Talk:Victims of torture among detainees facing death penalty in Guantanamo
Where in the sources is this sentence backed up? --+Deprifry+ 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Multiple problems with this article 
IMO this article reeks of POV reporting and contains unsourced information.
- In an unexpected motion ... None of the sources say it was unexpected, one source, which is from two days ago, even says it is about to happen, which suggest the opposite: it was anticipated
- The move creates problems - says who exactly? (see above also)
- In 2006, the Pentagon referred to several of the captives now facing prosecution as "unprosecutable" - I could not find this in any of the sources
- The article fails to present the government/prosecution's case, even though it lists goverment documents as sources
- The article fails to mention that there is even a debate about waterboarding as toture.
- The title incorrectly suggests that all six have been subjected to torture (waterboarding).
- The charges were unexpected, it was announced two days ago that they were going to charge them, that was unexpected. If you give short notice to something, after people have been waiting six years to hear it, then suddenly announcing that you'll begin filming Star Wars 7, 8 and 9 would be an "unexpected" move.
- The article doesn't attribute the statement, directly or indirectly - if you feel it editorialises, we can find a replacement
- Will add source
- I haven't seen any international debate on the subject, but I'll try to add in some reference
- While the title could be read that way, I'd argue that no, it doesn't say that at all. "Six men charged in week-end murder" doesn't mean all six men were charged with murder. We could try inventive use of the word "among" in the title, if you have a suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherurcij (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- This can be easily fixed to something we both can agree on, I think, like "a motion not anticipated until a few days ago" - do you concur?
- How about "may create legal complications" or something to that effect?
- This is still a problem since, despite the source, it is only attributable to Mark Fallon (an investigator not a government spokesperson) see page 4 (bottom half) and further it only refers to "some detainees" in an article which is about Mohamed al-Kahtani only. There is nothing to suggest that the others in this charge are included and al Kahtani himself is only implied. Anyway, all of this is pretty far from saying "the Pentagon referred to several of the captives now facing prosecution as "unprosecutable""
- I think you skipped #4 (the government position is still inadequately presented) and answered #5
- (from your response #4) I agree, there is not much international debate, but the fact that there is a domestic US debate is extremely relevant, since the suspects are in US custody and facing charges under the US legal system.
- (from your response #5) I am agreeable to your new title.
Alright, fixed 1 and 2, we're agreed on 6 - so that leaves "the government position", I'm not really sure what you expect there. I added a half-sentence on #5, it at least links to the article so readers have the full context of the "debate". It's the same as we'd do if Kenya or another country had invented a new phrase for their actions, so I feel that's enough. FOr Fallon's quote, shall we change it to "a source in the Pentagon said..."? Sherurcij 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of scare quotes around several items in this article is offensive. Leave your commentary out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which items specifically? I think they are being used to accredit the words to specific speakers, not to scare anybody. They're direct quotes, not singles. Sherurcij 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Moved back to the second title which seemed more NPOV and contextual, not implying that all six were tortured, etc. If you want to discuss otherwise, feel free, but I think SVT and I had compromised on the new title, so it seems fairly safe. Sherurcij 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)