CZ opening page: how to find articles,

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

For example: Engineering.  Under that there would be...

Since these are articles, it should not matter that software engineering also appears under computers and technology.  The person clicks on that, they should get a list of articles in a user friendly way.  The top list should contain the approved articles.  The next section should have the draft articles indicating their current status, last update, last peer review date.

At first glance, this looks like an excellent idea. Certainly, the workgroup box of today is cryptic.

The second point is the mainspace.  The only way that articles should be moved out of mainspace is if we then create a namespace called "draft", and then make that namespace default searchable.  Then when a user does a search, they get the following results.

There's a lot to this basic idea, although we need to look at some detail. Cold Storage, for example, doesn't seem to show in our internal search but shows up externally. It should be internal-visibility-only if we don't want known problem articles showing up in search engines.  Thinking out loud, if the search (at least internal) in the draft space made draft-vs-approved very obvious, that would be a benefit.

If the article is not approved, only the draft one will show up.  Since it has the word "draft" in front of it, it is completely obvious to the reader that it is a draft article.  By definition, a draft can have mistakes and is expected to not be reliable.

Ideally, yes. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity or deliberate misrepresentation. That's why I'd like to see a short disclaimer always show up.  I'll defer the redirect discussion, which has lots of nuances.

The final point is to create a sub-page called "Fact page".  This is just a list of the hard facts on the subject.  Take the example of WWII. (My comments in italic color)

This isn't as easy as it looks, WWII being one of them, and depending on audience. This was attempted at WP with infoboxes for wars, which became enormous battlegrounds; a few examples"
* "Hard date the war began." I can make strong, killing-people arguments for 1931-2, 1937, 1939, several dates in 1941.
* "Hard date the war ended." Japan? Germany? Italy? What about Italy as an Ally?
* "Names of major battles" (CZ history: is that Name of Battle or Name, Battle of)?
* "Countries involved" WWII is easier than many, ignoring things like Italy. At WP, there were fantastic fights over the belligerents in the Iran-Iraq War

Then we just reference the fact page.  On the fact page, we state the last time the fact page was checked and the last time the page was edited.  If the last time the fact page was checked (list editors, authors, or constables who checked it) was Nov. 2007 and the last edit was Oct. 2007, then the fact page should be reliable.  If the last time the fact page was checked was in Nov. 2007, and there has been 25 edits since then, the fact page is no longer reliable.  For facts that change, eg. country populations, it is just known that they need to be updated once a year.

This makes sense, as long as we proceed with cautions on the kinds of issues I mentioned. Some issues, like war on terror, change quickly.

Thanks, though. Excellent food for thought, even after I just had lunch.

[Milton Beychok]

For example: Engineering

Under that there would be

1. Chemical engineering
2. computer engineering
3. electrical engineering
4. software engineering
5. mechanical engineering
6. industrial engineering

Nice idea, but virtually impossible at this time because all engineering articles are collected and listed in the Engineering work group ... with the two exceptions that Chemical Engineering and Environmental Engineering articles are collected in the Chemical Engineering and Environmental Engineering subworkgroup as well as the main Engineering Workgroup.

There are literally a dozen other types of engineers besides the 6 that Melissa listed and it will be a monumental job to try and determine which of the other hundreds of existing Engineering articles go into which engineering category. For example, besides the 6 listed by Melissa, there are civil engineers, electronic engineers, aeronautic emgineers, aerospace engineers, traffic engineers, safety engineers, architectural engineers, marine engineers, agricultural engineers, fire engineers, telecommunication engineers, etc., etc., etc. I am fairly sure that the same situation is true in many of the workgroups other than engineering.

I have been pushing (and probably making a pest of myself) for over a year to have CZ adopt the idea of subworkgroups and we have yet to even have a chance to vote on Chris Day's proposal to implement subworkgroups.

As another point, many of the existing CZ articles are listed in the 2 or even 3 of the major workgroups and that would also have to be reflected in any Table of Contents such as Melissa has suggested. The longer we put off adopting the implementation of subworkgroups, the more difficult will be the task of adopting a coherent navigation system for finding articles.

