This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on January 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
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 Conventionstocaptives from the war on terror.
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 Monday20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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§ion=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.
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 Monday20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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... Outlook18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The status field of the {{infobox}} now says: "Transfered to Algeria against his will; then detained in Algeria for a few days, now free"
Almost every captive, including the 18 Afghan NLECs, and all the Brits, spent a day, or days, being questioned by officials of their government, prior to their release. This was routine. The non-routine aspect of Aziz Abdul Naji's stay in official custody following his repatriation was that Algeria did not acknowledge he was being questioned by officials. I question whether it is useful to say he was arrested, or detained, in the status field, if he is currently not detained, but in a supervised release.
I have mixed feelings as to whether his status should say he was "transferred against his will". It is important. We don't know how many former captives were repatriated against their wills. We can document that a limited number were repatriated against their will. I am not sure this information belongs in the status field. Category:Guantanamo internee, transferred against their will, may be appropriate.
[[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] was replaced by [[Supreme Court]]. Since practically every nation on Earth has a Supreme Court I believe the first wording was appropriate.
The sentence: "Human Rights Watch has heavily criticized the Obama administration for their decision." was replaced by "Human Rights Watch has heavily criticizes the Obama administration for their decision." The second version is not grammatically correct.
Please avoid original research. There are tons of WP:RS. This is headline topic. So it is ridiculous to claim this wouldn't be important.
Transfered to Algeria against his will.
Forced Return
Obama's Deportation of Naji “an act of cruelty
UN experts urge US to ensure no Guantnamo detainees are forcibly returned
Guantanamo detainee Naji sent back to Algeria against his will (Headline Washington Post)
Guantanamo Algerian 'forced home'
Your comment concerns me as you either did not check the sources or you try to cover up this fact. You usually do a good job in checking sources. IQinn (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't characterize other contributors' ideas, or what you think you recognize as other contributors' ideas, as "ridiculous". It is a provocative and inflammatory term, not consistent with compliance with WP:CIV. Geo Swan (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one claimed that Aziz Abdul Naji's repatriation against his will, wasn't important. In my comment I explicitly said it was important. I questioned whether it belonged in the {{infobox}} status field. No one is trying to cover up anything here.
Some might argue that the involuntary nature of his transfer -- reported to be the first instance the Obama administration forced a captive to leave Guantanamo against his will, merited a whole paragraph of coverage, or even several paragraphs.
I am going to ask for third party input as to whether the involuntary nature of his transfer belongs in the infobox.
You did not reply to my concern over your change to the SCOTUS link. I am assuming this is a tacit acknowledgment of my point.
You did not reply to my concern that almost every former captive spent at least a day, or several days, being debriefed by their governments upon their return, before they were free to go home. I am assuming this is a tacit acknowledgment of my point.
I think the passage added in this edit is unnecessary and could give the impression of POV-pushing. I think our readers will assume that if this information was known to the wikipedia contributors it might already be in the article, and would certainly be in the references we cited. That we didn't add this information implies it is unknown. Geo Swan (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added "though it is not known what he had been charged with or what the supervision entailed." The removal of well sourced information is POV pushing. It is important to mention and WP:VWP:RS. I have re-added it to the article. IQinn (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In July 2012 a contributor [left a bunch of tags on this article, and similar tags on hundreds of other articles. I thought these tags placed an obligation on the tagger to explain himself, and told him so.
That contributor never came back to provide those explanations, and precipitously left the project a month later.
If the tags remain unexplained, after a reasonable period of time, I will remove them.
I have just modified 3 external links on Aziz Abdul Naji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
