Talk:US soldier arrested for rape and four murders in Iraq/Archive 01

This is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you want to reintroduce topics, link to the section in this page from the main talk page.

---

Can you fix the sources? A link to yahoo's latest news on Iraq will change and I can't verify the story without specific sources. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok; Brian, why couldn't you have done that simple correction? Neutralizer 21:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The page as presented offered multiple sources, there was the possibility that to fully source the story you should have cited more than one of them. You know that, I don't. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok; I think I fixed it. Thanks. Neutralizer 23:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

sections need rewriting

several sentences in this article are verbatim copies from the AP source. i think they need to be rewritten, and we shld try to add info from other sources. please note that the AP copyright statement reads "The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press." (emphasis mine). Doldrums 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the rewrite and good info from the AP copyright statement. Neutralizer 12:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

WP has an image of Green being arrested. Doldrums 07:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

and shld the title be "killing" or "killings"? Doldrums 13:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to put the image into the story but it won't take? Neutralizer 13:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Craig helped me with it. Neutralizer 14:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Image removed for copyvio? yet it is on wikipedia? I will replace until consensus reached. Neutralizer 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

suggest u ask someone familiar with copyrights about this first. my guess if, if the image is from another news source, it may be fair use for wikipedia to use it, but not for wikinews becoz we're a direct "competitor" to the other news source. (and copyright stuff is not about consensus, it's about what the rules are). Doldrums 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an AP property. the NYTimes has it and says it's from WPN which means we can use it. Neutralizer 17:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

From the WPN image description page:

<snip> (Patrick Schneider/Charlotte Observer/WpN) **EXCLUSIVE IMAGE, MUST CALL 646-325-3221 PRIOR TO USE**

Please also read Commons:Welcome and Commons:Licensing since you obviously have no idea what the Commons are about. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I don't know much about Commons. I'll read up on it. Thanks. Neutralizer 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Title

Charges for murder were laid so title should say murders (I think). Neutralizer 14:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

this article has disappeared into a redirect loop

Somebody might want to fix that.--Birdmessenger 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 22:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be back to normal now. Note that I didn't specifically choose this title — it was just what was available for me to use. This title is not set in stone. Considering what happened, I am going to protect the article (and this talk page) from moves until we can settle on a title. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This was a good edit on my talk page; "Please keep in mind the fact that some readers may not be familiar with the fact that the 101st Airborne is an American unit. Also, the concerned murderer was in the service of the U.S military and was posted in Iraq on official duty when he committed the crime. Please ensure that the title of the article reflects these facts. Thanks. PVJ (Talk) 21:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)" Neutralizer 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just say "U.S. soldier"? Neutralizer 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's analyze the different reasons for the move:

• Neutralizer wanted to observe the fact that more than one person was killed, and the person is no longer a soldier
• Cspurrier doesn't want to focus on how it was a child that was killed
• PVJ59 notes that people may not know that "101st Airborne Division" is part of the army -- Neutralizer settles at this by proposing above to replace mentioning of the specific division with a general statement that the person was in the army.

On those terms, let's make the name Former U.S. soldier charged with rape, murders. Neutralizer, Cspurrier, and PVJ59, would you agree with that name? —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not care what the title ends up being, all of them except the one I reverted are fine with me. --Cspurrier 01:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me; btw; just for curiosity's sake, why doesn't Craig's revert show on the article history? Neutralizer 02:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably listed on one of the redirects (the aftermath of the move war). —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh,ok, thanks. Neutralizer 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume that PVJ would approve of the title, seeing as in his page move, he replaced Infantry blah blah with U.S. soldier. (or something like that). I'd like to thank all of you (PVJ included) for being very constructive in my effort to restore the article (it was deleted) and compromise on a single name. And Birdmessenger, I cannot thank you enough for alerting us about the problem with the page. If it weren't for that, the page probably would've disappeared. Thank you, everyone. After this posting, I will rename the page and fix the double redirects. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like if the title clarified that the act occured in Iraq and that the soldier was in the active service of the U.S military and was posted on official duty in Iraq at the time of the crime, as opposed to him having been already discharged from service when the rape occured. I also think it is somewhat important to mention the age of the victim, given the fact that to some people the rape of an 11 year old would seem different (more atrocious given the victim's tender age) than the rape of an older woman. I would suggest something like U.S soldier, since discharged, charged with rape, murder of 11-year-old girl in Iraq. PVJ (Talk) 04:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, I am sorry for jumping to conclusions. While there's nothing wrong with mentioning the location, there might be a hint of bias in stating that the rape victim was a child... by directly stating that it was a child, it implies that raping children is worse than raping adults. While raping children is indeed disgusting, we're not supposed to take sides on this. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 04:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We need not imply anything, we are just stating the fact that the victim was not an adult. It is up to the readers to draw their own conclusions. Can the other change, involving the fact that the man was in the U.S militray at the time of the incident, be implemented? PVJ (Talk) 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Touché. However, it was previously mentioned in the title that that victim was young, and Cspurrier wanted it removed. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, we do not act based solely on what Cspurrier wants. Perhaps it should be ascertained whether consensus has been reached on this point. In any case, one wonders why Cspurrier is intent on concealing the girl's age. PVJ (Talk) 08:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The aim of this project is to present the facts of a news article to our readers. In this case, the facts are as follows:- A man who was, at the time, in the service of the U.S military and posted in Iraq on official duty during Operation Iraqi Liberation, raped and killed a girl and her family in a town near Baghdad. Although the U.S officially claims the victim was 24 years of age, the girl's neighbours say she was 14 years old. Al-Jazeera says she was 5 years old, while Reuters claims she was 11. Going by the simple majority, it is clear that the U.S claim that she was 24 is improbable. On the other hand, Al-Jazeera's estimate that she was 5 years old too seems erroneous. Reuters, however says she was 11, the closest figure to the girl's neighbours claim that she was 14. Since Reuters is a reliable source, we will have to accept their word over the girl's neighbours', as per our verifiability policy. As for what opinions readers might draw from the victim's age, that is not our concern. I therefore suggest we include the girl's age in the title. PVJ (Talk) 09:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Reuters estimate you mention is not backupped by any of the sources. Also, assuming bad faith on other contributor's part is not going to help you achieve consensus. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

