Talk:Omar Khadr/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 correction 2 Time in Bagram 2.1 rand 3 Forking 4 Heasther 5 Leaked Document 6 Just for amusement 7 hrm 8 Unsentenced 9 Excisions 10 AQ 11 Random notes 12 Dispute over scope of article 13 POV problems 13.1 NPOV banner 14 Tribunals 15 Date of Birth 16 Hindy? 17 Time at Guantanamo - subheadings req'd 18 Survey

[edit] correction

These three edits were described as fixing errors, but actually introduced some new assertions at odds with what I have read.

The article now says: Human Concern International was a Canadian charity. Actually Human Concern International is still extant. And it is a British charity. Further, Ahmed Said Khadr, was not an employee -- so far as I can determine, during the half dozen or so years he worked for them he remained a volunteer. HCI says he was a volunteer, not an employee.

I believe it was a mistake to remove the reference to the 2002 National Post article. When I first introduced this reference three years ago, I was not aware that linking to mirrors of articles that did not show they were authorized by the copyright holder was counter to policy. So the URL http://www.hvk.org/articles/1202/293.html should not be used in the reference. However, it is counter to policy to remove references that contain title, publication, author, date of publication. So I am replacing it, just changing it from {{cite news}} to {{cite paper}}. Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Isabel Vincent (December 28, 2002). "The Good Son". . National Post

There is another edit I have problems with. Contributor's edit summary said: Incarceration at Guantánamo Bay - since there seem to be conflicting arguments on this, this statement should be directly sourced. I am completely mystified on what possible basis this contributor asserts "there are conflicting arguments" on whether Omar Khadr was treated as an adult in spite of being fifteen years old when captured. The identity of the three boys held in Camp Iguana is well known. The other two dozen minors were all treated as adults. Geo Swan (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• • "Mystified?" Perhaps it would help to read the section as it currently is written to clear up any mystification:

Bryan Del Monte, the United States Department of Defense deputy director for political development and international issues in the Office of Detainee Affairs, gave a press conference following his return from testifying before the United Nations Committee against torture. [16] During this press conference he asserted that Khadr, and two other youths, were incarcerated separately from adults, The question is not Khadr's age when captured; it is whether he has been treated as a minor or as an adult in captivity. That is the statement that needs citation as it appears, as per the current edits, that there is a discrepancy between what human rights activists/Khadr's lawyers claim and what the US government claims. Holding Khadr separately from adults denotes separate treatment from adults. So, the claim that "However, Khadr was treated as an adult" needs sourcing. Without either reference or qualifiers, it is either a {POV} mistake or another factual misinterpretation. BWH76 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Del Monte was not telling the truth. It is well documented that all three of the teenage boys who had been held in Camp Iguana, since you read the references to them I am, again, mystified as to how you could possibly suggest that Khadr was also held there, continued to be held there, after that camp was shut down, when the three boys who were held there, Naqibullah, Muhammad Ismail Agha and Asadullah Abdul Rahman were released on January 29, 2004. Geo Swan (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• • "Del Monte was not telling the truth." That is a strong, strong accusation. What is your source for this accusation? Or is this your interpretation of events? Unless there is a specific reference making this accusation, it is quite clear that there is an obvious {POV} concern.

As for this focus on Camp Iguana: I'm not sure exactly how I can make this more clear - the question is not about where he was held, but how he was treated.

You state that you are "mystified as to how you could possibly suggest that Khadr was also held there." Please specifically point out where I've made any sort of claim where Khadr was held. I have not made any edits nor mentioned any concerns as to where Khadr has been held. The concerns I raised are:

1) That one child detainee stated that "the two years he spent there were the only education he had ever had, and he reported being sorry to leave." What is the source for these claims? It is not the BBC articles referenced - there are no such claims in those articles. Who said that "it was the only education he ever had?" Who said that anyone was "sorry to leave?" Where are the references for these two claims?

2) "Khadr was treated as an adult." If there is any discrepancy between what human rights groups/Khadr's lawyers state and what the US government states in how Khadr was treated, then no one can definitively state that he was "treated as an adult" without violating {POV}. By stating one side is correct and that the other is lying, without independent third-party sources as references, clearly demonstrates a biased point of view and original research. BWH76 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that there is a difference between stating that someone is not telling the truth, and calling them a liar. People utter untruths all the time: (1) because they were misinformed; (2) because they were suffered a failure of memory; (3) because they didn't understand their briefing -- even though the briefing may have been accurate. I didn't state a motive for why Del Monte was recorded stating something that was untrue. I don't think I owe anyone a retraction for calling Del Monte a liar, when I never called him a liar. I don't think I owe anyone an apology for stating that what he said wasn't true -- when no one can claim what he said was true.

The discussion above sets out a false dichotomy between the claims of human rights workers and the assertions of DoD officials. The article says Del Monte's assertion is at odds with other accounts. Those other accounts include other DoD accounts. Geo Swan (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Military authorities say the only juveniles at the detention center were the three who were kept in a separate facility from the main prison camp with more freedom and activities. They were released in January 2004.

The so-called "human rights" groups are making too much out of this.

The AR-190-8 Army regulations on handling detainees set 15 as the age where they no longer need special treatment. (See: 6-2.(4)) He wasn't a kid anymore, and so he can eat and sleep like an adult.

It was updated in 1997. They didn't just make that up.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

HCI was registered as a Canadian charity, and started by two doctors in Calgary, is my understanding? Is there something I'm missing? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time in Bagram

We have nothing on his months spent at Bagram right now. I think it's notable that Moazzam Begg's book Enemy Combatant says that Khadr was singled out for extensive work duties by the soldiers who called him "Buckshot Bob" and and referred to him as being a murderer.[1] Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly a credible source.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a book published by Simon & Schuster be considered a reliable source? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Simon & Schuster isn't vouching for his integrity. Do you think they put a polygraph on him?

If you want to say "Moazzam Begg claims" then that's something else, but we've got plenty of that already. If there's really something to this, you ought to be able to find a better source than the likes of Begg. It's likely that people are dead because of him.

Every fascist who's been detained claims he was tortured. Even the hunger-striking Islamists that the Canadians detained say that. Eventually you'll want an objective source.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of wanting a source, do you have a source for claiming that people are dead because of Begg? I seem to recall him being released without charge - and rather than blowing up a supermarket, he published a book and is a civil rights activist. Even if it were true that he had blood on his hands, why does that make him any less authoritative of an authority of what happened in Bagram than anybody else? Would you not trust the word of any American soldier at Bagram who had killed an Afghan? Nobody has disputed Begg's claims, and they certainly don't seem even vaguely ludicrous. It's not like he's claiming something controversial, like Khadr was set ablaze or something, he's stating that Khadr was called names and given extra work duty...if you can find a veritable source (ie, an officer from Bagram, a senior ranking administrative officer, another inmate or some such) who disputes the claim, I'd be happy to include mention of that. But as it stands "omg, a Muslim claims it's true, it could be a lie!" sounds more like patent racism and trying to denigrate Begg's book. I've not read any reports that anything in Begg's book is a lie, so there is no reason to assume this is. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That bogus "racism" label isn't going to help you. You ought to know by now that there's a difference between Islam and Islamic extremism.

Being released without charge only means they didn't have a charge for him. Although some of his pre-GTMO activities were shady, and contributed to the jihad ("a sympathizer, a recruiter and a financier"), it would have meant years of stalling tactics, and they probably believed he wasn't worth it. (Note that the link quotes someone who doubts his veracity.)

But my comment was about his post-GTMO appearances as a so-called "civil rights" activist telling naive Muslims that this is a war against Islam itself. He doesn't personally tell them they need to grab a suicide vest but at least one of the films he appears in ("21st Century CrUSAders") is itself clearly a call to arms.

It was probably seen by the 2005 London bombers. (It's known with certainty that those bombers watched films like it, but we don't have the full list.) It, and others, were distributed all over the world. Some jihadis in Iraq were indoctrinated with it. And if you ever see it yourself, please note that Begg never tells his fascist friends that they need to respect the Geneva Conventions.

If you ever venture into his old bookstore, be sure to pick up the pamphlet on "the best way to kill homosexuals." Seriously, no one who supports this guy ever cared about "civil rights".

But if you want to quote him as some kind of authority, then please go right ahead. The more these articles are pumped up with glaringly obvious agit-prop, the more complete a picture we get of the critics of the war. They never tell their friends either that they need to respect the Geneva Conventions.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're now attributing the books for sale in a store where his work is for sale to him? I mean, he may be Islamist, but to suggest that he's responsible for what others have written seems counter-intuitive to your other point. The link says nothing about Begg owning the shop, managing the shop or even working as a clerk at the shop, it says the shop sells work by Begg, and that it sells works about killing homosexuals. The military interrogator in your quoted article describes him as "We compared him to somebody who went off to Spain during the civil war — more of a romantic than some sort of ideologically steeled fighter." - so that puts him roughly on the level of Lord Byron, should we refuse to accept Byron's accounts of the Greek War of Independence, stating that he's basically a terrorist because of it and "people are surely dead because of him"? Begg may not be a saint, but there is nothing to suggest that his accounts of meeting Khadr at Bagram are untrue. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Begg is a former owner of the store. Nothing indicates a change from when he was there before. If a bookstore owner chooses to stock a wide variety of books then we might say he's interested in having a wide variety. It wouldn't mean he likes every single book. If he serves only a narrow interest then that says something else. It would be like a small Christian bookstore stocking The Turner Diaries but none of the moderate Christian books. Do you really think that wouldn't be a concern? We make distinctions between bookstores that stock some explicit books on sex, and those that stock only pornography, and then further, those that include kiddie porn. The fact that Begg commissioned and published Dhiren Barot's book tells us quite a bit about him.