As for navigating  through the uploaded CZ images, that is in even worse disarray at the moment.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Nice idea, but virtually impossible at this time because all engineering articles are collected and listed in the Engineering work group ... with the two exceptions that Chemical Engineering and Environmental Engineering articles are collected in the Chemical Engineering and Environmental Engineering subworkgroup as well as the main Engineering Workgroup.

I have been pushing (and probably making a pest of myself) for over a year to have CZ adopt the idea of subworkgroups and we have yet to even have a chance to vote on Chris Day's proposal to implement subworkgroups.

As another point, many of the existing CZ articles are listed in the 2 or even 3 of the major workgroups and that would also have to be reflected in any Table of Contents such as Melissa has suggested. The longer we put off adopting the implementation of subworkgroups, the more difficult will be the task of adopting a coherent navigation system for finding articles.

I might start with a concern about choo-choo train engineers, but that's been one de facto decision: transportation system (engineering) has, for want of a better term, gone under general engineering.

To a certain extent, I've coded certain articles in a way that would be consistent with some engineering subgroups. For example, I put articles that must consider electronic/optical aspects of digital networking into both computers and communications, although network engineering (more modern than telecommunications) is a valid discipline. "Engineering" is an overloaded term in the military context; I suppose a "combat engineer" does mostly civil and structural engineering, but many people with that specialty think of themselves as experts in blowing up things.

No simple answer. Related articles pages are about the best alternative. I've been hesitant on the subworkgroup idea, simply in my own fields of interest, as I'm the main or only active editor in a couple of groups, and there seems to be an assumption that a subworkgroup needs at least two editors.

[Chris Day]

there seems to be an assumption that a subworkgroup needs at least two editors.

Actually, subgroups do not need any editors to exist, as currently proposed. One role of workgroup editors, however, is to decide which subgroups their workgroup should affiliate itself with.  As proposed this would entail two editors, but maybe there should be an exception for workgroups with only one active editor?

[Milton Beychok]

The pilot Chemical Engineering subworkgroup has and is doing quite well despite the fact that I am the only Editor as well as the only active Editor in the subworkgroup.

Milt Beychok

[Chris Day]

The pilot Chemical Engineering subworkgroup has and is doing quite well despite the fact that I am the only Editor as well as the only active Editor in the subworkgroup.

Enough said.

[Aleta Curry]

Well, whatever you people decide, I definitely think that any such template should only be inserted by a very limited number of supposedly responsible people. Ie, an Editor directs a Constable to do it. Or maybe two Editors in agreement can do it; or maybe five Authors in agreement.  Or maybe an EiC along with a virginal handmaiden....dancing naked at midnight only during a blue moon in months ending in 'h' if the year ends with '0'

snip!

[Hayford Peirce]

Hehe, I sure agree with yer amendments. But let's add that they gotta be holding a 5/1 martini made in a chilled glass with Plymouth Gin and Roissiere Vermouth!

[Melissa Newman]

<<There's a lot to this basic idea, although we need to look at some detail. Cold Storage, for example, doesn't seem to show in our internal search but shows up externally. It should be internal-visibility-only if we don't want known problem articles showing up in search engines.  Thinking out loud, if the search (at least internal) in the draft space made draft-vs-approved very obvious, that would be a benefit.>>

The way to handle that is through the LocalSettings.php file.  The draft namespace should be set to norobots.  This means that search engines don't put the data into their search engine.  Then we set the draft to be a default search namespace.  Again this is in the LocalSettings.php file.

That should fix both issues that are currently a problem.

Melissa Newman

[Melissa Newman]

Current events need their own workgroup.  War on Terror is a current event.  Again, most sane people do not expect current event articles in a wiki to be reliable, because there is too much emotion and the articles are not stable.

Melissa Newman

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Current events need their own workgroup.  War on Terror is a current event. 