See the explanation given below. PVJ (Talk) 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

btw, the ruters based source in the article makes no mention of any 11-year olds. Doldrums 10:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In the article titled American Shame [1], which appeared on www.timesnow.tv, the official website of TimesNow, a news channel run jointly by the Times Group and Reuters, the girl's age is mentioned as "1!". The exclamation mark is certainly a typographic error made by the writer since the "!" and "1" characters are commonly located on the same key on most keyboards. PVJ (Talk) 11:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

i think it's a 15, with the 5 covered over by a badly placed image. Doldrums 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

confirm by looking at html source, or copy-paste into text editor. Doldrums 11:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a browser issue. In Firefox, it does indeed render an exclamation mark, probably because the text is partially covered by the image. In IE and Opera however, you can clearly see that it is "15". And as Doldrums pointed out, looking at the source confirms this. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern with the age is just that our sources do not support a single age. It would be in violation of our NPOV policy to choose one source to trust over the others. Even if we go with the age of 11, most would just consider her a child or a girl, not a young girl. --Cspurrier 14:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

title changes

pls discuss title changes before making them. several changes have had to be reverted bcoz they were plain _wrong_. as everybody wld agree, this is an important news event and we shld work to get it _right_. Doldrums 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PVJ; if the age is under 16 we should say "child" whether it's 11 or 14 or 15. I do not understand the references to Cspurrier and would like to have the edits/moves Cspurrier made put back into the article's history(if possible) or a link to them so that this talk page makes sense. Neutralizer 13:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Some points to consider:

1. Abeer Qassim Hamza's age is very much is dispute. It is not our place to decide how old she likely is, given that several sources are in dispute regarding this.
2. There seems to be no evidence that she was 11.
3. Fifteen is not necessarily considered childhood in Iraq or elsewhere.

Describing Abeer Qassim Hamza as a child at this point, given the available information, would be poor reporting and unwarranted POV. I suggest that we simply describe the age controversy and leave it at to the reader to decide how heinous the alleged crime is. --Birdmessenger 13:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First, the article is based on charges laid down by U.S. prosecutors. Regardless of what the victim's real age is, Green is charged with (in addition to the murders) raping a 25-year old. We can point out that there a varying reports about her age, but Green is definately not "charged" with raping a 15-year old (see page 4 of the criminal complaint).

Second of all, four people were murdered here. Why do you want to single out one victim in title? And is raping and killing a 15-year old worse than raping and killing a 25-year old? --Deprifry|+T+ 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

as far as i know, the only source for the age of the victim has been a second hand quote from a neighbour, which i dont think is enough to go on. i'd be more confident if u you can find, other sources which also assert that the age of the victim was 15. Doldrums 13:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

When the concerned page is viewed on Firefox, the age appears as "1!". Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Her age, as per Reuters is 15. I suggest we refer to her as a teenager. And is raping and killing a 25-year old worse than raping and killing a 15-year old?- Possibly, given the fact that she was a minor and the fact that her life was cut short by ten more years than it would have been if the American had killed her when she was 25. PVJ (Talk) 13:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"woman" or "female"

"female" is more accurate as it can mean a woman or a girl, but feels somewhat dehumanised. i'm not sure which we shld use. perhaps "female" to begin with and while discussing the age, and "woman" later on? Doldrums 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since she was 15, I believe "girl" or "teenager" would be more appropriate. If there are no objections expressed, I will proceed to change the title accordingly. PVJ (Talk) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

we don't know that she was 15. we have two contradictory claims and unless more informatio turns up, i think we shld leave it as it is. Doldrums 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And Reuters itself doesn't seem to be sure about the age. From [2]

Quote

---

Mahmudiya's mayor and other local officials named the family and said Abeer Qasim Hamza was 16 when she was raped and killed, although U.S. investigators have the victim's age as 20

So we really don't know how old she was which is why we should leave it out of the title. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The NYT and Washington Post have gone with "young woman", "rape victim" and "Abeer Qassim Hamza". SFGate went with "girl". I haven't yet seen "female", but I stuck it in as a possible compromise. I agree it sounds a bit clinical. Personally, I favor "young woman" as by most standards that would be a fairly accurate description. --Birdmessenger 13:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

we can use "young woman", i think, especially since the doubt over her age is stated early on in the article. Doldrums 14:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"young woman" is best I think. It can cover early teens to ~25. --Cspurrier 14:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since the latest move by PVJ59 the title misleading, factually incorrect and in violation of WN:NPOV. Suggesting that there is even remote support here on this talk page is obviously ludicrous to anyone who looks only a few lines up. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. This move seems to be outside any consensus that exists here. --Birdmessenger 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I fully side with PVJ59 that if the available evidence is that the rape victim was not an adult, then that is a really important aspect to the story and we need to keep working on a title that includes that point. I also think it's misleading to refer to the female as "woman" if there is not a consensus that she was an adult. I have not mentioned it but the fact that the military photo is reported to have only showed the bottom half of the rape victim could have been an attempt to conceal the fact that she was a child (no developed breasts?). I totlaly respect PVJ59's persistence in trying to get us collectively to emphasize the fact she was a child if the available reliable sources indicate that. We definitely can not rely upon any FBI or US Military estimates in this regard, that's for sure. Neutralizer 17:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

//We definitely can not rely upon any FBI or US Military estimates in this regard, that's for sure// Neutralizer that is a biased attitude. That source is no more or no less accurate than any other. It simply is a source. Do not go into speculation or conspiracy theory about it. There are many reasons why US would not want to show the face of the victim and it is perfectly normal for adult females not to look like Pam Anderson. It's just a source. There are other sources. If they are in conflict the news to report is THE SOURCES CONFLICT. We never judge one source more correct over another. Treat conflicting news sources as a bonus - more news. Ealturner 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I should have explained why the FBI pronouncement is ,indeed, less valid than others. Firstly, they gave what they call an "estimate" which is of much less value than the statements of neighbors or the local government,imo. Secondly, the FBI is a biased party in this matter. It would be the same as if the rape and killings were done by a Russian and the KGB gave the world an estimate as to the female's age; or if the rape and murders were committed by an al-Queda member and bin-Laden were to give an estimate of the girl's age. Thirdly, the FBI has little credibility as being an accurate source after the Brandon Mayfield debacle where the FBI gave court testimony that his fingerprints were confirmed by their lab as being "100% verified" as being the fingerprints on a bag in Spain. Fortunately for Mayfield the Spanish investigators proved the FBI wrong but the point is; 100% means absolute certainty; therefore either they lie or their methodology is faulty; either way, their "estimates" certainly can't be relied upon when even their testimonies in court can't be relied upon. This is all my evaluation,of course, and anyone else is free to think the FBI's estimate is a great source; I just wanted to explain that my opinion is based on,hopefully, some basis in logic rather than a "conspiracy theory". Neutralizer 12:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

James explains himself

Right... apparently I thought that we had settled on a name here. When I saw the article renamed again, I got extremely aggravated. Please, for the love of Jimbo, DO NOT RENAME THE ARTICLE AGAIN WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. We need to settle on a single name and that's that. Until then, it's stuck at this barely coherent name. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed; I won't be renaming it again. Neutralizer 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neither will I. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Karen's comment below was on my talk page but maybe should be here; ":::::How much of the story are you going to put into the headline? Just put the background information in the first paragraph. This is the last time I'm going to edit redirects for this story. Karen 03:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)" Neutralizer 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Daughter

When the facts aren't known or are disputed wikinews can't make judgements as to who is right. It is neutral to give voice to both parties views on the facts. I think "daughter," in context with the word family, might imply "young girl," while because "daughter" is not age-specific it also allows for the fact that the girl was an adult. Good candidate for the compromise? Ealturner 18:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

While I still prefer a shorter, much simpler title (like say, the original one) I have no objection to the current title. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to change the title again - it implies the solider was charged in Iraq, whereas he was charged by a US Federal Court. How about "US federal court charges soldier with family's murder, rape and killing of daughter, Iraq" or "US federal court charges soldier with Iraqi family's murder, rape and killing of their daughter" Ealturner 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I vouch my support for the latter title. I'll take it to straw poll. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I only post this after you started the straw poll, but technically, it is FBI Special Agent Gregor J. Ahlers acting on behalf of the U.S. government who makes the charge, not the court itself. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then what do you suggest? —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I see it, I like Birdmessenger's version. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

what is "killing of daughter comma iraq"? Doldrums 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

An error Ealturner 18:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Final article title strawpoll

The strawpoll is now closed. With approximately 93% support, the decision has been to change the title to US soldier arrested for rape and four murders in Iraq. Do not change anything within this gray box. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

This straw poll will be used to determine the final name of this article, which already has had a total of fifteen names. To support a title, type #'''Support'''. ~~~~ in the subsection of the article title you'd like to choose. If you support an article title that has not been listed in this strawpoll, list it in the form of a subsection and state your support. Discussion pertaining to the title may be held in sub-subsections titled "Discussion".

