Jump to content

Talk:Omar Khadr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2607:f2c0:95cb:a100:c106:de5b:bc93:43fb (talk) at 03:52, 16 July 2017 (→NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleOmar Khadr was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
April 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 11, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 8, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Omar Khadr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

A lot of people feel bad for Khadr and I can't blame them. BUT this can't be a pro-Khadr essay, it has to present the facts in an unbiased way. This was written by someone very sympathetic and/or connected to Khadr. The language should be changed to be as neutral as possible WHILE STILL presenting all the FACTS that we have. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that sounds non-neutral or POV? I don't see any obvious bias in the way the article is written. 107.190.62.51 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, most all of it. As an example of what I already fixed, throughout the article Khadr was referred to as "youth." "he shot the youth in the back." Lots of references to his age. There are minute personal details of Khadr that are irrelevant and only attempt to make readers sympathize with him. Government claims are stated as claims, while those by Khadr and those on his side are stated as though they were facts. Words of the defense attorney being treated like law. Etc. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 18:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this article, El cid. Your edits have done a lot to address the issues you describe. I've slightly walked back two of them[1], to ensure our summary of the two sources involved is balanced.
On the whole, I think the current version of the article does a good job at neutrally presenting a highly contentious topic. There are a few spots that could use some further attention in achieving a more neutral tone (the recent additions to the lead paragraph chief among them), which might be easier once this topic works its way out of the daily news cycle.--Trystan (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His age at the time is a fact, not an opinion. The criminal justice system in the US and Canada, and international justice, differentiate in approach, generally, for the treatment of youths/minors. Consider the changes in approach that have related to treatment of child soldiers in Africa.Parkwells (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His age is indeed a fact - and an important fact. But the same fact doesn't need to be repeated endlessly, at which point it does become an opinion. Overall I think the edits help. Though I think one removal of text, not related to this issue, goes a bit far. I'm rolling back again, but this time with an edit, as it was long-winded - however the deletion also removed 2 references that supported undeleted text. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Between your edits User:El cid, el campeador and also User:Trystan's, among a couple of others, does the POV template still need to be there? Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the NPOV template.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of NPOV... in the second paragraph it states that Christopher Speer was "an American medic". The article should cite evidence to show (1) that Speer was in fact a medic at the time of his wounding by the grenade, 2) that he was acting as a medic during the incident, and (3) that it would have been clearly visible that he was acting as a medic. To not include such evidence is tantamount to accepting what have been shown to be extremely untrustworthy statements by American military authorities, and hence reflects a failure of NPOV. Clearly, to state that Speer was a medic is to throw the actions of Khadr in the worst light -- so evidence is vital. Markcymru (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's well cited because the US military needed this to make the case of war crimes. But I've seen conflicting reports, that he was actually regular army, and was just trained as a medic, but wasn't acting in that capacity at that time. I've also seen reports that the only reason he didn't survive, is that he wasn't wearing a helmet, and the shrapnel hit his head. But I've never found the reason he wasn't wearing a helmet - even medics wear helmets. I've wondered about this quote. Really need a neutral better reference on that. Nfitz (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We at least need a more recent photo before removing the NPOV label. 2607:F2C0:95CB:A100:C106:DE5B:BC93:43FB (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed update to lead paragraph

