Talk:Three inmates commit suicide at Guantanamo detention facility

Gitmo, the place where you don't wanna go.

Is the title of the A.P. source really "U.S.: 3 Gitmo Inmates Hanged Themselves"? Karen 05:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so - see here... R2b2 23:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I couldn't tell until the newer non-subscription link was used. Honestly, that's the first time I've ever heard "Gitmo" used to describe the place. (See comments in related news section below) Karen 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing a direct quote.

"he said, quoted by Reuters" implies it was spoken, and perhaps punctuated incorrectly. I've been editing puctionation within quotes for quite some time - why stop me now? Karen 05:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to stop you! You do an amazing job "fixing up articles". I had just read the source and noted the strange punctation. I don't think the Style Guide addresses it and I really don't care either way. Thank you for the wonderful work on articles. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The "why stop me now?" was tongue-in-cheek, but you probably knew that. I do get carried away with edits, sometimes having to reverse edits of chiefly British spelling or quotes. But several email or chat transcripts for exclusive interviews I've edited for spelling and punctuation. Since they're done informally, I make the corrections on the provision that I don't change the intended meaning. Maybe the style guide should address things like that. I'm breaking the general rule about editing quotes with what I hope is good judgement. Karen 05:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The style guide probably *should* address how we handle quotes. Can you develop some possible text for the Style Guide? --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I made an entry for quotes into the style guide, which could be expanded with examples and more guidance. I'll never forget the time I added a translated quote verbatum from a professional news source into a Wikinews story where the terrorist act was not "condomed". Fortunately, someone else spotted the error and made the edit to "condemned". Karen 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote

---

I do get carried away with edits, sometimes having to reverse edits of chiefly British spelling or quotes.

I thought Canada used British English, since it is a Commonwealth nation. Nontheless, Commonwealth English is more commonly used around the world, (because of the "sun never setting on the Empire" and all) so it might be best if you could use the latter. PVJ (Talk) 13:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus currently specifies that the author or location of the event suggest the spelling. This means I have to be sure not to correct the British English spelling unless the spelling isn't in fact a word at all. Some stories in fact are about, or located in, North America, but contain British English spellings. Consensus would have me edit those, but I do not. I have been deliberately flexible in these matters, so it might be best if you could follow (or change) the consensus concerning British English. The fact that I bother to make corrections on British-oriented stories, then reverse them to maintain the British English spellings means I'm trying to be considerate. Karen 17:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

present other views on the incident

while the article quotes a US military officer speculating on the reasons for the suicides, it does not report on other possibilities that have been advanced. eg. the San Francisco Chronicle[1]

1. presents Bill Goodman's, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based advocacy group that oversees lawyers representing many of the detainees views on the incident.
2. international concerns on the legality and conditions of detention at Guant.
3. cites previous reports that prisoners have engaged in violent attacks on guards, hunger strikes and unsuccessful suicide attempts.
4. states (this has to be tracked down) "Lawyers for the detainees have predicted for months that some of them would eventually kill themselves." and "have litigated in the federal courts to try to get more information about the prisoners' medical and psychological health."
5. quotes Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, a lawyer in New York who represents one detainee who has repeatedly attempted suicide.
6. reports on the force-feeding, under restraint of inmates on hunger strike,

the current one-sided presentation is especially problematic since, the SF again states

Quote

---

In late 2003, military officials reclassified many "suicide attempts as "manipulative, self-injurious behavior" meant to force better conditions or release, but acknowledged the change was not necessarily made after any formal psychological evaluation.

Doldrums 07:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

represent all sides fairly

taking out this quote:

"They are smart. They are creative. They are committed. They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us," he told reporters

certainly serves the purpose of representing all sides fairly, freaking wikinews NPOV creeps. -Edbrown05 11:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Take away from an article rather than add to it, right roger that, not. -Edbrown05 11:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was not npov at that time, I would say exept from last sentence it looked like a pure US military statement. I still think that part is outragus, an outburst made for humiliating and demonizing Guantanamo prisoner. but ok, after adding some npoving quotes the article is more ballansed, but that rear adm. guy hopfully get answerd by someone...international 12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with International, that quote was outrageous and frankly only an Islamophobic American soldier would stoop so low as to accuse a man who was driven to suicide by the atrocities at that detention centre of ending his life to wage war against the U.S. However, it might be stated that the fact that the American authorities there actually succeeded in abusing these men to the point of killing themselves, and then went on to mock their tragic deaths as an act of war, might not make the U.S any more popular with readers from other countries. What conclusions readers draw from reading our stories, is however not our concern. PVJ (Talk) 13:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Related news

"The United Nations recently asked the U.S to close down the detention centre after reports of abuse were made, including the flushing of Quraans down toilets, force-feeding of inmates, sleep deprivation and beatings of underage prisoners." Now that make it related, DF. international 12:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No it does not. There was no suicide among those reports nor a death. Jason Safoutin 13:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Of cause it is related. Didnt you think UN feared eventual suicides as an sad consequence in its arguing against this illegal facility? Your argument is not strong enough to revert the related news. If to do it please present better arguments. international 13:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually your arguemnt if POV in itself. All of what you said is nothing but what you think. "Illegal"? Says Who? If it was illegal then it would npot be there and you and I would not be seeing this story. It is your POV and the POV of a military officer, who is not a qualified pschylogist or doctor and who cannot make those claims to why they killed themselves. Jason Safoutin 13:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont spread the missunderstanding that talkpages fall under some sort of npov regulation or that anywikinewsie is witout pov. Time to understand npov/pov now! Btw you may show some law that allow long inprisonment of people without any leagal way to defend themself, like a court proceedings. international 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as anyone is concerned they aer terrorists, insurgents, al-Qaeda whatever....Unless you know any of them personally and have spoken to them, then your so called "facts" are actually a POV. For all you know they have been to court, tribunal or whatever...tell me...how do you know?? Jason Safoutin 15:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is, we don't really know who these people are. The U.S. Army hasn't released the names of most prisoners, so there is no way we can check their stories. All we know is that the U.S. terms them as "terrorists" while various human rights groups think most of them are innocent. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And who are they to say? I suppose they are all lawyers? Every one of them? And again...what does this have to do with the current news.?? Jason Safoutin 15:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

DF, slow down now! You are not contributing to a good discussion here. Your claims ar somewath inconsistent and straggling. international 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I sated my reasons and concerns. And no one has yet to say what the article has to do with this news. This is simply a push for a POV which international has done a good job of stating. Jason Safoutin 16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, if anyone have done a good jobb of stating something it is you DF. Stating that you are lousy in understanding the consept of npov/pov. And that you have a tendecy of being... difficul to have a clear and somewhat intellectual discussion with about these issues. Better if you stay away from similar disputes to you understand these issus better or at least start to read otherusers arguments, for exampel the first] in this tread about Related news. Then you had saved yourself something. international 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this conflict solely about the related news link? How related must a story be to be mentioned in one story as being related to another? Being about "Guantanamo detention facility" isn't enough? I know there's many stories related in that way. Can a consensus be formed on this issue, or at least this particular situation to make it appear as if contributors can work together? Karen 17:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the "present other views on the incident" section above, the related story is related - providing another view in the related story. It's my opinion that there's no reason to remove the related news in this case. I offer my opinion in the hopes that a consensus can be reached. Karen 17:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this is a fairly well-put together article, at this point should someone wish to bring accusations of not being consistent with NPOV, they'd have to bring up a significant item from one of the used sources that would dramatically change the impression the article gives. I.e. prove that the sources have been selectively used to build a POV piece. As it stands I think this is neutral enough that reasonable people on both sides of the Gitmo discussions could draw the conclusions they choose by selectively ignoring material that caused them cognitive dissonance. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So "Gitmo" is in common colloquial use? Maybe it's some sort of acronym, like Snafu. Both sound like killer whale names. Anyway, I agree with what you said, except for the parts I ignored due to cognitive dissonance. Karen 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gitmo is derived from the abbreviation "GTMO", or so wikipedia says. Doldrums 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get serious :) ... should it be "hung" or "hanged"? Or is this another International versus US English thing? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

probably hanged: paintings are hung on walls and murderers are hanged without mercy. here's what marriam-webster's has to say[2]. Doldrums 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

