Talk:Nayif Fahd Mutliq Al Usaymi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

In my opinion, this article is biased against the subject. It presents itself like a court brief mainly against Usaymi, with only two points defending him. I just feel that, given that this issue is very contriversial, that it should be more carefully written. -PhattyFatt 14:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I question whether User:PhattyFatt's tags are the proper tags to have applied. I don't think that there is any question that the information here correctly reflects the source documents. And I don't think there is any question the the DoD should be considered a valid source. Yes, the DoD had lied about various aspects of the war on terror. But, right now, for this detainee, it is the only source. At least for the only known spelling of Al Usaymi's name.

Prior to the DoD releasing the transcripts I was criticized for work I did on other detainee's articles. I had one persistent critic who didn't like that I had relied on the accounts that detainees had offered to their lawyers. He argued that the article should say nothing, if it didn't present the DoD side. Which I thought was nonsense, since the DoD was completely silent on almost all the detainees. If we followed that rule then all any crook would have to do was be silent on their crimes, and we couldn't offer the prosecution's side or the victim's side.

Now, PhattyFatt is criticizing this article from the other field. Balance is fine. But if only one "side" is available, I think we present that, until the other side becomes available. I don't think the article asserts the DoD's side as fact. I think it is clear that it is just their side.

Further, I think any intelligent reader, who reads a handful of detainee's articles, and looks at the DoD's allegations, will be able to form their own view of how credible those allegations are, even if they pick a handful of detainees for whom we are not able to offer their rebutals. Personally, in general, I don't find the DoD allegations very credible. The more I read the less credible I find them. I guess if another contributor thinks I am not being fair to the detainee that shows I am writing from an NPOV.

I think we can count on the intelligence of our readers to form their own opinion on the fairness and credibility of the sources we offer. Cheers. -- Geo Swan 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)