Presidency has asserted that the captives do not fall under the authority of the Geneva Conventions. And none of the captives have faced charges in a court of law. The Guantanamo military commissions are not established courts of law. They have no established rules of evidence or rules of procedure. Their legitimacy remains open to question.

So, in my opinion, the use of the "term" detainee is highly POV. If it is determined that the Presidency lacked the authority to ignore the USA's Geneva Convention obligations then it would be more accurate to describe the captives as "kidnap victims". Until the ultimate legality of their captivity is established I strongly recommend avoiding POV language like "detainee".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] use of quoted material

I disagree that this use of quoted material was POV.

External links go 404. Consensus is that references do not have to remain online in order to be considered "verifiable". So long as the original reference contains enough bibliographic information that a dedicated reader can look up a paper copy of the publication references are considered verifiable.

Canwest news service does retire many of its articles after a relatively short run. I quoted the paragraph that was most central to the article's coverage of Snyder as a courtesy for later readers, in case the link went 404.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this excision. I can't, for the life of me, imagine how the other contributor came to the conclusion it was "not germane". I would welcome an explanation.
Being barred from participation in a trial, or trial-like proceeding, after three years of preparation is a highly remarkable event. Kohlmann is the senior judge. He also seems to be a rogue element. This article I quoted doesn't mention him, but Hicks had an Australian lawyer, who also expected to participate.
Hicks Australian lawyer has described how he came to be barred from participation. He said that a few days prior to when the commission was finally going to convene, for real, Kohlmann demanded he sign an agreement to abide by a set of rules. Hicks's lawyer wrote that he asked to see the rules first. He wrote that Kohlmann told him the rules he was demanding he agreed to hadn't been written yet. Hicks's Australian lawyer declined to agree to rules that hadn't been written yet. And Kohlmann said he couldn't participate.
So, Kohlmann collaborated in stripping from Hicks three of his four lawyers, and a few hours later Hicks agreed to a plea bargain?
This documentable sequence of events is remarkable. And that aspect that concerns Snyder is remarkable, and there is no doubt in my mind that it merits coverage in the article about Snyder.
As I said above, I'd welcome an explanation why the passage is not germane.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While that may be a fitting subject for an article on that case, I can't for the life of me figure out what quotes add to this article (about Snyder, not her cases) other than clutter. Frankly, I think that whole table should go as it takes up the bulk of the article and is not focused on Snyder but rather, her cases. If readers want to know about her cases they may click the links. We are not writing for a magazine, where judicious use of quotes IS appropriate, but an encyclopedia where quotes look silly. Also, quotes belong on Wikiquote with a little wikiquote box at the bottom of the article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] restored material

I disagree with the excision of a paragraph in this edit. I have restored it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rank

  • We don't (yet) know when Snyder was first commissioned.
  • We don't (yet) know what her original rnak was, when she was first commissioned.
  • We don't (yet) know when she was promoted.
  • We don't (yet) know whether she resigned or was discharged. She may still be a reservist. When she testified before Parliament she was described as "Mrs".
  • We don't (yet) know what her current rank is.

What we do know is that a few years ago official documents describe her as a Lieutenant, and that she was described as a Lieutenant Commander when Kohlmann unexpectedly struck her from Hicks's Defense team.

So, I think it is better to mention her rank, in passing, when the references tell us what it was, at the moment the references were written. So I removed the explicit assertion that she was commissioned as a Lieutenant, replacing it with passing references to her rank, when we know it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Geo, we do know she was commissioned as a Lt. (they all are, that's the lowest and therefore 1st rank one gets as an officer.) Not a big deal but stating she served as Lt. makes no sense to anyone familiar with the military. One is commissioned as an officer, then one goes to serve one's branch or dept. As for detainee, that is the status of the detainees, they are detained at a detention center, captive seems much more POV to me as it implies that they were just picked up randomly off the street (that may well be the case but it is not for us as encyclopedia editors to decide, we can only report what other sources say. Their official status is "detainee", we may not like it but that's the way it is.) Cheers L0b0t (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, hasn't Ensign been the lowest commissioned rank in the USN?
In addition your wording implies that we know she was commissioned directly into the JAG. That may be the most usual way one becomes a JAG officer, but, while working on articles about JAG officers I have come across at least one who studied law at night school, and became a JAG officer while already in the Armed Services. So, I believe it is a mistake to go beyond what the references state.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, my wording makes it clear. She was commissioned, then she served in the JAG. Saying she served as a Lt. does not make sense. You can not serve as a Lt. , you ARE a Lt. who serves in a branch or dept.  :::L0b0t (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we know she was commissioned, but we don't know when, we don't know at what rank, or what branch she was originally commissioned in. I agree, she was probably commissioned as a Lieutenant, and she was probably commissioned directly into the JAG. But, since the references don't explicitly state this I don't see the advantage for interpolating this. Geo Swan (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is exactly the type of confusion I was trying to correct. One CAN NOT be "...commissioned directly into the JAG." One is commissioned as a Lt. in the Navy (reserve) then, after that, one is sent to SERVE in one's dept., section, branch, et al. We know she was commissioned as a Lt. (they all are), we know that she was promoted to Lt. Cmdr. (they all are, unless they fuck up badly.), and we know that she SERVED in the JAG. L0b0t (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, check out the article Ensign, ensign is the training rank (similar to cadet at West Point or in ROTC), once you finish schooling and go to your duty station you are a 2nd Lt. then 1st Lt.(Army, AF, Marines) or LT. then Lt. Cmdr. (Navy). Again, not really a big deal but a prime example of what happens when civilians write about the military. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, upon reaching the rank of Lt. Cmdr. one is called MR. or Mrs.. Also, one holds one's commission for life and can be recalled to service at any time (this only applies to officers, not enlisted ranks who, in the U.S., serve only 8 years.) L0b0t (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The details of how naval ranks work is interesting. Thanks. But, forgive me, this is exactly the kind of unreferenced information that some people love to challenge. I am willing to believe you have the true word, and this is how naval ranks currently work. But, a persistent challenger is unlikely to be satisfied with the interpretation you offered here, and is going to keep slapping {{cn}} and {{unreferenced}} tags on the article. Forgive me, but like every other wikipedia contributor, you and I are not considered reliable sources. For this reason it is best to hold back from inserting things we personally know are true, if we have no sources. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see how changing the sentence makes it unreferenced. The same info is still there, I've changed the semantics not the info itself. She was a Naval Reserve officer who served in the JAG, that info remains unchanged. L0b0t (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] use of talk pages...

I have requested another contributor to make use of the talk page. They have been putting the reasoning behind their edits solely in their edit summaries.

Putting the reasoning behind an edit in the edit summary is sufficient for small or non-controversial edits. But it is very difficult to use edit summaries for an actual discussion -- unless one is going to risk triggering a edit war.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was posting on the talk page as you were posting on mine. L0b0t (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question...

I am concerned with this edit with the edit summary: Civilian practice: removed POV crap, he is not being charged with a war crime, he is being charged with capital murder

We are free to personally disagree with the subject of the article... But, we can't call a direct quote from the subject of the article "POV crap".

It suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy on neutrality. The policy requires wikipedians to refrain from injecting their personal points of view. However, relevant quotes from the subject of an article, or from authoritative, verifiable references, are not violations of the policy.

As to whether Khadr is charged with simple murder, or a war crime -- the Guantanamo military commissions are not for trying captives with ordinary crimes. If the crimes the captives were alleged to have committed were not war crimes then the captives would be tried in a regular court of law.

I reverted it. Geo Swan (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)