Talk:Amnesty report's criticisms rejected by Bush administration

Of interest...

• Critical opinion piece suggests AI is veering towards "Noam Chomsky land" by Kenneth Anderson, an American University Law Professor and Hoover Institution research fellow

Just thought I'd mention this as it makes a lot of interesting arguments and draws in a lot of the relevant factors although I suspect it's selective. I've moved it here as it's not appropriate to put it in the article as an opinion piece. Mr. Jones 22:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What should this article be called?

The title of this piece is misleading-- AI doesn't know what's happening because the US won't give them access to validate reports they've had; that's what they're complaining about in the first place. Mr. Jones 13:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, IMHO most readers can probably read between the lines, even if in principle, that shouldn't be necessary in wikinews. Moreover, is it really that embarrassing to not know for sure? After all, NPOV in wikipedia means that wikipedia knows almost nothing for sure, except that some (named) people/organisations certainly make some claims, and other (named) people/organisations certainly make other claims.

But the whole question of what is the main news point is a tricky one. As more people contribute to wikinews, the question of how to organise the news items and select among them will necessarily arise.

IMHO a better title would be something like Amnesty International claims access to Guantanamo prisoners refused, to focus on the need to have independent verification of the claims. After all, presumably neither people in the White House nor Amnesty International leaders have been present in Guantanamo Bay, and none of them were present at the time of the alleged torture, so in this sense none of them are sure either that torture did or did not take place. The spirit of wikimedia wikis with NPOV is to compare different versions of claims on truth, but it's important that the different versions really come from sources which are independent - if you have many stories all coming from one wrong source, that does not make them any more credible than just the one source itself. Boud 23:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Very well-written article, but the title makes me think that there has been some new development like a new investigation that is being actively blocked by the US, but in reality it's the same obstruction that's been going on for years now. Sduffy 23:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put an NPOV flag on this article, because it has several examples of bias. Wikinews is supposed to remove bias from its sources, not make them even more biased. Yet this article manages to be even more biased than its sources.

Examples:

1. The title. "US obstructs Amnesty International investigation into Guantanamo prisoner abuse" has at least two problems. Neither of the sources refers to "obstructing" and "investigation", which is a legal charge. Also, referring to "prisoner abuse" is wrong; this should be, at most, "alleged prisoner abuse".

   That's wrong. AI are not alleging prisoner abuse, though they have some testimony of it. They have (Irene Khan, specifically) criticised the legitimisation of refusal to co-operate with inspections and "entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law." Talking about G'mo prisoner abuse is a red herring. Mr. Jones 20:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. 1. Neither article refers to US officials as being "inflamed", which is a highly loaded term. We are supposed to defuse the bias of our sources, not add to them.

      Agreed. I would say something like "strongly condemned". Mr. Jones 20:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   2. This article describes US officials by saying that they "responded with disdain". That is very POV treatment of US response. This article makes no attempt to describe the reasoning behind the statement of US officials, and merely presents them as indifferent or irresponsible.

      Again, I would say that they condemned the report. Mr. Jones 20:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. The source articles refer to "whether" Rumsfeld approved torture. However, this article removes the doubt, and merely states "...showing that... Donald Rumsfeld ordered torture...". It should say, "showing whether...".

"seem to show" is probably clearer, but better would be a brief discussion of the nature of the evidence. Mr. Jones 20:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article, overall, is "inflamed" in its treatment of the subject, compared to its original sources. It needs to be held to Wikinews level of NPOV, which is a higher standard than the Mainstream Media, not a lower one. DouglasGreen 02:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? -Edbrown05 02:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, DG and SD. I'm renaming it to "Amnesty criticism of access to and precident set by Guantanamo prisoners rejected by Bush administration". A bit long, but hey, I'm rejecting the tyranny of excessive concision. Mr. Jones 20:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can't say anything 'round here

have a tag

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

the tag is "absurb", but of course that doesn't imply in any way I'm pissed off by them.

I dont think that the tag is absurb. Also I agree with other users who didn't agree with the title. The title is completly untrue.

It seems that the author is trying to make the readers believe in something that he believes. I think that it is valid when the author shows a personal point of view, however you cannot force the reader believe in what you are thinking. Most readers are inteligent people and they know when somebody is "forcing" something.

I am nothing totally against your point of views, however you must write carefully, otherwise you are in risk of becoming ridiculous. And if a lot of people here in Wikinews begin to write like you, I think that Wikinews will be ridiculous too.

I think that you would like to write that the AI found solid evidences that the US is torturing prisioners in Guantanamo. But I think that there are not solid evidences suporting this claim.

There are another thing too. We should not take us too serious. Do you think that everybody believe more in Wikinews than Reuters or Associated Press, for example? Do you think that you are "changing" the world writing here in Wikinews? No. Nobody is, neither you or me. Wikinews is an experience at the best. -Carlosar 04:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changing the world? Hardly. Maybe Trying to change wikinews. Neither your intelligence nor mine was insulted by this article. Yet, it gets a tag. I really don't take it that seriously, I'm bored... so lately instead of writing I've been commenting. -Edbrown05 04:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I did no research myself on this article, I took it from where it stood when I came upon it. Really the only contibution I made was to say "US officials were inflamed". -Edbrown05 04:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"absurb" refers to the Bush response to these allegations -Edbrown05 04:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

shut up ed, for months at least. Edbrown05 05:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Take it easy, Mr Brown. Maybe make suggestions on the discussion page? But do be bold, and don't get sore if you get reverted, make a good case instead :-) Mr. Jones 20:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (p.s. it's spelt "absurd")

Moved page from "Amnesty report's criticism of access to and precident set by Guantanamo prisoners rejected by Bush administration"

I just moved this page because "precedent" was misspelled and the title's grammar was unwieldy. Mr. Billion 18:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)