Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 5 January 2013

Hi Darouet, welcome to Misplaced Pages! -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

DRN notice

There is a discussion involving you at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Request by EricHaim

Hi Darouet, I would like to discuss your removal of the edits I made to the page "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I agree that the edit lacks citations which I am happy to add. There are only two that are critcal, (1) the text of the law itself and (2) the text of the Authorization for Use of Force on which it is predicated. My edit is almost purely factual and my other comments, such as noting that certain important terms are undefined and some potential implications are worded in a manner so as to intentionally not slant the edits towards my point of view which is critical of much of Sub-section D. I can try again and weave parts of what you put back into the edits, add cites, etc. However, the text you put does not appear to be accurate in critical respects. If I am wrong, I welcome being enlightened about. The text as it now stands includes in the overview the following: "the Act legislatively codifies the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1021(a-e) of the bill. Because those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, and because that detention may be by the military, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources." Most important, where in the Act does it provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens? How can the statement that it does be reconciled with the 1021(e) which provides that “othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” There are other points we can discuss. I note that there are extensive quotations and references to the actual provisions of the Act in my edits, whereas what you put back uses loose language like "terrorism suspects" which does not appear in the law or accurately summarize any of its provisions. The edited version while it certainly can be improved does not contain any inaccuracies that I am aware of and is therefore a significant improvement over what you put back which contains demonstrable inaccuracies. I would like to try to collaborate with you on improving this page if you are interested. Your gratuitous comment that I turned the article into a "sounding board for the State Department" is troubling and makes me question your objectivity and attitude. I only contributed to this article because I believe it is important that people have access to accurate information about legal provisions that threaten fundamental rights. Your statement about the State Department is tendentious and at least a little bizzare. Please respond. Erichaim (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)). EricHaim.

Hi Erichaim; thanks for your note. Please make a new heading in the talk pages of the NDAA 2012 article and write, or paste what you've written above, into that section so that we can discuss your proposed edits with other editors. Briefly, a good deal of your concerns above are explicitly addressed in the references provided in the article itself. Nevertheless I think you are correct in some of your points (e.g. 1021.e) and I look forward to your contributions to the article. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Darouet - thank you for your response. I am a new contributor and don't know many editing features and tools yet. Can you tell me how to make a new heading once I am on the appropriate talk page? With that info, I will do as you suggest. I think the most helpful thing I can do at this point is to also review the existing page and post on the talk page the specific propositions which I believe to be innacurate with explanations and citations that interested editors can review, and also post revised versions of proposed changes to page on the talk page so we can take into account responses to all of that before any further edits are made using the material I am generating. This is a very important topic and it is important that we get it right. As the creator of the page, I definitely would like to work with you to make it an accurate and informative page. I do have some specialized qualifications in this area. I am a practicing lawyer and independent legal scholar and have a J.D. and a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and Social Policy, both from the University of California at Berkeley. I have been a serious student of Constitutional law, history and theory for over thirty years. If it might be helpful, I would be happy to provide my e-mail address, which I think is available on the site (though I am not sure as I am a newbie) so we can confer directly about any issues we might wish to discuss. Thanks for creating this page. erichaim (Erichaim (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)). P.S. figured out re header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichaim (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

archived discussion, original research and synth

Hi - please don't replace all stale over three months discussion. What benefit do youy see in replacing discussions over three months old that you have no intention of further contributing to ? If there is something you specially want to reopen then start a new discussion and link to it. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've returned only those discussions that were active as of the past month. -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - this cite does not mention Hoare - http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16032138 - and can you please provide an online link to this article Lewis, Paul, "The Guardian," 19 July 2011. or some more details about it. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and review

I mainly rated in C because I wasn't sure that I had the expertise to determine whether it covered all angles and because the lead might be regarded as short. I have now reconsidered and rerated it B for WPA.--Grahame (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I answered you inquiry about the Dialog belonging in MILHIST. I personally disagree with the article being covered in MILHIST but laissez faire. You need and infobox similar to NATO or even simplified such as Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade. To progress the article further I would suggest at least getting a map with the associated nations highlight in green. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue looks better - the introduction is call the lead on Misplaced Pages - please see WP:LEAD. It does not need references as it is supposed to be a summary of the whole article (so the refs are in the body of the article). I would look at WP:LEAD as I think the current lead could be expanded to be a better summary. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.

