Talk:Rendition

message: Shouldn't this article be merged with extraordinary rendition? I don't see that the two articles cover different topics. --Lee Hunter 12:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to keep them separate at this point.  The rendition article discusses the practice of rendition (simply moving someone covertly out of one country into another).  Extraordinary rendition talks about the practice when used specifically for torture.  Besides, that article is a giant POV mess right now, and a merge wouldn't help at least until the editing calms down. —thames 17:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Could you help us over there? Cyferx 00:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to, but I don't have the time to enter the fray of a POV/NPOV edit war.  I'm really just treading water as far as wikipedia editing is concerned, until I can get my "real life" priorities in order. —thames 20:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: They are different subjects. The biggest problem is that Rendidtion should be bigger than extraordinary rendidtion and so making extraordinary rendition a section underneath the article would make it like 6 times the rendition article.. Rendition is the deporting of captured people, and Extraordinary involves the abuse of the captured prisoners. Falphin 00:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I hadn't seen this article before, and it's very wrong. Rendition is a broader term that is close to a synonym for extradition. See . --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a root in common with "surrender" -- if that helps. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From a legal dictionary: ren·di·tion (ren-`di-shən) n.1. The act or result of rendering (the Court's rendition of judgment)  2. Extradition of a fugitive who has fled to another state  Dhartung is quite right, this article should be merged with extraordinary rendition. --Lee Hunter 12:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe Dhartung was saying that the articles should be merged.  I believe he's saying that this article should be rewritten. —thames 01:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Given my previous concerns over the factual accuracy of the article, I have researched and written a brand new article that covers rendition as a) a legal term; b) a constitutional interstate practice; and c) a precursor to extraordinary rendition. I believe this is a suitable framework for the article, although I still see a few rough edges. It was especially important to me that it be understood that rendition by and of itself is not an objectionable term or practice, and it is important to me now not to be understood as a defender of extraordinary rendition. I did this because they are two different terms, and they suffered as encyclopedia articles by being virtually indistinguishable.
I have made no effort yet to merge the information in this article into the extraordinary rendition article. The old text is at Rendition/Temp. I would like to bring this information over there and make the necessary context and disambiguation edits in that article, but not at this moment. Please have a look at what I've done here, though, and feel free to improve, with the caveat that again the objectionable practices are covered chiefly in the main article. I would like to see both articles become much more useful by being clear and unambiguous. --Dhartung | Talk 03:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A huge improvement, sorely needed. --Lee Hunter 17:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Wik is very slow on computers I use, so it was quite irritating that when I finally got to 'view these 5 deleted edits,' all I could see was a statement that the contents were only viewable by administrators and a false statemetn that the reasons for deletions were given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) .
:This page has not been deleted nor has any part of its history, so it's unclear what you referred to. Sorry. --Dhartung | Talk 15:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow 

message: At one point this article contained specific information on the US rendition project? Why have these reference been removed. Specifically, all mention of the aircraft hired by the US government for use in the project are now gone. It is clear that these aircraft were used to transport persons of interest for interrogation authorized by the US Rendition project, not the “Extraordinary rendition” project. Moreover, the mention of the aircraft on the extraordinary rendition page seems to lead the reader to believe that the project involved torture. There are no facts to support the use of the aircraft for torture. Maybe these articles should be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.152.246.20 (talk • contribs) .
:As discussed, this article incorrectly focused on topics that belong at extraordinary rendition. This is now a disambiguation page pointing to various uses of the term rendition. For more information about the difference between extraordinary rendition and "ordinary" rendition, see rendition (law). --Dhartung | Talk 15:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Merge. 

message: Because most of the content on this page was a discussion relating to content that has been removed or moved elsewhere, I placed it in an archive. --Dhartung | Talk 15:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive