Talk:US soldier arrested for rape and four murders in Iraq/Archive 02

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

Reaction quote[edit]

//A Baghdad resident, Hussein al-Shimmari, said that the incident exposed the barbaric and aggressive nature of Americans. He urged his countrymen to revolt against the American occupiers. He also mentioned that this incident highlighted the false democracy of the U.S, which is currently engaged in a "battle for the hearts and minds (of the Iraqi people)".//

I object to this quote on the grounds it is not NPOV. I don't object to a "reaction quote" but to any event there are multiple reactions. A neutral point of view news source would not preference any one reaction. The fact the quoted individual is not directly related to the murdered family or area where the crime happened counts against it as a "reaction quote." Ealturner 13:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(title of my post should read reporting on POV is not NPOV) You're going to be hard pressed to find any 'equal but opposite' type quotes, I think, and any more moderately expressed opinions can be added in as they come along. In my opinion, it is not unreasonable to report on the expression of strongly worded opinions that must exist in the wake of this incident.--Birdmessenger 13:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Not only is it preference to one view - that in view of numbers of Iraqis who voted in recent elections might not be the majority view - it is from a man who had no relation to the murdered family or area where the crime happened. That quote from that source is not relevant. Ealturner 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the only part of the source that's a reaction (that directly relates to this story) in my opinion - This act reveal the false democracy of the Americans and sows the Americans' barbarism and aggressive nature,” said Hussein al-Shimmari, a Bagdad resident. The reason I'd be interested in reading this in the story is that there's no other reaction quotes from anyone in Iraq in the sources. If you object on the grounds that there's no quote from anyone from the U.S. perspective, I can understand that. I agree with Birdmessenger on this point.
The rest (He urged his countrymen to revolt against the American occupiers. He also mentioned that this incident highlighted the false democracy of the U.S, which is currently engaged in a "battle for the hearts and minds (of the Iraqi people)".) should be struck for being a bit too far off topic. Karen 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable to me.--Birdmessenger 14:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After trying unsuccessfully to resolve this issue through "discussion", I have realised that there is no point in wasting my time trying to reason with certain editors. That the world is aware of the truth of these incidents and others like them is apparent when one sees flags being trod on by livestock, aeroplanes being crashed into buildings or effigies being burnt in streets world over. One or two phrases being concealed in a Wikinews (which is, quite frankly, not the most widely read news-source) article will not change this fact. This dispute, however, has deeply saddened me and has ratherly abruptly reminded me that not even Wikinews can be truly neutral in its point of view at all times. I have also had to rethink whether or not there is, in fact, any good reason left for me to contribute here. As such, many valuable editors have been driven to leaving Wikinews in the recent past, and I fear that I too may soon become thus disheartened, even though I was always optimistic about this project. It is for this reason that I have decided to back out of this "discussion" and revaluate whether or not it would be wise for me to continue contributing to Wikinews. As I said however, the truth cannot be hidden from the world and the outcome of this discussion will have no effect on that fundamental fact. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This act reveal the false democracy of the Americans and shows the Americans' barbarism and aggressive nature,” said Hussein al-Shimmari, a Baghdad resident. The quote makes a number of POV accusations
  1. False democracy
  2. Barbarism and aggressive nature (also racist?)

