Talk:Omar Khadr/Archive 3

Terrorism

Corect me if I'm wrong but isn't terrorism defined as attacking a civilian target? He is accused to have thrown a grenade at an armed soldier not a civilian, So why would you use terrorism in the verbage? Can we use terrorsim for US military "action" in Afganistan or Iraq?205.250.52.44 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism is not used in the article, except when it is referencing the accusations against him. He is charged with providing support to terrorism, that is the only context in which the word is used. TheFacesBehind (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Firefight

It's described as a six-man team that entered the "mud compound", isn't it? So that's Christopher Speer, Special Forces Sgt. Layne Morris, Scott Hansen (who was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions during the firefight), Major Mike Silver and...two unknowns?

Also, it's worth noting that Mike Silver reported in April 2007 that ""I came to a wall, heard a noise that sounded like a gunshot," when the troops moved towards the house, just before the grenade appeared. I don't want OR in the article, but the talk page is a good place for speculating on how that fits into the accidentally-released testimony of "OC-1" that he entered the building, took "directed" fire and saw a grenade appear, then shot the unknown Muja and then shot the kneeling Khadr. If we assume that the "general story" is correct as given in that link which seemed to interview the soldiers involved, and only the presence of another survivor with a rifle was covered up, it sounds like OC-1 couldn't have been Speer (obviously), Silver or Hansen (who were both outside, and Silver describes two soldiers "in front of him" as shooting.). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, we see Silver mention that "Three Delta Force" soldiers entered, followed by him, followed by Speer. (Morris had been medEvaced at that point, so only the five of them left). Of the five remaining people, who could those first three have been? Obviously Morris, Silver and Speer are out, which leaves Hansen and the two "unknowns". However, Hansen is not Delta Force, he's attached to the 19th Special Forces Group. Assuming it is indeed a six-man crew that set out (+2 interpreters), then I would simply assume that the Toronto Star and/or Silver misspoke and mistakenly identified Hansen as being Delta Force. I think it's safe to assume that Hansen and the two unknowns entered the compound, while Silver and Speer remained behind them, after Morris had been airlifted. Of course, the "accidentally released report" insisted that three names not be identified, and we seem to only be dealing with two unknown soldiers here - aren't we? (Who may or may not be Delta Force, since Silver's quote already screwed up its identification of Hansen). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note that as of November 07, Worthington had referred to Five men being inside the compound, while only three bodies were reported being initially seen upon entering the compound by Captain/Major Mike Silver. This accounts for the missing Mujahideen who survived the bombed and fired his rifle at the American soldiers after they entered the compound. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Worthington says that Khadr was tended by the unit's medic, implying someone who was present during the firefight. Since Speer was billed as the "medic" in the media, I'm not sure if one of the four remaining soldiers treated him, or they left him while waiting for reinforcements who brought a medic. Also note that if it was one of the four remaining soldiers who patched him up, then that means the unnamed Sergeant who gives the quote is either Hansen (A Master Sgt, tsk) or one of the two unidentified soldiers, giving us a rank.Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Worthington mentions Khadr was shot by an "M4", which made me assume we were discussing an M4A1, but finding out that he was "Buckshot Bob" at Bagram, I wonder if perhaps he was shot with a Benelli M4 instead. Any of the documentation mention his wounds? "bullet holes" in his chest implies it was the carbine, but Buckshot Bob implies the shotgun - it would actually make a difference since the shrapnel wound that caused his blindness was from the shotgun, and thus he wasn't "injured" when US troops entered. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Worthington's article has more than a couple errors it seems, note that he refers to Silver wasling "into the compound behind Sgt Speer" and seeing Khadr, after Speer had already been wounded and was lying on the ground with a head wound. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding whether they were "Delta Force" or "Green Berets". The earliest accounts I read said they were Green Berets -- a force that dates back to JFK's administration, or before. I don't know which Special Forces units are considered tougher, or better trained, or who is given the missions that requires the most initiative and discretion. I don't know why the USA needs so many different kinds of special forces. In addition the military has Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, and possibly several others.

Mud walled compounds are the standard architecture in rural Afghanistan. Consistently of a 3 or 4 metre tall windowless mud wall. Inside rooms for human, and for domestic animals, line the walls, facing a central courtyard. An extended family, with a patriarch, uncles, cousins all living inside. For reasons of family propriety a smaller detached building might be constructed for lodging guests, to keep the wives and daughters safe from prying eyes. How large are these compounds? Are they larger than a baseball in-field? I don't know. OC-1's account has this compound containing an "alley". Might this just have been a gap between one set of room built lining the outer wall, and another? Possibly between one son's apartment and another's? Or between the human apartments and the animal sheds?

According to the National Post article, The Good Son, from December 2002, Silver was just a Captain at the time.

My reading was that Morris's squad reached the compound first, and called for reinforcements. From other accounts I gather that there were approximately 40 GIs on-site by the final sweep. I gathered that the occupants were already aware they were surrounded as the reinforcements Morris called for arrived.

I've seen the entry and exit holes rounds from an assault rifles like M16s leave in ballistics gel. An M16 round will have a small entry hole and a shockingly large exit hole.

Various teenage Afghan captives testified that they escaped conscription into the Taliban because their beards hadn't come in. Afghans don't have birth certificates. Most of the Afghan captives didn't know their birth date, or how old they were. In looking for sources on Taliban conscription I came across sources that confirmed that, in the late 1990s at least, the Taliban didn't let teenagers who didn't have beards engage in hostilities.

If Khadr was less wounded than his companions it may have been because older comrades covered his body with theirs during the aerial bombardment.