And who is going to staff such a group?  "War on terror" is a Bush Administration term; to understand terrorism in context, a much broader historical view is necessary. I'm fighting the issue that material has been put into a Guantanamo article, when that information is not specific to Guantanamo -- it might, for example, be legislation or a Supreme Court decision that pertains to all suspected detainees, not just those at a specific detention facility or captured under one set of circumstances.

Again, most sane people do not expect current event articles in a wiki to be reliable, because there is too much emotion and the articles are not stable.

Well, CZ is intended to be about accuracy. Perhaps I'm insane, but I have absolutely no intention of supporting the idea of having CZ, as opposed to WP, have less than the best expert-guided interpretation of events. How can one expect an article on specific legislation and court interpretation of it not to be accurate?  Emotion has no place in CZ: Neutrality policy.

CZ is about what Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld actually say, with a context explaining what they mean. CZ is not about emotional responses to "terrorists".  "Terror", incidentally, has some fairly specific meanings in international and national law, which isn't always respected by media and politicians. Speaking as a Military Workgroup editor, I use it accurately.  Not all asymmetrical warfare is terrorism and not all terrorism is part of war.

[Hayford Peirce]

I'm fighting the issue that material has been put into a Guantanamo article, when that information is not specific to Guantanamo -- it might, for example, be legislation or a Supreme Court decision that pertains to all suspected detainees, not just those at a specific detention facility or captured under one set of circumstances.

Howard, could you do me a favor (and maybe a bunch of other people, too, who have been following the G.B. thread for several months now in various Forums and discussion pages): based on what you have written in the above quotation, could you go to the G.B. article that is so contentious and, using your ingenuity, mark in RED or BLUE or ORANGE or SOMETHING all the text that you think should be removed because, in your judgment as a Military Editor, it does not belong in that specific article.  Maybe it belongs SOMEWHERE, but not there!

Okay, if you did that, so that I, and others, could, IN A QUICK GLANCE, see what you are actually talking about in this article, it may well be that others would join you in trying to turn this into the article you would like to see it become....

Thanks!

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

... could you go to the G.B. article that is so contentious and, using your ingenuity, mark in RED or BLUE or ORANGE or SOMETHING all the text that you think should be removed because, in your judgment as a Military Editor, it does not belong in that specific article.  Maybe it belongs SOMEWHERE, but not there!

Okay, if you did that, so that I, and others, could, IN A QUICK GLANCE, see what you are actually talking about in this article, it may well be that others would join you in trying to turn this into the article you would like to see it become....

Not that way, but maybe in a way that makes as good or better sense. It's not just about Guantanamo.  I don't want to do it there, or in a number of existing problem articles, because their structure, and in some case very existence, reflects incorrect assumptions in international law and custom, or simple fact; there are also some things that are just plain trivia.  Once the context is set, THEN there can be a discussion of the Guantanamo facility and things specific to it, just like things specific to the Naval Brig in Charleston, SC; Bagram Internment Facility; and the CIA "black centers".  A discussion of the general GWB Administration legal opinions on detention does not belong in a specific camp.

Hopefully, I have a more appealing alternative. I'm finishing some unrelated edits using some materials that have to go back to the library tomorrow. Here is a tentative alternative structure, some of the top-level material being in mainspace, some in userspace (e.g., don't worry about the title, but User: Howard C. Berkowitz/Interrogation as a collection of material)

Some of the Guantanamo material will move into higher-level articles. Some will be deleted because it is incorrect as it stands, or at least badly out of date (i.e., overruled by the Supreme Court).

I think I can clarify this better with a top-down approach, starting with customary international law (practice such as hostis humani generis and treaty starting with Geneva Conventions and Third Geneva Convention). Next, there will be a series of things including a to-be-rewritten extrajudicial detention, not limited to the U.S., including legal matters such as universal jurisdiction and extraordinary rendition, the latter also being put in context with international extradition.

It would be great to have volunteers to help with quite a bit of very necessary legal and historical context -- and I'm cutting this to the bone right now; it's just not as simple as the talking heads would like.