This strawpoll will officially end 0600 UTC July 7, 2006.

The following people still need to vote, or at least it would be really nice if they voted:

1. Neutralizer Voted
2. Doldrums Voted
3. Cspurrier Voted
4. PVJ59 Voted
5. Ealturner Voted

US federal court charges soldier with Iraqi family's murder, rape and killing of their daughter

# Support —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

US soldier arrested in rape and four killings in Iraq

• Cancelled votes:
  • # Support —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • # Support This title is coherent, to the point, and does not impinge on the responsibilities that are rightfully held by the lead or body of the story (i.e., explaining that the rape victim may or may not have been under 16, that she was the daughter, etc.). --Birdmessenger 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • # Support --Deprifry|+T+ 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • # Support - although shouldn't it be 'arrested for rape and four killings'? R2b2 20:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, probably. Either "arrested for" or "held in". --Birdmessenger 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, a quick survey of WP and NYT stories shows that they use the "arrested in [crime]" format. Either one works for me, I guess. --Birdmessenger 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that would work if it weren't multiple killings (and maybe didn't have 'in Iraq') - say if it was just 'Soldier arrested in rape and killing'. Sounds a bit strange in this case to me though... R2b2 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mmm--good points. I'm fully convinced now. --Birdmessenger 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just because a lot of people do it, doesn't mean it's good. ;) But anyways, I prefer "arrested for". —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

US soldier arrested for rape and four killings in Iraq

A slight permutation of above

• Cancelled votes
  • # Support. --Cspurrier 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • # Support —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • # Support This title is coherent, to the point, uses prepositions harmoniously, and does not impinge on the responsibilities that are rightfully held by the lead or body of the story (i.e., explaining that the rape victim may or may not have been under 16, that she was the daughter, etc.).--Birdmessenger 20:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • # Support R2b2 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • # Support -- Ealturner 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • # Support. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

US soldier arrested for rape and four murders in Iraq

1. Support -- The soldiers kill all the time; that's their job. This guy was arrested for murder (unlawful killings as the criminal complaint states) Neutralizer 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
   • A valid argument, but doesn't the fact that they have been arrested imply that they've done wrong? —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. --Cspurrier 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support -- it's great how this strawpoll enables new names. "Killings" sounds a bit awkward. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support --Birdmessenger 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support (still) R2b2 01:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. MyName 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Jambalaya 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support -- EalTurner 172.141.8.137 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --Although I have suggested an alternate title below, if that is not accepted (which is likely since it appears that certain editors are very intent on not revealing the fact that the victim was a minor), my second preference would be this one. PVJ (Talk) 03:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
10. --Deprifry|+T+ 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Support are we still on this? Doldrums 09:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Support - 1. It's the current title and I'm tired of seeing it change. 2. The accused was a soldier at the time of the incident. 3. The reasons Neutralizer gives "murder" and "rape" are accurate and to the point. Karen 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S soldier arrested for raping, murdering teenager and her family in Iraq

Note:U.S officials state her age as 24, however in this case it is likely that they are claiming she was an adult to make the crime appear less cruel. As such, the girls' neighbours claim she was 14, and Reuters (which is a neutral party here) says she was 15. As such the above figures seem to be very close to each other and since Reuters is a reliable news source, it would not be damaging to our credibility if we said her age was 15. Either that or we can mention her age in the title as "between 15 and 24 years of age".

1. Support PVJ (Talk) 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S. soldier charged with murder of Iraqi family & rape of their daughter

1. Simple, flows, accurate, specific, and no POV langauge. I've got no objection to saying teenager, but the word daughter settle's the issue quicker. Nyarlathotep 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove the paragraph, remove the problem

I suggest removing the whole paragraph ("The age of the young female, Abeer Qassim Hamza, was unclear; a neighbor of the family said that she was 14, but U.S. documents estimated her age to be 25.")

None of this information is important, we don't need to know her name nor her age. Especially when the information is disputed. Consider removing it, "This article is in dispute" makes Wikinews look bad. --Jambalaya 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the people know how old the victim is? —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no immeditate reason why people shouldn't know the age of a rape victim, but in this case we're talking about three-four totally different numbers. --Jambalaya 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what Jambalaya is trying to say is that when the information cannot be verified it is best left out, to preserve credibility. MyName 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we deal with the fact that the sources disagree? The age discrepancy has been described in pretty much every other news article that contains an overview of the incident without destroying anyone's credibility. And her name is not in question (with the exception of how to transliterate it).--Birdmessenger 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we can settle at stating that her age is unknown, and the media provided all sorts of guesses. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I must stress that I don't think mentioning the discrepancy is the problem, it's about finding a way to remove that {{misleading}} --Jambalaya 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I could be totally wrong on this, but my impression was that the {{misleading}} was posted after someone made a page name change specifically describing the victim as a girl and implied that a decision had been made on the talk page to that effect when in fact no such decision had been reached. The disagreement regarding the title change was generated over whether the rape victim was a minor and should be called a "girl" or of an age to be referred to as a "woman". Some people (most, it seems from the poll above) wished to sidestep the debate with regard to the title of the page. Others did not. Even if we delete all references to her age as measured in rotations around the sun, it does not solve the basic problem of whether she was a girl, woman or something else entirely. Mentioning the discrepancy has the advantage, at least, of letting the reader know that there is some ambiguity there.--Birdmessenger 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I was wrong about the reason why the article was in dispute :-) --Jambalaya 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the tag probably had to do with titles, since there's no discussion about inaccurate content in the article. Once we settle on a name, we can remove it. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For me, I have no problem with conflicting reports. That's what makes wikinews different. We print both sides. It's part of the news. I'd not throw news away unless it had absolutely nothing to do with the article. To me, the age of the girl is relevant. Ealturner 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out why some editors seem to be so keenly intent on not revealing the girl's age or of even mentioning that it is likely that she was not an adult. PVJ (Talk) 02:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much that as the extreme ambiguity of her age could lessen our credibility (her age is anywhere between 5 and 24). —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S officials state her age as 24, however in this case it is likely that they are claiming she was an adult to make the crime appear less cruel. Al-Jazeera claims she was 5, but they may be trying to overplay the shocking nature of the incident. As such, the girls' neighbours claim she was 14, and Reuters (which is a neutral party here) says she was 15. As such the above figures seem to be very close to each other and since Reuters is a reliable news source, it would not be damaging to our credibility if we said her age was 15. PVJ (Talk) 09:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Jazeera does not[3] claim that she was 5. the 5 year old was another victim who was shot. i do not see any problems with this paragraph at all. npov is to report all conflicting testimony faithfully unless we can verify that some are false. we are in no position to verify the accuracy of any of these and rule the others as wrong.

what is a problem is the use of the words "girl" or "woman", with or without a "young" prepended to it, as the words indicate age, which we dont know. the alternative are

• to use "female" and "victim" throughout, which i'm not much in favor of,which is why i started the section above.
• use "young woman" in the expectation that it covers the entire range of the reported age(15-25), which appears to be the best alternative, unless someone can come up with others.

Doldrums 10:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we use the phrase "female believed to be between 14-24 years of age" or something to that effect. PVJ (Talk) 10:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I explained above why I feel the FBI estimate should be dropped from consideration in this matter. The other reason is that it is the "out of pattern" number(much different than the rest) which statistically should usually be discarded. Neutralizer 12:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Neutralizer but I feel it is unlikely that certain editors will accept it if we drop the FBI figure even though it seems improbable. PVJ (Talk) 12:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

the US estimate shld neither be dropped nor accepted as the gospel truth. and that is precisely what we have done here, reported all known estimates.

while weighing the relative merit of the two sources, keep in mind that the US estimate is in an affidavit filed at a court, so whoever is filing it will be held legally responsible for its content. against that, we only have a quote to a news reporter by an unidentified neighbour. Doldrums 13:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

I actually agree that 25 is improbable. But I also don't think it's our place to omit it because some of us feel the FBI is covering for the US military. (Plus, the accounts from neighbors have also been contradictory in other ways.) However, we have other options:

Although the affidavit describes the rape victim as a 25-year-old, military investigators have also reportedly said she was 20. Friends and neighbors of the family as well as the mayor of Mahmoudiyah, however, say that she was 14 or 15 years of age, according to wire reports.

This version 1) puts the 25-year-old military figure up front 2) where it is contradicted by accounts from locals. It also makes it clear that the age is in dispute. Readers can decide why that might be. And that is the extent of our job here, in my opinion. --Birdmessenger 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. That version is unneeded detail. It's not part of the story. Her uncle's words are enough. We still need to include the 25 estimate - that is what prosecutors will bring up in court and hence it is the news to report. Ealturner 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, disregard the suggestion. I posted that before coming across the uncle or reading fully of his description of Abeer. --Birdmessenger 11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why?

<rant> Why do we appear to be so hung up on making the title tell everything about a story? To me, the headline should be something that draws people into reading the article. The main detail of a story can be in the leading paragraphs.

A 36-hour straw-poll to decide a title on a story that has been around for a couple of days just ends up making a story old once a decision is finally made.

Personally if a headline is accurate, then why not go with it? </rant>

(Sorry - just my opinion, don't mean to offend anyone but it seems that everytime there's an article about the Iraq/other areas of conflict there seems to be the same kinds of arguments) R2b2 10:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

agree. Doldrums 10:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Neutralizer 12:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, people are more likely to read about the rape of a teenage girl due to the fact that the victim is younger, and hence the crime more cruel. PVJ (Talk) 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Titles ought to have some unique piece of information as wikinews can not reuse titles. Here the word "four" is specific enough to keep the title unique. But the title likely wouldn't be unique enough without the word "four", as I suspect there are plent of cases of a U.S. soldier raping & murdering one person in Iraq. And a few might get charged.