Layne Morris stated, earlier this week, that he was sure Khadr was "the grenade man". But he doesn't seem to have explained what made him draw this conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are photos of the compound in the CBS video - and other than the reference to calling for reinforcements, I haven't seen any indication that the group surrounding the compound was ever more than six men. Morris referred to a "second medic" being on-site, but that was long after the hostilities had ceased and Khadr had been shot. Also, note that Hansen is a "green beret" (was a gunner in Vietnam[1]) (general term for Special Forces) from the 19th. [2] "Delta Force" is a separate unit, unrelated to the 19th.

WHen Mike Leavitt gave his speech about the Bronze Star citation, he described the battle thus;

The second heroic event began as a "search and locate" foray at a walled Afghan compound and turned into a prolonged battle between Major Watt's detachment and an Al Qaeda cell. It was all-out combat, involving air support and medical evacuations and it continued for five hours. Four soldiers were hit, including a Utah guardsman. Through it all, Watt commanded rescue and battle operations as Hansen risked his life to pull wounded comrades to safety.

They killed and captured the entire Al Qaeda force. One of those injured in that battle was Sergeant Lane Morris also with us tonight.

Now, it's not terribly helpful, but it does offer a few new insights (if we assume the Governor of the state heard the story right, which is of course, only "possible"). It implies that the battle took five hours, not four (medEvac of Khadr could've been the extra hour, some sources would count it, others wouldn't), it also implies that four soldiers were "hit" - since the two Afghan interpreters are apparently counted as "wounded comrades", this could mean they were Afghan National Army regulars and thus counted in the total of "four" who were hit. (Morris and Speer from grenades, the two Afghans from gunfire). However, this also designates the two "wounded comrades", which assuming this is a reference to the Afghan interpreters, implied they were not "shot point-blank in the face, killed instantly" as Layne Morris later stated to the media...in fact it implies they were alive at the time he ran forward to drag them to safety (which also makes more logical sense, if somebody were shot point-blank in the face and not moving, a soldier would probably be less likely to advance under fire to drag their body back to safety).

So basically it comes down to a matter of trying to understand the chain of events, are there any direct quotes implying that the "two wounded comrades" for which Hansen was awarded the BZ were the two Afghan interpreters shot upon approach? Or might two SPecial Forces have been shot?

Also, per your comments about the M16 used - you're suggesting that you agree it's more likely a reference to an M16 shotgun than carbine? Or vice versa? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the references to the National Post article "The Good Son".

Sergeant 1st Class Layne Morris didn't expect to be engaged in a firefight that day... A team of Special Forces soldiers and a local Afghan militia set out to investigate... The men ignored Sgt. Morris's entreaties to open the door, and sat with their weapons conferring for about 45 minutes, which was the amount of time it took for Sgt. Morris to call in reinforcements. When the backup troops arrived and Pashtu translators began to negotiate with the men inside the compound, they responded with grenades and bullets... "We were amazed that anyone could still be alive in there," said Captain Mike Silver, who walked into the bombed-out compound behind Sgt. Speer. "Within seconds, we had him [Omar] pinpointed and we opened fire." Omar, who had the beginnings of a peach-fuzz beard on his chin, was covered in blood and dirt and lying on the ground between two fallen pillars. His four comrades had died when U.S. forces bombed the compound earlier in the afternoon. He had been lying in wait, clutching a pistol and a grenade. He was surrounded by a cache of arms that included grenades, ammunition and automatic weapons. Within seconds of throwing the grenade at Sgt. Speer, Omar took two shots in the chest and dropped his pistol...

The URL of this mirror of The Good Son article does not comply with policy for inclusion in article space. But we have the title, publication, date of publication and author, so it remains a valid link even without. So think should not be removed again.

I'll look for that link about the number of reinforcements.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

More detailes here -- it is a mirror of a widely quoted Wall Street Journal article. Geo Swan (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And the story becomes more of a clusterfuck - hrm. Now we have the translators not appearing until after initial contact, and that they apparently weren't just sent forward, but that Silver's team had been there for 45 minutes prior to even trying to negotiate in Pashto (after the men "ignored" an American soldier yelling at them to open the door? That doesn't make much sense). Frankly, and obviously this is entirely OR, Silver's story about the Firefight seems to change the most about the position of where he was compared ot the others, he's told at least three "slightly different" stories about how it happened - which I'd tend to believes make him the most likely OC-1, having to "invent some details" to cover up the 2nd Muja inside. Of course, that's OR and can't go in the article, just commenting that it's going to be hard reconciling his different stories :\

Of course, remember OK was inside the compound and speaks perfect English - so if Morris actually requested them to open the door as he first approached (this makes no sense, he approached, knocked on the door, withdrew and called reinforcements, THEN the Muja inside shot translators? Why not just shoot Morris' crew at first contact? Blah)

You able to check if any of the ARB/CSRT/ChargeSheets ever mentioned the pistol? I'm curious whether its presence is consistent in stories or not - since the new "leaked" document tends to suggest he was unarmed. (and verifies he was shot in the back/shoulder, not chest) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, your new article specifically states the dead men were "all Arabs", rather than Pashtuns (who are a Persian offshoot as I recall) - think that's just bad-journalist-speak for "brown-skinned", or were they actually Arabs speaking Arabic? OK spoke both Pashto and Arabic, but the US Interpreters are defined as Pashto translators, not Arabic. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead links

• Second Request for Appointment of Expert Consultant: Dr. Xenakis and Dr. Cantor (.pdf), 'Miami Herald, June 13 2006 - cannot find any non-wiki reference to this file online. Help? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First militiaman

The timeline's confusing me a bit, it seems like Zadran's first militiaman, the one who retreated under fire, was with the group before they called for reinforcements? He's not mentioned elsewhere when discussing the team sent to check on the Satphone huts - when/where Zadran's men were is confusing, though I strongly suspect the reference to "100 Afghans watching" probably refers to Zadran's troops, not local villagers anxious to see carnage. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To confuse the situation futher, Shephard's book refers to only a hlaf-dozen of Zadran's troops being present! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And just to further muddy the waters, Layne Morris seems to have told Kagan McLeon of the NP that it was twenty of Zadran's men :) God bless inconsistencies, without them I'd be sane :) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