Byron's war experiences were from before the GCs, but I doubt he'd have supported a movement that works the way al Qaeda does. If he did, that would be notable, and nothing he said could be taken as fact without checking other sources.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I doubt that historians study Lord Byron's diaries without taking his bias into account.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's why we cite where the reference to "Buckshot Bob" is from, so that interested people can look up Moazzam Begg and see who he is. But that doesn't mean that we say "Probably an Islamist terrorist himself, Begg claimed without any verification from American sources, that Khadr was called Buckshot Bob". If the owner of a TD-peddling Christian book store owner told me that homosexuality causes cancer, or that he saw the FBI murder a puppy, I might not believe him and would agree with you that his "somewhat incredulous claims" should be tempered. But if the same guy just told me that he had mailed a letter to Timothy McVeigh three years before the bombing, I'd probably take his word for it. If Begg were claiming that Khadr was disfigured from his daily sessions having hot coals applied to his genitals, we'd temper the claim. But the simple claim that he had a nickname among guards there, and did some manual labour, doesn't seem to border on the "ridiculous" statements that could've been made - or the ones that are directly contradicted by other facts. In short, with absolutely no reason to believe that a claim is likely to be fabriated, there's no reason to allege that an ad hominem attack against the author of the claim should be given any weight. I'm pretty much done with this argument, unless other editors with a history of editing this article (Geo Swan, BWH) come forward and agree with you that we shouldn't trust anything Begg says - then I think I'm done with this train of thought.

P.S. even your new link doesn't support your argument that Begg owns/owned the bookstore, in fact it doesn't even mention him - it just talks about the bookstore. But that's irrelevant. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The second link was to show what the bookstore hasn't changed much since back when he owned it. There are other sources that say he was a co-owner at the time, and I didn't think it worth documenting in a talk page. He even admits to it. The relevant part is that Begg has a history of consorting with violent extremists. He is not a trustworthy source.

Your comparison to someone mailing a letter to McVeigh before the bombing is apt but it makes my case more than yours. There isn't much of a problem saying he had a nickname, but saying he "was singled out for extensive work duties" tracks with the common torture theme they're pushing. It's as likely to have fabricated as it is to be true. The fact that such an action could sound reasonable doesn't change that the story is coming from a worm like Moazzam Begg.

But go ahead and add it if you like. Just be sure that everyone knows the only source is a friend of terror. He certainly isn't a "civil rights" activist.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect nicknames were common, both for referring to fellow GIs, and for captives. IIRC Dilawar was "Timmy" (as per South Park(?)). One of Clive Stafford Smith clients, one who was mentally ill, was "The General". We know that Iraqi "ghost prisoner" was "Triple-X".

Both Abu Qatada and Moazzam Begg called on kidnappers to free their western captives. It could be argued that Abu Qatada's entreaty to free hostages was disinenguous and self-serving, because he was in custody in the UK, fighting extradition. But Begg had already been released. Doesn't that suggest he was sincere? What ulterior motive could he have had?

As to Khadr being called a "murderer". A couple of years ago camp authorities seemed to be experimenting with letting JTF-GTMO staff be interviewed. I saw the BBC pose a couple of questions to a young guard.

1. He first complained that guards weren't given enough scope to respond to captives who spat on them.
2. Then he paused a couple of seconds, and said, Half of these guys killed a US soldier you know.

My reading of the transcripts is that Khadr is the only captive who could have been accused of killing a GI. At the time of his comment US losses in Afghanistan was about 200. (It is about 400 now.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I could argue that Begg was just doing smart PR when pleading for those hostages to be freed but even that's not the case here. Those particular hostages are vehement critics of the U.S., and they're very sympathetic to the terrorists. A Muslim Brotherhood leader also pleaded for their release, calling their organization an ally against Israel. So, it's quite natural for Begg to have joined him.

I'm sure most of the guards at GTMO haven't read the dossiers of the detainees, and they just make assumptions. A lot of anti-GTMO critics think the U.S. waterboarded detainees at GTMO.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rand

I think I mentioned this before, but I think it is important, so I will mention this again -- OC-1's testimony is not the possibly exculpatory witness Keubler first learned about in December. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I know Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not wait until dark, when the GIs would have the advantage of night vision equipment?

If it was 10am, I suppose they didn't consider it worth a 12 hour wait just to use new equipment.Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Keubler questioned whether shooting Khadr in the back complied the GIs rules of engagement.

Some sources suggest the shooter was not a GI, but was a CIA official. Would a CIA official feel bound by the same rules of engagement as the GIs he or she was with? If I were a GI I would sure want them to be -- if only because the ROE protect GIs from friendly fire mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but I haven't seen anything other than speculation that any CIA assets were involved. If you have actual evidence that there CIA assets with either the first group, the team that set out or the reinforcements, let me know - but otherwise I think it's just idle speculation by sensationalist journalists. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning -- Khadr's case was considered one of the easiest to prosecute. This was one of the causes of the disagreement between Colonel Morris Davis and other senior officials. He wanted to focus on first prosecuting captives who could be tried based on evidence that was not coerced through torture, and where most of the evidence was not classified. Thomas Hartmann, and others, wanted to prosecute king-pins -- even if those trials would have to be held entirely in-camera.

Good catch on the new sources you found.

I've uploaded some new images:

Guantanamo court room.	Alleged to be Omar Khadr, being trained to construct a time bomb, from video captured by the USA.	Alleged to be Omar Khadr, planting landmines, from video captured by the USA.	Image of the site of the July 27 2002 skirmish, from GI video.
Image of the site of the July 27 2002 skirmish, from GI video.	Image of the site of the July 27 2002 skirmish, from GI video.	Omar Khadr, shortly after capture 3, possibly getting first aid.

Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to crop the 60 minutes logo and media player out of the photos, for them to be Public Domain. Even still, some could argue the "captured videotape" isn't Public Domain - since it's not made by the US Fed'l government.

I think it is time for the Omar Khadr article, the Layne Morris article, the Christopher Speer article, the Mike Silver article, and the OC-1 (witness) article to all have their coverage of the skirmish cut back to a paragraph, or two short paragraphs, with a pointer to an article just about the skirmish. Let's confine the discussion of the (conflicting) known details of the skirmish to a single article. I like:

Further information: Skirmish at Ab Qhail, Afghanistan, on July 27, 2002 Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it for the officers' articles, but Omar Khadr is going to be the first-and-last stop for many readers trying to learn about this kid in the newspaper today. I think we owe it to them to keep the article as fully-contextual as possible.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for references to the Pistol.

Interestingly Bill Simon, in the CBS segment, asserts that the grenade was "thrown over a wall" -- I think this would be the first reference to "over the wall". Is it possible that CBS may have been given illicit access to the OC-1 testimony? Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to think they wouldn't have taken the opportunity to drop the story that's leaking now, about the fact Khadr wasn't seen to throw the grenade and a second Muja was still alive at the time it was thrown. It's possible either a coincidence that CBS used that wording, or Silver/Morris gave an interview and inadvertantly used the term. I don't really smell conspiracy. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean a second conspiracy? The Prosecution wanted to show the tape in court. Brownback wouldn't let them. Jeffrey Gordon said that the Prosecution didn't leak the tape. He didn't say who did leak the tape. Somebody leaked that tape.

Simon's comment couldn't be based on an interview with Morris. I believe him when he says he was as surprised as the rest of us to learn those details from OC-1's account.

Yes, I figured the time codes should go. But I didn't want to remove them until people had helped pick the best images.

The reason why I favor cutting back the individual coverage of the skirmish in the individual articles is to prevent allowing multiple versions to grow inconsistent with one another. I want my watchlist entries to be as useful as possible. That means working to keep the articles on it focussed on just one topic. Another participant here has suggested merging just about everything -- which is IMO a terrific disservice for people who make good use of their watchlists, the "what links here" button, and understand and exploit the full power of the bidirectional nature of the wikipedia's links. We should understand and exploit the full power of the bidirectional nature of wikilinks.

I think we have more than enough information to justify a separate article about the skirmish itself. Having it as a separate article allows for readers who are only interested in the skirmish, or only interested in the skirmish, and one of the actors, to not have keep the articles about all the actors on their watchlist. Wouldn't merging all the articles into one be just as good? Absolutely not. Because, then, new details about the actors the reader wan't interested in would still be triggering hits one their watchlist.

Yes, but you have to balance the fact that 75% of people who read the article on OK won't read a seperately-linked article on the circumstances of his capture which form the basis for the charge of war crimes against him. They'd leave only knowing that "he was in some firefight and is accused of warcrimes" - leaving the information on the page ensures that everything is put in context. I'm strongly against removing any information on the firefight from OK's article, the officers' articles should simply link to [[Omar Khadr#Firefight_and_Capture|a lengthy battle]] if you want to direct them to the full account. It seems like the best compromise.

Note that the basis for the Fayetteville story gives an "interesting" timeline of events, it not only mentions "the pistol" but claims that Khadr was shooting it at the soldiers - was this an early indicator of the second Muja with the AK? Surely soldiers stationed outside the walls, like Hansen, would be able to tell the difference between hearing an AK and hearing a "pistol" fired at American troops before the 1 and 2-round bursts that killed the Muja and wounded OK? It also claims that five bodies were found in the rubble, whereas general consensus seems to say there were five fighters including Khadr, though you'll notice that the early story which mentions "entering the compound" says they saw three dead bodies - which accounts for the second Muja and OK in the alleyway.

Finally, I saw the number of Zadran's wounded listed somewhere earlier, I think it was seven - but if you can help me hunt down the source for that number, I'd appreciate it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to use some (larger, clearer) photos of the compound in the Firefight section, but do you have any actual evidence that the photos of the bombed-out compound were made by a "GI" - and that there's no possible way CBS themselves went to Ayub Khayl and got the footage years later? I think it warrants a letter to CBS inquiring about the source of the footage. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forking

For right now, while we focus on cleaning up this mess, I've created Military Tribunals of Omar Khadr and O.K. v George W. Bush - I'd like to focus on all three articles separately, and then debate the merits of whether we should merge two, or even all three, of them. But for now, the Omar Khadr article should be given two or three short paragraphs of summary for the two forks, with a "see main article at..." link. Thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heasther

Sergeant Heather Cerveny, the paralegal for Colby Vokey, Khadr's military lawyer, issued an affidavit reporting that off-duty Guantanamo guards had bragged to her of abusing detainees. On October 14, 2006 Vokey's boss imposed a gag order on the two while the matter is investigated - is this relevant to Khadr himself? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed, as the information is already on Cerveny's article Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leaked Document

There doesn't seem to be anything on this page about the leaked document that contradicted previous evidence. - http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/301316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.107.55 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In February 2008, the Pentagon accidentally released evidence that revealed that although Khadr was present during the firefight, there was no other evidence that he had thrown the grenade - and speculation had merely formed based on the fact his comrade was firing a rifle at the time the explosive was thrown. After his comrade was killed, a wounded Khadr turned away from the soldiers on his knees but was shot twice in the back before being captured.[4] from the introduction. The section on the Firefight also makes use of the new evidence. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just for amusement

Just because I love seeing journalists add a little dramatic flair of their own, when it's clear that they're basically writing a story in their own minds of how they picture things happening....

Sergeant 1st Class Christopher J. Speer...walked into the compound, seeking wounded. Suddenly a skinny figure rose from the rubble with a pistol in one hand and a grenade in the other. Omar Khadr, howling defiance, pitched the grenade. The blast felled Speer...

Colin Nickerson, Boston Globe

So it basically portrays Speer as entering "alone" (he was behind four other soldiers, at the rear of the detachment. Nothing wrong with that, so why fudge details?), "seeking wounded" as though it were a humanitarian effort - when all reports say that every soldier gathered around believed there was "no chance" anyone had survived, and they'd been ordered to sweep the rubble for intelligence, not survivors. And finally, not only do we get a zombie-like OK "rising from the rubble", but he is "howling defiance" while doing so. If I have a pet peeve, it's journalists who do this - add their own little character interaction into a "story" for better drama. sigh. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Aaaaand the runner-up (more amusing, but less Presumption of Truth from Azzam Publications than the Boston Globe)

12 US SOLDIERS KILLED IN KHOST Source: Azzam Publications Khost (Azzam), July 29: According to reliable sources US Troops had been in an area east of Khost when at midday local time, they were ambushed by a 14 year old Afghan child who managed to kill four US soldiers. US Forces retaliated swiftly by bombing the region killing at least two children, including the 14 year old Afghan child.

After the bombing, US Forces attacked the Ayub Khail Tribe, which the 14 year old Afghan child belonged to. The local tribesman defended themselves and in this fierce fight managed to kill at least eight more US Troops. Three Afghan tribesman were taken as martyrs. US Forces have now received reinforcements and have laid siege on the village. The situation is very intense.

I don't think they got a single fact correct there, lol Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hrm

He is charged with throwing a grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M., and wounded Army Sgt. Layne Morris, of West Jordan, Utah. - a single grenade injured them both? It's my understanding that the Attempted Murder charge was simply for fighting against the group, not specific to Morris - wasn't he already MedEvaced by the time the group found Khadr and got hit by the last grenade? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Morris called Khadr "the grenade man". He seems to be saying that although Khadr's companions were grown men, Khadr inflicted all the casualties against Americans in the skirmish. Geo Swan (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially that Khadr was the only one throwing grenades for four and a half hours, while the other four men used their rifles? I don't think I've seen any reference to that theory - have a link? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Layne Morris said despite the new information released this week he isn't concerned about the coming trial or conflicting reports of what happened on July 27, 2002. He said he believes there is evidence to show it was Khadr's job to throw the grenades during the battle, while the other men in the house used their AK-47s. "Omar was the grenade man," he said. Michelle Shephard. "Soldier in 'shock' over leaked Khadr report", Toronto Star, February 7, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-02-10.

Wow, thanks for the link - yeah, I agree it's almost amusing to think that a Green Beret is basically saying that four men with assault rifles failed to hit any American troops, while the 15-year old kid ran around throwing all the grenades out the windows, including at least five that *did* catch Green Berets (Morris, Speer and then the other three soldiers were hit by two grenades each, but each grenade hit two different people, is how I read it).

btw, would appreciate if you could write an introduction/summary for the two forks, Military Tribunals of Omar Khadr and O.K. v George W. Bush. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It does slightly contradict the 2007 appeal that "“After vowing to die fighting, the accused armed himself with an AK-47 assault rifle, put on an ammunition vest, and took a position by a window in the compound" of course. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsentenced

Although some can dispute, according to their point of view, that he has been detained "illegally" since his capture in 2002, it is a fact that he has been detained unsentenced since 2002, meaning he has never been convicted of any crime. Although his case was thrown out of court, he was not freed as he should have been, but charged in a different manner. The goal post is always changing according to the will of the US government.

If anyone want to edit this out, you better justify it first. Hudicourt (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd better take a closer look at those goalposts. It was only a few years ago that America's critics claimed that they cared about the Geneva Conventions. While the SCOTUS eventually decided that Common Article 3 applied, that's all they gave. I suggest you read it carefully. Nowhere does it say a trial is required to detain these fascists. It is only if they're to be punished that they need that.

In fact, had the SCOTUS declared that the full GCs applied to this war, Omar Khadr could be detained under the GCIV as well.

But besides all that, they've been wanting to try this guy for a long time. His lawyers keep throwing up roadblocks. While it's always possible they could eventually win, it'll be U.S. law they turn to. They never really cared about the GCs.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excisions

Just a few things I don't want "lost", but I'm taking out of the article as I clean up - hopefully we can find another article in which they'll convey the same information.

Elaine Chao, the United States Secretary of Labor, has spoken about the responsibility to give child soldiers special treatment, specifically to provide help for them to re-integrate into society.^[1] She announced a $3 million program to help re-integrate child-soldiers in Afghanistan back into Afghan society.

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Chao was then, and remains, a Cabinet level official. Her policy announcement about child soldiers exposes a cabinet level disagreement about how child soldiers -- like Khadr -- should be treated. I think that makes it relevant for this article. Geo Swan (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but would fit better in an article devoted to the subject such as Canadian policy towards child soldiers or something, imho. Quotes that don't discuss Omar specifically, but just "point towards" cases like his are unfortunately the first to be cut, in trying to deal with size I think. Though one person suggested we needed more focus on "public perceptions" of Khadr, so maybe once the Tribunals are all worked back into this article, we can create a "Public view of Omar Khadr" article or something, which would collect public, and governmental, quotes related, such as this one? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, Omar Khadr is not a child soldier by any serious definition of the term.

I don't think this was necessarily a disagreement on policy between Chao and DoD. It could have been a misunderstanding of definition. The U.N. defines child soldier as under 15. The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict uses under 18, but it doesn't apply here.

More to the point, the AR 190-8 manual on detainees provides for special treatment for children under 15. Chao may not have understood where the age cutoff was when she spoke.

Khadr should not be called a child soldier. (It's questionable whether any unlawful combatant could be called a soldier, but that's another story.) If some sleazy lawyer or advocacy group wants to call him a child soldier then fine, but then we should say who it is calling him that. They say such things all the time. That doesn't mean they pass the laugh test.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning (as currently) that there is a "child soldier debate" swirling around him, but not making a judgment either way on it in the article. We're here to provide the facts, not to convince readers whether Treaty A or Treaty B should be followed. Personally I don't think he's either a child soldier or a terrorist, there is nothing indicating he was conscripted to fight in a war - he was asked to provide translation services and even prosecutors don't really claim that he was being groomed for front-line battle or anything. "Due to circumstances" he ended up in a firefight, where he is alleged to have thrown grenades at US soldiers wanting to capture his "colleagues". shrugs, it doesn't really fit the notion of a "soldier" or a "terrorist". Anyways, whatever term applies, I think this quote is better suited to an article specifically about Canada's statements on the issue of "minors during conflicts" or whatever. It doesn't seem to have been said specifically with Khadr in mind - and thus while Omar Khadr might link to an article providing greater context on the national issue, the article itself isn't the best place for the information. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're supposed to give the facts, and that's the point. It's not a fact that Omar Khadr was a child soldier. I don't even think there's much of a debate about it other than an offhand comment or two. I think it's been taken too seriously.

As for what he was doing, what matters is whether he fought, not whether he initially didn't intend to fight. The contracted translators for U.S. troops aren't allowed to carry weapons, and they'd be in serious trouble if they ever shot an anyone. If U.S. soldiers are captured in a real war by any nation that follows the Geneva Conventions (which is not likely to ever happen again), those translators would be detained as well.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,960 for "omar khadr" + "child soldier". Let's not kid ourselves about whether or not a debate exists. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And Google has 442,000 results for CIA and UFO. That doesn't mean there's a serious connection.

Do you remember back when the detainee issue first came up? Back then it was all about the Geneva Conventions, and the critics were claiming that the U.S. wasn't following them. Well, it turns out that the U.S. has been pretty respectful of the GCs. I think it's time that we ask the same of the critics. The treaties say the age is 15. The Army manual was written to conform to that treaty. If people still want to call him a child soldier then that's simply piling on for the sake of piling on. It's no more serious than when I call Khadr a Hitler Youth.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And the term UFO is used six times in the article on the CIA, referring to the debate that centres around the connection as evidenced by the RP. Similarly, OK's article mentions the fact there is debate about the term "Child soldier" and its applicability, it's how things are done. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The CIA article doesn't say there's a connection. Only that there was an investigation.

That Khadr's lawyer calls him a child soldier doesn't make him one. Lawyers will grasp at anything when they've got a difficult case.

