Talk:Canadian Afghan detainee issue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Canadian Afghan detainee issue has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 6, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
September 8, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Afghanistan  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Canadian Afghan detainee issue:
  • Finish details of MPCC investigations
  • Add any conclusions reached from first reams of released documents
  • Get more pictures

Still allegations?[edit]

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)

Importance of the scandal[edit]

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)

"Scandal," really?[edit]

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. --Natural RX 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)

Article overhaul[edit]

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. --Natural RX 02:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings NaturalRx:
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.
There is also the Wikipedia policy on attribution to be aware of. See this link: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia
As you can see, I have now added the necessary attribution tags at the top of the Talk pages of both the "to" and "from" articles.
Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canadian Afghan detainee issue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: