Jump to content

Talk:Omar Khadr/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Supreme Court of Canada ruling

This section does not seem to take into account the fact that this week the Canadian Supreme Court overturned an earlier court's ruling that stated that the government is in some way legally obligated to seek Mr Khadr's repatriation to Canada. Mardiste (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe we should add that information to the article. RomaC (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, glad to see somebody did it. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the link the the decision is dead and should be replaced. Canlii is an accepted free online source for Canadian jurisprudence and the dead link should be replaced with this one, and should be properly cited: http://www.canlii.com/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44

Second, it would be inappropriate to describe the supreme court decision as "overturning" the FCA decision. The government's appeal was allowed in part. In summary, the lower courts found that Khadr's rights had been constitutionally violated AND that the government had a legal obligation to demand his repatriation to Canada. The Supreme Court agreed his constitutional rights had been violated, but left it to the government to determine the appropriate remedy. The key finding is that Khadr's rights were constitutionally violated, and this finding was upheld at all levels. The fact that the SCC wouldn't order a specific remedy is not highly relevant to the constitutional question, and the fact that the government has made no attempt to remedy the constitutional breach identified is a subsequent political question and not related to the judgment. It should be discussed, but in the appropriate place -Gavin (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Labeling

No need for that as per WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV. The text is clear about it: "He was convicted of five charges under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009 including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism...". Please have a look at these policies. ProtecterMan (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling a war crminal a war criminal is pretty neutral and straight forward. Calling a 25 year old a "child soldier" and "juvinile" is a misleading statement.--Львівське (говорити) 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Please understand that the Guantanamo military commissions are controversial and that we have to keep it neutral. The text explains it and it is up to the reader to judge. There is no need for this label. For the rest, it is just a fact that he is a child soldier and one of the juveniles in Guantanamo and his age now does not change these facts. I think it is quite an uncontroversial fact represented in the sources. ProtecterMan (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you find the facts controversial? Or why you, who is obviously versed in Wikipedia policy, had to create a new account just to censor this? He is by fact a war criminal, and he is no longer a child nor a soldier.--Львівське (говорити) 18:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I think i have explained that. To much critic and controversy about the Guantanamo military commissions. For the child soldier we change it to "ex-child soldier" or "former child soldier" as some of the sources do. Other sources leave this out as it is clear that he is not fighting anymore after his arrest at age 15. Here are some sources.
Now i think we should change it to "former child soldier". Shall we do this? ProtecterMan (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that will work in the interim but I'd like to get some more people to chime in on this to be honest in the interest of consensus.--Львівське (говорити) 23:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be possible. ProtecterMan (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As much as I don't like "child soldier," there are enough otherwise sane references calling him one that I can see it going in.
He is definitely a war criminal. We have refs for that, too. He confessed. I don't understand the opposition.
Do we have quotes from any of his supporters claiming he wasn't a war criminal? It won't change my position on him being called that, unless it's a really good authority, but it would be good to put into the article.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
On the critics, the Guantanamo Commissions were originally based on the Nuremberg trials. The Supreme Court ruled that it didn't meet some post-WWII obligations, and so it was fixed to provide even more rights for the defendants. Khadr is a war criminal under U.S. law that takes international human rights law into account as the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it.
The Nuremberg trials had their critics as well (including Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who thought it a "lynching party"). If conviction at Nuremberg is enough to call people "war criminals" then these commissions are enough for this, even if Khadr hadn't confessed.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Would 'war criminal and former child soldier' not be both neutral and verified, and an accurate descriptor? I'm unsure about the juvy part, like the child soldier mention, it's in the past and problem belongs in the body somewhere.--Львівське (говорити) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

heavily biased introduction

The introduction is very accusative against Canadian government, and fail to underline :

  1. the link between Khadr's familly and Al Kaida : the father being a riend and financial support of Bin Ladden.
  2. the fact Omar was voluntarly in this place
  3. the fact (picture) he was involve in explosive manipulation,
  4. he was not "acting under coercion", a part of the definition of Child soldiers.

The introduction say a lot about Guantanamo / Canada. It should talk both about his acquaintance with Al Kaida's rhetoric, and physical support to military preparations, and later capture, Guantanamo experience, and legal debate over his status. Yug (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to your arguments point-by-point:
  1. The deep connections between the Khadr family and Al-Qaeda are explained quite fully in the Khadr family article which is the very first link in the article. I see no point in summarizing them yet again in the introduction here.
  2. What evidence do you have that Khadr was voluntarily in that place, either in Afghanistan or in the compound? It's not obvious to me that any of us have sufficient information to produce a verifiable summary of just how much free will Khadr could exert at that point (and that age).
  3. The article directly mentions the video in which Khadr appears manufacturing the explosives. It's not obvious to me why this detail needs mention in the introduction more than, say, his torture allegations which are also not mentioned there.
  4. This is essentially a repeat of your point #2.
To your last point, what can we really say about his acquaintance with Al-Qaeda's rhetoric and military role? Obviously he was exposed to their ideology given what his family was, but I'm sure a lot of that happened in private conversations which have not been recorded. The nature of his military role is also hotly debated and I'm not sure how much we can objectively say about that, beyond what's on the videotape.
I appreciate the point which I think you were hinting at that his Canadian birth is fundamentally not terribly relevant to the question of his guilt, but it is of huge importance in the legal implications of his detention and the attention paid to this story. --Saforrest (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Canadian citizenship (3/4 → ≤1/4 ): In the same argumentative way than your point 1, the Canadian citizenship and legal consequences are well explain in the article, I don't understand why it occupy 3/4 of the introduction. It should occupy just 1/4.
Ideology, Accusation & Importance (0/4 → 1/4): In the other side (Accusation), which is currently state but almost not explain, I do think that his family ideology, the importance of his family -which may explain why the US want to keep him-, his own ideological involvement, and accusations against him should occupy 1/4.
Childsoldier & legal status (few → 1/4): This point is for me more important than the citizenship. His status as child soldier, and the strangeness of the case should occupy from 2 lines to → 1/4 (shorter simply because simpler to explain than the citizenship story).
Again: 3/4 on the Canadian citizenship and passivity is... an heavy biases. This is not acceptable on wikipedia. Yug (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that calling Omar Khadr a "war criminal" is a violation of Neutral Point of View, given his youth and the fact that he was not observed doing anything belligerent. Even the U.S. military witness who initially said that Khadr had been making bombs later admitted that he could not identify the person in the picture for sure. We also have the testimony of a doctor that he was shackled with his arms over his head for hours. Any 'plea bargain' is not necessarily an admission of guilt. --Monado (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree and changed it to neutral.
Omar Ahmed Khadr (Arabic: عمر أحمد خضر; born September 19, 1986) is a Canadian and former child soldier convicted of war crimes under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009, including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism.
-- DragonGirl2012 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


