Talk:Obama's suspension of Guantanamo repatriations criticized

Review of revision 932905 [Failed]
Brian, what specifically in the article do you take issue with? I know VoA is funded by the US government, but I was pleasantly surprised by their neutrality here - including quotes from human rights groups etc. In fact of all the articles I've seen, it had the most focus on criticism. Feel free to add more sources and improve if you like, but I contend that this is fine for publication as it stands. the wub "?!"  16:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with wub, i don't understand failing an article on POV just because it's based on VOA. I read through the article carefully, and found no VOA-bias anywhere. I might have missed something though; it would help if you told us what areas, specifically, do you consider biased? Tempodivalse [talk]  16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This particular section takes it as-fact that those detained are being held legally. A court may uphold that passed US law permits such but its basis in international law is in question. Particularly considering the issues around some of these detainees having ended up in Gitmo via "rendition" which is, frankly, a euphemism for state-sponsored kidnapping. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been ruled so by a court in a jurisdiction about as bad as no worse than that in the US. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "takes it as-fact that those detained are being held legally" - it does no such thing. It just accurately reports the decision of a U.S. court, readers can draw their own conclusions about the rights and wrongs of that decision. You are grasping at straws. the wub "?!"  17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If we regularly import from a certain news source you must accept we will quickly get wise to its particular biases and look much more carefuly for them. Look at this as an opertunity to really do this properly. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call looking at the output of a government-funded news agency which produces material not for consumption within the continental United States as "grasping at straws". Where are the media or press releases for the organisations cited as criticising the failure to follow through and repatriate detainees? What, in an unfiltered manner, were the words they chose to put forth this position as being? It certainly would be more critical than the cherry-picked items used by VoA. The "throwaway" comment about a court ruling that - within the United States - there were grounds for continued detention takes no account of the position taken by the public and media in muslim-majority countries, or the dubious nature of the laws permitting this in relation to international law and the Geneva Convention. The use, from VoA, and not critically filtered, is presenting the POV of the US Government; these people remain in detention because laws were made up to excuse doing so. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and think you are being unreasonable here. The comment is not throwaway, it is a related and pertinent piece of news which has been covered extensively in its own right (e.g. NY Times, LA Times, Reuters) as well as in the BBC piece. Nevertheless I have removed that section of the story, in the hopes of at least getting something published. the wub "?!"  20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added information from Al-Jazeera and an ACLU press release. the wub "?!"  20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * these changes are much appreciated. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit line
"U.S. authorities transferred six Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo to Yemen last month. Days later, al-Qaida militants in Yemen claimed responsibility for a failed attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, December 25."

Please elaborate this. What connection do the six Yemeni detainees have to this exact incident? Did they escape and plan/execute the attempt? Or is this just bullshit meant to lead the reader to false conclusions? --199.173.225.25 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your interpretation that it is bullshit. I will add to that that it is also racist. I shall delete it entirely. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh c'mon, racist? Have you entirely taken leave of your senses? I certainly didn't read it as positing a connection, "al-Qaida militants" in the second sentence is obviously referring to different people. the wub "?!"  20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It implies that people from Yemen are not to be trusted; at best, it says they are worse because they are from Yemen. There may be a neutral way to draw the comparison, but I felt it safer to just get rid of it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By that standard the comments above about the US Government are racist, as are yours about Italian courts. the wub "?!"  20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between generally criticising a government or judiciary and throwing down assumptions based purely on some random dude's nationality. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest that the key issue with the above-quoted section that was removed is that "correlation does not equate to causation". --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm done here. Whenever I bring in material from VoA I always read it very carefully and consider: "is this something I would write"? So to be told that what I would write is hopelessly biased and worse, racist, is extremely hurtful. Frankly I can do without that. the wub "?!"  21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I happen to have a contact who is a journalist in Yemen. Shall I ask him how hurt he is after reading it? I honestly doubt you'd write it like that; it slipped past your radar once you'd seen it written in front of you. We've caught it now, let's move on. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)