Keep in mind that those who suggested "and" and "&" appearing in the headline are defying the style guide's suggestion. Also, in this case, "US" appears in the headline, but "U.S." appears throughout the story. Try to be consistent - think when writing a headline. Take twice as long (2 seconds for some of you, I'd guess) before changing the headline. Karen 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Never quote Reuters as a primary news source

Or any other news organisation. Ealturner 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are exceptions, when a news agency is on-the-scene, for instance. Not the case in this event, though. Karen 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was taken from TimesNow, not Reuters. I do not think they are one and the same. In fact I am assuming Reuters wrote this article although it is not mentioned in the story. I will change the source details accordingly. PVJ (Talk) 11:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

age of girl

article says uncertain if she was 15 or 25. searching on news.google ' Abeer Qassim Hamza "year old" ', it returns a few "the 15 year old". does anyone have the source that says 25?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.1.131.63 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2006

P.4 of 11 in the court document linked in sources Ealturner 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That page says "estimated". Neutralizer 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

USA Today article sourced quotes the uncle saying the girl was 15 years old. So that is likely to be her true age. However the US Court doc's "estimate" remains part of the news as US's official opinion. The reference to US estimate must be kept for POV reasons (in case the uncle is lying, basically). And because that is what Green will be charged on in court. Ealturner 23:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ludicrous and anglo/american POV to value U.S. "estimate"

I just had a conversation with a non-wiki person who reminded me that if the US officials had wanted to find out the correct age of the rape victim they could have done so through interviews with the victim's other family members like her Uncle and brothers. Our AP source includes this; "Taha said he arrived at the scene about four hours after the killings and found the charred body of his 15-year-old niece, along with those of her mother, Fikhriya Taha, her father, Qassim Hamza, and her younger sister, Hadeel Qassim Hamza. Taha said the mother and father had been shot four times and showed signs of having been beaten. Abeer's 8-year-old brother, Ahmed Qassim, said he and his brother found the bodies when they came home from school." I don't think the U.S. is so stupid as to not have been able to find out her real age if they had wanted to...the worldwide headlines this way play much better for the USA than if the rape of a 15 year old child were emphasized. It's disgusting to me not only the extent to which US psyops insults the intelligence of all of us but even more so how we end up buying into the nonsense by not simply believing the word of the raped and dead girl's uncle. We have a very strong collective western bias,imo, and what's worse, we don't even know it. Can you imagine if a 15 year old girl in New York was raped and killed by an Iranian who was then whisked back to Iran coincidentally because of a "personality disorder"..and then the Iranian prosecuter said in the complaint that the american girl was "estimated to be 25"....and we had an AP source with an interview with the girl's uncle saying she was,in fact, 15, would we have given the Iranian prosecuter's "estimate" any play whatsoever other than in ridicule??? Neutralizer 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll realize that this has only come to the light because U.S. authorities made it public. The family previously believed it was done by insurgents. If U.S. "psyops" would want to cover the extent up, not charging Green at all would have been far more efficient. --Deprifry|+T+ 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes,that was what I was thinking too until I reviewed the source for our first article and saw this;

"The rape and murder allegations came to light June 23 during a "combat stress debriefing" of the unit ....An enlisted soldier disclosed he had heard that as many as three soldiers from the unit may have taken part in a rape and murder in March....."They followed up and they interviewed a second soldier who said, 'Yes, I heard something similar,' ... but in the version he had heard, that the soldier or soldiers had returned from the alleged crime with blood on their uniforms,"

Once those soldiers spoke up in a group debriefing, the thing had to be moved forward as an official (therefore public) prosecution but note that from March to June 23rd. what happened was the event was written off as an insurgent attack and the primary perpetrator was sent out of the country because of a "personality disorder". We'll likely never know for sure but it looks like an obvious attempted cover-up to me...it looks like a lot of soldiers in that unit knew back in March what had happened after the killers strolled back into the barracks with blood all over them which means the commanders knew too and the only reason there is a prosecution now is because somebody brought it up in front of the entire unit(which would have included officers) at that debriefing. I'm just wondering how many other soldiers have been sent back with "personality disorders" and how many other 15 year old girls have been raped and killed (by our guys) that we'll never know about. One thing is for sure; the prosecutors could have conducted interviews with family members to determine her age just like AP did, but they prefered to go with an estimate which to some extent sanitizes a bit of the horror, at least for those of us who have daughters; and the chances are that in that culture that girl had never had sex before...can you imagine the extra horror she went through that night? I wish I could believe that our military officials only found out about this on June 23rd. but I find it too damn coincidental that this "personality disorder" popped up and got him honorably discharged; all within 3 months of the massacre.

Anyway, there's not anyway to prove any of it so hopefully this rant isn't too out of bounds. Neutralizer 02:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a combat stress debriefing is not done "in front of a unit". It's more like a psychological examination, to counter PTSD. Quote from the article you linked to:

Quote

---

The rape and murder allegations came to light June 23 during a "combat stress debriefing" of the unit after Menchaca and Tucker's deaths, the official said.

An enlisted soldier disclosed he had heard that as many as three soldiers from the unit may have taken part in a rape and murder in March, the official said.

"They followed up and they interviewed a second soldier who said, 'Yes, I heard something similar,' ... but in the version he had heard, that the soldier or soldiers had returned from the alleged crime with blood on their uniforms," the official said.

