This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Canadian Afghan detainee issue is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Hi. You've done lots of research setting this one up. If the allegations are still unproven, I suggest the title of the article may need changing. "Abuse scandal" suggests that there was real abuse. "Detainee transfer scandal" would be safer, although I admit it is jargon-y. What do you think? Canuckle 22:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the article is the well-sourced timeline. The story could be stronger about why the scandal is important or notable. Currently, the story portion can be summarized as there were claims made in the Globe and House of Commons and it was called a scandal. It would be useful to seem more description of what it was, what parties like Red Cross and Amnesty International thought of it, and what the consequences were. Hope you don't mind the feedback. Canuckle 22:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I know there are two cites for the use of the word "scandal," but I wonder if "controversy" isn't more accurate and a bit more NPOV. --Rrburke(talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, scandal is a politically loaded term. Controversy or issue would be more appropriate. dcraig9—Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC).
Also agree. I have moved the article accordingly. --NaturalRX 03:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that scandal puts bias into the title, but think "issue" is a bit limp. Nobody can deny there's a controversy, though. But I'll defer if others disagree. C4AS (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have given the article an overhaul to try and summarize most of the content into a proper article format instead of a timeline of events. The timeline has been preserved and can be found at Timeline of the Canadian Afghan detainee issue. I am not going to claim that it is perfect and welcome everybody to polish it up. --NaturalRX 02:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution.
Technically, Wikipedia policy requires that editors give advance warning of moving content: You could have used all of the useful templates found in this Wikipedia policy article: Wikipedia:Splitting. These templates even tell the reader where the content is moved to, etc.