PV2 R

PV2 R, the PV2 refers to the rank Private Second Class, while the R could be an initial or could be a reference to his being a PV2-R, a Private Second Class in the Rangers...which you'll notice we had some troops from the Rangers arriving in the 5-vehicle convoy. It's not clear yet. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Inquiries

Note to self: Exhaust fields of inquiry on determining who the woman and child were, that OC-1 mentions. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I read an account that referred to multiple women escaping the compound. I got the impression that there were at least three. I guess one could have been a girl tall enough to be mistaken for an adult. One account has then quietly leaving during the time when Layne Morris was waiting for reinforcements. But OC-1 has then running our during the aerial bombardment. Geo Swan (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, but OC-1's witness testimony says "One woman and one child escaped the compound prior to [OC-1]'s arrival and were escorted away by US personnel." implying he didn't see any of them leave - since he didn't arrive until at least after the Apaches had strafed the compound -- possibly even after the Mk-82s were dropped. If he's talking about hearsay, any of the original half-dozen guys would've mentioned multiple women/children to him presumably, so it's possible that one of the earlier reinforcements (who brought Zadran's militia, as I understand it) arrived just in time to see a single mother/child leave and told OC-1 about it I suppose...still, seems odd. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: Did Khadr ask to be killed then officer was about to order him killed, or did officer suggest Khadr be killed, was restrained, and Khadr argued and agreed he would rather be killed? Makes a big difference. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder. But, even if every survivor had to testify about what he said, wearing a lie detector, we would have no way of really knowing.

Can OC-1's statement be reconciled with the later account of seeing a shooter give someone a "double-tap"? OC-1 said he shot the first guy just once. The double-tap could have been Khadr. But it opens the question as to whether there might have been two other survivors.

Note, OC-1's statement was taken in March 2004 -- 21 months later.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: Four men in alleyway, Khadr taken away alive, two bodies taken and buried by locals...where is the remaining body? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

Note to self: He saw his friend killed, someone specific? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From my watching of "Son of al Qaeda" I'd question whether his mother and sister knew anything more about the skirmish than anyone else who access to the newspapers. I'd question whether his family knew who else was present during the skirmish.

My interpretation is that referring to the other individuals present as his "friends" was just an idiom, and did not imply that they were really friends in the way we understand.

He was fifteen. They were adults. Is it easier for Muslim teenagers to have real friendship with grown adults than it is for people from Western cultures? I doubt it. If I had to guess, I would guess it would be harder. Geo Swan (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, family confirms that "friend" is used lightly simply to refer to the fact that Khadr had spent a period of time with the subjects and probably befriended them - they weren't anybody specific, so far as they know. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: A prisoner was taken aboard the initial MedEvac DustOff (Wings 11), this is not a reference to Khadr as the MedEvacs left while the compound was still being bombed - and Khadr is specifically referred to being flown in a CH-47 from the battlesite, not a UH-60. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been suggested that Basham may have mistaken the wounded Layne Morris, who was not uniformed and likely sporting a beard may have been mistaken for a prisoner in the chaotic scene evacuating the wounded, so the three wounded men from the 82nd were taken aboard one coptor, while Basham transported Layne aboard the other coptor initially believing him to have been a prisoner. There's no evidence to suggest this is true, merely a hypothesis that might explain the inexplicable prisoner. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

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)

That said, Fremte does present a justification below: "I supported the good article designation, b/c it is that, at this point." This actually does address a valid point, which is that the trial is probably some ways off.

However, there actually are issues of stability. Using my research skills (that PhD is finally paying off), I quickly examined the history page and discussion. They do indicate the article is subject to much ongoing debate and revisions, and not just with myself. Just the other day Speaker for the Dead you and he had unresolved issues. Next, a careful reading of the good article policy reveals that this automatically disqualifies the article for good recommendation.--Dlafferty (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The revisions have not appeared substantive to me and the debates about trivia, and (forgive me please for making such a comment, but it appears true) to some extent about ego. I will hold to my review as 'good article', which might be subject to change I suppose, but I agree that the trial - if is occurs at all - is probably a way off. Hence good now. A way to handle the future might well be to retain the factual info about Khadr in this article and add a new article about any trial that occurs. The article is plenty long already! If someone wants to make a case for POV, we really need a listing of what to fix. I don't get where the general comments tell us how to. Kind regards (really!) to all, Fremte (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point on policy interpretation. However, it now appears that the family have vetted the priniciple author. Good from the view that there's something close to an official biographer. Not good if article doesn't mention possible source of conflict of interest.--Dlafferty (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If the sources of the article are backed by citations and sources, there should not be a problem I think. Do we have confirmation that the family has "vetted" the article? Who is that? And even if, that the detail is not factual? I expect many people whose info is on Wikipedia might review their article. I don't know what policies apply other than WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. We certainly don't want bragging or advertising copy or political lobbying, but what else applies if family is writing this? And where do we have problems in the actual text? Let us continue to discuss as needed. Fremte (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not "unresolved" issues if they were resolved. Do not mince words. I agree with Fremte on this matter, the fact we work quickly to resolve disputes (well, Randy, Fremte and I...I'm not sure Dlafferty has yet had any "compromises" made) is a strength of the article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If the Khadr family were consulted [and Sherurcij purports to be in contact with the family below where he offers to interview them] then there should be some disclosure even if their opinion matches onlines sources. Don't the Globe and Mail disclose associations between themselves and companies they write about? E.g. CTV.--Dlafferty (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We require more than "sounds like". What is suggested as going on? I do not think there is confirmation about Khadr family consultation and contribution to the article. I only see disagreement and sarcasm with another writer. --Fremte (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Going through the article with a fine-tooth comb, I see no detail which isn't attributed to a third-party source. Not a single word of the article seems to rely on the Khadr family. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us please then wait for any further response and perhaps then this issue may be put to rest. --Fremte (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the primary author purports to be in contact with the family, he needs to disclose this source. It is no defence to sight the sources as factual, as the issue is one of conflict of interest. I can elaborate on this, but a better authority is available with be the NY Times or Globe and Mail policy with respect to conflicts of interest. There should be a copy online.

