Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr

I'm throwing this up for Peer Review as I finalise the summaries of the three tribunals (satisfied with Tribunal #1 as of last night's efforts, working on #2 today, #3 next week) - I'd appreciate critique of the article and suggestions for improvement since the article has been pretty much 100% my creation at this point - so I'm worried that I may be blind to some of my own errors.

I recognise that the tribunal #2 and #3 sections need reworking, but other than that, what could I do to improve this article?

Thanks, Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies

I appreciate that this cannot have been an easy article to write and you have done good work. From a quick read through, the biggest gap is a comprehensive setting out of the evidence against him. I think it needs a sourced timeline of exactly what he supposed to have been getting up to in Afghanistan. The absence of this also impacts on the article's neutrality. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, you mean between 1996 (when he was 10 years old, and his family moved to Afghanistan) and the July 2002 firefight (when he was 15)? He's not really accused of doing anything prior to the Firefight is the crux of the problem, but I assume you're not referring to the firefight. Are you thinking that the videotape (showing him planting landmines and talking to the men in the hut) of the ~week's events prior to the firefight should have their own heading? The single reference to "weapons training" allege it occured a month before the firefight, though it's not clear how long Omar was working alongside al-Libi or the three men killed alongside him - I can try to clear that up with the family this week, though it'll obviously breach OR guidelines. So, your thoughts on a seperate heading for the week/month prior to the firefight?Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was after a timeline of the stuff the charges are framed from, based, I suppose, on US-released documents. There has been plenty of commentary so this should be possible.

I've been thinking through the rest of the article and wonder why it doesn't mention the close involvement of the family with Al-Qaeda. It really needs a separate section.

The ambivalence of the Canadian govt/press is another unexplored area.

If you have amicable links to the family, you must disassociate yourself from the article. This area is sensitive enough without adding WP:COI to the cocktail.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, unless it can be shown that my writing is not neutral, there's no reason to "disassociate" myself from a topic simply because I have some familiarity with it. By that reasoning we would ban scientists from writing about science-related articles because they'd studied it themselves.

Back to the review, the parts that mention Canada (Gould's interrogation, etc) originally had their own section, but were re-worked into the chronology so that Canadian enquiries when he was at Bagram are under the Bagram heading, Canadian interrogations while he was at Guantanamo are under the Guantanamo heading. Do you think it would be better to re-separate them, or leave them combined with their current topics?

I'm a little confused still by the phrase "a timeline of the stuff the charges are framed from", not trying to be snarky, just trying to figure out what exactly you want. The charges are framed on the actions inside the compound, primarily the throwing of the grenade that killed Speer - they already have an exhausive timeline with ~40 references under the "Firefight and Capture" heading. Do you mean you want a point-form div-box in the side that just summarises in five-word sentences the bare minimum of information? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be candid, I don't think your writing is entirely neutral: that's the point I initially made after scanning it briefly. It fails to give as much prominence to the US position as to Khadr's. It needs a section clearly setting out of the US position: why they are holding him; why they are according him such prominence; the conclusions they reached after apprehending him following a four-hour firefight; their belief that, brought up as he was in an Al-Qaeda family, he is probably unlikely to renounce insurrection. The family details are also glossed over: Khadr's father was apparently killed in a firefight on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border with Pakistani security forces; Khadr's brother was allegedly a suicide bomber. These allegations have been widely reported in the press so they ought really to be included. I will not pursue this further here and will be interested to see what other reviewers think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)In an article already struggling with size, I imagine details about the firefight that killed his father belong in Ahmed Said Khadr, not Omar's article. See also Khadr family for the details that deal with the family as a whole. Omar's article should deal strictly with the facts that are relevant to Omar - I don't think that's a POV assertion. His brother was not a suicide bomber, so obviously I don't think that should be included (although the false assertion is mentioned in the article Abdullah Khadr about his brother. So leaving out the fact that I don't deal with his entire family in the article about a single member of the family - your complaints which I'm still anxious to help resolve are;

"clearly setting out of the US position: why they are holding him;" I would say this has been exhaustively dealt-with in the article, again, there are ~40 citations about exactly why he's being held, including quotes from both the prosecution and defence attorneys.
"why they are according him such prominence;" to be honest, I haven't seen any references suggesting he's been accorded prominence or why. Unfortunately, I don't think they exist. if you have such sources though, I'd be happy to include them.
"the conclusions they reached after apprehending him following a four-hour firefight" ummm, there are 28 paragraphs about the their conclusions following the firefight, and I've put all of the documentation, his ARB/CSRT findings, his trials and the motions on Wikisource, and are linked in the article. I'm not sure what kind of "conclusions" you still want. "Conclusion, he is a bad guy" is kinda POV, I'm dealing strictly with the facts - are there any facts I'm missing in the article?
"their belief that, brought up as he was in an Al-Qaeda family", this isn't really a "belief", it's a fact, and it's outlined in the section "Early Life", specific details about the family members can be found in *their articles*. Let's not give way to "We should mention how EVIL Hitler was, in the article about Goerring"-speak, this article is about Omar, we should carefully weigh family-facts whether they relate specifically to Omar.
"he is probably unlikely to renounce insurrection." I've never seen that listed on the charge sheets the US has brought against him, probably because "being unlikely to renounce" something isn't a crime...am I missing something? Nobody significant to the case has ever complained that "he won't renounce X", yet *you* believe it should be one of the accusations against him? Again, if you provide evidence that a prosecutor, a guard, a military policeman, a judge, an attorney, a soldier...*anyone relevant to the case* has ever suggested that "he is probably unlikely to renounce insurrection" is a damning fact against him, I'd be *overjoyed* to include it in the article...but I'm not adding it just because you personally think that makes him a bad Canadian.

But since most of your complaints seem to be about the content, not the structure of the article, can you perhaps take this to the Talk Page of the article, rather than Peer Review? Thanks! :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring

You shouldn't link the dates. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the dates like August 1, or years? I understand August 1 is typically linked because it allows readers to choose whether it displays as "1 August" or "August 1", or is this no longer the accepted style? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]