GTMO - I think I need to buy a vowel. Ditto what Doldrums (and Marriam-Webster's) said about hung/hanged. Thanks for all the bits of info! Karen 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and should the section be called Related news? That's what I've been using, simply because news is both singular and plural, where "articles" is only plural and there's only one related news bit in this story. Karen 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

according to the style guide, it's Related stories, but i too have been using "news" for some time. Doldrums 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's related news given the calls for guantanamo to be closed down - see [3] - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 05:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikinews, being an international website should use Commonwealth English as far as possible since the American version is used mainly only in North America. Hence I would change hanged to hung in this case. PVJ (Talk) 12:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus currently specifies that the author or location of the event suggest the spelling." (quoting myself from earlier - see above) Cuba isn't a Commonwealth nation, so use of non-local spellings woudn't be appropriate. Again, refer to Online Dictionary entry for "hanged" - you may have a point per the entry "Hanged is most appropriate for official executions but hung is also used. Hung is more appropriate for less formal hangings." Thus one could say "They hung themselves," considering suicide as a "less formal hanging". Feel free to make the edit, but don't make it because you believe only Commonwealth English should be used in all cases. Karen 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always been taught that its hanged (I'm in New Zealand) - I'd be interested to know the source that says that Commonwealth English has it as hung? R2b2 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I don't think it's an issue between Commonwealth English and American English. It depends on if you want to use the more formal "hanged" or less formal "hung". "Hanged" would be my preference, but I'm not adverse to the less formal usage. It's not a matter of spelling variation, it's word usage. PVJ is currently the only one claiming it's a Commonwealth English-ism or British variant. I refer to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ for spelling variations and try hard not to change them (excuse my confusion last night on the NZ snowstorm story) unless it would be more appropriate. The Free Dictionary states "A majority of the Usage Panel objects to hung used in this sense," confirming my preference toward "hanged". Thankfully, it's not a headline issue, or we might have seen the headline change several times. Karen 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is just one word Karen do not make an issue of it. PVJ (Talk) 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made an issue of smaller things - vertical whitespace between date and story, for instance. Don't take it personally. Karen 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

While I do fully support the concept of maintaining a neutral point of view in all our articles, I should perhaps mention here that quite frankly most of the international community is against the incarceration of prisoners in this prison. Having said that, non-American readers, or those American readers who do not support this prison might find it offensive if we quote American military personnell who are in no way qualified to make such statments, and who are widely regarded as being highly Islamphobic and cruel toward Muslims, when they openly mock the deaths of these men as an act of war. Doing this would be tantamount to quoting some militant leader when he refers to the attacks of 11/9 as an "act of jihad carried out by honourable matyrs against the American dogs". As such putting a quote like that, what I gave was an example but I am sure many terrorists have said things like that, into our articles would serve our goal of NPOV, but would definitely be offensive to American readers. PVJ (Talk) 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree...and I stated that concern already...and was ignored. Jason Safoutin 13:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote

---

As far as anyone is concerned they are terrorists, insurgents, al-Qaeda whatever....