Also, can I get some action on the libelous remarks? (It's legally incorrect to categorize it as sarcasm, because the statement is given as fact ('paraphrase') rather than opinion that would constitute comment. Even if it were sarcasm Sherurcij would have to explain why. Finally, because its written and not spoken I don't have to prove that I've suffered any loss. You can look this up in a Tort text book.)--Dlafferty (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You write:

Since the primary author purports to be in contact with the family, he needs to disclose this source."

• What exactly are you asking here?
• Are you suggesting that any contributor who has included material, in article space, that is based on communication with a member of the Khadr family, should provided a footnote to that effect?
• Well, in general, basing any material on personal contact with a source, would fail to comply with the verifiability policy. The specific exceptions, I believe, would be cases where the wikipedia contributor used the ticket system. I am not familiar with its use. My understanding is that a source can be made verifiable it the wikipedia contributor opens a "ticket", in which they provide secure and verifiable contact with the source, and than an uninvolved member of the ticket committee verifies with the source they did say what the contributor said they said.
• Near as I can tell this would not be necessary, because, near as I can tell, no contributor here has included any material based on personal contact with the Khadrs, with Layne Morris, with Tabitha Speer, or any other principal.
• Are you suggesting that any of us have to state any contact we have had with someone covered here, without regard to whether our contributions to the article were based on our contact? I knew Ted Nelson, 28 years ago. I made some minor edits to his article. Are you suggesting I should have disclosed this, even though my edits were not based on information I learned during our contact?

With regard to your concern that you have been libeled -- excuse me, but about your comments that Sherurcij allowed the Khadr family to "vet" his work. I haven't seen you offer any justification for this. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that this is a violation of the wikipedia's no personal attack policy? I suggest you give some thought to this.

I am quite familiar with Sherurcij's work. I am extremely skeptical that he allowed the Khadr family, or anyone else, to "vet" any of his work, for any meaningful definition of "vet". Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, from your correspondence you appear to be friends with Sherurcij, so your comments above are a conflict of interest. The way out is a denial from Sherurcij rather than conjecture.

Thank you for acknowledging the libel. The remedy is a retraction and apology signed by Sherurcij. Can you make the appropriate arrangements?--Dlafferty (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

He acknowledged that you claimed there was libel, not that it existed. As per a "signed, printed retraction", not happening. Your "remedy" can continue being a wet dream of "pwning" me, because as far as I'm concerned, you can go to hell. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sherurcij and I are friends. This would not keep him from publicly disagreeing with me, or vice versa. If you think I owe anyone an explanation or apology for this you are going to have to offer a fuller explanation.

He is correct. I acknowledged you thought you perceived a libel.

I am sorry to see you did not see fit to respond to the points I made. Maybe next time? ----

GA issues aside, I think the current article is a good starting point, and this is confirmed by Fremte. What I understood from Fremte's remarks was that deletions made last month with respect to Omar's mentoring were not necessarily POV if they were distinguished from personal actions under a head of controversial upbringing. These were some miscellaneous researched references to the Omar's cultural origins (given the multi-ethnic character of many Canadians), his mother's attitudes towards Omar's national culture, e.g. quotes of why she opted to move Omar from Canada, and his male role model, e.g. character of his father figure as far as we can assess from how Omar's and his siblings were molded. The best summary came from Randy2063, when he explained that we should be upfront in pointing it out if Omar did not grow up playing Playstation. I do appreciate that Sherurcij has made an excellent effort to deal with the family, and I would like to add to Omar's bio with the information above provided they do not create POV issues. Again, feedback from Fremte & Randy2063 is most welcome.--Dlafferty (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the amount of Nintendo AKK plays, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Omar did play Playstation growing up (more likely he would've had a n older platform, of course) - if it's a big deal to you, I can ask the family about any video games...but I think it would be a little strange to add "Omar did not do X" to the article - shall we also include the fact he didn't play with Barbie dolls? Why include things that didn't happen? Similarly, the "character of his father figure" (figure? wtf?) belongs in the father's article, and "his mother's attitudes" belong in her article. I have no idea if Paul Bernardo's mother believed homosexuality were a sin, because it isn't relevant. As I said, unless you intend to add "He was raised in a household that believed homosexuality is a sin" to every Catholic, Buddhist or Muslim article on the project, then it doesn't belong. It might belong in an article like Eric Robert Rudolph where the subject commit anti-homosexual violence, but it has zero relevance to the Khadrs. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, it appears that you're friends of the family. Does this affect the neutrality of the article?--Dlafferty (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually just ignore every single counter-point to seize on the fact that apparently I can fact-check by asking the family unofficially whether or not Omar played video games? Anyways, "Friend" is a strong term, I am simply in contact with the subjects. As per allegations that automatically makes the article POV, certainly no more than the fact I have phoned Michel Trudeau, eaten dinner with Peter Mayhew and Mubin Shaikh, or greet Jean Boyle, Brian Glennie and Phil Goyette at family reunions, surely? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you represent the subject.--Dlafferty (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I would suggest remedial reading comprehension courses for you, but don't tell me, let me guess, you hold a Doctorate degree in Reading Comprehension? Vishnu bless internet trolls. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite following this discussion at this point. I don't see any need to add trivia such as video game usage, nor other assumptive details such as what it might mean to have been brought up unusually or non-normatively in several cultural millieus. Just the facts of where and when he lived is enough. The meaning of the experiences would need to be the subject of an essay or an interview with Khadr. (I might add, the relevance of some did not do details is right up there with old Cheerios adverts : does not contain broccolli.) I supported the good article designation, b/c it is that, at this point. Or perhaps it is simply fun to discuss things? Fremte (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add facts and quotes from the mother and father concerning why the boy was taken out of Canada and what career he was encouraged to pursue. No essays. Are these POV?--Dlafferty (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The boy was not "taken out of Canada", his family moved to Peshawar because his father took a job there. His mother frequently spoke about missing Canada, and spent months in the country with her children including Omar every year. Now, she's also said "I would rather raise my family over there, than here", but so what? Are we going to add that "suspicious" detail to the article on every family that's moved to a new country? As per "what career he was encouraged to pursue", do you have verifiable sources indicating he was encouraged to a specific career as a child? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A direct quote from the family might be more useful than a debate of semantics. Can you speak to the family on this one?--Dlafferty (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can, but unless it is published somewhere then it constitutes OR. Also note that you're now saying the article is POV because...it doesn't contain original research that hasn't even been done, but you'd like to see? It's not exactly "missing information" if the sole user who screams things like "omg, this article doesn't deserve to be GA-status, it doesn't mention what career paths he was counselled towards", then can't even provide evidence of any such counselling occurring. You want to add "quotes from the mother and father concerning why the boy was taken out of Canada and what career he was encouraged to pursue" even though the father is dead, the mother doesn't speak to you and you have no already-published quotes in your hand to offer on the subject. Can you see why I "have a problem" with you adding fictitious elements to support your POV to the article?

