Talk:Shaker Aamer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Military work group. | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
[edit] role in negotiating the end to the July hunger strike is significant
The NY Times reported that Shaker negotiated an end to the first hunger strike. I think this is significant event in his life, and deserves to be covered in this article. So, I am restored that information.
I invite a discussion from anyone who thinks a case can be made for its removal.
Similarly, the link to the NY Times article was removed, without explanation. So I restored it. I would welcome a discussion with anyone who thinks they can make a case for its removal.
I added information about Stafford Smith's claim of what Shaker's negotiation had acheived. I believe this to belongs in Shaker's article. For balance I included the American denial. -- Geo Swan 22:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Should Wikipedia publish press releases from defense counsel? If so, which cases?
Essentially this article, like many others, sources from the press releases of defense counsel. Those press releases end up in the newspapers. This is not a criticism of the defense attorney, he is doing what lawyers do. The issue is whether an encyclopedia loses credibility by becoming a megaphone for one point of view. Joaquin Murietta 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? Why not, so long as the source is not misrepresented?
- Could you please explain what you mean by the phrase "a megaphone for one point of view"? No one is forcing the Bush administration to adopt a policy of secrecy around the detention of terror suspects. Taken to its logical conclusion, your suggestion would not permit any wikipedia articles on controversial topics, so long as one party maintained a policy of silence.
- I think the {accuracy} tag was applied to this article in error. -- Geo Swan 22:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I have been waiting six months for answers to my questions about the application of the accuracy tag. I will wait one further week. If no one makes a serious attempt to defend the tag I am going to remove it. -- Geo Swan 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