Coupled with the fact the man is not related to the incident by place of residence or birth ties I find the quote unacceptable in the context of the news piece. Ealturner 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is an Iraqi commenting on an incident with national significance. He's not editing a wiki article. Not to be dismissive, but if a quote illustrates popular opinion (of which there are more than one) does it matter if he is "POV"?--Birdmessenger 14:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's going to be as clear to the reader as it is to the Iraqis in general who feel this is not an action supported by the Americans. The fact that the man is being charged by the U.S. government is proof of that. The quote could be from an insurgent, but it's attributed. The obligation of NPOV is to attribute and present what's known from every side.Karen 14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to PVJ - if you do not first try reason, your only option is to quit or fight without discussion. You should always be re-thinking your role and point of view when contributing. I appreciate all your effort to bring your opinion. You (and all of us to some extent) are biased and it's not easy to find neutral perspective - that's why the more people here in discussion, the more likely the perspective of only a few people won't bias the whole process. Karen 14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having stated that, can we try to attract more contributers here for the discussion? In the meantime, can we remove the quote and source until there's a consenses to add it? That way we can put the story back into circulation. Karen 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against vox pop but quoting this one man would be disingenuous. The fact he does not live near the crime scene and is not related to the victims gives the reader the impression it is the opinion of the "average Iraqi" about the incident. This is unacceptable point of view. A terrible crime was committed. If you would like to link it to US occupation I would suggest replacing that quote with the Iraqi PM's recent statement July 7. "We believe that the immunity given to members of coalition forces encouraged them to commit such crimes in cold blood (and) that makes it necessary to review it," al-Maliki said during a visit to Kuwait. This would be relevant. Ealturner 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Karen 100% on this point ; if someone wants to add an opposing "vox pop" opinion, that's ok too, but in the meantime, this one should go in.Neutralizer 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC
I doubt you agree with me 100% Why not remove the al-Shimmari quote and replace it with what Ealturner quoted above? We don't have access to poll the Iraqi people, but we can allow the prime minister to substitute. I can agree with that because it would be more relevant than one person who got the ear of someone to report for Timesnow. I'm not adverse to including both quotes (or even more should we find sources), but clearly the the al-Shimmari quote is biased and shouldn't appear to represent the only opinion in the story. Karen 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to PVJ - if you do not first try reason, your only option is to quit or fight without discussion. You should always be re-thinking your role and point of view when contributing. I appreciate all your effort to bring your opinion. You (and all of us to some extent) are biased and it's not easy to find neutral perspective - that's why the more people here in discussion, the more likely the perspective of only a few people won't bias the whole process.

It is not, Karen, a matter of quitting. Had I the desire to do so, I could continue trying to resolve this dispute. But when it is so clear that a compromise will not be agreed to by certain editors, I must put this issue into perspective and think about whether it is worthwhile for me to spend so much time in trying to represent the truth in this article when the latter cannot, as I said, be hidden irrespective of whether or not it appears in this article. As such we must both realise that, frankly, there does exist a considerable amount of systemic bias here and it is not easy to go against that bias. As such, we were reminded of that fact when the victim's age was concealed in the article's title. So, I think it better to opt out of this discussion and concentrate on more productive pursuits. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 14:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not adverse to having the al-Shimmari quote in the story, but if it's going to cause the story to remain in development, pull it now. I'll highlight where I said that above. Karen 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PVJ, the problem with leaving a discussion is it rewards a non-collaborative and pushy approach (the rest eventually give up and go away) note; I am not saying anyone is being that way re; this article. I think the key is to stick with the collaboration but not get emotional and remember we each have 1 mouth and 2 ears; I am trying to do this myself. I agree 100% :) with Karen's suggestion above about including the prime minister's quote. Neutralizer 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_December_2005