This article doesn't simply mention that there's a debate. That would be enough if it did. The trouble is that it outright calls him a child soldier as though he really is one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of a child varies a bit place to place. However, I would like to see a reference to a jurisdiction in the world that calls a 15 year old an adult. There is none. The American army and government has chosen a definition of "enemy combatant" for those it fights in Afghanistan, so maybe Khadr was a "child enemy combatant" at the time of his capture. Of course, it is unique POV to call people "enemy combatant" and there is an argument about that versus "soldier". However, style guidelines do not support using wording such as "some argue..." Fremte (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict uses 18 but it doesn't call them child soldiers. Nor does it prohibit 15 year olds from volunteering as soldiers as long as they're not sent into combat. But to this specific case, to my reading it wouldn't apply to Khadr anyway.

There's nothing unique or POV about America's use of the term "enemy combatant". Common Article 3 doesn't recognize them as real soldiers or POWs. The ICRC commentaries on it show that governments were very reluctant to give unlawful combatants even the slightest recognition at all.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In January 2008, the revised manual for Canadian Consular Officers included a list of locations where it was possible that Canadians in foreign custody would undergo torture. The United States was on the list, based on the belief that Canadians could face torture in Guantanamo Bay - where Khadr is the sole Canadian.^[2][3]

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AQ

Without any actual evidence that the deceased were related to UBL's network, I'm loathe to refer to them as AQ. As I understand it, they were never even identified. It's clear they were militants, or one could use Mujahideen (has some POV connotations however) per the Soviet invasion, but AQ should only be referenced as an allegation against them, not an established fact. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur they shouldn't be called al Qaeda. Geo Swan (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random notes

I'm fighting to use the most concise wording possible, but it seems inevitable this will be one of the articles which necessitate being longer than 32k. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maha's views on homosexuality aren't related to Omar, it's suffice (imho) to say that she was "concerned with corrupting influences" in Canada - and leave discussion of her specific views to her specific article. (If one is ever created). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mother's position as legal guardian makes all her view relevant. We cannot argue the Omar is a child soldier without accepting her as having legal right over the Omar. [User_talk:Dlafferty] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, Goebbels children should include the fact their father believed that Jews should be exterminated...but I really don't see how that's relevant to the children, do you? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Goebbel's influence on his family influence might be important if the children were being tried for the murder of jews. They might include his views in an argument that they were not criminally responsible. In the present case, if Omar Khadr stands accused of crimes, he may wish to dismiss criminal liability by attributing his actions to those of his parents. If she did not directly influence him to illegally murder a foreign soldier, he might resort to indirect influences such as irrational fears on the part of his mother that kept him from his homeland of Canada. Whether her views are irrational would be for, in this case, the reader to decide, and not yourself. Is the content factually incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.34 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your conjecture for what defence Khadr "might" choose is ill-placed and OR. I've seen no signs that Khadr has made any effort to blame his mother for his place in Afghanistan, and your point is misplaced anyways since she wasn't his "legal guardian" (as you claim in edit summaries) at the time of the incident. He had just spent the year with his father in the mountains. Presumably even if he were to blame a parent figure, it would be his father, not his mother. Should his father's views on capital punishment and abortion be included in the article? Let's not be ridiculous. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For Khadr to blame his mother would require that he felt regret that he had been raised this way. Everything I've seen implies that he's quite pleased to be an Islamist. Either way, his upbringing is relevant. The fact that he was still a kid only makes it more so.

I don't think trying to conserve space is a good enough reason to leave this out. If the article implies that he's some innocent kid who'd rather be playing video games then the reader will come away with an incorrect picture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's important to provide a fair balance in the article, and I agree with Randy that there's nothing to suggest that Khadr is trying in any way to distance himself from his mother. The 'argument' is "It's okay to be this way", not "I'm not this way". Now that said, I think my Goebbels example sums it up perfectly - we do not hold the sins of the parents against the children. Especially not against specific children - if Khadr was on trial for gay bashing it might be prudent to note that his mother believes homosexuality is an abomination, but unless we're going to insert it into the biographies of every Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim and Orthodox Jew on Wikipedia who has a parent who believes abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, or any similar 'belief' which is unrelated to the actual article, I think this should follow the same path. It's important to realise that he was raised outside Canada because his mother felt Peshawar offered a better society, but it's not fair to give undue weight to make it sound like she left because of gay people. She left because she wasn't comfortable raising her children in the society. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think the Goebbels example is apt. I just don't think it would be wrong to use his mother's guidance. One difference between Omar Khadr and Goebbels is that Goebbels had time to distance himself from his upbringing (and it appears he did to some extent).

A bigger difference is that this article wouldn't exist had it not been for Khadr's family. To whatever extent he was involved in that battle, he was there precisely because his parents put him there. He was raised for jihad. It may not be fair to fault him for that, just as it's not fair to blame a killer dog for what it was trained to do. But a fully-informed reader can feel sympathy for him if they believe there's any to be had.

One way that I do think you're right is that it surely wasn't only about gay people. The real problem I see is that changing it to "corrupting influences" is too wishywashy. They left because of what the family perceives as western decadance in all its forms, not merely their revulsion to usury and sabbath breaking.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting -- Omar Khadr has been living in camp 4, the camp for compliant captives, and has been allowed to wear a white uniform, the uniform for compliant captives, for about a year now.

Also worth noting. Two years ago he wanted to fire all his American lawyers -- including Muneer Ahmad, who I thought was doing a really good job under the circumstances. But he now seems cooperative with Kuebler, and cooperative in the hearing room.

We have no way of really knowing what Omar Khadr thought or felt on July 27, 2002.

We have very few clues as to what Omar Khadr thought or felt in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007.

The skirmish happened a third of his life ago. I suggest his own memory of what he thought or felt would be highly unreliable.

Omar Khadr has had no unmonitored, uncensored contact with his family.

We have no idea what he really knows of what his family has been up to since he saw them last. But, I suggest, those of us who follow news reports of them have a better idea of what they have been up to than he does.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that he doesn't need a strait-jacket and can sit in a courtroom without foaming at the mouth means all that much. Most criminals are at their best behavior in court.

You're right that we don't have a real picture of what he's thinking, but I don't think he's renounced jihad. I don't expect him to either. None of the British ex-detainees had done so. Moazzam Begg is asking his fans to fight for a return to the Caliphate and not the Geneva Conventions. It's not very likely that Khadr would be any different if he were released. He was raised to be a jihadi, and now he's spent his entire adult life living with them.

That's not to say I don't have some sympathy for him. I'd rather that he'd been deprogrammed when he was first captured. The trouble with that is, the critics would have gone ballistic.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1992, Khadr's father stepped on a land-mine while in Lowgar, Afghanistan and nearly died; the Khadr family moved back to Toronto he could recuperate for free by virtue of the Canadian medicare^[4]

First of all, the link doesn't say anything about Ahmed's return to Canada, muchless the reasoning for it. And secondly, it's POV to state "for free", and words like "by virtue" are definitely emotionally-manipulative words designed to trigger feeling. Suffice to say that they moved back so he could recuperate (or "recover" if you have a preference). Typically, when somebody is wounded overseas, they return to their home country to recover...there's nothing sinister about it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

'for free' is stated provincial policy by the premier of Ontario. See the article titled "McGuinty Suggests Khadr's Wife Apologize". Specifically, 'On Tuesday, Mr. McGuinty said the Khadrs' citizenship was a federal issue and the family would continue to be eligible for medical benefits and welfare in Ontario'. I welcome your review of the material, and I'm glad to see that you are ensuring that it is kept factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.34 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"for free" is not anywhere in provincial policy, it's a crass vernacular term, in policy you're more likely to see "without charge", "with no incurred fees" or "gratis". Don't bullshit me. Secondly, I know it's a matter of public record that she used the Ontario medicare system, so did Tie Domi, should we say that he "took advantage of the Canadian medicare system by demanding doctors fix his nose for no charge, thanks to the virtues of Canadian medicare"? No, if that's the accepted standard for the country, there's no reason to draw attention to it other than to try and slyly insert our POV intonations. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that there's no point editwarring over the article, let's just leave it as it stands right now, while we debate the matter, and if we reach a compromise, adjust it accordingly. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll let the health care comments stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, that was a bit nasty calling for a freeze after removing a contribution.Dlafferty

The article was stable before you added your "controversial edit", the "leave it as-is while we discuss" refers to the version before the controversial edit, not to leave the controversial edit in place. Again, you haven't referenced why this is different than referring to any other Canadian's health maladies as "taking advantage of the free Canadian healthcare virtues"? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"controversial edit" is clearly POV, because the quote can only be attributed to yourself. Also, you were less than candid as far when requesting broader editorial criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over scope of article

Added background to distinguish Omar from other Canadian familys with the last name Khadr. It's not immediately obvious from the link who we are talking about, and we cannot guarantee that readers will follow the link. A reference to the father's public persona should suffice.Dlafferty

If other Omar Khadrs were in the news, that would be a strong argument...but since I've never seen another "Khadr family" in the news, it seems a little odd. I'm also confused as to why his father's name should be in the very first sentence - he's notable due to his war crimes tribunal, not due to his father. His entire family is controversial, why isn't a link to the family suitable? (I agree the family's article still needs a lot of work btw, but so does Ahmed's). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On your first point, I have not canvassed all news world wide, and I cannot dismiss the existence of another Khadr family. If you can provide such evidence, then I will gladly see the omission of references distinguishing his family from other Khadr's residing in Canada.Dlafferty

When this article was first started, three years ago, I started about a dozen google news alerts, one for each member of the Khadr family. Google news alerts, for those unfamiliar with them, will email you when a topic was mentioned in a news article. If you are willing to extend the assumption of good faith to me then I can assure you that there is no other Khadr family, connected with Canada, in the news. Some of these news alerts have generated the occasional false positive -- generally when an official somewhere, who has Khadr as a middle name, makes an announcement. But google found no other Canadian Khadrs. Period. Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. Dlafferty