I fail to see how calling someone who was "convicted of war crimes" a "war crimina" is somehow a violation of a neutral point of view. This seems to either be splitting hairs, or a weird POV that's in denial about a war crime convict being a 'war criminal' --Львівське (говорити) 03:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to: "convicted of war crimes under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009, including murder in violation of the law of war and providing material support for terrorism. That's what it is. He was convicted in an controversial venue under controversial circumstances and under a controversial law. That says it all without the controversial label. Let the facts speak for themselves without labels.
Nobody seems to be in denial here. "war crime convict being a 'war criminal' Splitting hairs? I do not think so. If you believe there is not much of a different in the old and new version why can you not accept the suggested version that i and maybe other think is a bit more NPOV? DragonGirl2012 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Emphasizing this alleged 'controversy' seems to be a POV push here. Like you said, let the facts speak for themselves. --Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I just thought it read awkwardly. It is splitting hairs though, "he's not a war criminal, he's just convicted of war crimes!"--Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone convicted of war crimes could be falsely convicted, especially as people who are tortured, stressed, and interrogated for years can become unsure of what is really true and incorporate interrogators' suggestions into their memories. As this is an article about a living person, it is better to err on the side of stating facts. I for one find "war criminal" to be loaded language. Let's leave it as "convicted." If, as you say, the descriptions are equivalent, you should be satisfied that accuracy has been maintained. --Monado (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Shall we change all articles about those convicted at Nuremburg then to show that they aren't war criminals, but simply convicted of the crimes. Adolph Eichmann's article as well. --24.202.1.112 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Re: Khadr as a child soldier, and the change made to the Introduction. The addition refers to the Geneva Conventions and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the relevant current law is the "Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on children involved in armed conflict" (nicknamed child soldier law or protocol). It was ratified by Canada, and by the United States the same year Khadr was captured in 2002, although the US has never ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child itself. This law refers to minors under 18 recruited into wars by either state military forces or armed groups. It obligates state parties who ratify it to cooperate in their rehabilitation and re-integration into society. This is the law mentioned in the reference in the article, the letter of 2010 to the Military Commission from the UN Secretary General's Representative on Children and Armed Conflict, referring to Omar Khadr as representing in every sense the classic narrative of a child soldier.

(Adding this comment on the child soldier issue) The first comment from Yug refers to "acting under coercion" as part of the definition of a child soldier. It is not part of the definition under the "child soldier protocol" (Optional Protocol to the CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict). The law refers to minors recruited (not coerced) into armed conflict by military forces or armed groups. The Military Commission recognized this was the applicable law in the case, but the judge said it had been superseded by the Military Commissions Act because the Act was passed later. This doesn't mean Khadr wasn't a child soldier as described in the "child soldier law". It means he wasn't treated in accordance with it because he was charged retroactively under a US law that didn't require him to be.

Diane1976 (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Lede

Two versions being contested so I'm bringing it to talk. I think the current version is misleading, as he is neither a child soldier (re: he was, but is no longer) and he is not a juvenile. My change was meant to indicate that he has since been convicted for war crimes, making him a war criminal.


thoughs?--Львівське (говорити) 15:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of adding the "war criminal" label to a sentence that already says he was convicted of law of war violations. It's like saying somebody is a thief who was convicted of robbery. His actions were not described in US government trial documentation as war crimes or violations of the international law of war, and don't correspond to what people have always thought of as war crimes. He was guilty of something that traditionally is sometimes condemned and sometimes praised, depending on whose side the person was on in the war, and, as in this case, they can be on either side, or switch sides. That is not criminalized under the international laws of war for that very reason. It falls outside them and whatever country has such a person in its control can do as it wishes under its own laws and according to its own values. Labels and legalities aside, the truth is that he was a 15 year old who fought in a war because of what he was taught by the people by and among whom he was raised. I think the body of the article reflects the truth quite well. Diane1976 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"He was guilty of something that traditionally is [...] sometimes praised" Are you for real? And what's up with these single use accounts?--Львівське (говорити) 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not praiseworthy at all. Kids are supposed to stay out of combat. What Khadr did was give every soldier another reason to not hesitate when shooting kids who are in the line of fire. If anyone cares about kids getting killed in war (most people who claim to care don't), Khadr's crimes must be taken very seriously.
Besides that, he's a Canadian citizen. He didn't have a legal right to fight for the insurgents. It's too bad he couldn't have renounced his citizenship.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I just realized I should have spent more time on the general issue of Khadr being an unlawful combatant. In a way, this case reminds me of Johnson v. Eisentrager. By that, I mean it's about an unlawful combatant fighting a war when he's a citizen of another country (I don't mean the part that went to SCOTUS concerning his access to a civilian court).
While movies like Red Dawn do make it look laudable for kids to fight an invading army, that's not real life, and the Taliban (aside from its terrorist nature) was not a bunch of citizens defending a sovereign country. He'd be an unlawful combatant, and a war criminal, even if he was 18 years old.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • For clarification, I meant that Khadr was found guilty of being an unlawful combatant, an issue long debated generally, because of different situations in which such people are involved in wars, and it came up off and on throughout this case, in relation to both national and international law, in combination with, or aside from, the "child soldier" issue. (I wasn't referring to him being "guilty" of being a child soldier.)
    • Re the unlawful combatant issue: I would recommend linking the term "unprivileged belligerent" which means the same as "unlawful combatant", where it first appears in the Legal Trials section, to the article on "Unlawful Combatants". The internal debate over Khadr's status is covered in Legal Trials although it leaves off with the decision that his status should be determined by the Commission itself in the trial process. I'm not sure when that happened, but the end result is shown in the "stipulation of facts" (confession). It starts by establishing that he didn't meet the criteria for Prisoner of War status under Geneva (making him an unprivileged belligerent or unlawful combatant, who was not immune from prosecution under domestic law) and, as an alien unprivileged belligerent he was subject to the Military Commissions Act and his actions in the war were various violations of it.