Karen, that quote alters the tone of the article. The 79% turn out at the last vote does not "false democracy" while the barbarism and aggressive nature bit sounds like racism. I would not use it unless there was a voice as a balance and there isn't such a quote. I hope my suggestion to use the Iraqi PM's quote is seen as a constructive one. I understand the desire to put this crime in a larger perspective of the occupation. I think that quote does it while not being POV. Well, it is POV but the PM says "we believe." I could go with that to reach concensus.Ealturner 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave four ~ wiggly lines so we know who you are. Thanks for posting! 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
My shoe size was concealed in the story's headline. There's a conflict in the reported age, so it should not be in the headline. Yes, you'll have to convince a few people. But if you can't compromise between your point of view and getting a story published, then it's best to state your opinion and see how the consensus goes. I'm trying to stay neutral - I sometimes vaguely side with you, PVJ, and other times with Birdmessenger, Ealturner, Deprifry, and Doldrums. I don't trust myself with deciding the correct point of view for a story, so I require the input of a lot of people - and agree with them on a point-by-point basis. Karen 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just now I'll agree with what Neutralizer is saying. I'm upset you'd complain that something was left from the headline because of bias - no, it's because of conflicting reports. I've stated my opinion, so I'll sit back now and hope action comes from all of this discussion. Karen 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ealturner, I'm still not adverse to the section of the quote being used. You'll have to bring in more experienced contributers to convince me. I'm also not adverse to leaving it out. I'm most adverse to lack of action and stalling (or even reversing) the status of a story. Karen 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karen, thank you for your mediation in this discussion. You have been very level headed. IMO edits can be made that makes a publishable story unpublishable so I am suprised that you would term such reversions under one blanket term, such as "stalling". Re: the quote I understand why people want it in. I just don't think the vox pop of that one person in Baghdad is NPOV. If you can quote a neighbour or the uncle saying something similar that to my mind would be a reaction quote. Ealturner 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen, you want more experienced contributors. Would you agree Deprifry is one? PVJ59 said he was "not mentally capable," twice, above. Until PVJ59 apologises properly for his flame I would personally be surprised to see him back in here. Ealturner 15:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in the "not be mentally capable" category by PVJ's standards. While I can see the connection, there's not specific relevance of this story to a book cover (The entry says it can only be used for discussion of the book) or the painting on a wall. We're past that part - this is no longer about the images. Deprifry's absence illustrates Neutralizer's point.
PVJ has been shown to be biased. The remaining members of the discussion just have to take into account that bias and continue. Now, can you just work in the prime minister's quote and take the story out of development? It doesn't have to go into development just to add another quote (should several opposing quotes be sourced and later included). This story is a good example of pushy edits. It may take a lot of discussion and disagreements may not all be resolved, but at least a story can be published. Karen 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this under the heading "Reaction"

//The news of the killings and rape was met with a wave of anger in parts of Iraq and the Iraqi government directed at the nature of the current US military presence. "We believe that the immunity given to members of coalition forces encouraged them to commit such crimes in cold blood (and) that makes it necessary to review it," was the opinion of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during a visit to Kuwait, July 7.

A Baghdad resident, Hussein al-Shimmari, said that the incident exposed the barbaric and aggressive nature of Americans." The turnout for the December 2005 legislative election was 79 per cent and the Americans themselves claim they are in Iraq to help the goverment protect its democracy.// I got in your quote but for NPOV we had to note US intentions and the December elections. Ealturner 15:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left the POV tag for someone else to remove, demonstrating concensus. Ealturner 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the part about "false democracy" was removed, why mention that "[t]he turnout for the December 2005 legislative election was 79 per cent"?--Birdmessenger 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that's irrelevent now. My mistake. Also quote should read, as per timesnow A Baghdad resident, Hussein al-Shimmari, said that the incident "shows the barbaric and aggressive nature of Americans." Ealturner 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I've added info on the apology issued by the ambassador and US commander in Iraq. I trust this is acceptable to everyone?--Birdmessenger 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm upset you'd complain that something was left from the headline because of bias - no, it's because of conflicting reports. I've stated my opinion, so I'll sit back now and hope action comes from all of this discussion..

I said systemic bias, not bias. An overhelming number, if not all, of those involved in this discussion are from the Western world- that is to say the developed countries. A large number are from America itself. I doubt whether anyone involved is a Muslim/from the Middle East. Hence it is inevitable that some bias will creep in. What I said was that it would not be possible for me to outweigh this bias and hence it would be better for me to just back off instead of wasting my time on a lost cause. PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone's biased - that's why it takes different contributors. I don't think the story would be as good as it is now if PVJ hadn't pushed it a bit too far into the other direction. What I object to is not a Muslim bias, but one man urging his countrymen to revolt against the American occupiers while generalizing that a single murderer and rapist represents "the Americans' barbarism and aggressive nature", images that will magnify this tragedy, and insistence without proof that the girl's age is accurate. The story told isn't a happy one, but it need not be an example of all Americans. A reaction story would be great, but this is the story of an incident and arrest of one man whose comrades didn't stop him from committing this heinous crime, but are finally testifying about it. I'm going to make one last edit - please revert the parts you don't like and just briefly say why. Otherwise, I think the story's rough edges have now been worn smooth. Karen 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree PVJ made it better. There's more research in the article now and it was important to clarify the girl's age. It was a painful process but well done everyone for doing your bit Ealturner 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I think the story's rough edges have now been worn smooth.

That is a nice way of putting it. Moving on.... PVJ (Talk)(Opinions) 13:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Alright... I had to protect the article because of a revert war over on the article. Please, settle the dispute first. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late and a bit useless - I don't think there's any dispute at this point - just the flag. Karen 20:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Karen here, this thing has been a mess. The article now mentions "future" events on July 7 when it is dated July 6. An earlier version without these items should be found and reverted to. Then it should be protected. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I unprotected this a few hours ago. I do not think there was much need for protection. --Cspurrier 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted my quote from the future. I left the rest. Unfortunately there isn't an earlier version that was agreed upon. I think protecting it should really be last resort as it goes against the ethos of the wiki. We should be able to reach agreement. And I think we are at that stage now. Ealturner 20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to publish, remove the tag. I didn't intend to imply that I thought contributors were deliberately stalling, but I wanted to mentioned that the delays were frustrating - almost as if the edits were intended to delay or degrade the story. I think the date should just be bumped, but if you disagree, just fix it and mention why you wanted no responses included. There's really not enough of a response at this point to warrant a separate story. Karen 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note that i've bumbed up the date to 7th, so as to include the iraqi PM's quote, which has since then been removed. Doldrums 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've bumped the unbump and made my changes and published. What makes working this way much harder is the fact that I'm on dial-up and after typing my reasons and responses here, I have to deal with re-responding to someone who's page submit works faster than mine. Karen 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are all the things with the article settled? —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, but I can't speak for everyone who contributed. Karen 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the U.S. vrs US thing... Doldrums 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for removing the quote. When I came in here I saw that it was not wanted. Then I came back and we've bumped the date. That's fine with me. Ealturner 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ealturner, no problem - I'd rather bump the date than lose your efforts to contribute the "future quote". Karen 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doldrums, is it the headline US you want U.S.? If you are pushing for that, then I'd also propose "arrested for rape, four murders". If you mean inconsistency within the story, then I'd say make it consistent the way you'd like (Although I prefer U.S., the headline is US), I'll leave that to you and whoever else has an opinion about it. Karen 21:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth about age of rape victim[edit]

"Based on interviews and records, the U.S. military now believes the woman who Green is accused of raping and killing was between the ages of 14 and 20, Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Friday. While the military initially said she was 20, Boyce said he has seen documents that indicate she could have been about 14." (note; the mistaken reference to 20 rather than 25). Looks like they charged the other 4 soldiers now.

Reporting of war atrocities[edit]

  • Usually the really horrible photos and stories surface after the wars are over. This likely helps those political leaders who are not ready for the wars to end. I only recently discovered the existance of this museum which I dare say most other americans don't even know exists. It seems to be a legitimate historical museum which is even mentioned by travel brochures. With Vietnam, John Kerry did tell a Senate committe in 1971 about the atrocities in general and then on April 18,1971's Meet the Press Kerry reported on atrocities he himself witnessed and participated in; "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals." [1].
  • When one of the atrocities committed by our side(I don't know anyone here who is pulling for the "insurgents") in Iraq manages to surface into credible media, it is important that the story be as accurate and non-censored as possible so that the public in those countries which are choosing preemptive war as solutions will be able to learn as much as possible about the true and real consequences of choosing war; and it is equally important that those stories get to the public asap so the citizens will be able to do something with that information politically before it's too late. It may not be our jobs to "educate" the public; but there is certainly nothing wrong in that being a side effect of reporting NPOV news to the world.I think we all did a really fantastic job on this article, the title may be weak but the content is excellent and fully NPOV,imo. Hat's off to all. Neutralizer 14:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralizer I don't agree with your political attitude. If you want to educate, teach. Wikinews is about reporting the news, and from a neutral point of view. I object to your term "credible media." There is no such thing. Only different sources. Ealturner 15:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No such thing as "credible media"? Maybe you're right. Neutralizer 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the age thing, if anyone still cares[edit]

She was born on August 19, 1991, which makes her 14 by US reckoning.--Birdmessenger 01:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source on that:
--Birdmessenger 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:US_soldier_arrested_for_rape_and_four_murders_in_Iraq/Archive_02&oldid=307580"