I suggest you stick to facts you can back up and verify, as I have done in writing this article. You have now abandoned every topic of conversation of "POV" in favour of personal attacks, fear mongering or randomly claiming to have a Doctorate degree in any of a number of subjects you feel you need credence in. Can I assume there are no valid POV complaints outstanding? If there are, please only include those that are relevant directly to Omar rather than another member of the family and have verifiable sources to back them up. If you just want to gossip, mudsling or talk about the subject, please find a message board. Wiki talk pages are solely for helping to develop the article, and with 61 messages on the talk page, not one of yours has helped improve the article. I don't mean to be overly rude, but every other person on this talk page is trying to improve the article. You are just yammering. Please go find a messageboard, start a livejournal or get yourself a blog. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please! This is not the right way to discuss. If you feel comments are inflammatory or have issues with a user, that is what usertalk may be for. If you feel upset about something, usually this is not the time to post, but wait until later, 'til cool and calm. It is not right to bait Dlafferty re getting a quote from family. It is also not right to label with names or suggest "yammering" Sherurcij. Let us please bring this back to the right way to contribute, see assume good faith, civility, and Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. I think this is all supposed to be enjoyable and fun! Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I lost patience with "unhelpful whining" about 61 posts ago, which is how many times Dlafferty has posted something like "I think we should say the mother is Muslim and therefore is against homosexuality" "Is that relevant?" "OMG ur a friend of terrorists!" or the newly-minted "I think we should insert a quote about Omar being counselled down a specific career path" "Does such a quote exist?" "No, can't you ask the family to please say it though?". You'll notice Randy and I are fairly polar opposites, and while I don't like his thoughts on the case (and he doesn't like mine), we're still able to work together to improve the article. He finds legitimate things to complain about (Like when I said "to seek fair treatment for Omar", and he pointed out it should say "Better treatment", since I was POV implying his current treatment was unfair. He was correct.) His comments belong on a forum or a blog somewhere, not weighing down the talk page wasting time. But alright, I'll simply "insert a filter" so to speak - I'm going to simply ignore Dlafferty because I think I've given him 61 chances to prove he's not an internet troll and he's failed 61 times. I'm going to be vaguely mature and simply ignore anything he says - if Fremte, Randy, Geo_Swan or any other users feel that Dlafferty has made a valid point, they can ask me to defend a position or whatever. But the internet troll really shouldn't be fed. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's against the rules, particularly on the subject of these requests he's made. "[F]acts and quotes from the mother and father" aren't usually considered high-stress POV issues.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not against the rules to ignore a troll. Feel free to search yourself. If he has quotes about Omar from either the mother or the father, he is welcome to suggest them. However, when I asked him for specifics, he responded with "A direct quote from the family might be more useful than a debate of semantics. Can you speak to the family on this one?" indicating that these quotes don't even exist, he just wants to "create" them. If there are any relevant quotes, whether positive or negative, that are about Omar, then they should be added. However, "I think we need more bad stuff about him" isn't really a suggestion if you can't point out which 'bad stuff' about him we don't already include. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotes about muslims and homosexuals go too far. Not only are they false and hurtful, but they are liabelous. You have to print a retraction.--Dlafferty (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Names?

Anybody got a source for where OK used the name Akhbar Farhad or "Khahi" (the second actually looks more like OK misspelling his own surname/messy handwriting hi/dr, which has happened before) - anybody able to find any reference to where those names were used other than the titles of the tribunal?

vs.

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

LoL. Yes. That would be typical kind of mistake for the secret world. Do you know John Kenneth Galbraith's story of requesting his security file, when it became possible to do that?

He had a long and distinguished career serving the USA. JFK liked him and trusted him. He was Ambassador to India, and held other reasonably senior posts. Well, he found his file was full of references to a dark influence -- his dark mentor "Dr. Ware". Trouble was he knew he didn't know anyone named Dr. Ware. References to Dr. Ware went back to the very beginning of his file.