Diane1976 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Silver

Why does "Mike Silver" re-direct here? Does this need to be removed before an article for UK folk guitarist Mike Silver could be created? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from editing the redirect page to put a WP:HATNOTE to the former redirect target, followed by the text of your proposed article. The need to delete a redirect when an article is created normally only arises if you have text which already exists under some other name (such as a WP:AFC submission or a user sandbox) and need {{db-move}} to "liberate" a title so that you can move an existing page there. And no, I have no idea why "Mike Silver" points here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at the history and it seems that Mike Silver and Layne Morris were both circular-redirects, their names were bluelinks in the ==Capture== section of this article even as redirects pointing right back here. There used to be individual articles for these people as part of the group of US soldiers attacking the house in this incident (there is enough material for a Morris article as he is involved in the civil suit against Khadr's dead father and has appeared on a National Geographic special and on 60 Minutes, as well as speaking out for years... Silver seems less likely a topic). I also see that a search engine finds "Mike Silver" (UK musician) as the most probable match for what is a rather common name. Perhaps the name should be a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page if any of these people get articles here? If not, the main entry should, as you suggest, be the musician. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please replace photo

The photo of the "child" Khadr used as the main one for this article is misleading. Please use a more recent one.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.182.253 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just ridiculous to keep that photo. Ringo Starr's, Macaulay Culkin's, Paul McCartney's, Nelson Mandela's and basically all other articles shows the most up-to-date pictures of individuals. Logically, in this article this policy does not fit some propaganda that is being pushed forward... I could update the photo myself, but certainly there are numerous lefties watching this article non-stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.187.238 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Paul and Ringo... our page on The Beatles depicts them as they were in 1964, instead of posing them in 2012 next to the two corpses of their former bandmates. (RIP John, George) K7L (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Because there isn't a newer photo of the Beatles together. Please, you can push your propaganda using wikipedia, but don't offend me with these ridiculous arguments about Beethoven and the Beatles... you can have wikipedia, and I still have my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.187.238 (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

beethoven is dead, khadr isnt. and lefties are in love with this terrorist, so they don't want to put up an image that would reveal the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlounderPants (talk • contribs) 11:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please replace this out-dated photo. He is a 26 year old man and it is very misleading that there is a photo of him as a teenager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.112 (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We simply dont have another picture - pls see here.Moxy (talk) 22
34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not type "Khadr" into Google image search and you would find a surprising number of more recent pics. But, as the previous comment indicates, left leaning so called free speech proponents are quick to whitewash anything that may take away from the "proper and correct" (read liberal and PC) POV that makes Khadr to be a victim instead of a terrorist.FlounderPants (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. The photo needs to be under some sort of free license or we can't use it. There's also the pesky detail that Khadr *was* 15 when the events in question took place, so the image as depicted is accurate. K7L (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete internal gov't suit from Lede

The internal gov't suit and SCC case settled that the gov't had failed its duty to Khadr, but did not affect the length of his tenure in Guantanamo, so I deleted it from the over-lengthy Lede.Parkwells (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many photos from video and firefight event

Similar to objections above, I think there are too many photos from the video (delete one of Khadr waving) and of the firefight/related events: recommend deletion of at least one of two battlefield scenes of wounded Khadr, delete pic of medics reportedly working on Khadr, delete smaller pic of bombed complex, delete two photos of three American soldiers - put in their articles. Just because these photos are available does not mean they have to be used.Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Poorly written introduction

The lead in this article is extremely sloppy and requires a lot of work.

  • It notes in three different paragraphs (first, second and last) that Khadr has plead guilty (it should be mentioned once in the lead).
  • The lead is WAY too long and details the supreme court case in Canada (which is a detail and should not be in the lead).
  • It has a completely unnatural composition. It starts by mentioning that Khadr is a convicted war criminal. Khadr is not notable because of this. He was notable primarily because he was the youngest and last western detainee at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The article should start by introducing the subject in the context in which they are notable.
  • The lead notes the details of Khadr's trial and conviction, but only tangentially notes that his conviction was "widely denounced" by newspapers and civil rights organizations. This is not in-line with Khadr's notability.