Actually most people, me included, think of them as political prisoners who are being illegally incarcerated by the Americans in violation of rulings by both the U.N and Amnesty International, among other international bodies, and are being subjected to gross violations of human rights such as torture, humiliating punishments, mockery of their religious beliefs and the refusal of their right to free and fair trial, by the Islamphobic authorities in that prison. PVJ (Talk) 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It really is a shame that your POV has to overrule. The UN has no authority in the matter. You aslo do not know who these people are...for all you or I know they could have blown a few buildings up and killed a few hundred people. Fact is you or I don't know that. "Islamphobic" is a severe POV as you likely do not know all the guards in that prison personally, therefore as you stated above, are not qualified to make that statement. Jason Safoutin 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse the U.N has authority in this matter. No country, can arrest citizens of other nations and incarcerate them indefinitely without trial, especially not when there is evidence that these prioners were humiliated and harassed on what seems to be religious grounds, as can be seen from the incident where Quraans were flushed down toilets. Islamphobic is POV and words like Islamofascist and Islamists and towelhead are not? Do not be so naive. Unless the U.S can prove that these people did in fact kill people and blow up buildings or whatever, their situation will be treated as a case of human rights violation based on religious grounds. As such the U.S military has a shameful record of cruelty and torture, be it in Vietnam, Iraq or any other of the numerous conflicts America has started. Yes, I do not know whether or not these people were guilty of blowing up buildings and killing others, just like I do not know whether or not you are a U.S Army soldier who just got back from covering mentally challenged prisoners in Abu Ghraib in feces. PVJ (Talk) 14:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If the UN had full authpority, the prison would be gone...simple as that. Same goes for the human rights groups. Since none of them know all of the prisoners personally, then their statements are nothing more than POV. You can Blame America for whatever you want. I can Blame Germany, Iran, Israel and a few others of far far worse things. So simply put, POV. Personally, america is not "shameful" maybe Bush is, but this country accomplised in less than 300 years what still many other counteries have not even come close to. Your simple dislike for America is not an actionable objecion, however your basis that the individual making the quote is not qualified is actionable. Jason Safoutin 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote

---

but this country accomplised in less than 300 years what still many other counteries have not even come close to

That is because America became independent from Britain over 200 years ago. Since many other developing countries were colonies which were exploited by the British, or other colonial nations, you cannot compare these developing countries, which became independent only in the last 50 or so years with the U.S which had a time advantage. The U.S is pretty much on the same level as any other country which has been independent for the same period of time. As for the individual being not qualified to make such a statment, I am justified because the man in question is a simple American soldier who has most likely not obtained a degree in psychology and is thus not educated enough to comment on the mental condition of these prisoners. As for Bush being shameful, to the best of my knowledge it was the majority of the American people who actually elected him to power. So since he is the elected representative of the American people, if you consider him shameful then logically you also consider Americans shameful. Anyway, the quote should be removed from the article on the basis that it is highly insulting and was made by an incompetent authority. PVJ (Talk) 15:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote shall remain as it represent the opinion of those in power in US and alot of USians that support them. My pov about those people is not writable here. But article is fairly npov in my eyes and that whats count. If people complain about what the rear adm. said they should adress him or US, which he represent. international 16:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the quote accurately shows the shameful nature of the situation and incompetent authority, and other contributors still want the quote to remain, then let it remain - are you trying to make the situation appear better than it is and keep American actions and leadership reasons out of the news by removing the quote? Let those who said what they have be heard - let every comment regarding the suicides and as much information that relates be mentioned. Don't censor the news. Karen 16:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not cencorship. He is not a qualified doctor or pschyologist and there fore is not qualified to make that statement and is in turn his POV and nothing more with nothing to back it up at all. Thats not censoring thats called NPOV. I vote to remove the quote. Jason Safoutin 17:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He may not be qualified, but it was his opinion that he expressed to reporters, I have slightly revised this portion to try and better attribute the POV. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I do feel that this particular statement is a mockery of the tragic deaths of thesemen, and I agree that letting it remain will further prove the unfair treatement given to prisoners at that detention centre, I do not think that this particular man was an authorised spokesperson for the U.S military so his comment was basically an expression he made of his point of view and hence I vote to delete it. PVJ (Talk) 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If wikinews had been in the position to have a reporter "on the ground" when this statement was given we'd have it on tape or similar. I am opposed to the removal of this statement, and note that the BBC article on the planned release of one of the prisoners mentions the "asymmetrical warfare" quote. It isn't our job to stop this guy getting disciplined for opening his mouth and putting his foot in it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also my position to oppose the removal of the statement, on the grounds that removal of it takes away responses to the incident, which seems counter to trying to provide a neutral point of view. Qualified or not, a person quoted by a reporter is somehow involved. In these circumstances when the NPOV card is played, additional quotes from the other points of view are needed to address the situation. I am not objecting to their inclusion - therefore I'm not "pushing" any particular point of view. It's obvious to the readers who is going to be biased, so just reporting what is said by whom is perfectly reasonable. Karen 19:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a sentence clarifying to readers that the concerned person apparently does not have a degree in psychology so his authority to comment on this matter might be questionable. PVJ (Talk) 15:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)