Eventually he concluded that when young, inexperienced FBI agents first contacted his neighbours and colleagues, for his first security vetting, they asked one older European colleague he knew, who held some kind of petty academic grduge against him, some question about whether he was influenced by any communists, this older colleague said, "Communism? He is very doctrinaire", and the FBI agent was not sufficiently well-informed to be familiar with the term "doctrinaire". And thus was born the notorious dark mentor "Dr Ware". It is a real hazard in the intelligence community, where there is no open and transparent accountability.

I think it is very like you are correct, that some over-tired, distracted, or poorly motivated kid misread "Omar A. Khadr" as "Omar Akhbar". Unfortunately the wikipedia's rules prevent putting this in article space.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no wish to put any OR in the article space, just hoping that like my other "queries", some day we can find a published source that clears up the source of these names. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I'd like to remove any sections of this article that could be moved elsewhere, or otherwise be shortened. Right now the following paragraph concerns me because it boils down to "An official made an incorrect comment", it's true, but like Davis' comments about "Stepping over the body of their dead comrade Sgt. Speer...", it's ultimately not terribly important to a reader trying to understand the story.

Bryan Del Monte, from the Office of Detainee Affairs, gave a press conference following his return from testifying before the United Nations Committee against torture. He asserted that Khadr, Muhammad al-Qarani and another youth were incarcerated separately from adults, and provided with daily lessons in mathematics, English, and science. Del Monte's assertion conflicts with all other assertions that Khadr was not among the youth who were held separately from the adult population - and that the three youths held in Camp Iguana had already been repatriated.

I'd suggest this either be removed, or else if somebody wanted to create a "Inconsistencies and factual errors in the Omar Khadr case fork, that would also be alright. But in a 76kb article already, I think this is a good opportunity to trim 1kb. Thoughts? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A side note, originally some confused the Ayub Kheyl gunfight and five wounded Americans as part of "a U.S. raid upon a village suspected of housing a senior Taliban official, Maulvi Abdul Hakim. The U.S. raiding party was resisted and a full-scale four hour battle ensued in which the village was strafed and bombed by F/A-18s, A-10 Warthogs and Apache attack helicopters, resulting in 25 Afghan deaths, many civilian."[3] Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I never thought Del Monte's confusion was in any way significant. I said as much before (somewhere in the archives). He likely assumed the age for kids was under 18, and didn't realize that military regulations set the age at 15 for separate facilities.

That age wasn't set just for GTMO. The regs go back to before this war. This isn't the sort of topic anyone would need to deliberately lie about. You'd have to imagine some really weird conspiracy theory to justify that.

On the other hand, I doubt this would even be an issue if his lawyers weren't throwing anything into the air hoping that something might stick to the wall. In that respect, it may be worth remembering in the sense that we shouldn't ever forget their antics. It could have worked in tandem with Yee's "Mickey Mouse book" storyline making us feel sad for this poor "child" housed with the big adults.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

His lawyers haven't brought up anything about Del Monte so far as I've seen. But okay, that's two votes to remove - if we get a third, I'll remove it. It can be placed elsewhere if somebody wants. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's his lawyers or his supporters. The point is the same. The regulations have been around for a long time. I don't think anyone made a big deal about it before this war.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Borch

Since a (citation needed) tag was just put on the same sentence that already had two citations, I thought perhaps we'd better discuss.

The chief prosecutor Fred Borch quickly garnered criticism for "corrupting" the trials after he told presiding officers that any evidence suggesting a suspect was innocent would be given a secret security classification, so that defence teams would not learn of its existence.[4] [5]

The sources do indeed use "rigged" not "corrupted", so I'm going to remove the quotation marks. Other than that, there seems to be no shortage of citations to the truth of the paragraph.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

Since I personally believe double tapping footnotes is sufficient, only requiring two sources to back up a citation - I don't see the wisdom in adding nine additional footnotes that all say the same thing? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say, "suggesting a suspect was innocent would be given a secret security classification, so that defence teams would not learn of its existence"?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[18] and [19] look like the best resources, but I agree with you, they don't say exactly that. I'll see if I can find a better link for you in the next day or two. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I was wary of this one, as detainees at these commissions can't be convicted on evidence that their lawyers don't have access to. It may have been different initially, but I don't think it was that different. The GTMO lawyers have secret clearances anyway, although (considering the shady history of the CCR) they're not given too much more information than they need.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you agree the new wording is better? I did add a new footnote to help clarify. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that change plus mine makes it okay.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, tweaked a bit since it otherwise sounded like it was saying "if the evidence didn't exist", now it just says if it's not the DOD's. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Time of day

A note that Col. Roger King seems to be adding 3 hours to all the timestamps he mentions in his briefing, to what is currently printed - with both sources for timestamps specifying "local time"...he says the Afghan interpreters were killed at 1300, while we have the medEvac leaving several hours before - so clearly the two aren't compatible...some more official statement would be useful to clear up the discrepency. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Way too many pictures

Skimming through the article, I found there are way too many pictures. The pictures should really be cleaned up. --Nourez (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A number of edits

A number of edits, some good, some not so good. Just going to go through them here, so we can bring discussion if the editor still wants to see them changed, rather than enter a revert war.

• -removed the fourth child in the Canadian Khadr family from the lead, which I feel is central to his notoriety/fame. There are many people who have thrown grenades in the world, but this was a Khadr who threw a grenade. It belongs in the lead.

• Good point, no major problem with its reinsertion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• -changed "extrajudicial detention" to "Guantanamo", this one I agree with - Khadr has been charged, I don't think it's fair to refer to it as extrajudicial at this point.