Given that making changes along this line with substantially change the article, I thought we would discuss before I made any changes. Please advise. Poyani (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your points about why he was notable - also, he pleaded guilty in a plea agreement; he was not convicted in a jury trial. There is a difference. Agree Lede is too long.Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This entire page has some issues. While informative, there is both an over inclusion and under representation of information. I agree with changes proposed to the LEDE. However, the organization of the LEDE leads me to believe that it was pieced together by sevearl parties. Can we make it more cohesive?Gray106 (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Move most of firefight to Ayub Kheyl

Since the stub article on the village has essentially only information about the firefight and the capture of Khadr there, perhaps more of the firefight description could be moved out of this article to that one - as that is probably how it is referred to, by the name of the village.Parkwells (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Another advantage to covering the bulk of the details of the firefight in an article that is not a biography is that Khadr is not the only notable participant who is independently notable. Layne Morris is notable, not just for his participation in the firefight, but for his constant, and questionable, anti-Khadr advocacy, and for the civil suit he initiated against the estate of Ahmed Said Khadr -- where he took the position that Omar was a child, and that it was his father who was completely responsible for all acts Omar committed on 2002-07-27.
The Christopher Speer article should also point readers to a separate, non-biographical article, for the details of the firefight. Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you can explain to us all exactly what makes the actions of Layne Morris "questionable"?74.138.40.147 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, no problem.
I know of no reason to believe Sergeant Morris was anything other than an honorable soldier in Afghanistan -- but, since he got home (1) his statements to the press have been, at best, highly misleading; (2) the position he and Tabitha Speer, Sergeant Speer's took during their civil suit against Ahmed Said Khadr's estate was 180 degrees in contradiction to his statements to the press.
During the civil suit, Sergeant Morris and Sergeant Speer successfully argued that they should awarded millions from assets the US government froze from Omar Khadr's father's estate -- because Omar was a mere pawn of his parents -- and so was not able to make the adult choice to fight in jihad. Exactly the opposite view Sergeant Morris spouts everytime a credulous reporter gives him a chance to speak.
Morris routinely refers to what he can tell about Khadr from his appearance; his mannerisms; his training, his attitude -- as if he had personal knowledge of these things. But Morris was injured before the four hour aerial bombardment and had been med-evaced long before Khadr injured. So his comments on Khadr's appearance, mannerisms, training, attitude are based solely on press reports -- the same as the rest of us. So his comments are thus no more credible than anyone else's. Geo Swan (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Too much detail on US raid/firefight

There is too much detail on the raid in which Khadr was captured, as if there were some attempt to try the case in the article. It all seems to be told from the US point of view and was apparently taken as a major victory. Perhaps there should be a separate article on the "firefight"; for a biography, I think there is far too much detail (all the names and ranks fo US soldiers, the names of bombers and helicopters, guns, weapons, etc.) to be appropriate for a biography article. Events need to be summarized concisely, with a focus on what relates to Khadr. It makes the article unbalanced and is unusual for a bio article, particularly one in which the subject's notability is related more to what came after - his detention, charges and proposed trial.Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The details on the firefight make it quite obvious that Khadr was not the "innocent child" that his supporters have spent years trying to portray him as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.84.99 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but if this entry is supposed to be "neutral" and our "personal" views are irrelevant, why is a site entitled www.thekhadrlegacy.com being used as a source? Why do portions of the entry try to give the ridiculous impression that Khadr was merely at the wrong place at the wrong time, rather than an active participant? And why does the bulk of the entry read like a a brief written by Khadr's defense?74.138.40.147 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you please be more specific as to your criticisms of the article's use of references from www.thekhadrlegacy.com?
    • Wikipedia articles shouldn't be trying to give impressions. Opinions in our articles should be properly attributed to reliable sources. If you genuinely think the article is presenting opinions that aren't attributed to reliable sources, please be more specific. It is not our role to decide whether the idea Khadr wasn't a genuine volunteer is or isn't ridiculous. Since many reliable authoritative commentators have challenged whether he was a genuine volunteer, I believe it is appropriate to include coverage of that view. If you disagree, please explain why. Please reconcile this with WP:NPOV. Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding His Picture

I believe that his picture should be updated to both show that he has aged since that photo was taken, and has grown a beard. He also wears traditional clothing more often. Redflorist (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

responsible use of tags...

Somebody slapped an inappropriate {{citation needed}} to direct quotes from Khadr's lawyer, even though the reference that supported that quote had been linked to three times in that paragraph.

Yes, yes, yes, the work of quality control volunteers is important. But so is the work of those of us who add new material. And I urge our quality control volunteers, I urge them, to take their responsibilities seriously. In particular, don't go slapping {{cn}} tags unless you have thoroughly read the references that have already been supplied.

When you point out to quality control volunteers when their efforts fell short a disappointingly large fraction of them cough up a reply that says, essentially: "I could have made a better effort, and then I wouldn't have made this mistake, but if I made that kind of effort for every incident of vandalism I fix, it would seriously erode my efficiency."

Quality control volunteers, it should not be your personal satisfaction that counts, it should be the overall benefit to the project. If you don't feel interested, or aren't capable, of thoroughly reading the references to a paragraph, prior to slapping on a {{citations needed}} tag, then, for crying out loud, don't apply the goldarn tag! Sheesh!

I removed the bogus tag. Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of tags... I won't place one, but the lead to this article is a borderline unreadable wall of text. It really needs to be pared down. Resolute 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct identification of "federal government".

My apologies in advance if I am not adhering to policy.

In this article, numerous references are made to the "government of Canada" and the "federal government". This particular administration, rightly or wrongly, has identified itself as "The Harper Government" going so far as to change the official letterhead for all formal communications, etc. While I am personally of the opinion that the government belongs to Canada and not to Mr. Harper, that's what he has chosen to do.

[1]

Therefore in this, and frankly any other article referring to the Government of Canada during his reign, all references should be changed to "The Harper Government", in keeping with their wishes.

