Talk:enemy combatant

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

OK. I'll bite at this requested article. I think this is the bare minimum for someone to understand what the heck the term is all about. Let Wikipedia handle the bigger mess. The usage note is as neutral as I can make it. Anyone who can make it even more neutral, you have my blessings. (Anyone who wants to make it less neutral, take thee off to the Wiktionary policies page.) Keffy 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

CORRECT US DEFINITION[edit]

I've replaced the original US Definition with the one found in US Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. This is the correct, official, definition for the USA. CORNELIUSSEON 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I hope you can explain why the JTF-GTMO definition is not just as official, just as correct, as the first definition. Geo Swan 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"In the present 'war on terrorism'..."[edit]

Is this bit of exposition appropriate, or really relevant? Equinox 12:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-gloss definition[edit]

It would be possible to use a non-gloss type definition, which does not specify much detail about what criteria make a person an EC or what the "timeless" or "correct" implications might be. Given the controversy and the difficulty in finding evidence of specific meaning in citations, this might be the best course of action. An example of such a definition might be:

  1. (US) Used to characterize certain detainees of the US military from XXXX to XXXX.

It also appears to be the case that this term may have only had non-SoP meaning in the context of the US military and/or possibly law, either military or general. In any event, it is in general use in newspapers and books (among durably archived sources) now, though the generally understood meaning is certainly not very specific. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't understand the comment above. I don't know what a "non-gloss definition" is. I don't know what "non-SoP meaning" is.
I found a discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/November#What are the durably archived sources? There didn't seem to be a resolution of this term. I use webcitation.org -- which is like the wayback machine. Of course there is no guarantee any citation system will remain available for years or decades.
Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
A non-gloss definition is exactly the kind of definition DCDuring exhibits above, in contrast to glosses that actually define something. SOP is local slang for "sum of parts" - for more on that, see the CFI or the opening section of WT:RFD, which handles a lot of SOPs. Nowadays, Google Books, Google Groups (Usenet), and Google News are considered durably archived. Does that help? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I support DCDuring's suggestion. - -sche (discuss) 07:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

The following was originally given at References:enemy combatant, which was deleted as References: is not a namespace
  1. For purposes of this Order, the term "enemy combatant" shall mean an individul who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.
  2. (Defining an enemy combatant “as an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”)

References[edit]

Looks good[edit]

Just checked out the current revision, looks good IMO, don't change too much. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)