I don't have access to the compiled articles, but from what I've read, a good number of the articles make a point of referring to details of the parents when introducing Omar's biography. I'm thinking of the Rolling Stone, CBC, CTV, PBS and Globe and Mail. The 'air brushing' complaint could be dismissed by pointing to a large body of articles from respected sources that omit background of Omar's family. These articles would have to be of biographical nature, as opposed to solely judiciable material for the purposes of arguing the trial. If so, I would be happy to remove the Neutrality complaint.Dlafferty —Preceding comment was added at 17:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Don't offer background information about his family", or "Don't discuss his mother's religious beliefs about homosexuality"? There's a difference, this article offers a *lot* of background on his family (in fact, I rather expected people to complain it offered too much background, rather than "not enough"), however we are only offering the background that is strictly relevant to the subject of the article. If Freddy Mercury's mother beat him as a child...it would be notable to include in his article. If she hated broccoli...not notable. If he hated broccoli, debateable. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments you are making above, but we have already decided the mother's beliefs are relevant as to why she might have taken the children out of Canada before Khadr could have schooling. However, to respond to your analogy, if the mother hated broccoli, and the son went to be arrested for killing broccoli farmers, but refused to discuss broccoli or was prevented from discussing broccoli because he was interned at Brocco-tanomo Bay (fictious detention camp) then it actually would be relevant to talk about broccoli. Likewise, if Khadr is arrested in a gun fight in Afghanistan, then it is relevant if the family is involved in Al Queda, because it raises questions as to whether he entered into the situation under his own free will, as part of a duty that all Canadians feel obliged to do or whether he could have been indoctrinated at a young age. Finally, if he hated broccoli, then yes, it would be important.Dlafferty

Let us move on to the father's background. The following issues were being addressed so that the POV tag can be removed:Dlafferty

1. Does most biographical journalism on Omar Khadr refer to the father's views?Dlafferty
2. Are the family views distinct from the schooling that Khadr would have received in Canadian education system?Dlafferty
3. If the above are true, then we cannot on the one hand explain Khadr is Canadian and on the other hand delete unorthodox family views from what should be a biography.Dlafferty

Finally, there has been a complaint about this conversation in another forum, but have not been given me details. Due process would suggest that I be allowed an opportunity to explain myself to the forum before being judged. I ask for the second time if someone point me to the forum referred to by the speaker above. Let's not turn this into a Kafkaesque scenario like The Trial. Dlafferty —Preceding comment was added at 08:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On your point about the first sentence, it was your decision to reference the family at the outset, and I feel it a good one. Further, the link the family does not in itself explain the nature of the family's controversy. The discussion of his father merely pinpoints the family's controversy. Therefore, the reference keeps the article concise.Dlafferty

On your point that Omar is only known for his trial, I would explain that this is unreasonable by analogy. No one would sugggest that Chelsea Clinton is not notable for her father, despite the fact that she is of course currently known for campaigning for her mother. Perhaps on way to solve this issue is to spin Omar's trial into a separate article where we can focus on that aspect of his life.Dlafferty

In refuting your argument I'd like to go further and make a counterclaim. I not that you have labelled quotes from the Ontario premier, CBC news, and Mrs. Khadr herself as 'POV'. By rejecting statements for the record as opinion, you are in the position of editorialising the article, because you favour your interpretation of the facts rather than providing them for the reader as the basis of an informed decision. This is detrimental to the integrity of the article, because it purports to be an article and has the substance of a a thesis. The article suggest journalism reporting, as it states no author's name and focuses on Omar in general. However, the editing has turned it into a thesis, because it express your opinion that tOmar's life issues are focused war crime accusations and your opinion of what is relevant to that crime. To avoid this situation, we need to take a broader view of Omar's life to include the experiences that influenced him into his political and religious views. Also, we need to highlight the benefits of his participation in Canadian society such as medical benefits provided to his family. It would be nice to contrast this with his experience in Pakistan and Afgahnistan, where his character was primarily molded. To do so would effect an article on a life lived and not a criminal trial.Dlafferty

If you can comment on these points, I will make sometime this evening to review your discussion. It should take very little time to address each point. I should have the review done later this evening, and in the meantime I would like to see the comments retained.Dlafferty —Preceding comment was added at 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If Premier [[Dalton McGuinty\\ said "Homosexuality is a sin", would that belong in the Homosexuality article or in the Dalton McGuinty article? Obviously in the latter, right? Same situation here. You can go talk to the Dalton McGuinty people, or create a Maha article, but don't litter the article about Omar with unrelated comments that his mother doesn't like homosexuals, or that the Premier made a snide comment. Since the Khadr family article is "lacking" (I agree with you), I'd suggest you spend some work there explaining why the family is "notable/notorious", again things like the mother's opinion belong more in an article about the family or the mother herself...not in each article about each of her children, surely. Saad bin Laden certainly doesn't say "His father Osama bin Laden is a murderer who has said that he hates Jews". That would be a POV addition to Saad's article, right?

Keep Omar's article relevant to statements Omar has said, his lawyers have said about him, his family has said about him or prosecutors have said. Adding in the personal opinions of others is simply POV-pushing, and quite simply will not be tolerated in the article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument by analogy and emphasis on POV fails to address the following points:Dlafferty

1. You were requested to verify that there were no other Khadr's in the news. Dlafferty

You have not done so, and so the father should be referenced in the article to distinguish the family from other Canadians last name Khadr.Dlafferty

2. You were requested to discuss why the focus should be on Omar's trial and not his life. Dlafferty

You have not done so. Insisting that all material published about Omar be direct quotes from him, his lawyers, his family and his prosecutors merely reinforces my point that the article is too narrow. Using material from these individuals limits the article to those likely to be involved or referenced in his trial. Since this is not an article on Omar Khadr's trial, it should include additional background information that might influence his attitudes. Please see Biography. Dlafferty

3. The Saad bin Laden article does explain that his father is in Al Queda.Dlafferty

Therefore, by your reasoning, it is valid to explain Omar's father's role in the organisation.Dlafferty

4. You were asked to refute the observation that the article is commentary, by yourself, masquerading as journalism.Dlafferty

This is a very serious point to be addressed, because it speaks to the integrity of the article as a whole as well as yours. If the suggestion is made that this article is biased, the supervisory editors are going to review this discussion and base their decision on whether the article's content is based on material argued in a sound and reasonable way. Now would be an opportunity for you to address my criticism and put forward arguments that are not self-defeating, and refer to the points that I make.Dlafferty

1. The Khadr family is the Canadian version of the Kennedy family, there is "only one" family known by that name.

   I'm not in Canada, and I have to say that the Khadr's are not in the same league as the Kennedy's.

   Also, you were asked to verify in media, where as the above is purely conjecture. Therefore, you have no satisfied the point you originally made that there was no other Khadr. in media. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) -- 17:41, 2008 March 31

2. No, there should be emphasis on both the trial and his life. His father's life however, is only relevant when directly impacting Omar's life, same with his mother. Single quotes meant to portray his parents as monsters are POV-seeding and not appropriate in the article. Please refrain from continually adding them.

   The comments above are not consistent with edits you have made. There was no quote from the father and it was pointed out that the mother's quotes relate to the decision to move. Thus, it of not consequence to your concerns that a descriptive reference of the father, and that the mother's comments be kept. Therefore, I would expect to be able to make the edits to include a descriptive reference to the father. Will you accept this point now? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2008 March 31 (edit) (undo)

3. This article does address what Ahmed Khadr is known to have done, taking his son into the mountains after living at UBL's compound. Allegations against Ahmed belong in his article, not in Omar's article.

   Yes, but I think we need to give an indication of the ideology that the father may have installed in the son. Clearly, the attitudes presented are not consistent with social values presented to children in Canadian classrooms at the primary level. You are welcome to reference Ontario education curriculum on this point. Therefore, it would be misleading to suggest on the one hand Khadr is Canadian, but ignore that his family's attitudes and suggestions of participation in Al Queda. BTW, these are likely to be proven simply because the court has no interest in a dead man. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2008 March 31 (edit) (undo)

4. ...wtf? The fact that every sentence in the article is a statement of fact, and there are no statements of opinion (in either direction) is a pretty obvious sign the article is encyclopaedic, rather than editorialism. Please refrain from completely baseless accusations. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

   You specifically removed the 'Homosexual'. This does not suggest a respect for fact.

   Finally, in the above passage, you attempt to address my criticism with a call that I not question your actions. Such a call is not reasonable in a free and democratic society where my comments cannot be construed as inciteful or provacative to yourself personally. Please keep these points in mind, and refrain from questioning my democratic freedom to discuss the issues. Thank you. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2008 March 31 (edit) (undo)

WHy do online trolls always start talking about their "democratic freedoms"? It's amusing. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a law student at the University of Cambridge. The 'democratic freedom' comment refers provisions of the European Convertion on Human Rights, which ensures in this country a freedom to free speech. The comment is related to the approach in which you delete comments before and after discussing them. I see this as censorship, because your defense of the actions have not addressed the points I have made.Dlafferty

Anyways, in summary, you cannot prove a negative, take Logic 101. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I took Logic 101 sometime ago. It sits nicely on my university transcript. Now, since you brought it up, what is your educational background? Dlafferty

And would his mother's stance on abortion be relevant? What about her stance on polygamy? Her stance on income tax? Her stance on Orange Juice versus Cranberry Juice? There is no relevance to her statements on Homosexuality, since Omar is not homosexual, nor being charged with homophobic crimes. Again, you can discuss her views in any article about her. But it is simply not relevant to an understanding of Omar Khadr, to know his mother's thoughts on homosexuality.Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot say that Khadr's actions are completely divorced from his upbringing. Moreover, the comments above hold only if we limit the article to crimes to which Khadr has been accused. You have already refuted such a stance, and you have included the edits in the article. Thus it is proven.Dlafferty

On that note, I have consulted with other WP editors, including an open question on the Terrorism Project, and everybody seems to agree that I am simply "feeding the troll" by responding to you. I'm going to take their advice now, and simply cease responding to you - I welcome constructive edits to the article, but will continue to revert any attempts you make to add sly POV language to the article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is customary to have an opportunity to plead my case before the judge and jury. Could you provide a link to the forum in which my views were represented so that I may put the case forward that a desription that Khadr's father be included. Dlafferty