Regards, Tanner

128.233.249.13 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Robby Tanner128.233.249.13 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know they do this. But they aren't the boss of us. Their usage is confusing -- and temporary. So I think we should just stick with the former usage. Geo Swan (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede is too long and detailed

Lede is too long and detailed; move more content to article or delete as repetitive. This is not the place to be making the case of Khadr advocates.Parkwells (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Article needs to be updated and edited

The article was developed in detail as events unfolded. Now much of this should be summarized and made more concise; every twist and turn does not need to be repeated; for instance, that US soldiers were expected to testify at Khadr's trial. That's finished; summarize.Parkwells (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Anti-western propagandists?

The the header paragraph states at one point "His conviction and sentence were widely denounced by civil rights groups, anti-Western propagandists, and various newspaper editorials." Can someone please explain to me what anti-western propagandists means, and where this assertion is coming from? I've deleted "anti-western propagandists" because it appears to be vandalism. Please correct me and put it back if I'm wrong. 205.189.2.10 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Omar Khadr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Omar Khadr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Omar Khadr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Omar Khadr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Torture

As newer documents than the ones that have been referenced here are available suggest that waterboarding, not considered torture by US Military, is indeed a form of torture, and thus most inmates at Guantanamo were indeed subjected to torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions of 1949. This article references Khadr's torture as being unsubstantiated, but with these documents, the sources who testified that he was tortured are vindicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.254.236 (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

I believe it was for killing a medic. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
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) 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)
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)
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)
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)

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.[2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.macleans.ca/general/harper-names-the-government-after-himself/
  2. ^ "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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

  • 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)
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) strike comment by sock of blocked editor
There are still many many POV problems with the article. The focus of the Lede omits the fact that Khadr was convicted of war crimes, and focuses exclusively on his treatment during incarceration. Sgt. Christopher Speer (who was killed) and Sgt Layne Morris (who was blinded) are not mentioned in the Lede at all. There's a photo of a wounded Khadr, but no photo of a wounded Morris or a deceased Speer. There's no photo of Speed's greiving family. Even the main photo of Khadr is of him 2 years younger than when the attack took place. This may have been done intentionally to pursuade the public to feel sorry for him. I've never seen an article where the main photo is 16 years out of date. For some reason someone keeps deleting the fact that Speer was a medic. There's no details of Khadr's charges despite the fact that the article is way too long. Simply put, there is no balance whatsoever. AcademicHistorian (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor
Thanks for engaging on the talk page. You should be aware that there is a strict limit of three reverts in a 24-hour period. Assuming you are the same person as the IPs previously making the same edits, you are by my count now at 5. It's much preferable, and results in much better articles, to talk the issues out and arrive at a stable consensus. For example, you keep changing the content of a direct quotation. The original wording may indeed be redundant, but the quotation must accurately reflect what the Minister said at the time.
I'm not sure that I follow all of your concerns, as the lead does cover Khadr's conviction and mentions Speer in the second paragraph. There is also appropriate weight given to his incarceration, as that is extensively covered in the reliable sources. For photos, we are limited to what we have and what is free-use. Given the number of issues you raise, it would be easier to discuss them individually in the sections below.--Trystan (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sgt. Christopher Speer was a Medic

The fact that Sgt. Christopher Speer was a medic must be included in the lede. It should not be buried way at the bottom of the article. 2607:F2C0:95CB:A100:68DB:61B7:2D59:5EF7 (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor

As the edit summary introducing the wording made clear, describing Speer solely as a medic is a deliberate attempt to imply that Speer was a non-combatant and that his killing was a violation of the Geneva Convention and a war crime. This is an understandable and common misconception regarding this case. As the detailed description of the operation makes clear, Speer was a combatant, part of the assault element entering the compound after the bombing. This is in-line with the description of current US practice at Combat medic: having medically-trained soldiers that can provide medic services as necessary, rather than badged, non-combatant medics that would (or should) be protected under the Geneva Conventions. Khadr's charges do not relate to the killing of a non-combatant medic.--Trystan (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a civilian medic. Civilian medics are called paramedics. The term medic is sufficient. Saying "army medic" is redundant. Saying "soldier" is misleading because it leaves out the fact that Speer was a medic. Leave the term medic alone, this information is thoroughly sourced. AcademicHistorian (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor

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) strike comment by sock of blocked editor

WP needs a photo that is free to use. Apparently, that is the only one avilable.--Quisqualis (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
Well actually, the current photo is when Khadr was much younger than at the time of the attack. Likely this is done for political reasons to try and draw up sympathy for the 30-year-old. The main photo should be a recent photo of Khadr. There should also be a photo of Khadr following his capture and detainment added later in the article, so readers can see what he looks like now, and following capture. A childhood photo taken years before capture is part of the reason the POV label is at the top of this page. 2607:F2C0:95CB:A100:68DB:61B7:2D59:5EF7 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)strike comment by sock of blocked editor
Since one of the main issues is that he was a child when the events occurred the picture of a young Khadr should still be in the article even if we also had a more recent photo also. Since we have been unable to obtain a free-use picture of him that is more recent it's moot. I don't believe restoring the POV tag because of this picture (the reason given in the edit summary restoring it) is justified. Meters (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Khadr was Charged and Convicted

There's plenty of room for debate following Khadr's detainment and subsequent charges. However, because the killing of American medic Christopher Speer is the reason he is known, it is certainly odd to omit the fact that he was charged and found guilty of war crimes in the lede. Right now, the article says he "allegedly". The term allegedly is only used in instances where persons have not been charged of a crime. This article reads like it was written by Khadr's lawyer. 2607:F2C0:95CB:A100:8143:FF50:3B69:BB76 (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor

I'm assuming you are referring to these edits. In general, the lead has been written to avoid reductive generalizations in favour of a somewhat more verbose explanation of the facts. I think that approach is helpful at representing the many diverging views and finding something that approaches consensus, though it is an iterative process.
The lead paragraph states that he pleaded guilty to the charges and later appealed his conviction. It is redundant to say that someone was convicted following a guilty plea, doubly so when the conviction is specifically mentioned in the next sentence.
The lead sentence names the most serious charge to which Khadr confessed, and later in the lead section it explains the nature of the charges in more detail, including that the US government considers them war crimes. As the status of the offences created by the Military Commission Act of 2006 as war crimes is contentious, an unqualified characterization of them as war crimes in Wikipedia's voice would incorrectly imply broad acceptance of that view.
Describing the actions as "alleged" is appropriate for contested facts, including convictions that are under appeal or where the trial process is widely questioned in reliable sources, as documented in the article.--Trystan (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Saying "pleaded guilty" is not the same as being convicted. Some people plead guilty and are given a pardon, or the charges are dropped, etc. It is critical that this article include that fact that Khadr's was not only charged, but tried and convicted as well. This information is sourced, stop deleting it. The term "allegedly" is a legal term which only applies to individuals who have been charged with a crime, and not convicted. It is not a subjective term. Also, convicted does not necessarily mean the person is guilty, it just means that they were found guilty in court. We can, of course, include an appeal if and when it is made. Curewntly, there has not yet been an appeal of the verdict. The recent settlement in Canada did not overturn the verdict, it strictly was a settlement based on the treatment of Khadr's during his incarceration, which is a different case entirely. AcademicHistorian (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor
I was wondering why in your recent edit you deprecated citations into CNs? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I agree with Trystan and his reasoning. It is important to note that Khadr pleaded guilty, because he later recanted his confession. In the circumstances, the word "alleged" is appropriate given the fact that he recanted, that the validity of the Tribunal has been widely questioned, and that some US military records suggested it may have been someone else who threw the grenade. By saying that he later appealed the conviction, it is clear that he was indeed convicted.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This is my view as well. AcademicHistorian, please stop trying to edit war the "convicted" language into the lede, you obviously lack consensus for that change. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand the reasoning and don't really take a side, but if you plead guilty and the court/tribunal accepts your plea, then you are convicted. There are more plea deals than court cases, so a huge majority of 'convicts' were convicted due to a guilty plea, regardless of whether or not they actually did anything. So, Omar was convicted. That's a fact. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 22:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so seeing how we all agree that Khadr's was convicted, I added this conviction to the start of the Lede as this is what Khadr's is most known for. AcademicHistorian (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor
Your edit incorrectly states that Morris was wounded by the grenade that killed Speer. Morris was wounded hours earlier, and none of the charges against Khadr mention Morris. While Morris did obtain a default judgment against Khadr, it isn't entirely clear on what basis that was obtained, and it's a difficult issue to summarize concisely in a way that avoids some of the common misconceptions around this issue.
Do you have a source for the statement that Khadr is an Afghan citizen? I am unable to find one.
The stable draft of the article makes clear (in the second sentence) that he was convicted following his guilty plea. How we present the facts, and where we place our emphasis, should be based on how reliable secondary sources summarize the events:
  • Globe and Mail: "...charged with several war crimes before a widely discredited Military Commission. Khadr ultimately pleaded guilty..."
  • National Post: "Khadr, now 28, pleaded guilty in October 2010 before a widely discredited military commission to five war crimes — including murder in the death of Speer, a U.S. special forces soldier."
  • CBC: "Khadr pleaded guilty to five crimes, including murder, in violation of the rules of war before a widely discredited military commission in October 2010."
  • Toronto Star: "He pleaded guilty to five war crimes — including killing Speer — before a military commission, a process that has since been widely condemned."
  • Maclean's: "The American judgment was based almost entirely on the fact that Khadr pleaded guilty to five war crimes – including killing Speer – before a military commission, which has widely been condemned."
  • Toronto Sun: "Khadr, now 30, pleaded guilty to five war crimes before a widely condemned military commission at Guantanamo Bay in 2010."
Those sources run the gamut from the left to the centre to the right, and at least a couple of them could not be accused of being overly sympathetic to Khadr. What they all have in common is that they don't present the bare fact of the conviction with qualifying it. I don't imagine that adding "widely condemned" to the lead sentence would get consensus, but I would suggest the stable version of the article was a reasonable compromise.--Trystan (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so I removed the part about Afghan citizenship for now. I believe he has duo-citizenship due to his father. Regardless, it is clear he was convicted. This is the main thing people know about him. This should therefore be included in the first sentence of the article. It makes no sense for the first sentence to focus on his detainment and then much later eventually state why. It makes much more sense to first mention his conviction, and then later mention his arrest and detainment. The article is certainly not "stable" due to it's current POV tinge. That's why we're trying to fix it.
Also, why in Heaven's name are you trying to delete all mention of Sgt. Layne Morris? "Khadr threw a grenade that left Morris blinded and killed Army Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/10/us-veteran-blinded-in-omar-khadr-ambush-says-payment-is-treasonous.html " Even sources which question the Utah judgement state that Morris was blinded by the same grenade which killed Speer. "The Utah judgment is based on Khadr's admission before a discredited military commission in Guantanamo Bay in 2010 — subsequently recanted — that he threw a grenade that killed Speer and injured Morris." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/omar-khadr-payment-layne-morris-interview-1.4198620 AcademicHistorian (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor
If you review the sources on that point comprehensively, you will find that some claim it was the same grenade, and many others state that it was during the same operation. The most detailed ones make it clear from the step-by-step recounting of the operation that it was not, and could not possibly have been, the same grenade. Morris was wounded in the firefight prior to the bombing. Here is a good summary. The mistake seems to flow from sloppy reporting around the civil suit.--Trystan (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
And we're not removing all mention of Morris. He is discussed in the article. We're just not mentioning him in the lede. As Trystan points out, there is considerable doubt about Khadr's involvement with Morris's injury. It does not belong in the lede. Meters (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