• -removed "Khadr spent three months recuperating at Bagram. During that time he was often singled out for extensive labour by American soldiers who "made him work like a horse", referring to him as "Buckshot" and calling him a murderer. They claimed that he had thrown a grenade at a passing convoy delivering medical supplies. He shared a cell with Moazzam Begg and ten others. He became conversational with guard Damien Corsetti, who was also one of his interrogators, and often spoke about basketball." claiming that a published autobiography wasn't enough of a source for information. This editor has expressed personal dislike of the author before, and even suggested that the author is responsible for killing innocents (despite the law disagreeing). I feel this was a bad-faith edit, despite the normal good-faith of the editor.

• Not sure what's going here and what "editor" you're referring to. But in any case, it was a mistake on my part, I thought it was just a link to a Wikipedia article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think a published autobiography is perfectly fine as long as we attribute who it is that's making these claims. If we're talking about Begg's book then it's a near certainty that he personally approved what went in there. It is not, however, certain that Begg was telling the truth. In fact, it's likely he said whatever he felt would advance his cause (or whatever his biased "co-author" felt would advance her cause). So, it's fine with me if we put it in there but it must say in the text who made these claims. -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• -changed "Shackled and fitted with surgical masks, painted-over goggles and ear protectors" to "Khadr claims to have been...". I feel this is a point which has not been argued against by the government, and photographic evidence also supplements his story. I'd hate to see Wikipedia is we said "George Bush claims to have named his daughters..." or "Star Trek is a television series which its producers have claimed is set in the future...". If there is no dispute about a fact, there is no need to preface it with weasel terms.

• It is unclear if the Canadian Government agrees with his claims, and such a contentious issue should be properly stated.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unless there has been any indication the government disputes this fact, then why would we assume fallacious positions for them? TheFacesBehind (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Canadian Government does not respond to every claim leveled against them, so the lack of denial (assuming there was no denial) shouldn't be construed as an admission. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a different view. Let's note that wrt "Bush claims to have named his daughters" the article on Bush probably doesn't bother to say that he named his daughters. It's somewhat obvious and not particularly important. Likewise, the fact that a bunch of vile enemy detainees had to be tightly controlled during a flight should be rather obvious. This wasn't the middle passage. IMO, the only reason to leave this stuff in is to parody the people who weep for these worms.

It's probably a safe bet that enemy detainees are properly restrained in accordance with military regulations. Whether the sources are correct in calling the restraints "shackles" is another question. The fact that the military hasn't disputed something doesn't ever mean it's true. They may have decided it's not worth their time. Or they may have preferred that the story be told the way it's being told, regardless of whether or not it's true. Or they may simply be overwhelmed by the enemy propaganda.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Department of Justice, Voice of America, Army SouthCom and JTF-GTMO refer to the prisoners taken to Guantanamo as being "shackled", so I still think you're arguing a facetious point that nobody except a few internet editors think should be disputed. TheFacesBehind (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, on that point I was only offering a caution that "shackles" may not be the type of binding that was used. But that doesn't really matter to me. I don't think how and when they're tied up is worth addressing in this article any more than what type of socks and underwear they get. We have other articles for that.

But if you want to keep it for Khadr then please do go right ahead.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• -changed "February 17, 2006" to "In February 2006", which I believe makes it more difficult for interested parties to find the specific case when looking through legal catalogues to reference it for themselves, and is unnecessary vagueness. If we know the date of the ruling, give the date of the ruling.

• Wikipedia is not a source for legal documents. Prose and style outweigh the insertion of certian facts. It makes for a hard read if every sentence begins with a wikiliked exact date. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence did not begin with the date, and no, we do not sacrifice accuracy for the sake of pleasurable reading. We are an encyclopaedia, not a romantic novel. The Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 not "in the summer of 45"TheFacesBehind (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Certain important dates unquestionably belong in a Wikipedia article, but not every single date. Taking your assertion to the next logical step, would require the insertion of the exact minute and second the report came out. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• -changed "Khadr" to "Khader" in the lead, the common transliteration is Khadr.

• typo. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• -changed "Canadian" to "Pakistani-Canadian" which is factually incorrect. He was born in Canada and is a Canadian citizen, at best he could be called a "Canadian-Pakistani" if the editor provided proof that OK carried Pakistani citizenship - otherwise, he remains "Canadian".

• The article states that they moved back and forth between Canada and Pakstan because of the mother's distate for Western culture. I don't have proof that they hold Pakistani citizenship, but if he spent a large part of his life in Pakistan and feels strongly connected to the country he can be considered a "Pakistani."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not a chance in hell. Not only have you not provided any evidence that he feels "strongly connected to" Pakistan, but Pope Sylvester II was a Frenchman, not a French-Andalusian-Italian, and Pierre Trudeau was a Canadian, not a Canadian-Scot-Anglo-Frenchman. Peoples' nationalities are not determined by whether they ever lived in another country.

TheFacesBehind (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a severe problem with this article's sourcing, and here's why

It's been demonstrated, in the Canadian media at least, that Canadian and US governments have lied, or at least equivocated, at least a couple times about facts relating to Khadr. (One example is the US forces' altering of the report of Khadr's capture; another example presently coming to light is associated with the interrogation videotape that's just been released anmd how it doesn't exactly corroborate what governments have previously asserted.) I look at the sources for this article and don't see how any of the assertions are, or even can be, independently corroborated - rather, the information seems to ultimately come from US personnel, reported by the media.

I'd suggest that for any assertion of fact in this article that ultimately comes from official US or Canadian sources, no matter where it was reported (Frontline, the Star, wherever), the ultimate source of the assertion should be identified, in the main body text. The alternative is to leave the article the way it is and hope there isn't any disinformation campaign being carried out to influence public support for Khadr's prosecution.

Note: I'm not pro- or anti-Khadr - I'm just very cognizant of possible motivations, informed enough to know that there have been lies in the past on this topica and topics similar to this, and have read enough to know that there's generally been a lot of lies coming out of the US over the last 7 years re: their enemies. Where a Wikipedia article might contain disinformation, the ultimate sources for such assertions should be given in the text of the article - not buried (if stated at all) in an external news article referred to using a footnote. At the very least, as this falls under WP:BIO, assertions of fact related to criminality or association with Al Qaeda should be stated using reporters' language (e.g. "a Department of Foreign Affairs official was quoted in the Toronto Star saying that..."), and NOT using typical encyclopedic "statement of fact".

Cos after all, in a case like this, it's likely we're being lied to about at least something. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• BTW - I'm only saying this cos I came to this Wikipedia article to find out what's the truth about this whole Khadr situation, but saw assertions that aren't attributed to their ultimate source. I can't sift through all the footnoted articles to see what's true unless I spend a whole day at it. And I don't trust everything I read. But I know some people do. So I think it'd be better to have sources explicitly given for every assertion in an article like this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Specific examples would be helpful, if you look up you'll see that others have complained about the exact opposite problem - that when Khadr's lawyers say they were prohibited to play chess with their client, we report it without saying "According to an interview with the New York Times, attorney Dennis Edney said that..." - ultimately it seems the best balance is to assume both sides are telling the truth, except in cases where there are discrepencies. Those cases are already dealt with, such as whether the videotape was found in the granary or the main house, whether Layne Morris was firing an RPG or his rifle and whether he was inside the perimeter when injured, that Silver and the OC-1 report disagree on the circumstances of the shooting, and the disputing stories about how ASK was injured led to a compromise where we just say he was injured and let readers travel to his article if they want to read the debate. If you have specific facts which you believe are "likely confused/untrue", we can look at rewording them specifically. But in an article that's already battling length problems, we can't double the size by adding "In an interview with X newspaper, an unnamed DOD leader suggested that he..." when we could just say "According to a DOD source...". Or if the fact isn't disputed by either side, simply say that "Khadr was...". TheFacesBehind (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually asking for "In an interview with X newspaper, an unnamed DOD leader suggested that he..." when we could just say "According to a DOD source...": Actually, I'm saying there aren't many "According to a DOD source" qualifiers, to my eyes. (But just so you know, I'm approaching this as an anonymous reader, not as a Wikipedia editor. As a reader, I heard alarm bells going off at the statements in here, and not knowing any of the editors who've worked on the article, obviously couldn't assume anything.) I'll get some examples in a sec and post them below: AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here's an unrelated problem: "His mother also wished to raise her family outside of Canada due to her animus for western social influences." This is sourced from a CTV.CA article that gives no sources for its statements, and which only says of his mom that she "Said she did not want to raise her children in Canada because they would have got involved in 'drugs and homosexual relationships.'" This does not demonstrate that she has an animus for western social influences, but that she didn't want her kids involved in drugs and homosexual relationships (which aren't exactly dominant social values in our country). Now, I'd be happy to admit the Wikipedia statement above CAN probably be backed up with a proper source - in fact, I bet she's come out and said some things herself in interviews that can be primary-sourced. However, this particular instance of sourcing is bad, I think - the footnoted source (CTV) doesn't support the statement, and CTV doesn't even provide any source for their assertion. The fact is probably worth keeping, but that source is dodgy on its own. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a compromise discussed earlier. One editor wanted that taken out entirely. I think his rationale was that this was only relevant to the attitude of his mother, who has an article of her own. So we phrased it this way. Drugs and homosexuality aren't what I'd call social values but they are a part of western society. A tolerance for them are part of western values, and they are a part of what I'd call western influences.

The source doesn't footnote. We're relying the belief that CTA could be considered a reliable source, and that they wouldn't just make it up. They're not some fly-by-night website.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno after all... if there is a large number of Wikipedia editors working on this article, making sure that the facts are coming from good sources and not just media spin initiated by military and government sources, as I guess you suggest, then I'll let it go. If it turns out there is any spin here, someone'll figure it out by analyzing the ip addresses involved, someday, I guess. I just think every assertion of fact should give people some way of knowing what the ultimate source of the assertion was. Cos, heck, this is the "war on terrorism", so no informed reader should expect anyone to be sticking to the truth. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For the dominant part of this article's history, there have been four committed editors - two who I would consider to be "leaning towards support of Khadr and his lawyers", and two I would consider to be "leaning toward the government and military" - we'll say they have bias, they'll say we have bias - but ultimately the article does see a lot of compromise and debate (as seen in the archives) and doesn't seem to be dominanted by one side or the other. Rather than having 50% of sentences clearly biased in favour of Khadr, and 50% clearly biased against him, as Randy pointed out - we tend to have dissected every sentence to make it as neutral as possible. TheFacesBehind (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a split -- create an article devoted just to his military commissions

I suggest a split -- create an article devoted just to his military commissions.

I suggested this for Salim Hamdan as well, for the same reasons. Now that the commissions are in motion there is new material being published every day.

I suggest the older material, what we know about his early life, skirmish, etc, belongs here -- while the day by day news arising from the commissions, and the legal battles around them belongs in USA v. Omar Khadr.

I suggest it serves readers, who want to know "just who is this guy, anyhow", to have an article devoted to just that topic, while those who want to know solely about the commission, deserve on devoted to just that topic. This will make everyone's watchlists more useful.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We originally had Legal trials of Omar Khadr and merged it in, since they were both a bit messy - but with the work that's been done on the article in the past six months, you might be right and it's time to re-separate them. Though I'd suggest sticking with the old title, so it can include both the first tribunal, and the civil lawsuit. If we can get one more "aye" vote from an editor, I say Be Bold and do it :) Just make sure no citations get broken between the two. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Tribunal is cancelled, I support a split - but if it proceeds, I think it should stay in the main article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)