Jump to content

Talk:Abdullah Khadr

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

Special Agent Gregory Hughes extradition document

[edit]

The policy of "No Original Research" precludes me adding something I learned this morning. I attended Abdullah Khadr's bail hearing. It has been complicated. Continued on December 19th. Continued on December 21st and December 22nd. Since I didn't make it back for the afternoon, maybe it was extended today too.

The first hour of today's proceedings was consumed with trying to make sense of Special Agent Hughes very poorly written extradition documents. My personal impression is that Hughes is either highly incompetent, or he just didn't respect Canadians enough to take care to make sure he didn't waste Canadian's time.

The worst thing in his documents, according to quotes from the Defense and Crown Attorneys, was that Hughes claimed that Khadr had possessed and traded in Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is such obvious nonsense that I am embarrassed for him. -- Geo Swan 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

revert -- see talk

[edit]

I reverted this edit.

The new material was either unreferenced or incorrect. I have seen no reason to believe Ahmed Said Khadr was a "Pakistani national". Pearson International Airport is in Malton, not Brampton -- and so on.

So, I reverted it. Geo Swan (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uncollapsing templates as per [1]

[edit]

Another contributor has over-ridden the default state on navigation templates on something like one hundred articles, without explanation. This article is one where they over-rode the default state.

Because I was not an expert on the navigation templates I asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#When should navigation templates be collapsed? I believe the consensus there was that there were limited circumstances where the default state for a nvigation template should be over-ridden. However, those instances should be explained on the article's talk page -- something the contributor in question did not choose to do.

In the limited number of instances where the contributor in question has explained why they collapsed template they asserted all the templates they collapsed violated NPOV. I have said there, and I will repeat here, that:

  1. If a contributor is concerned that a template itself lapses from compliance with a policy that concern should first be shared on the template's talk page. Collapsing instances of the template is not the correct way to address a genuine concern of NPOV.
  2. If a contributor is concerned that a valid template is being applied to an article where it is inappropriate, and thus lapses from NPOV, they should be able to explain why they think its use is inappropriate. If they can make convincing arguments its use is really inappropriate they template should not be used at all, on that article. Collapsing that instance of the template is not the correct way to address a genuine concern of NPOV.

I have given the concerned contributor almost a month to offer meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanations for why they collapsed all these templates. Since they haven't offered any explanations I will uncollapse any instances I come across.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this edit the contributor who recently collapsed the Template:CanadianTerrorism, with the edit summary: "collapse template - too large with more that a hundred links / NPOV / and no good reason given to have it stay open in this article" is the same contributor who collapsed the template with no explanation in November 2009.
  • Further, as I wrote above in April, any contributor who is concerned that the template itself is biased should address that bias on the template's talk page.
You are welcome to address the given reasons. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All wikipedians are obliged to make their contributions responsibly and accountably. Even Jimbo Wales and Larry Sangers's original contributions are open to good faith review. My contributions are open to good faith review. Your contributions are open to good faith review. Your contributions are not exempt from review.
Of your given reasons the one that comes closest to citing a policy is your assertion that WP:NPOV justifies collapsing this template. It is an assertion you have declined to defend here, or anywhere else where you have made this claim, and I have challenged it.
In many discussion you claimed that other wikipedians' contributions violate WP:NPOV. It seems to me that routinely do so when those contributions are fairly citing good WP:RS and are written from a neutral point of view, and you think you can claim a violation of WP:NPOV when you personally doubt the credibility of what the WP:RS assert.
I believe this is what is behind your unexplained calls to the authority of WP:NPOV here. I don't believe you are challenging that Abdullah Khadr or any of the individuals on the template are alleged to be terrorists. I believe your call to the authority of WP:NPOV are due to your personal doubts about the credibility of the allegations. Geo Swan (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is all too wrong. WP:RS WP:RS that's exactly what we always hear from people who are WP:gameing the system. You can not ignore WP:NPOV. The template is just huge in size what is already reason enough to collapse it.
Please do not put words in my mouth that i did not say. You think the template is not huge?
Please give me one good reason why it should stay open in this article? Thank you. IQinn (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You write that WP:RS is "exactly what we always hear from people who are WP:gameing the system." Really? There are tricky individuals who knowingly mis-cite and misinterpret wikipolicies. In my experience they don't particularly mis-cite WP:RS over any other wikidocuments. In my experience the wikidocument most often misused is the WP:COATRACK essay.
None of this applies to me. I am a good faith contributor who never knowingly mis-cites wikipolicies. Every single time I cite a wikipolicy or other wikidocument I do so because I think it is pertinent, and citing it will help improve the wikipedia. My record shows that when I engage in a discussion of the meaning of wikipolicies and other wikidocuments I keep an open mind as to whether my interpretation could be incorrect, and my correspondents may be right. My record shows that when my correspondents convince me I openly acknowledge this, and that I take steps to fix any mistakes I made over my misinterpretation.
You assert that I can not ignore WP:NPOV. If you really think I am ignoring NPOV, please be specific about where, and what makes you think I am ignoring NPOV.
You have asserted that I have violated NPOV, many times. You have asserted that lots of other contributors are violating NPOV. But you have been largely unwilling or unable to offer an meaningful explanation of what makes you assert other contributor are violating NPOV. On those limited number of occasions when you have offered a defense of your accusations you have claimed the passages violated NPOV because they relied on references that contained a bias.
This is the key point. I believe this is the root of one of your most fundamental misunderstandings of wikipolicy. Our contributions have to be written from a neutral point of view. This does not mean we can't use WP:RS that have a point of view. We can and do routinely use references written from a point of view. Most references aren't written from a neutral point of view. The pertinent wikidocuments explain how to cite, summarize, paraphrase and quote references that have a point of view, while maintaining the article's overall neutral point of view. One technique is to attribute positions to the party that made them, and to offer the alternate position when and if other notable observers have offered alternate points of view.
You don't seem to understand this. You routinely rely on what looks like your own unsupported interpretation of our sources, and make changes to articles, based on your own unsupported interpretations of those sources. You are not an WP:RS. I am not an WP:RS. My unsupported position doesn't belong in article space -- and neither does yours.
WRT the size of this particular template -- it is large. You write this as if pointing this out makes a valid point. It don't think it does.
If you were to comply with the March 2010 discussion at Template talk:Navigation templates you would first offer a meaningful explanation as to why you thought the uncollapsed template was a problem. If you were to comply with the March 2010 discussion at Template talk:Navigation templates you would only collapse this template if you had advanced convincing arguments, and other individuals agreed that collapsing this template made sense.
I think the size of this large and comprehensive template is not a problem as it puts Abdullah Khadr in the context of other Canadians who have been accused of terrorism. I think this is very valuable, and merits taking up a relatively large amount of space.
You ask me to offer reason why the template should remain in the article. I have been patient, and offered a reason. But really, I think this is backwards. I think you are the one who needs to offer reasons.
You routinely make pointed and insulting assertions that other contributors are showing WP:Ownership behavior. I didn't start this template. I don't recall adding any individuals to to it. And I don't recall adding it to any articles. My defense of the status quo is not ownership. For the record I deny all your accusations of ownership, because I genuinely listen to the good faith comments, concerns and questions other contributors have about my contributions. Geo Swan (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your post is like most of your post Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Verbose, full of misinterpretations of policy and misinterpretations of past discussions partly uncivil and with little signs to discuss and solve the content issue.
I ask you for a reason why the template should stay open in this article. Not as you said: You ask me to offer reason why the template should remain in the article.
Any good reason why the template should stay uncollapsed in this article? IQinn (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...

