Talk:Rep. Hunter calls for hearings about alleged "cold-blooded killings" of civilians by U.S. Marines

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

according to the NYT[1],


An official military investigation into allegations that American marines killed innocent Iraqis last November has uncovered evidence that the number of dead civilians is higher than the 15 originally reported, Congressional and Defense Department officials said.



He [Rep. Murtha] said he had not read the official findings of the inquiry, but had been told about them by officers he identified as commanders.

Doldrums 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch. --vonbergm 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As evidenced above, and elsewhere, Representative Murtha is not an authority regarding this event, nor is there a news event in this article other than the Representative making pronouncements. This article and title present as "fact" what is in reality an admittedly uninformed opinion. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amgine, please read more carefully before making such comments. Neither the article nor the title presents anything as fact. All claims are correctly attributed to Murtha. Also, your claim that this is an "uninformed opinion" contradicts the above quotes that you yourself referred to just one sentence earlier. Please try to stay constructive. --vonbergm 00:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

strong supporter of the military[edit]

This is a characterization from the VOA source and is easily supported by his voting record. As such this is not a matter of opinion and just as relevant to the article as the fact that he called for a 6-month pullout. --vonbergm 00:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is my major tweek ok? international 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good work. Any reason that this is still in development? --vonbergm 06:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, it is a matter of opinion. One may find this support of the military, but others may find his remarks anti-military. For this reason, you cannot claim it as being factual that he is a supporter of the military, as there are numerous opinions on the subject, and it isn't factual. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Civilians are often killed; that's not the news here; the news is the alleged "cold blooded" nature of the killings so the title needs to reflect the "news" event as opposed to something (killing civilians) which is not news; it seems to me. I have moved the title back to Messedrockers's version where it reflected the news value of the article. Neutralizer 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I agrea that this is the case. "This report is going to be ugly" was a statement, wonder about how many similar 'incidents' that not have vitness and dont get mediacoverage. international 11:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just be sure to edit multi-redirects in the future when changing a headline. Karen 06:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category and link[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Time (magazine) and localize a link of the same name. Also the names of the authors in the sources should be written properly e.g. McGirk, not mcgirk/baghdad. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

addressed. --Pi zero (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]