Wikipedia

Talk:Omar Khadr/Archive 7

< Talk:Omar Khadr
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Possible bad edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

PCR comment This addition may need nuking because it might be in the wrong place, undue weight, and it needs to be copyedited for grammar. I would do it myself but I know there are a lot of editors working on improving this article who are better at this than I am. Ping me if you need me. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah; it is a pending edit that should not be accepted. The place for this, if anywhere, would be in the body of the article, not the lede where it is WP:UNDUE. Newimpartial (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The various editors demanding that it be in the lead seem to be convinced it shows Kadr "making IEDs". I have not seen the video myself but it seems that RS do not agree that's what it shows. It may show, at some point, people making IEDs, and at other points, Kadr, but that's not really the same thing. Unfortuantely, since the announcement of the settlement there has been an upsurge of previously dead horses being freshly beaten. Neither of the articles being presented as sources for the video showing Khadr "making IEDs" are RS for that purpose, both are opinion pieces, repeating things the authors have read or heard about--with greater or lesser critical attention. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The various IPs making the edit are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ontario Teacher BFA BEd Meters (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I found a new source from CNN. It is a news piece, not an editorial/opinion piece. It is also written by several authors, and fact checked. I hope this helps.72.38.185.42 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The material is still problematic. It describes "making roadside bombs for use against U.S. soldiers" as a charge. It was the basis for a charge, but not itself a charge. The sources provided don't support "and deploying"; the Sun and Maclean's opinion pieces (not ideal sources for this purpose, as mentioned above) don't mention that, and the CNN source puts that entire characterization of what the video depicts in the US government's voice.
I think the video may warrant mention in the lead section, though not the lead paragraph, which I think is already too long. (I'd move the settlement further down in the lead, to where it happened chronologically.) But I'm not particularly interested in trying to hash out the finer points of the wording with a banned WP:IDHT IP-hopping sock with a demonstrated unwillingness to meaningfully engage in finding a consensus version before introducing the material in the article.--Trystan (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, the settlement is in the first paragraph so that a new reader will get the skeletal outline of the bio by reading the first paragraph. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect casual readers to read a four-paragraph section to learn how the story turned out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 14:08, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

Length of article

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, is there any reason why this article is totally unreadable, as it is incredibly long and full of unimportant and irrelevant details, including meal menu details? Is the intent here to hide information in a sea of garbage?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad rutenburg (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to remove some of the unsourced content. AcademicHistorian (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC) strike comment by sock of blocked editor
Considering that AcademicHistorian just replaced a batch of citations with citation needed tags I'm finding it difficult to WP:AGF. I've restored the citations. I don't see a problem with the length of the article. Yes it's long, but it's about a contentious and polarizing issue on several fronts. Meters (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Look at the Khadr family article, and those it links to. There is very clearly someone close to the family who is making substantial additions to WP. I would assume that is why this article is so long, goes into such detail, and is clearly written in a light most favorable to the Khadrs. Also explains the extensive use of personal Khadr family photos. It's quite troubling, really. I've tried to go through and remove POV, but I'm not sure how many of my changes still remain at this point in time. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 22:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree, this whole article reads like it was written by Khadr's lawyer. The biggest problem is the main photo. Why on Earth is there a photo of a 14 year old when the man is currently 30? Even the attack happened when he was 16, not 14. Likely the child photo is mischievously designed to drum up sympathy for Khadr. First and foremost, we need a recent photo of Khadr! There's also no photo of Sgt. Layne Morris (who was blinded) or Sgt. Christopher Speer (who was killed). AcademicHistorian (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)strike comment by sock of blocked editor
If you can find a commons version of a photo of Speer or Morris, I am sure the community will consider whether it is appropriate to include it in the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"length" is not the problem; relevance & quality are problems. Lx 121 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Lede edits again

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have put back edit that was taken out by Trystane by mistake. Trystane wrote that the only reason he disagreed with me putting back in edit was I accidentally broke links. I agree with edit I am restoring because all sources agree with what is in edit, and it is important to article. I suspect only reason "multiple" editors" was against was because of suckpuppetry account suspicion. But, since I am putting edit back it, it is now my edit so sockpuppetry account does not matter. 81.92.27.129 (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

So, another SPA IP edit warring to include the same changes to the lede that have already been discussed. Not a good idea. Taking responsibility for the edits does not mean that you get to ignore the previous discussion on the talk page. The video was discussed in Talk:Omar_Khadr#Possible_bad_edit by user: L3X1, user:Newimpartial, and user:ZarhanFastfire with the conclusion that it was WP:UNDUE and the suggested sources did not properly support the claims. User:Trystan suggests that the video might be worth mentioning but wasn't interested in trying to hash out the finer points of the wording with a banned WP:IDHT IP-hopping sock with a demonstrated unwillingness to meaningfully engage in finding a consensus version before introducing the material in the article.
Trystan also pointed out that the claim that Khadr was charged with "making roadside bombs for use against U.S. soldiers" is not correct and calls the new sources either opinion pieces or in the US Government's voice. Meters (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Done.L3X1 (distænt write) 18:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omar_Khadr/Archive_7&oldid=861097434"