Talk:Canadian "terror" suspect Arar cleared after one year of torture

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Contralya in topic again, title

title edit

There is a lot to this story, so it's hard to have a short title that captures it all. But in my opinion, title should focus on his ordeal, maybe 'Terror suspect cleared after a year of torture' TRWBW 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arar's name is known, particularly in Canada, so I think it should be in the title. Crimson 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about 'Canadian terror suspect Arar cleared after a year of torture'? I'd like to emphasis what he went through for people who haven't followed the case. TRWBW 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Crimson 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for finding the CSM article however, if it's going to be a source some of the information in it should be worked into the article such as the US angle and the reaction of the US media. 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Nag, nag, nag. I'll try to get on that later today, if someone doesn't beat me to it. TRWBW 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

terrorism tag edit

if this tag is to be used at all, it needs to be used while articles are in development, not on published articles. Doldrums 11:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. But I guess it is OK to bring back published articles about the Pope to develop? There is no policy against making non-content edits to published articles. The template stays. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if an article does not meet content guidelines but has been published, then it can be brought back into development provided it has not remained published for "too long" (1/2 days has been the rough guideline).
adding this template to a published article serves no purpose. we do not use a template like this to address equally valid concerns on any other topic - eg. crime reporting, reporting from regions where journalists have limited access. i don't see any consensus in the WC cooler discussion on the use of the template or its wording. i see no worthwhile reason to make an exception in this particular case. so please remove this template. Doldrums 11:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
far from being a "non-content" edit, this template brings to bear a particular pov to colour the entire article, much of its wording is problematic, as i've earlier indicated in the WC discussion and does not belong on a published article. do u really want a published wikinews article to say "The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Wikinews or its contributors."? Doldrums 11:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have brought the article back to develop, as is the norm with disputed stories. Now, go ahead and explain to me 1)What part of the wording in {{terrorism}} you have a problem with. 2)The basis of your claim that this template "colours" the article with a certain POV. Also be aware of the fact that the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Consensus policy on

consensus] at Meta clearly states that Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   13:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

have replied in the WC discussion (link above). Doldrums 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand what's being debated, maybe because I'm new. The best I can figure out maybe there is a question whether the word terror/terrorism can be used in a article without being POV because there is dispute over whether it is used to imply that violent actions are illegitamate, when another point of view is that they are resistance or "legitimate" warfare? If that's it, I'm not sure what that would have to do with this article. He was suspected of being a terrorist, that seems undisputed, so the phrase "terror suspect" is accurate whether or not you agree with categorizing certain acts as terrorism. Honestly, somebody please have mercy on me and explain, what is the issue here? TRWBW 13:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

develop/publish edit

i don't see a dispute over the content of the article. whether the terrorism template is to be used or not is a dispute/discussion that belongs in the water cooler. i see no reason why this article should remain in develop. i suggest that it be published immediately. there is no consensus over the use of this template, and it's use or non-use should not hold back publication of an otherwise publishable article. Doldrums 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

again, title edit

This title is misleading, and the entire article is styled that it is a well known fact that he was tortured. Is there any evidence? Weather or not their is, the article should be styled around him CLAIMING to be tortured. It is so annoying how everyone assumes that the U.S. tortures all of it's prisoners. Look what we did for the German POWs in WWII! Contralya 15:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to "Canadian "terror" suspect Arar cleared after one year of torture" page.