resignation of attorney and prosecutor

This contested edit [2] removed sourced information about the resignation of the attorney and prosecutor under an edit summary mentioning just the issue of what clothing Khadr was wearing.I don't care about he clothing, but I believe the issue of the attorney and the prosecutor are germane to this article and should at least be discussed before being removed. Meters (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please either restore all of the contested material, or discuss it. The issue of the resignation of the attorney is not back in the article. I told you you were welcome to remove the material about this clothing. I was in the process of removing just that part myself when you removed the entire edit again. Meters (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)
Thanks!--Trystan (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Right now, the Lede paragraph includes redundant duplicated information. The 10.5 million settlement is mentioned twice, for instance. Also, there is far too much intricate detail copied and pasted from further down in the article. The Lede should not include intricate detail, but only focus on main points. The Lede should also not repeat the exact same thing over and over as this is redundant, unnecessary, and increases the overall length of the Lede (which should be short) for no apparent reason. AcademicHistorian (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Strike comment by sock of blocked editor
The editing I did yesterday shortened the section slightly while ensuring that the first paragraph "identifies the topic" and "establishes the context in which the topic is being considered" from an NPOV, per WP:LEAD. This is the job of the first paragraph, not of the lede as a whole, and there is no reason that the whole lead section needs to follow chronology. I therefore ensured that the first paragraph proceeds from detention to conviction to repatriation to apology, which is in fact the trajectory of Khadr's life that is the topic of the article.
In my first draft of the lede, there was indeed duplication, but not in my most recent version: "the lawsuit was settled ... with a $10.5 million payment" (first paragraph) ... "When the Canadian government announced a $10.5 million settlement agreement [Speer's widow applied]" (fourth paragraph) - the second mention refers back to the first paragraph to set the stage for the most recent developments.
I don't feel any WP:OWNership of this article at all, and wouldn't mind if the lede were made shorter (as long as it maintains the trajectory of the story), but I will point out that the MOS mandates that the section should be between one and four paragraphs, which it now is. Newimpartial (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
And another editor has since removed the literal duplication of the settlement figure. Again, I don't have a problem with a shorter lede, but Khadr's repatriation and the subsequent acknowledgement by the Canadian government that it violated his Charter rights are defining elements of his public life, and should be appropriately prominent in any NPOV overview (including the first paragraph here). Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, User:AcademicHistorian, Khadr's dispute of the new conviction and his account of why he pleaded guilty were precisely part of the legal strategy when the lawsuit was launched, and the sources (which you tried to delete from the first paragraph) integrate the informaiton in precisely this way. Anyway, this should be discussed here, not by you edit-warring. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The civil lawsuit Khadr launched against the Canadian government was a separate case entirely that what he plead guilty to. His guilty conviction has not been overturned. The civil suit was about Khadr's treatment during custody. It was not about his original actions that led to the guilty verdict. These are separate issues entirely.
Regardless, it is important to have a sensible chronology in the Lede. There's no point to have CDBA when we could have ABCD. Just go in order of what happened.
Also, there's no need to be so redundant in the Lede as well. Why mention the 10.5 million CAD settlement two or three times when we could just mention it once? WHy mention that he plead guilty two or three times when we could just mention it once?
Why all the intricate detail? Do we really need a sentence in the Lede that states that Khadr was transferred between different prisons while in Canada? Intricate details belong later in the article, not in the Lede. AcademicHistorian (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Strike comment by sock of blocked editor
There obviously is room for improvement, but many of your edits appear to be aimed at playing up the "convicted" angle, and removing or minimizing references too the rights violations, settlement & apology, and questions about the legitimacy of the tribunal and plea from the lede. This is POV, as has been explained several times on this talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to bludgeon here, but I did want to say that my most recent edits have introduced an ADCB structure to the lede on purpose, with AD in the first paragraph (to establish the overall trajectory per WP:LEAD and BC over the next three paragraphs, essentially. I accept that the lede - and the whole article -- could be tightened, but it would be unWP:DUE to focus the lede, or its first paragraph, primarily about "his original actions that led to the guilty verdict". It is a complicated case, and what originally happened, what happened in detention, the significance of his guilty plea at tribunal, the subsequent appeal, the relevance of the Canadian court rulings, the repatriation to Canada and the subsequent settlement agreement are all in dispute. In this context it is not reasonable to focus on one set of these disputed elements and set them out from a POV. Newimpartial (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The most significant info (per reliable sources) goes first, see WP:LEDE. That means the doubts about the plea, settlement, etc need to be mentioned early. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not wading into this discussion, but just wanted to add that in the attempted update, it introduces a typo to the infobox (20u13 instead of 2013) AcademicHistorian. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's just go in chronological order. This way, there's no possibility of bias. Right now, having the first paragraph focus only on details about Khadr's detainment and settlement places a blatant bias in the way the article is framed.
Also, there's no point in having the exact same sentence 2 or 3 times in the Lede. Simply going in order prevents this unnecessary repetition.
Personal opinions or interpretations about Khadr (on both sides) can go later in the article. Intricate details can also go into later paragraphs. Otherwise what you have is an editorial article framing the introduction for political reasons.
Also, the phrasing needs to be clear for readers to understand. For instance, we can't mislead readers into thinking the 10.5 million settlement and apology from the Canadian government somehow exonerated Khadr's from the original case for which he was convicted. This settlement was exclusively about the alleged mistreatment of Khadr's during encarceration.AcademicHistorian (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Strike comment by sock of blocked editor