...Your comments about schooling make absolutely no sense, he was enrolled in a Canadian school, it was an ISNA school though. Would you say that the mother's views on homosexuality are relevant to any BLPs dealing with people who are homeschooled? At a private Christian school? Waldorf school? Montessori? It makes absolutely no difference to the POV argument whether or not Khadr attended school in Canada - your arguments border on the ridiculous. I'll give it a day to see if any established users chime in agreeing with you that the mother's views on homosexuality are relevant, then I'm removing the POV tag since you're becoming increasingly troll-like. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not in an argument over the homosexual comments. The issue is whether background on the father is relevant. Please see above.DLafferty

The ISNA's principle states 'Family involvement in the school', so we have to ask ourselves what their involvement would bring to Omar's schooling, and this necessarily implicates the family's attitudes in his upbringing. Moreover, the school does not appear to be accredited by Ontario Education. (see ^[5])DLafferty

For the third time, will you please make available a link the editor's discussion you discuss above so that I may be able to put forward justification for my comments in that forum. Furthermore, will you please provide an 'established' user criteria that you discuss in your comment.DLafferty

A final thought, I think that you may be shifting the issue from a debate of ideas into a popularity contest, and on that basis you are seeking to censor details that would adversely affect the opinion you with to hold of Omar. I base this position on your refusal to given me the opportunity to plead my case to the editorial committee that you have formed. I get the impression that you are someone who substitutes reasoned responses with slurs. Leave the neutrality warning alone, and prove me wrong.DLafferty —Preceding comment was added at 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Randy2063 said the homosexual comment was relevant days ago. You can go ask him about it. So, and I must say the logic of this is indisputable, the POV goes back on. Just following your rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, the bot is getting tired. Maha now has her own article, you can add the comment there, but unless somebody demonstrates why mentioning the parents' religious beliefs which are entirely unrelated to the child's actions or notability, rather than questioning whether ISNA schools are chartered and other unrelated comments, then it stays out. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'bot' is not getting tired. If you had a Phd in Computer Science like me, you'd know exactly how idiotic of a thing that was to say. Also, you wouldn't make the mistake of suggesting that I need to take Logic 101. Yep, I've taken it philosophy and science. Nor would you bother responding to analysis with a Flame War. That's so 1991! However, I am happy that we've built a wonderful playground for you to be king of. I thought the orginal intent was to suppport [Speech], and foster communication. Have a read of the text and you'll get the legal references I made above.

Now, the editorial forum you posted your comment on is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Terrorism#Peer_Review_of_Omar_Khadr The post contradicts your actions vis a vis the mother's comments, and removing the father's comments from the later sections. There is also the 'chime' I refer to above. I learned to research during the PhD.

Also, The word is used is 'accredited' not 'chartered'. So, while a university may be chartered to give out degrees to people who have memorised the Qur'an, they would not be 'acreditted' so as to get a Canadian student loan to support themselves while they were doing it, nor would that degree be recognised in any Canadian public institution. Look, I shouldn't be explaining these definitions to an adult.

Which leads me to the POV. It's a great term to bandy about, but buzz words cannot replace analysis. Have a look at what I've said, and convince me that you're not whitewashing the biography.

BTW, my father-and-law met Kennedy. He heard Kennedy speak. Beleive him: Omar Khadr is no Kennedy.

L8r little man!;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, later Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've more POV problems (see Randy2063's comments). I take that as the necessary criticism to justify the POV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafferty (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I have already added a POV template to the section Randy is disputing. To be honest, you strike me as an internet troll, an immature and possibly ––––– child intent on "irreconcilable arguments". When asked to explain your judgments, you instead just claim to have a Doctorate degree in the subject, as though we should simply believe your claim that you are in the Cambridge legal department, or that you simultaneously have a Ph.D. in Computer Sciences. At this point I am simply suspending my arguments with you, I think any reasonable person would agree I have exhausted all attempts to be polite and deal with your concerns, but you have continued being a troll. (I will also point out that 95% of your edits on WP are edit-warring over this article, further increasing suspicion). I respect Randy's arguments, even where I think there is misunderstanding or that he is simply incorrect, because he has been more reasonable in his opinions. (Notice also that he and I are working towards compromise and understanding, rather than edit-wars). I will continue to deal with any NPOV complaints about this article from established users, but am ignoring you from this point forward. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits I have proposed have been well argued, which is why you have had to resort the personal attacks. The edit-warring was kicked off by your own censorship. I don't care that you don't want to discuss the article's problems. The POV is in place merely to warn people not to be taken in by your modest attempt to whitewash Khadr's past. That's what Randy has pointed out, and you've not replied in a structured manner to this particlular criticism.Dlafferty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems

I know you all worked hard on this but you've got to revisit NPOV.

One source I've seen that Khadr entered the camp with the phrase "Welcome to Israel" only says Khadr is claiming that, but this article takes it on faith that it happened. This entire article is peppered with problems like that. I realize that we don't like to say "so-and-so claims" after every statement, but we can't let readers believe this stuff is all established fact -- especially when much of it is probably B.S.

I'm not sure at all what to think about quoting James Yee for this article. For one thing, he barely says anything notable here. (I cannot imagine why it could be worth putting up his picture.) Then there's the matter of Yee being described as the camp's Muslim chaplain in a way that might make people believe he's a credible source. He's not. Yee is the camp's angry ex-chaplain who's currently spreading hatred of the U.S. His incitements may not be as likely to have gotten people killed as Begg's but he's in the same dark league.

POV problems abound. We need to think about where "Your life is in my hands" comes from. The source is from The Rolling Stone which, in turn, cites other media sources. I think we can all agree that none of those reporters spoke to Khadr. They may have gotten it from one of his sleazy lawyers. In any case, we can't simply state that this happened without doubt. (BTW: Most articles that mention SERE, as that one does, are talking well above their level of competence.)

There's more, but you get the idea.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, obviously you need to be careful between "Khadr says" and "Prosecutors say" - I think the "general gameplan" in that arena is to 'assume' the event happened, unless the other side is disputing it. For example, the prosecutors don't deny the "Welcome to Israel" claim (and why would he lie about such a small thing?), so it's written as "accepted", and the article used to take it as a statement of fact that Khadr had thrown the grenade (before his attorneys changed their defence to challenge the notion he had even thrown it, based on new documents).

I take offence to your statements about Yee and Begg of course, since you have no evidence that they are "likely to get people killed", you are just ascribing them as "bad guys" who shouldn't be trusted...not exactly a good frame of mind with which to approach the article. We don't say "Layne Morris is a redneck, so his opinion is worthless, uninformed and stupid", why would he claim that Yee or Begg are lying? Have either of them ever been shown to lie about Guantanamo? (The photos are just for where we have free-use photos anyways, might as well use them. I assume they're not a POV issue?)

Even taking you at your word, let's look at what role Yee plays in the article. "At first, he still spent much of his time in the prison hospital where he spoke with Muslim chaplain James Yee, although he didn't seek any religious counselling....Yee, the Muslim chaplain, later recalled Khadr had been given an English Mickey Mouse book as a reward from an interrogator, and that he had greatly enjoyed it, sleeping with it clutched to his chest". I don't really see how that's POV? How is it "stirring up hatred of the United States" or "likely to get people killed" to say that Khadr didn't seek religious counselling and had a Mickey Mouse book? You can't claim the mere fact Yee is mentioned is proof the article has "POV issues", you need to demonstrate what they are. In this case, what part of our inclusion of Yee's statements is not neutral?

Can I ask which of the attorneys specifically you consider "sleazy"? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of legal charges on the "Welcome to Israel" sign that the prosecutors would think they'd need to challenge it. It's obviously not a small thing, otherwise we wouldn't mention it. It strikes me as typical of the war against Islam meme that Islamists are promoting. It may be true in this case but we don't know.

It would be good if Erik Saar's book had something on this. I've never seen it but I recall a reviewer saying the book is slightly different than the blurb suggests.

Yee and Begg have both made inflamatory statements of the "war against Islam" variety. If Islamists go out to wage war after being indoctrinated with propaganda then I say the propaganda makers are linked to deaths that occur. This shouldn't be controversial. The Why We Fight series was made to indoctrinate U.S. soldiers before WWII. It was part of the war effort just like the ordnance they used. Same thing with Begg's performances in their propaganda film, and to a lesser extent, Yee's book tour.

Ask yourself, what does Yee's description of Khadr sleeping add to the article? You must have put it in there for a reason. To me, it makes him sound like a six year old boy. He was probably sixteen by that time, if not seventeen. Yet, that quote feeds the criticism of the U.S. for putting little Khadr with the adults (even though it was in accordance with the long-standing regulations).

I didn't say Yee's and Begg's opinions are worthless. A quote by Goebbels wouldn't be worthless either. We just need to keep in mind who's saying what. We can quote Yee but he's not simply a camp chaplain.

Don't assume that everyone believes the Center for Constitutional Rights is a bunch of lawyers who care about human rights.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I tried to attribute quotes to the pair of them, if we say "Goebbels frequently believed that Magda was going to divorce him", do we need to add "but he was a megalomaniac with frequent delusions who wanted to convince Germany that Poland represented a threat due to the Gleiwitzc attack", or is it not sufficient to say "Goebbels said..."? Yee's quotes are attributed to him, and the ones that are specific to Begg are attributed to him. I have a copy of Saar's book on my bedstand, for what it's worth, but I'm not sure exactly you're asking...if he overheard the Israel comment? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Begg is different than Yee here. It is at least implied (and could be expressed) that Begg is another detainee. The reader can assume where his sympathies lie. That's not so apparent with Yee.

I happen to like one of Begg's quotes. When he says, Khadr gained a "certain status", it makes one think that status comes from having supposedly killed an American. That may be an insight into the detainee culture.

