Talk:Wesam al-Delaema

Untitled

The current text for this article is heavily biased towards the viewpoint that Wesam al-Delaema was unjustly released in the Netherlands. The other viewpoint, which is that a) he was an Iraqi national resisting the invasion by a foreign power, b) he was never proven to have committed any acts of violence and c) he spent 6 months in solitary confinement without seeing daylight, is not mentioned at all. This matter divides Dutch society in firmly opposing camps, so there should at least be some mention of both of these viewpoints. His early release was surely controversial, but so was his extradition to the United States. --Tdejong67 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Current article is based on what was in the Dutch Wikipedia. I do not see the bias towards 'unjustly released'. If you feel that points a-c need to be mentioned, why not add them. Be advised though that there is no proof of his solitary confinemnet 'without seeing daylight' other than his own statements. Again, if you feel that another point of view should be added, what are you waiting for?

Peter 19-10-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.141.160 (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

regardingg "a) he was an Iraqi national resisting the invasion by a foreign power", that is actually not correct. He is/was a Dutch national. He used to be Iraqi but fled 'proclaiming' to be prosecuted in Iraq and he (fraudulously) got a Dutch passport. It is clear he had an issue with the americans being in Iraq, witnessed by his parttaking in anti USA rallies and burning the stripes and stars (and himself by accident). He was however living in the netherlands and had a dutch passport, he was no longer an iraqi and the netherlands was not invaded by a foreign power.

I trust this resolves the 'issue' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.141.160 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better than a 'Stub class'. I am in fact surprised by that as previously it was just a few sentences and then was not rated as such. The article has more meaningfull content than others that are not rated as such and in reality there is not much more to say about Wesam al D. Or should I add trivia such as that his boss attacked a female reporter when she sought to interview Al D? or add that he has taken part in a Dutch game show years ago?

I am happy to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you guys and gals think you can do a better job, be my guest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.141.160 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)