Talk:USA rejects UN Guantanamo report

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Vonbergm in topic POV analysis?

"And I think it's a discredit to the UN when a team like this goes about rushing to report something when they haven't even looked into the facts, all they've done is look at the allegations." (McClellan). Isn't it just funny how this guy says UN should have investigated the issue more, but USA was not willing to give inspectors free hands in investigating. Hell yes they would have investigated more if they had been allowed by the US. :) --HJV 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Based on this article's quotes of McClellan, he does not sound very articulate. Can quotes be brief with more factual sourced statements to add some clarity and a broaden the point-of-view? The quotes just seem like a lot of blathering, even Kofi Annan's.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that the list of experts and their titles seems a bit excessive. Maybe put them in a seperate section below the article? Karen 08:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

POV analysis? edit

The phrasing and choice of sources in this article appears to be an analysis. It is POV because it includes only select information, and excludes other alternative information, to attempt to elicit a specific response, which would make this article a violation of the WN:NPOV. I'm sure this is not the author's intent, so I'm bringing it up here to alert the author. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The above concern has not been addressed in this article. I am tagging as a violation of WN:NPOV. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Never mind the fact that it only contains large quotes by U.S. officials without any explanation of the UN reasoning!!
I added links to Annan'talk and announce of the report (but not the report) with full history. Jacques Divol
Sorry I was not around to address NPOV concerns. Ironically it seems to me that Amgine thinks the article is too anti-US and Divol thinks it is too pro-US. If that's the case I don't know what can be done. I think I will start an entirely new article. Neutralizer 13:51, 17 February 2006


I should also say that Amgine is correct that I was trying to involve a story that fit into "You feel aren't getting adequate coverage: Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten or isn't getting enough attention in the rest of the press? Here's your chance to tell the world!"... the issue of the asylum request for Gitmos. Now that that part of the Guantanamo story is finally coming out elsewhere [1] I will do a story just on that aspect. Neutralizer 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, both critisisms can be the addressed simultaniously: just say more about the content and authors of the report. These guys all have big long "U.N. torture hunter" titles, and that is good to know, both because it means they probably know torture when they see it, and also because it means they might not know so much about law other enforcement concerns. I've added a bit, and clarified the intro.. I hope. Nyarlathotep 13:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you are not aware that these are merely their UN titles, but most of these people (I don't know enough information to claim this for all of them) have other jobs and obligations that qualify them for their jobs. For example, Nowak is a law professor at the University of Vienna, and has also served as judge on international courts (for example in Kosovo). It seems to me that you are suggesting to create a certain POV by displaying the names in the way you did. --vonbergm 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
You can change the titles however you like, and it would be even better to know their "day jobs". I'm just claiming that more information solves both POV claims which N pointed out appear to go in opposite directions. As to style of listing, I displayed them as a bulleted list because I was lazy, your welcome to put it into a more professional looking, but harder to read, paragraph form. Nyarlathotep 12:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I think the current version with the links to wikipedia (the articles must be very new...) is a good solution. --vonbergm 17:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

editing? edit

Can we adress all concerns and make it publised quite quick? It would be a perfect 'second article' beside 'UN alleges torture at Guantanamo Bay' International 15:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Return to "USA rejects UN Guantanamo report" page.