Talk:Jonathan Idema

The role of speculation and citation in this article?

The second paragraph of the Afghan section currently reads:

"However, it is precisely because of his high profile and openness with the media that it is unlikely that Idema was officially connected with any branch of the military; covert operatives go to great lengths to avoid public appearances and media contacts. It is more likely, though, that Idema was operating in Afghanistan via independent financial backing, seeking the US$25 million bounty posted on bin Laden..."

Well, that sounds like speculation to me. My understanding of the no original research policy is that this kind of speculation can be included -- if the article is citing or quoting a verifiable, authoritative source.

There are verifiable sources that quote the claims Idema made in the Afghan court. Here is one:

America Disowns Idema Amid Cover-Up Claims
[http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3B6E7737-7468-4C4C-BC29-37A1F6EAE44A.htm US 'bounty hunter' claims FBI links
Private jail: FBI accused of cover-up

Here is the key part:

"In front of the judge is the receipt that the FBI signed. Why did the judge allow the FBI to take evidence from the NDS?" Idema questioned, alleging that 500 pages of documents, 200 videotapes and at least 400 photographs had been seized.

"Now it's at the US embassy where no one is ever going to see it."

I'd like to include Idema's claims. Trouble is, it doesn't fit if the article already takes a stand that he is a fantastist.

So, if that 2nd paragraph came from a verifiable, citable source, it should be cited. Agreed? If it is the speculation of one of our fellow contributors should it be cut? Shouldn't we be setting the facts before the reader, and letting them make up their own minds? -- Geo Swan 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to "Yunis Qanooni" in the later section that's currently red-linked. Should this be "Yunus Qanuni"? --Bearda 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]