Talk:General who oversaw military tribunals at Guantanamo is being investigated for abuse of power

Date format?
Date format on sources is incorrect, should be "monthname daynumber, year" --Brian McNeil / talk 08:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Are you citing an actual policy, guideline, or manual of style here?  Or is your comment based on "common knowledge" or "common sense"?


 * M-D-Y is a solely US idiom. But this is an international project.  Much of the world uses D-M-Y.  That makes the US insistence on using M-D-Y confusing.  It makes a significant fraction of dates ambiguous.


 * Y-M-D has great advantages over M-D-Y. Dates in this format are not ambiguous.  And, dates in Y-M-D are easier to sort.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am citing the style guide, the month is spelt out so there is no ambiguity. An additional point is that sources should be sorted with the most recent at the top. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of date format, the dates of the sources make this stale. When first added they were already ten days old. --SVTCobra 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * October 16 was a typo. When I started the article, on October 26, the most recent references were hours old.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed. Am I the only one to be concerned over having a style guide that has not been internationalized?  Geo Swan (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The style guide was developed from a number of existing documents mainstream media employ. The guidelines for dates are intended to make sure there is no ambiguity in when is being referred to, not a grovelling to American standards. Incidentally, I am in Belgium and I find the standard quite sensible. It avoids the ambiguity of using only numbers and not always being sure which is month and which is day. Y-M-D is for computers, not for humans. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no brigadier generals in the U.S. Navy Reserve. Brig Gen Hartmann is not in the USNR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.204.178 (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two Thomas Hartmann's in the US Military. This one is in the USAFR.  The other is in the USN.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed every concern raised here...
I have addressed every concern raised here.

Are there readers who have concerns about this article they haven't yet expressed?

If everyone's stated concerns have been addressed wouldn't the next step normally be for some to place a publish tag on this article? Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The background information appears to be accurate and verifiable. The only thing is that the article fails to explain what the two inquires are investigating. It it just says Hartmann is facing them and not what they are about. --SVTCobra 22:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added this information about the investigations myself. --SVTCobra 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources section was put together very sloppily. Some links pointed to unrelated articles, several dates were wrong, others were dead links. I think I have fixed them all. --SVTCobra 00:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What kind of editorial criticism can I expect here?
I am a newbie here. And I don't expect to know all the rules. I welcome civil, meaningful attempts to help me.

Another contributor moved the article from ready to develop with the edit summary: long quotes -- see other articles.

The contributor who made this move first read the article on October 26th, six days ago. And the quote they are referring to has been in the article all this time.

I am frankly at a loss as to why this contributor waited six days to raise this concern.

Further, it might seem obvious to this contributor how "see other article" will help me figure out why they moved the article from Ready to develop. But I do not believe this is responsible. I could spend considerable time looking at other articles trying to figure out why they made the move, and not come to a conclusion, or come to the wrong conclusion. If there is a style guide that addresses their concern, they should state which style guide, and possibly which section. If there is no style guide, and their concern is based soley on their experience, I think they have a choice: either clearly explain the lesson they drew from their experience with long quotes -- or, if they did not think the issue was serious enough to offer that clear explanation, let the issue slide.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A huge part of the problem is that in writing this piece you seem to have set out to crucify the subject. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't shoot the messenger. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will agree with you that the quote is not inappropriately long, considering the overall length of the article. Your reaction is a bit melodramatic, however, as we are all just volunteers and that may very well have been that editor's first look at the article. BTW, I have made some improvements and resubmitted for review. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice article
I've not looked at who did what/how much, and how closely the article sticks to the sources, but I wanted to say that the outcome of your combined efforts is an article that read well and was quite interesting. Well done, all of you together! Sean Heron (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)