Psychologists interviewed one soldier who told him of the crime, they then interviewed a second soldiers who confirmed and then informed they investigators.

And do you find it so hard to believe that someone who apparently murdered four people in cold blood has some sort of personality disorder? --Deprifry|+T+ 10:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is interesting how so many U.S soldiers have "personality disorders". This man, Lynddie England and her friends at Abu Ghraib, the guys at Guatanamo..... I don't think the U.S. is so stupid as to not have been able to find out her real age if they had wanted to...the worldwide headlines this way play much better for the USA than if the rape of a 15 year old child were emphasized. It's not as if the U.S is topping any popularity charts at the monet, there are probably more star-spangled banners being burnt on the street than raised on buildings. But we here at Wikinews, an "NPOV" source too have avoided mentioning the girl's age in the title, so...[[[User:PVJ59|PVJ]] (Talk) 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PVJ59 is right about the large # of "personality disorders". This might make a good story too..that's a lot of nutballs walking and flying around with access to powerful weaponry and a license to kill. This is the quote from the new AP article that tells me who the real monsters are."Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, the Army's surgeon general, told reporters (that) soldiers exhibiting such traits would not be automatically discharged because many can continue to perform well." Neutralizer 13:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Hussein al-Shimmari

What is the relevance of this "Baghdad resident" to the story? I object to it on POV grounds. The source does not say al-Shimmari is connected with the deceased family. If we're going to give his views a paragraph we need another for balance. An Iraqi that states the US position - a member of government, perhaps, if not another "man on the street"? Ealturner 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

sure, find one. Doldrums 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Reuters story mentions the Baghdad resident. It should be in the story. PVJ (Talk) 11:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Being one of the 5.7 million inhabitants of Baghdad does not establish relevance. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV. We need to represent all sides of a story fairly. PVJ (Talk) 11:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reuters is not a NPOV news source. Ealturner 11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And the U.S government/military is is? Don't be so naiive. PVJ (Talk) 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor is US goverment a NPOV source but it is a primary news source and one that has relevance to the article. The rape victim's uncle is used to counter this POV within the story. Ealturner 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PVJ on this point ; if someone wants to add an opposing "man on the street" opinion, that's ok too. Neutralizer 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

choice of illustrations

In my opinion, none of the current illustrations add much to the story and seem to be there 1) for the sake of having illustrations 2) to imply that this incident was part of a pattern of systematic abuse carried out under the flag of an imperialist power. I'm not saying that you couldn't make an excellent case for #2, but there's also good reason to doubt that Steven Green was anything but an unintended consequence of the US military presence in Iraq (he didn't exactly do much to aid the war effort by anyone's reckoning).

In particular, the US flag doesn't seem to do a whole lot here, unless perhaps it's the norm to illustrate every story with flags indicating their subjects' nationality. Just my thoughts on the matter, which I could see changing. --Birdmessenger 11:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

1)The story is related to the U.S, hence the American flag-I originally wanted to add a picture of a U.S flag being burnt (in an anti-American involvment in Iraq demonstration) but was afraid that, though moreclosely related to the story, it would hurt the sentiments of some editors 2)The accused belonged to the 101st Airborne Regiment, hence the patch, 3)The Abu Ghraib abuse, like this case, is an incident involving crimes committed by the U.S military in Iraq. As to whether or not this man aided the war effort, that is for the American military to decide, I am not sure as to whether or not they are in the habit of honouring rapists.PVJ (Talk) 11:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ealturner and support the edit: (removed AG photos - totally irrelevent to this news) I also assert that it's not the norm to illustrate every story with flags to indicate the subject's nationality. Additionally, the US 101st Airborne Division patch isn't entirely relevent because the whole division wasn't involved. I will conceed if there's more of a consensus on that particular image, but the others are inappropriate. The demonstration, if done because of this event, seems reasonable, though. Karen 11:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have any strong feelings about the patch of the unit, but the American flag looks just ridiculous in this case and the Abu Ghraib picture is a editiorial statement to imply guilt by association. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

StevenGreen.jpg with the caption "Steven D. Green" has my vote for adding. The story does look bland without any images. Sorry for the reverts, but you guys need to discuss before starting another edit war cycle. Karen 12:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I take offence at the flag and patch. The patch association with the article implies guilt with all those soldiers under the patch. Factually misleading in this case. The photo is relevant Ealturner 12:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better to look bland than to look POV. And it seems to me like you are the one trying to start an edit war by reverting my image changes while a discussion is on-going. Till the discussion is resolved, the story should be kept as it was in the last version before the discussion began-i.e the version with the images. PVJ (Talk) 12:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I made my edit (removing three images) and discussed it here, sorry for the confusion. There's no point of view that I understand in the photo of the accused - it's just putting a face to the name. The addition of the photo seems relevant to me, and so I agree with Ealturner on that, as well. Someone more recently removed all images, so we'll just start from there and vote them in by discussion here. Karen 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