Goebbels is a good example here, too. To say that "Goebbels said" is indeed good enough if an article had made clear that Goebbels was a high-ranking Nazi. If we say "Yee said" then the reader would likewise need to know who Yee is.

And yes, if it could be found that Saar said something about the sign then that's quite different from something that comes from one of these lawyers (who are, after all, speaking in support of their clients).

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I mean no offence, but I'm thinking perhaps your first language isn't English? Even if so, that means it is my fault for not explaining the "Welcome to Israel" clearly in the article - it is not a sign in the camp, it is what the guards said to him while taking him from the landing strip to the base hospital. I'll try to re-word it in the article so it's clearer. Let me know if this makes more sense now.

Secondly, we currently "introduce" Yee to the reader as "...he spoke with Muslim chaplain James Yee...", can you think of a better way to describe Yee in only a few words? Again, we need to be trying to keep this article very narrowly about Omar, mentioning those around him, and the way they directly influence him, but for example, that means Begg is described as a "fellow detainee", rather than "an activist and author", because it was his role as a detainee that influenced Omar. Again, the "certain status" that Omar held was due to his "stepping up" in the detainee circles, not due to his past actions - as everyone seems to describe it. Again, I'll try to tweak the wording so this is clear, let me know if it's a bit better? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The "welcome to Israel" phrase was probably clear enough from the start. I was working from memory.

It's still not necessarily true that this happened. That by itself is a small thing, but this article is littered with items that may sound somewhat reasonable to you but for which the only evidence we have is that some detainee may have said it.

How about: Yee, the disgruntled former Muslim chaplain, later recalled.... He's introduced earlier, but I see the problem being at this line. Adding a fresh link to Yee's article would let readers jump there for elaboration.

The "certain status" phrase is repeated here. It says he got it from his AQ connection, but it also sounds like his having allegedly killed an American must have come into play.

Note that I'm not saying this means he's guilty. I think he'd boast to his friends that he did regardless.

We also need to think about whether you want Khadr portrayed as a child or an adult. If he's a child then his upbringing is more relevant to the article. It seems rather odd that, with all the superfluous and quaint tidbits in this article, you're so adamant about rejecting a rather big one that tells us about how Omar Khadr was raised.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent)Obviously there's not a chance we're going to insert "disgruntled" into the text, that breaks every possible rule of NPOV. However, I have no objections to adding a fresh link to Yee's article encouraging readers to jump over there for context at the second mention of his name as a compromise? Your interpretation of the "certain status" can't be part of the article, as it breaks WP:OR rather severely. It's up to the reader to decide based on the quote - would you prefer a longer quote for more context? I have no desire to "portray him" as a child or an adult, but to present all the information about him that's available, positive and negative. If he bites a guard, I'm in favour of adding it. If he confesses, I'm in favour of adding it. What I don't want to add are details about his mother's views of homosexuality, his sister's marriage or the debate over how his father was injured in 1992. (Notice this article just says "injured", but if you hop over to Ahmed Said Khadr it makes it clear there's disagreement whether he "stepped on a landmine" or was actually injured during combat...but since the how is irrelevant to Omar, no need to bog his article down with that.) If his younger brother made a comment that he loved America, would that be relevant to Omar? No, and I'd likewise be against adding it to the article. That's why we have Khadr family and individual articles for each member (with the exceptions of Maryam and Ibrahim who lack any notability). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Disgruntled" is a suitable word but I may come up with something else along the way. I won't push it now. I have my own reasons for wanting to keep worms like Yee in here.

Let's see a line from the above link:

Gould believed that Khadr had gained a certain status in the camp as the son of a bin Laden associate (his father was killed in a battle with Pakistani forces in October 2003) and was trying to acquire a "tough guy" reputation.

That isn't "stepping up" as if he were some Quaker kid taking the lead in Bible study meetings. It's from his past. It's true that we can only infer how his war stories are being received by his fellow jihadis, but it sounds rather obvious to me. And being rather obvious, I'm more than content to let readers figure out that part of it on their own.

How his fascist father was taken out makes no real difference here. How Khadr was raised does. BLP doesn't say we need to ignore parental influences.

BTW: The description of his father "volunteering with Afghan refugees in Peshawar" is beyond parody.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I assume you have actual evidence in your hand that says his father didn't volunteer with Afghan refugees in Peshawar? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't need documentary evidence to laugh.

Can I assume you have proof that his purpose there was charity work? Or, can you at least say with a straight face that you personally believe it to be true?

For future reference: The Foreign Broadcast Information Service does have a transcript of Bin Laden bragging about his association with HCI. Last I looked, it was behind a login wall, but it's only a matter of time.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, I'm the one who put the reference in the article. However, he says the "Bin Laden Foundation" sees a lot of money from HCI, he doesn't say specifically whether that money is being used for UBL's personal "charity work", or for his militant work. It's innuendo at best. But I've put the details of the quote from Bin Laden in Ahmed's article ages ago. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It might have been unnuendo if said before the late '90s. There comes a time when the weight of all that dirt must make you pause. Their office used to be right next door to Benevolence International Foundation.

Do you have any actual evidence that the organization's true purpose is charity work?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in to say sorry for my absence. I had a lot of catching up to do in my real life.

There are still a few items here that need further addressing. I don't think it's right to ignore his upbringing. For this article to have a section on his early life would imply to any unsuspecting readers that we're actually covering his early life. His parents are very much a part of that. WP:BLP policy doesn't say otherwise.

Had he been raised by wolves instead of fascists, I don't think anyone would expect that to be left out of the article. Likewise, to say his father "had been volunteering with Afghan refugees" implies that it's generally accepted that he's some kind of human rights activist when the truth is obviously something else. I'm not suggesting that we act as though his father was convicted, but neither should we act as though he's been exonerated.

I'll have some minor edits this afternoon.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 1980s, the period the quote refers to, his father was helping Afghan orphans. Nobody alleges otherwise at this time. Later, when his father began to fall in with the fundamentalist crowd, we talk about him taking his son into the mountains, we later mention he was killed in a shootout with Pakistani forces...I don't think we're "glossing over" the fact he started becoming increasingly militant, there's simply no 'proven' facts that we can add that are relevant to Omar. If he'd given Omar a cheque for $5000 and asked him to bring it to Khattab, we could add it...but he didn't, so our hands are tied. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sherurcij indicated that you and he were coming to an agreement as to what was required to remove the POV flags on the article. Given that the flags have been removed, and biographical details from yourself deleted, I was wondering if you could elaborate on the items that were agreed to.--Dlafferty (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't ready to remove the flags but I don't have much hope that it will be truly NPOV before some kind of wrapup after the end of the trial. Just about every WP article related to detainees suffers from POV in some way, and I've gotten tired of worrying about it.

I'm sorry that I'm losing track. I've been extra busy this last few weeks, and I'm still suffering burnout.

Boumediene v. Bush should be decided in another couple of months. Everything connected to the Geneva Conventions issue may need some rework at that time. So, don't allow yourself to get burned out before then.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, the changes have been minor edits to help fix the insidious POV like changing "receive fair treatment" to "receive better treatment" (as the previous one made the assumption he was otherwise receiving "unfair" treatment), and hyper-linking Yee's name a second time to allow people to click it for full context of who Yee is. I see somebody changed "fear of corrupting influences" to "her animus for western social influences", but that still seems like a fair compromise to me, so I've left it as-is. We also agreed to remove the "certain status" comment about Khadr in the camp, since it wasn't clear how much was Gould's own "OR" and how much of it was being used in-context to either his role as a prayer leader, or the son of ASK. I think the article's been improved by most of these changes, and while Randy brings up some excellent talk-page discussion about the need for "a critical eye" when examining the Khadrs' case, it is unfortunately his own POV and nothing "citable" as "fact", so I think we're drawing to a close on the number of changes we can realistically make. I still encourage his discussion (perhaps on User Talk pages? I'm not sure what WP policy would think of "debates" happening on article Talk pages...or perhaps a Talk:Omar Khadr/discussion space? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change it back. I thought mine was a compromise. Just because we may not have a source that directly says he wasn't a fascist from the beginning doesn't mean we need to parrot anything that sounds like it came from Khadr's family or his lawyers.

Just as we don't want to put in anything that damns the Khadrs without proof, we're not supposed to add praise either unless it's reliable. Anything the Khadrs say must be treated with caution. He's not any kind of a human rights activist until it's proved (or unless we're finally ready to admit that the phrase "human rights activist" has lost all meaning).

For the "orphans" claim, we can just look at one of the two sources that you linked. The Rolling Stone link says: "In those days, Peshawar was an operational base for Islamist insurgents fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden had gone there to recruit, fund and train mujahedeen. Intelligence sources claim that many of the orphans and refugees aided by Khadr later became fundamentalist guerrillas under the guidance of bin Laden."

Rather than putting that in there, too, I thought it simpler to let the readers jump to the HCI link and judge for themselves what kind of sewer the Khadrs were swimming in.

I don't know what the other source specifically says on this point but it's by Michelle Shephard, who's far too sympathetic to the Khadrs to be called an unbiased source. In fact, I think this article needs to be swept for any links to her articles and make sure this article doesn't inhale her POV.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Change what back, the "Corrupting Western influences" quote? That's fine, either "her fear of corrupting Western influence" or "her animus of Western social influences", whichever one you feel is more NPOV. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I was talking about the "orphans" he was indoctrinating.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting yet again. Khadr wasn't a human rights activist.

Even if you want to believe he wasn't pulling a snow-job over CBC, telling only the nice-sounding half of the story is POV. That may be the real problem with this article. It blindly accepts the nice-sounding parts.

