Talk:Standard Operating Procedure changes at Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay

OR

Developed off-wiki by DragonFire1024, brianmc, and others.

http://www.wikinewsie.org/wikileaks_gitmo.html details notes and draft.

Translations into other languages underway. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I like the stylistic choices the wikileaks site has made. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

There are many reference to what Wikileaks did as far as analysis, contacting lawyers and passing on documents. Is there a source for this? An interview perhaps? It should be explained in the notes. Or if Wikileaks has a page about this, list it as a source. Also there are references to the case of James Yee. This needs to be sourced as well. "Off-wiki" development just doesn't cut it, in my opinion. --SVTCobra 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am getting a 404 not found on the link listed above. --SVTCobra 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Of concern to groups who campaign for the camp's closure, or for handling under the prisoner of war aspects ..." You'll need to provide a source for what these groups concerns' are. --SVTCobra 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Of concern... not sure...needs reworded, but not sure about how to do so. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs a source more than rewording. Alternatively, you could drop that paragraph. --SVTCobra 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for fixing the URL on the "off-wiki" notes. --SVTCobra 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I also added 2 sources for HRW in Geneva Convention and Amnesty International for closure of guantanamo. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a source for information on James Yee. --SVTCobra 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The frequent thinking that wikileaks is a reliable source ruins wikinews's credibility. It is NOT. I am not going to use this site any more because it has no credibility. Wikileaks are no more relyable than blogs. And all the news on this site is easily covered more in google news. Bye. Contralya 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way...but we have the first report of what will be many tomorrow. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, brianmc e-mailed the US military, who e-mailed and talked to US SOCOM in Guantanamo Bay. We are awaiting reply. We also talked to Yee, who is answering questions for a follow-up. Not to mention we also contacted the lawyers for gitmo detainees who examined the document. So before you discredit Wikinews, realize the trouble we went through. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Contralaya, if you want to leave - so be it. I did due diligence on this and personally take it as an insult to question the site's credibility on the basis of this story. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Other coverage and sites mirroring Wikinews

Tidied this a bit, please add as you find. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mirrors

• Wikinews Reports (Our blog, summary)
• Afrique en ligne (full copy, missing (c) but has linkback)

Washington Post

And look who just published an article about the leak:

* "Now Online, a Guide to Detainee Treatment" — Washington Post, December 4, 2007

-- DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Where's the source?

Why isn't the SOC itself listed under the sources? :-) Will the full document be available (or is it already)? Cormaggio 09:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The SOP is listed under external links. It is a Word document, but if you check the link offsite at the top to wikinewsie I believe that is a link to the 2004 PDF. Original reporting is a little different from our more common articles which rely on reputable sources for a synthesised NPOV article. For example, OR could have zero source provided extensive notes have been taken and seen by someone else trusted. A synopsis on the talk page would be required, and the main reporter(s) would have to share documents for verification purposes. However, there needs to be a balance between publishing everything and holding back things like emails and just paraphrasing them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hygienic" shaving

Perhaps it's unnecessary after all the news coverage from the wars, but should the article explain that Talibans and other Muslim fundamentalists object to shaving? And of course what sense is there in shaving as "hygiene" for time in segregation - the old excuses were all based on lice, etc. that are shared by contact? I feel like this "not for punishment" stuff is a comic-legal explanation only, though it might violate style guidelines to point it out. 70.15.116.59 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)