Victim-hood, How Morris was blinded, and WP:NPOV

I have undone this edit [3] by El cid, el campeador. I don't think we should be using WP:WEASEL or non-neutral WP:POV. It is not appropriate for us to be labeling either Khadr or Speer/Morris as victims or perpetrators here. Speer was killed. The question of whether it was a crime, or part of ordinary warefare is not for us to decide her. We just have to show the facts as reported in reliable sources. We should also not be saying that Morris was blinded by the grenade thrown by Khadr as this is in dispute.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Words matter. Some might wish to cast Khadr as a victim. Some might wish to cast Speer and Morris as victims, and Khadr as a perpetrator. We must not be making value judgements or taking sides. On one side, it has been suggested Khadr is a terrorist, murderer, or war criminal (ie the US military, the commission, Speer's wife, a judge in Utah, Conservative MPs, that guy on my facebook wall etc.). On another, he has been referred to as a child solider, victim, or unlawful detainee (ie Roméo Dallaire, Khadr's lawyers, the Supreme Court of Canada, and that other guy on my facebook wall). It is not our place to decide these matters, just to report what notable people and organizations have said and decided. We need to use impartial language when possible. It is more appropriate to say that Speer was "killed" by a grenade allegedly thrown by Khadr than to say he is a victim. Calling him a victim could be seen as taking a position on the validity of the commission and its findings, which is not what I understand anyone here to be doing. Similarly, we should not be calling Khadr a child soldier, though it is appropriate to write that Dallaire said that of him. I am not trying to be absurd, just leave the labels for Senators and Courts to throw around.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If you don't want to portray Khadr as some innocent child, than why is the main image of him as a 14 year old? He is currently 30, and even the attack happened when he was 16. Also, why does the first sentence in the Lede say only that Khadr was detained. Shouldn't the first sentence say which crimes he was charged and convicted with? The focus of this article must not be exclusively on Khadr's detainment, it must also include which crimes he was charged and convicted with. Right now, there's no balance whatsoever. AcademicHistorian (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor
  • Point of order. First, Khadr was fifteen when the firefight took place, in July 2002. He didn't turn 16 for almost another two months. Please refresh your memory.

    Second, we didn't know the provenance of that photo, for a long time. For several years we used either that photo, or one of him from when he was a lot younger. Both had been widely used in the press, and some contributors asserted they could only be using those images so widely if they were in the public domain.

    Finally Khadr's sister came here, and explained the provenance.

    The first time his mom, and his big sister, spoke to the press, they took family photos from the family photo album, and handed them out to reporters, without stating any condition on their use.

    His sister, frankly, did not understand why there was any question over whether it could be re-used.

    When our strictness over respect for intellectual property was explained she said she was putting this image into the public domain.

    AcademicHistorian, you wrote that this picture was taken when Khadr was fourteen? Oh, really? You write this as if you know this to be a fact. Yet Zaynab Khadr, who took this picture, said she took it when she was helping Omar apply to have his passport renewed. She said it was taken just a couple of months prior to the firefight. So, it is not a misleading photo of a much younger Khadr, and if you read, somewhere, that it was, that Khadr was only 14 when the photo was taken, I suggest you regard that source as simply unreliable. Geo Swan (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The term I have used is that Speer (not Spears) was "mortally wounded", instead of "killed". He was medevaced, treated, officially dying a week later, when Mrs Speer agreed to have him taken off life support.

    Darryl Kerrigan's other points are correct. As many legal scholars point out, since Khadr wasn't tried in a genuine real court, but rather a show trial system, designed to secure convictions, no matter what, his conviction, confession, guilty plea, do not genuinely establish guilt. Geo Swan (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Maybe I reacted in the wrong way. But if you had just changed the language instead of accusing me of POV, I would not have cared at all. Language does matter and you can change it, but please don't accuse me of POV simply for using the word 'victim' which is a common lay term without political connotation. That is all. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I may have jumped the gun there. I meant to take issue with the phrasing and discuss the best way for us to describe it, and was frankly surprised that my edit from "victim" to "killed" was reverted almost immediately. I did not intend to suggest an improper motive on your part, but to continue the dialogue here. I certainly appear to have come on too strong. Thank you for continuing the dialogue and working to improve the article. Best--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictures of US soldiers

Pictures of Spears and Morris have been added. Both of the pics are up for deletion, but let's discuss whether this article should have pictures of them, assuming acceptable free use pictures are eventually found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs)

I support the inclusion of these pictures. More importantly, the main photo of Khadr's needs to be updated, as he is currently 30. For instance, when a retired athlete has a WP page, the main image of them is whatever is most recent, not an image of them when they were a rookie. AcademicHistorian (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)strike comment by sock of blocked editor
This isn't about the picture of Khadr. That issue has been raised and explained more than once already. WP:DROP THE STICK
I simply made a neutral open of a discussion of the issue of the addition two new photos because from User:Darryl Kerrigan's comment [4] it appeared that such a discussion would be required. I have not stated my opinion on whether the pictures should be in the article, so I don't see why el cid, el campeador made his above comment.
I think both pictures fall under WP:UNDUE. I might be convinced that the picture of Speer can be justified if someone can come up with a good enough argument for its inclusion, but not that of Morris. As User:Trystan pointed out, Morris's injuries were not cited in the charges against Khadr and there is significant doubt that they were even caused by Khadr. It's UNDUE to include Morris's picture, just as it would be undue to include portraits of Khadr's attorney, the anonymous soldier who shot Khadr, the prosecutor in the case, or the guards and interrogators. Meters (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Image:Moazzam Begg (cropped).PNG

Per my mention of undue portraits in the above thread I have removed this picture. Begg was just one of several cell mates Khadr had. So what? Meters (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omar_Khadr/Archive_6&oldid=1256785144"