I would also look at WP:HEAD as the headers should follow that. Hope this helps and thanks for your work, Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno

HI, thanks for the note on my talk page. The article looks interesting and it's something I might want to work on. I'm on a wikibreak at the moment and only editing sporadically, but will definitely put it on my watch list and read through the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It would be great to work with you. I'm on a wikibreak of sorts as well, busy with "real" work. But when I come around to working on the Italian Dialogues I'll let you know! -Darouet (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Quadrilateral Security Dialogue

Hi Darouet, I'm happy to participate in a review process, though my knowledge of Chinese security issues is not as sound as it should be. Is there anything in particular that requires feedback? Also, could you advise on a timeline, if you have one in mind? Homunculus (duihua) 02:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to ask to provide the Chinese perspective. I'm capable of doing Chinese-language research, but I can't say I revel in it. I'll aim to provide some more general comments sometime this week.Homunculus (duihua) 22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for dropping the ball on this. On a deadline in the real world. Will return to it soon. Homunculus (duihua) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai

Myself and several other editors have been trying to piece together the article on Bo Xilai, the Chongqing party chief who recently got dismissed and caused one of the most dramatic 'showdowns' in Chinese politics in recent memory. Would you be so kind as to return the favour and review the article? :) Colipon+(Talk) 03:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Misplaced Pages Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Your Abu Qatada edit

Quite right. Thank you, appreciated.

@Truthkeeper above. Surprised to find you here. Any chance of you losing that '88' at the end of your monniker? We could love you loads and loads more if you do :). 216.166.10.195 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is super trivial, more a clarification. I dequoted and chopped out the mention of the BBC, since it would be clear from the reference, in order to perform a minor space-saver. Either way, the 'weasel words' are still present, only now quoted and the source cited in the text. Is that standard in Misplaced Pages, as your edit comment suggested, when weasels 'cannot' be avoided? Best etc. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with NDAA 2012 request

Hi Darouet,

I noticed you have been helping with the NDAA article. I wonder if you could take a look at this. I added the Administration's response to the Hedges lawsuit and subsequent blockage of indefinite detention by Judge Forrest. I used direct quotes from the official response. My edits were replaced by someone's interpretation of the response, without any ref source, so I am left to assume this is someone's personal interpretation. That doesn't seem to be in alignment with how Misplaced Pages works, though I haven't much experience here. I added a citation needed tag, but it seems like the statement needs to be removed altogether. Thank you for your help, in advance. petrarchan47c 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I completely understand your request. However, I don't think I am well versed enough in Misplaced Pages and with legal cases in general to take this on. The NDAA 2012 has been a real challenge to understand, even for those with law degrees. That seems intentional. The Admin's response to Forrest has not been reviewed by any reputable secondary source. Perhaps it's best to wait until media catches up with this story, and go from there. At some point in the near future, I will certainly move the bulk of the Forrest case to the body of the article. Thanks again for your help.petrarchan47c 22:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. I went ahead and moved the section, removing the unsourced opinion.petrarchan47c 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

NYT has covered Judge Forrest's block and subsequent actions by POTUS ~ thought you might appreciate . petrarchan47c 21:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the fascinating article: Charlie Savage has written consistently well on some of the legal aspects of the war on terror. I'll try to stay more in the loop on this. -Darouet (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I know it's hard to keep up, if I come across other succinct articles to keep you updated, I'll go ahead and leave them here.petrarchan47c 22:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Misplaced Pages entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disposition Matrix

Thank you for creating the Disposition Matrix article! I hope you will continue with your great work on it as more information becomes known. The User 567 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Surprised that there wasn't an 'Obama kill list' article previously. Thank you! groupuscule (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you both! And please feel free to contribute if you find interesting analysis online. -Darouet (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Disposition Matrix

Hi. I've nominated Disposition Matrix, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Misplaced Pages:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Allen3  20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm Gtwfan52. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Waco, Texas seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wiki article states subject was legally hung. Whether it is an example of bigotry or not, it certainly wasn't a lynching. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gtwfan52 for your polite note. Please realize that my edit conveyed the fact that Roy Mitchell was hanged, not lynched. I didn't confuse this fact and actually wrote the article on Mitchell. I apologize, however, for the poor wording on my part (I was trying to be concise). Also, I should have provided a source. Am rectifying my errors now. Cheers. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for writing the article on Mitchell. Very interesting to me since I worked on the Jesse Washington article. I've been meaning to sit down and take a look through it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Duggan

Hi Darouet! Sorry I took a while to respond. I share your concerns with the introduction of the article subject's race in the first sentence. Although race is directly related to the notability of the subject, I prefer for that kind of detail to be later in the introductory paragraph. First sentences are definitional and I don't like to 'define' people by their race. To me it currently reads more like a newspaper article intro than an encyclopedia one. Here's a suggested change:

Mark Duggan, a 29 year-old Tottenham resident, was shot and killed by police in Tottenham, North East London, England on 4 August 2011. The Metropolitan Police stated that officers were attempting to arrest Duggan on suspicion of planning an attack, and that he was in possession of a handgun. Duggan died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Public protest broke out in Tottenham over the circumstances of his death, motivated by suspicions that Dugan--a black male--was targeted by the police because of his race. The protests escalated into widespread riots, looting and arson in London and elsewhere.

Maybe you could suggest that and get some feedback? I do think his race is relevant to his life and death, but perhaps mentioning it later in the introduction would settle some of your concerns. Cheers! Ocaasi 14:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Disposition Matrix

On 17 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Disposition Matrix, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Disposition Matrix creates a blueprint for tracking, capturing, rendering or killing suspected terrorists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Disposition Matrix. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the article "Domestic Security Alliance Council" that you created! Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)