The general extrajudicial detention article will identify thorny situation involving many countries, ranging from the Nazi Nacht und Nebel (Night and Fog decree), to the British Double-Cross System, to WWII U.S. internment of Japanese citizens but also German saboteurs in ex parte Quirin,  Israeli apprehension of Adolf Eichmann, to the Disappeared Ones of South America  (see Operation Condor), to third-country extraordinary rendition during the Clinton Administration (e.g., Albania to Egypt), to the more current issues. From a Nazi standpoint, the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) and the Nuremberg Military Tribunals were extrajudicial, no?

I expect to have subarticles (title and sort sequence open) for U.S. extrajudicial detention, and U.S. extrajudicial detention under the Bush Administration.  It would be very nice to have someone literate in Spanish and Portuguese work on the Condor-related material.  I did rewrite torture. I have gotten starts on some things that aren't strictly detention, such as Filartiga v. Pena-Irala and Forti v. Suarez Mason

Unquestionably, there is enough G.W. Bush Administration material to justify an article, but again let's start top-down before leaping into camps and prisoners. I will address a number of the legal theories such as the Bybee memo to Gonzales, the interpretations of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, and relevant Supreme Court decisions, not limited to Guantanamo. Some of the latter include Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld v. Padilla.  It will probably be necessary to write/rewrite Detainee Treatment Act and Military Commissions Act to make them neutral and independent of Guantanamo and specific people.

At that point, yes, some of the Guantanamo things might get fixed. I'm dubious about some of the prisoner articles making much sense without complete rewrite; certain material is 2 years or more out of date, overtaken by events, and sometimes not factual.

Does this, perhaps, give some idea why I'm a bit concerned with accuracy of a good many orphaned articles about individual prisoners and facilities?

[Hayford Peirce]

Does this, perhaps, give some idea why I'm a bit concerned with accuracy of a good many orphaned articles about individual prisoners and facilities?

I'm sorry, Howard, but no it doesn't.  You have simply obfuscated the issue with a thousand words.

Suppose I, a prison freak, wrote a long, long, LONG article about Sing-Sing.

And another one about Leavenworth.

And another one about Attica.

And another one about San Quentin.

Etc. etc.

I put in lots of facts about each prison, but I *also* put in a lot of extraneous stuff, that, to the discerning editor or reader, shouldn't be there, such as fulminations about Pat Brown and the execution of Carol Chessman (or someone) at San Quentin, about Nelson Rockefeller and harsh drug laws and the massacre at Attica, etc. etc.

I would think that an enlightened editor, or even other authors, who had no agendas OF THEIR OWN, would be able to edit, and rewrite, those articles, so that each of them could stand alone, WITHOUT INCORPORATING THEM INTO AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PENAL SYSTEM!

Look, there is a Guantanamo Bay.

There is a U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.

There are prison facilities there.

These facilities are currently housing some prisoners.

Is it really beyond the grasp of human minds to write a cohesive article about THIS SINGLE PENAL FACILITY?

I simply don't understand why this is apparently such an insurmountable task....

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Does this, perhaps, give some idea why I'm a bit concerned with accuracy of a good many orphaned articles about individual prisoners and facilities?

Is it really beyond the grasp of human minds to write a cohesive article about THIS SINGLE PENAL FACILITY?

I simply don't understand why this is apparently such an insurmountable task....

In the present form, it is not especially about a prison. It is principally about legal and political matters, not necessarily correct and not necessarily neutral. It's being used as an excuse to discuss things not specific to the prison. 

Want to talk about the prison itself?  The article doesn't even have the names of the camps (past and present) correct. It's pretty confused about conditions. I did manage to get both nongovernmental organization reports, and a 300-plus page operations manual for the prison. If somebody really wants to discuss the facilities, procedures, legalities of the prison, etc., I'll happily make materials available to them.

It is less, sir, that it is insurmountable, and more that I am not terribly interested in surmounting a fertilizer pile without first establishing how the manure got into a place not zoned for it.