Talk:Omar Khadr/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

Article Is Not Neutral
I feel this article has had a lot of effort put into it which is a great thing, but i feel that is does contain a bias. After reading the article about Omar Khadr I began to think the article is a protagonist in his release from Guantanamo Bay, although it is entirely possible the government is at fault I should not feel more than 50% of that. That article should portray 50% Khadr being involved in a mix-up of epic proportions and 50% as he was the one who killed an American Soldier.

I do not feel this article meets the Good article standards.


 * I appreciate your constructive criticism, but allow me to offer a mite in return. Not every situation in the world is "half A's fault and half B's fault", nor is the "truth" always 50% between the two conflicting stories. If Iran claims to have launched two satellites into space, and the United States says it's a lie...the article should not say one satellite was launched. Similarly, I should not read the Apollo 11 article and believe there's a 50% chance that the whole thing was a hoax because that's what one side posits. I should be aware that there are differing accounts, but that doesn't mean that they are all of equal validity. However, I'd be happy to hear/discuss some specific complaints you may have with this article, certain sentences or sections you feel need changing? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with writing an article that "portrays 50%" Khadr killing Sergeant Speer is that while there have been many vague allegations leveled against Khadr little has been offered beyond his physical presence at the compound and rumor and innuendo. The evidence that has emerged, so far, has not backed up the innuendoes and rumors.  If the DoD were to release actual details of their side of the story of course we should include them.  But artificially expanding that portion of the article, when we have no WP:RS would be a mistake.  Similarly scaling back valid and neutral coverage in the pursuit of balance, because we have no WP:RS to rebut them would also be a mistake.  It would be a lapse from policy.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (comment ported from Talk:Omar Khadr)