These images [4], [5] seem appropriate. PVJ (Talk) 12:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How is the cover of a 2002 book and a graffiti about Abu Ghraib relevant to this story? --Deprifry|+T+ 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is related to anti-Americanism-the graffiti photo is related to the war in Iraq. Are you mentally capable of drawing a logical connection between the two, because it is beyond me to make things any more clear to you. Also, Eelturner seems intent on exclusing the reaction of the local people from this story. Could we have a decision on that too. PVJ (Talk) 12:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please repeat that without an ad hominem attack and you might get a response. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look and then give opinion on the two suggestions. Karen 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If the story was about a demonstration following the events, then I'd agree, but I can't agree because I have the same question that Deprifry does - relevant to this story? Karen 12:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this [6] from the Mecklenburg Sheriff's Office? I'm not too familiar with the various wikirules governing the use of images, but aren't mugshots and other government photos fair use (probably not the right term)?--Birdmessenger 12:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I already uploaded it as Image:StevenGreen.jpg and added it to the story. PVJ59 removed it. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. At any rate, Image:StevenGreen.jpg seems a good choice.--Birdmessenger 12:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please repeat that without an ad hominem attack and you might get a response. It was not intended as an attack. I am seriously asking you whether or not you are capable of drawing logical correlations between anti-war-in-Iraq protests and this incident. If you are not mentally able to do so then I am wasting my time trying to explain this matter to to you since it is beyond my ability to make things any clearer to you. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PVJ59 your recent statements have not conformed to NPOV required for wikinews. Your ad hominem is demonstrative of an aggressive attitude that is difficult to work with. It's clear you have opinions. In fact, you openly state your bias from your name page eg. "I strongly oppose this "war" as a badly disguised attempt to exercise control over Iraq's oil-wells at the expense of thousands of lives." Nothing wrong with opinions but some of your suggestions for this article looks to me like you have crossed the line and are now pushing your opinion. Ealturner 12:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of users have opinions pages. I do not see what is wrong with me having one. Besides your accusations about me "crossing lines" may be hurled back at you, after all it was you who continually reverted my edits-inlcuding one that has a Baghdad resident's stament-without allowing for discussion. Also I do not see how you include one resident-who says he believed insurgents were responsible for the crime-while deleting the quote that I added. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That quote is from the uncle of the victim (who you love to cite when it comes to the age of the victim, btw), he is clearly part of story. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, what makes his quote more NPOV than the Baghdad resident's? You are deliberately engaging in edit-warring on this article and are then accusing me of "pushing" my anti-American views onto the story.PVJ

(Talk)(Opinions) 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes in itself don't have to be NPOV, they have to be related to the story. The resident you quoted is one of 5.7 million inhabitants of Baghdad, he has no relation whatsoever to the story. And actually, it is you who is reverting everyone else. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this section limited to which images to include. Start another section with suggested prose changes and see how the reaction is from other contributors - that way it can be discussed before going into the story and then potentially being removed again. Karen 13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, ask Depfry to stop reverting my edits without consensus being reached. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 13:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And why not settle on the images then go to the words? Is there any objection to the Karen 13:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We cannot go back to the image issue, until and unless Deprifry ceases reverting my edits regarding the quotes from TimesNow-which he has unilaterally deemed unreliable. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 13:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then consensus has been reached on the images? You've made no objection to the photo of the accused, so next discuss your plans to edit the words. Karen 13:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

first you claim Deprify is "not mentally capable" then you accuse him of being a sockpuppet - being me? Ealturner 13:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant Ealturner, not depifry-I am sorry I got confused between the two. As I said, Karen, there can be no continuation of this discussion till Ealturner ceases edit-warring. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 13:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Timesnow shows photo of the accused. There have been no objections as I've seen to this image - so I'll add it to the story now. Karen 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner's edit: Timesnow is utterly irrelevant as a news source. Uncle is enough

Let us sort out the issues one by one. Who agrees/disagrees/has comment about Timesnow? Karen 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous "discussion" itself is still in progress Karen, slow down. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 13:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PVJ59 do not edit someone else's work by striking through the title. That is not polite. You are flagrantly being disruptive now IMO.

//The news agency TimesNow has, in a story titled American Shame, described the girl's age as 15.// This is a secondary news source. Wikinews quotes primary news source eg. US military and uncle - the source of the news, not people who tell the news, like us. Also it's unneeded detail and should be excised on grounds of style Ealturner 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the age, having already been reported by the uncle as 15, need not be reported again by a secondary source. Karen 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet formed a solid opinion on the quote of Hussein al-Shimmari. That's what needs to be decided next. I am not opposed to a reaction quote. Karen 13:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not stall this story in development over one quote - especally after it has been published for some time. Karen 13:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditch Timesnow, keep al-Shimmari (with some reworking for accuracy, for instance, make it clear that "battle for the hearts and minds (of the Iraqi people)" is not something that al-Shimmari said). --Birdmessenger 13:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to edits the story was not publishable in present form which is why it was necessary to return it to develop. The edits were an embarassment to wikinews as it suggested journalists here did not know difference between primary and secondary news source. Do we have concensus on TimesNow or are we going to wait for PVJ59 to give his view? Ealturner 13:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)