Talk:European human rights body condemns U.S. "torture" at Guantanamo Bay

The 'background section' is not news. So what is the point? If there is no point to make it's not newsworthy, somebody is gonna axe it. -Edbrown05 15:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the whole background section is irrelevant to the story, and should be axed. It does nothing to establish whether or not "torture" or anything tantamount to torture has occurred, and tilts the article toward POV bias.  Therefore, I am axing the section.  If anyone disagrees, they can restore it; however, I would suggest adding more relevant background material if necessary, such as more recent events that can help the reader decide what they believe about the actual allegations. DouglasGreen 16:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure when background info is appropriate in an article; maybe never. I do know that I always wondered how we ended up with troops in Cuba, so to me it was educational, but if the consensus is to "axe it", so be it. Paulrevere2005 16:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Background information is very important, and I always try to add some to my articles to provide context. It's important to go behind the news, give more depth, that way we can compete with other news outlets.  I find Wikipedia a useful and essential source for this purpose, for further research.  Anyways, I have added some more recent and relevant background material which is of more direct usefulness to this story and already axed the questionable material.  Please review. DouglasGreen 17:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * yes,looks good to me;I looked up the nytimes article you referred to and added a quote and source link for that as well. Paulrevere2005 17:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was unable to locate that during my brief search earlier. DouglasGreen 23:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)