I updated the second sentence of the lead to: "He later appealed his conviction, claiming that he falsely pleaded guilty so that he could return to Canada." I think this is more concise than the current wording, and mirrors the source cited by placing the emphasis on the return to Canada. It also avoids making unexplained, contentious generalizations in the lead. The edit was reverted by an IP vandal, and @72: reverted to an earlier version when reverting the vandal. I won't reinsert the material myself, but if anyone else thinks it was an improvement, please feel free to add it.--Trystan (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that revert, it must have been an unintentional mistake on my part: popups only showed me this instead of this, I didn't notice you'd made edits in between. I've re-added your changes —72 talk 15:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Trystan (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone provide something in this article to explain the legal basis used in prosecuting Khadr as a war criminal? I am having trouble understanding what the legal basis was that the US used to prosecute him as a war criminal, when his alleged crime was killing an armed soldier in combat. Reesorville (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was for killing a medic. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a summary of the issue at unlawful combatant that may be helpful. The designation as an unlawful combatant (rather than a Geneva-conventions protected POW) not wasn't specific to Khadr, but part of the US governmen's broader approach to the war in Afghanistan.--Trystan (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the article on unlawful combatants. I knew that the US justified the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo by claiming something like this, that since they were not enemy combatants of an army, therefore the US was not bound to follow the Geneva conventions when dealing with them. I am thinking, therefore, that maybe it is the case that Khadr then was not charged for violating the Geneva conventions then, but he must have been perhaps charged under domestic US law for murdering an American citizen and being affiliated with a terrorist organization? With regard to what El Cid wrote - I am not an expert on the subject, but I don't think that killing an armed medic in an active firefight would constitute a violation of the Geneva conventions - protocol 1 of the conventions specifically protects civilian medical staff from being targeted, not military medics. I was getting confused when reading this as to how this could constitute a 'war crime'. If my theory is right that they just regarded him as not being a true combatant, and then charged him with murder under US law, then this article's (and maybe some of the press') use of the term 'war crime' I think is a misleading and inaccurate term. In actual fact, what the US did to him, by detaining him, using torture or imprisoning him, would actually be a war crime under the conventions, if the conventions truly applied to his case. Reesorville (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was charged under US federal law, which is what one would expect for any nation prosecuting for war crimes. For example, in Canada, someone could be charged under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Specifically, Khadr was charged with a series of offences established by the 2006 Military Commissions Act. As another user has recently added to the article, the labelling of Khadr's charges (which can be seen here as war crimes is contentious.--Trystan (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to the charges, that was exactly what I was looking for! I hadn't imagined that the US actually had a piece of legislation that allowed for a person who simply killed a US soldier in combat to be classified as someone 'violating the laws of war'. I originally assumed there was something wrong in what was written when I read this, but actually it is all in the article already: "The charges were created under the Military Commission Act of 2006 and considered by the US to be war crimes, although they are not recognized as war crimes under international law, and the act was not in place at the time that the alleged offenses were committed" Reesorville (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Citations in the lede section

While normally it is not required to have inline citations in the lede, I suggest we call for them in this article given the article itself is being referenced by Khadr's lawyer.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Omar Khadr fights back at US widow's efforts to go after his assets". The Calgary Herald. July 12, 2017. Retrieved July 12, 2017. 'The scant evidence offered in support of this pleading consists of double and triple hearsay statements drawn from media reports and Wikipedia,' lawyer Nate Whitling writes in his factum ahead of Thursday's court hearing. 'The hearsay now relied upon by the applicants is so vague and unreliable as to be of zero probative value...The filing also heaps scorn on Speer's assertion that some of Khadr's relatives are "bad people" based on various news reports and Wikipedia pages. The 'evidence' has no relevance to the case and comes nowhere near to any kind of 'convincing proof,' Whitling says.

Oceanflynn (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, aren't there already citations in the lead? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Photo Should Be More Recent

Why is there a 10 or 15 year old photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:95CB:A100:1007:DD5B:BF7C:B480 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP needs a photo that is free to use. Apparently, that is the only one avilable.--Quisqualis (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting content just because it is 15 years old is a strange sort of WP:RECENTISM. Since the subject's notability flows from a specific event, having a photo from around the time of that event makes sense. The ongoing legal matters extend that period of notability, so a later photo could be considered if we find a free-use one, but there's no reason to assume that a later photo of the subject would be automatically preferable over the one currently used. We may want to retain the current one if another one is added.--Trystan (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omar_Khadr&oldid=790797164"