You're the one who insisted we limit this article to Omar Khadr. There's no reason we need to elaborate here on what his father was doing. Linking to HCI will let people figure it out. The alternative is to explain what he did with those "orphans". That includes things I don't think you want to get into here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind getting into it on the Ahmed Said Khadr article, but no, I don't think it's relevant to Omar's article to discuss various allegations against his father here. I honestly believe that ASK probably did "give money to Afghan training camps" as it is alleged, then again, he sent his sons to the camps, so it's presumed he probably paid them money and "supported" them, a twisted version of donating to your alma mater or something I suppose. However, it's not a topic for Omar's page, since Omar neither attended the camps, nor had anything to do with his father's alleged money transfers. It's not accurate to say his father "was in Pakistan working with HCI", since he worked for a number of charities during that time - all of them aimed at Afghan refugee orphans. That fact isn't in doubt, what's in doubt is whether or not 100% of the money he collected went to the orphans, or if he "skimmed" some to fund mujahideen. Please stop trying to start an edit-war on this article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So, here it is in a nutshell: You "honestly believe that ASK" did support terror, and yet all you want readers to see here is that he supported orphans.

We can rephrase it if he also worked for other organizations. It is unacceptable to give readers a slanted story.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I "honestly believe" that he gave money to Afghan militant camps, yes. But I don't know that. What is known is that he was volunteering with orphanages for Afghan refugees. This article doesn't exist to put what you, I or Geo_Swan believe and feed it to readers, that would simply be propaganda. It is simply to present the facts - which it does. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to point out the obvious, but you said that you were coming to an agreement with Randy2063. Could you elaborate on what you meant 'by agreement', because it appears that you're simply deleting any facts he's written, and being argumentative. Is this a Toronto thing?

No matter, the issue now is that there are Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles issues with the article. E.g. your deletion of comments form Randy2063. So.... POV's gotta go back on the article.--Dlafferty (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not without evidence I've maliciously "deleted comments", I already elaborated the "compromises" Randy and I have come to for you, I'm not going to repeat it ad nauseum, please scroll up to the last time you asked that question. When have I deleted comments?

I'm similarly forced to point out the difference between "ownership issues" and "specific users recognised as having a POV vendetta against a subject and being carefully monitored", though as mentioned, even Randy has contributed meaningfully to the article. You have contributed nothing other than bickering and namecalling. Not a single fact, not a single reference, just bickering. You are an internet troll, with no history on Wikipedia other than bickering on this article. See the edits made by Varlaam, Bearcat, Fremte, Geo_Swan, Giraffedata, Groundzero, Gabbe, Randy, Adonisack and Nicki311. All of these were "helpful" edits that sought to improve the article - and that's just in April. "Ownership" doesn't seem to be an issue here, "keeping personal opinions out of the article" does.Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy Cujo! Do people yell at each other in Toronto? They certainly seem to act like they're always right :)

But seriously, my contributions to this article were deleted by yourself. As was the Randy edits in the last day. Check the logs. Also, I've made many edits to wikipedia. Usually, I remove vandalism, so I don't need to log on. The changes are tracked by IP address... something you may not have learned about at arts school.

Now, you have to respect the wikipedia ownership rules and learn to let go of the article. You've done a great job, but the biography isn't worthy of the journalism degree you purport to have. I can't see Robert Fisk taking you seriously, but you probably don't even know who he is. :)--131.111.243.34 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV banner

This appears to be unjustified by info on this talk page. I see a user has asserted it belongs. Without documentation as to why, I removed it. Given the recent history of the banner, it should not be replaced on to the article. The user Dlafferty needs to explain why, and then we can come to a decision about this user's ideas for the article. At the very least, user Dlafferty might consider telling us what sections he/she has a problem with. Labelling an entire article of this length is not at all helpful. Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Justification POV banner is a warning that the biographical nature has been compromised by concerns of fair trial. As pointed out by Randy above, Khadr was heavily influenced by his family's attitudes, and these cannot be ignored in any biography. Also pointed out above, his Canadian schooling involved his families values in Khadr's Canadian education. For these reasons, it is difficult to assess an article in which the family background was systematically deleted and attenuated as presenting a realistic biography of Khadr. By analogy, its a bit like writing an article about Rosetown and then having someone come along and delete the references to wheat, or if you've not been there, then writing an article about Saskatchewan and having someone come along and delete references to the winter.

History The banner had been on a couple of sub sections, and early life in particular, but it keeps getting deleted without general agreement by the articles principal author. Hence the wp:ownership criticism.

Future It would be helped if you could indicate the degree to which upbringing should be included in a biography. You can reply in French if you wish, but I don't know any German. Cheers,--Dlafferty (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not the proper use of the POV banner, to warn that an article deals with an ongoing trial, or that "his Canadian schooling involved his families values in Khadr's Canadian education". I have previously labelled you an "unhelpful troll" to be honest, and I have to agree that there has been no reasonable purpose for a POV banner. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You must admit that there is still controversy here. Your use of the word "troll" comes close to justifying that on its own. It's wrong to say that Dlafferty's edits are not in good faith. After all, many of your disagreements are from wanting to leave things out that I think you concede are generally true about his family.

I don't understand what good you think it does to dress him up as an ordinarily decent Canadian boy. Sure, some people might believe it, but others are going to laugh. WP has enough trouble with respectability as it is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Those familiar with Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail will note the similarity between the "he's a troll comments" by Sherurcij and the "she's a witch comments" by the ignorant villagers. Note that I'm not suggesting that Sherurcij is a village idiot, but it is worth noting the circular argument he's using.

The issue with dressing him up Omar Khadr as a decent ordinary Canadian boy is that this is his biography, and not his trial. Parental influence is relevant, and its nothing to be ashamed of.--Dlafferty (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Without a clear indication of what is wrong with the article, the NPOV banner does not belong. The article reads pretty straightforwardly. If - and this needs to be considered carefully - and if absolutely necessary, a 'controversies section might be in order. It would seem pretty clear that the public opinion in Canada is being slowly shifted to see Khadr as a Canadian and as a child in place of not commenting on his age at time of arrest and seeing him as a terrorist (and from a very bad family). The correct words escape me for this sentence, I hope you can understand what I intend.. this is the child-soldier versus terrorist-ideologue differentiation. The other issue with the article is of course that his situaton is evolving presently.

BTW, I do not see any problems of ownership of the article. I see problems of careful thought before response. let us please raise the level of our treatment of each other fellow Wikipedians! With very warm regards, Fremte (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear that, Sherurcij? No more name calling :)

Does any one have a problem with a 'controversy' section that elucidates the 'very bad family' ideology pointed out above?--Dlafferty (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed have a problem with the fact you want to add details about the Khadr family to the Omar article. Notice we don't discuss Omar's actions on the Abdullah page, or mention Zaynab's actions on the Ahmed page. If you want to collect sourced, NPOV information about the family, add it to the Khadr family article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I think you are more comfortable with points made by Randy2063 and Fremte. So set aside what I think and address Randy2063's point that there's nothing in barring a biography from talking about family background, and Fremte's point that Omar's upbringing is atypical. In the meantime, I'm happy to wait for a few days before making the changes that address points. Cheers,--Dlafferty (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have frequently and consistently dealt with the issue of family, on the one outstanding issue that Randy and I had (how to describe his father's time in Peshawar in the 80s), we agreed to simply remove the statement altogether and let readers view the ASK article themselves. I'm not sure I see any "complaints" from Fremte - I'm reading closely, so Fremte if you have any outstanding issues with the article's NPOV, please let me know. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any difficulties with NPOV here. No complaints at all. I only wanted the banner to stay off the whole article and any issues to be specific, then resolved. I think the article reads very objectively. Khadr's upbringing is appropriately and well dealt with in the article. There is good balance here. Fremte (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this could possibly qualify for GA. The Khadr family might think it's wonderful but that's not the only criteria.

I doubt you could call it stable until after the trial. Items are still being added almost every day. It's too hard to gauge how many (if any) of Kuebler's pitches can be taken seriously.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tribunals

Just a quick note that I've finished parsing Geo_Swan's reports on the Military Tribunals of Omar Khadr back into this main article so that they take up a fraction of the space, but retain all the same information (and of course, the additional information since we temp-forked articles). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Birth

For such a long detailed article there is one thing I do not understand. It says in the lede that he was born in 1986, but the Categories list him as 1987 births. Which is it? Danny (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch, thank you. As per here for example, it's very clear the 1986 date is the correct one. I'll change the faulty category. I notice Ahmed Said Khadr has a similar issue with contradictory birthdates, will try to track down a source. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hindy?

"An Imam", I'm going to assume Hindy, said that Omar was "radicalized" at the age of nine? grumbles - I may have to find an alternate quote or something, that just doesn't sit right. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

k, it wasn't Hindy and the family doesn't know who it could be referencing - so I've removed it. If there are complaints, let me know. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time at Guantanamo - subheadings req'd

One or 2 subheadings are needed for this section to break it up for the reader and be able to find pieces of info. I think there are 2 options: by time, e.g., subheadings for a span of years, or topically. I would prefer topically, but can't really see what topical headings might work. I very much like the subheadings in the firefight/capture/aftermath section: this is the model I think to do this section. Thoughts? (Or just do it, if you have a good idea). Fremte (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The span of years is unfortunately too arbitrary, what happened in December 04 was closely tied to January 05. We could possibly separate out the Gould/CSIS visits, but that would require creating a whole new section just for "Canadian interrogations of Khadr", which I think would weigh down the article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that is the dilemma. Maybe you think it is okay as is? Thanks Fremte (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I managed to find to find one paragraph that could be moved from "Guantanamo" to the specific tribunal's section...unfortunately I'm not seeing any other easy "outs" on the issue - I think we may have to settle for a long section. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: Another option might be to have a box that has some timeline info in it. Leave headings as they are. This would then provide a outline for the reader. Maybe this could be for his whole (short) life / whole article? Fremte (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, see what I did with the Yee/MickeyMouse information? Wish we had more photos in the Guantanamo section. I've actually received confirmation from GTMO that they are going to try and see if they can get clearance to go take a photograph of Khadr in his current state and send it to me...they weren't certain they'd be able to, given the strict rules on facial identification on photographs to the press - but they were "trying" as of this week. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)