[edit]

This edit removed a couple of references, and a quote. I am wondering whether the contributor who made them would return here and explain them.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abdullah 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) 14:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdullah 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) 23:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Abdullah 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abdullah 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call for discussion

[edit]

A recent edit from an IP address, with the edit summary "Took out misinformation and information that crowded the page" made several changes, some of which I think merit further discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit from an IP address, with the edit summary "Took out misinformation and information that crowded the page"
removed replacement notes
..., alleged to be a terrorist and al-Qaeda member. Khadr has admitted buying weapons for al-Qaeda, but maintains that he was on friendly terms with its leaders due to his father's prominence in Pakistan and Afghanistan and was not a member.
  • I do remember reading RS that reported he admitted buying weapons. We do need proper references for this.
  • My recollection is that he said he helped his father sell weapons to Afghans.
  • My recollection is that he was his father's driver, his father being unable to drive due to stepping on a land mine in 1995, and that after his father was KIA he tried to complete sales that were in the pipeline, and possibly make new sales to his father's contacts.
  • Again, references are needed for all this.
He was arrested in Pakistan in 2004 and returned to Canada in December 2005. He was captured in Pakistan in 2004 and returned to Canada in December 2005. The US paid $500,000 for his capture."
  • I agree "captured" is more accurate, since his was an extrajudicial apprehension, and Pakistan never charged him, and held him in secret.
  • The US did pay $500,000 USD for his capture, and I agree this merits coverage early in the article.

After 1985 the Khadr children grew up mostly in Pakistan as their father worked there for charities aiding Afghan refugees. Abdullah and his brothers did some arms training there. His youngest brother, Omar Khadr, was captured by United States forces during a firefight in 2002 at the age of 15 in Afghanistan. In October 2010 he pleaded guilty in a plea agreement to war crimes before the Guantanamo military commission after being held there since 2002. He was repatriated to Canadian custody in September 2012.

  • I think everything in the first, third, fourth and fifth sentence in the deleted paragraph is accurate. It needs references.
  • I am dubious about the second sentence. Abduraman, the second eldest, the family's "black sheep", was a CIA informant, in CIA custody. Omar and Abdul Karem were 14-15 and 10-11, prior to their capture - too young to be active arms traders.

Abdullah Khadr has said that he would "be the first one to stop" any potential attacks against Canada.[1] In 2010 he became engaged to be married, at the age of 29.

Abdullah Khadr has said that he would "be the first one to stop" any potential attacks against Canada. In 2010 he became engaged to be married, at the age of 29.

I don't know why the reference was removed.

References

  1. ^ Freeze, Colin. The Globe and Mail, "I only buy and sell weapons for al-Qaeda", November 3, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdullah_Khadr&oldid=1212106094"