![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
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)
The introduction is very accusative against Canadian government, and fail to underline :
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Diane1976 ( talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The lead in this article is extremely sloppy and requires a lot of work.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 Tanner 128.233.249.13 ( talk) 22:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=223314&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=31119When 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).
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)
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
'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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
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)
The introduction is very accusative against Canadian government, and fail to underline :
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Diane1976 ( talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The lead in this article is extremely sloppy and requires a lot of work.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 Tanner 128.233.249.13 ( talk) 22:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=223314&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=31119When 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).
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)
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
'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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)