Talk:Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee 23): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:51, 12 July 2009 editGeo Swan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits →question...: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:53, 12 July 2009 edit undoGeo Swan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 editsm →question...Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:
	I ''personally'' didn't find the May report credible. But it is ]. And it was very widely repeated, re-reported, and mis-reported. The New York Times ombudsman did eat crow, and retract the initial story. But, as per usual, the retraction did not get nearly as much play as the original report.		I ''personally'' didn't find the May report credible. But it is ]. And it was very widely repeated, re-reported, and mis-reported. The New York Times ombudsman did eat crow, and retract the initial story. But, as per usual, the retraction did not get nearly as much play as the original report.

	I think, with the widespread re-reporting of the report, the criticism the NY Times received, and its retraction, the report itself merits coverage.		I think, with the widespread re-reporting of the report, the criticism the NY Times received, and its retraction, the report itself merits coverage. I think this section should be restored, with the addition of a {{See\|May 2009 report one in seven former captives actively support terrorism}}

	It we trim the report, because it is retracted, we short-change readers who read re-reports of the NY Times story, and turn to the wikipedia for a balanced coverage of it. Intelligent readers are entitled to know of the initial report, how widely it was repeated, and its eventual retraction, so they can reach their own conclusion.		It we trim the report, because it is retracted, we short-change readers who read re-reports of the NY Times story, and turn to the wikipedia for a balanced coverage of it. Intelligent readers are entitled to know of the initial report, how widely it was repeated, and its eventual retraction, so they can reach their own conclusion.

Revision as of 17:53, 12 July 2009

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

question...

I am going to disagree with this well-intentioned edit. I personally didn't find the May report credible. But it is verifiable. And it was very widely repeated, re-reported, and mis-reported. The New York Times ombudsman did eat crow, and retract the initial story. But, as per usual, the retraction did not get nearly as much play as the original report.

I think, with the widespread re-reporting of the report, the criticism the NY Times received, and its retraction, the report itself merits coverage. I think this section should be restored, with the addition of a

Further information: May 2009 report one in seven former captives actively support terrorism

It we trim the report, because it is retracted, we short-change readers who read re-reports of the NY Times story, and turn to the wikipedia for a balanced coverage of it. Intelligent readers are entitled to know of the initial report, how widely it was repeated, and its eventual retraction, so they can reach their own conclusion.

I am afraid removing coverage of the report erodes the wikipedia's credibility.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories: