Talk:Video details tortures by Saddam’s soldiers

How convenient...

p.s- this is no criticism on wikipedia, only on the institution.

Issues

This video is released by the American Enterprise Institute, not the U.S. government. The graphic is thus not in the public domain, but copyrighted. Furthermore, this institute has a history of covering up, lying, and falsifying in defense of the U.S.A. and cannot be considered a trustworthy source.

This is not to say this article is wrong or inappropriate; the story is potentially timely and relevant. However, it requires further independent sourcing. - Amgine 22:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Human Rights Watch website is a good source. The crimes commited by Saddam Hussein are inquestionable, you cant say they never ocurred. Pentagon out, I have written "allegedly showing tortures", I hope it is better. -- Carlosar 00:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I could see about the AEI is that they are a pro-capitalism organization. I think this is not a motive to invalidating the movie. If you see something wrong you need to be clearer. What did you say about AEI is a no-doubt-fact, a disputed fact or a opinion? If you have suggestions, write here. Anyway I will think about it. Thank you very much. -- Carlosar 00:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I certainly can't disagree with your logic, but I have made the same argument on some of those other articles. As a public domain publication we cannot use copyrighted graphics. - Amgine

I will not use the pictures. -- Carlosar 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the movie is by the former Iraq government, it is copyrighted and for that reason alone we cannot use it. --- Amgine

I will not use the pictures, but I will left the link to the movie. -- Carlosar 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for the AEI; they're a bit more than merely a pro-capitalism organization. That is not, however, a reason not to use them as a source, but they need to be carefully cited and sourced. For example: "according to the American Enterprise Institute..." or "A video provided by the American Enterprise Institute purports to show..." - Amgine

I will try to do that. You can try do these changes in the text too.-- Carlosar 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) -- Carlosar

In fact, they are an excellent source for an extreme viewpoint of united staters who support a radical militaristic viewpoint - a minority viewpoint even in the United States - so long as you also do not become just an advertisement for them. Don't get used as a tool by a political group. - Amgine 01:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok -- Carlosar 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, I should be specifically constructive.

• Find additional sources indicating this video comes from the U.S. military. Without them, the article is solely what the AEI says.
• Find additional sources which discuss what this video indicates. Who, doing what, to whom, when.
• Provide context for readers: what this indicates for Sadam, how that specifically might apply in the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay situations. Are Bush administrative officials likely to face similar charges? why or why not? - Amgine

I intend doing an article about Saddam. I have just used a video from the Americans because the video is about Saddam Hussein. If Japanese people have released such video, I would use Japanese video about Saddam, not the American one, for example. I dont want to write about the Americans. Anyway I can try to do something about it.-- Carlosar 02:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Paragraph #2 does not discuss the torture video or torture directly. Consider the scope of the article, and the title, and decide if the article could be broadened. - Amgine 01:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can try. One possible solution is separate the subject in two articles: one about the video, another about the Saddam regime. Thank you very much.-- Carlosar 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC).

<nod> Okay, take it where you want to. The video, in my opinion, is minor compared to your subject matter. I'll be interested in seeing where it goes from here. - Amgine 02:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you suggested I rewrote the paragraph #2. It describes the torture during Saddam's regime now. Thank you. -- Carlosar 02:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pretty cool :)

I think this discussion and the evolution of the article shows Wikinews at its best :) Dan100 (Talk) 18:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - it is a grim story, as Pingswept noted, but I think the fact-checking, NPOV, and drive to find independent, non-partisan sources is why Wikinews will develop into at least as useful a resource as Google News. - McCart42 22:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)