Talk:Iraq to investigate alleged massacre in Haditha

Why the cute picture?

What is the cute picture of an "American soldier providing aid to Iraqis" doing here? The article is about American soldiers murdering Iraqis" Geronimo20 02:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry, Its bedtime for me now. I took the picture from article without without enough thought. I see it is removed now international 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

In an interview with the BBC, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said: "It is not justifiable that a family is killed because someone is fighting terrorists." And in a remark that will bounce around the walls of the White House he added: "We will hold those who did it responsible.

While some politicians sound a note of caution that not all facts are yet known for conclusions to be drawn Jim Murtha, a Democratic Congressman, said in an interview with CNN "It is as bad as Abu Ghraib, if not worse.

As far as I know exclusive interview quotes are copyvio (for a lack of better terms).

This has lead to speculation the Haditha incident will be the next "Abu Ghraib" scandal - extremely bad press for the Allied military operation and the Bush administration who are fighting a war against terrorists in Iraq.

Speculation as to what may or may not be the case. Possible POV.

If true, and the evidence is bought forward, some Marines may be charged with murder. Others may get in trouble trying to cover up the shootings.

Total specualtion as to what may or may not be the case. Not factual and possibly writers POV.

While some politicians sound a note of caution that not all facts are yet known for conclusions to be drawn Jim Murtha, a Democratic Congressman, said in an interview with CNN "It is as bad as Abu Ghraib, if not worse.

This man is a congressman. He has never been to Iraq and he is not a militar official thjerefore he is not qualified to make this statement. This is soley his POV.

United States President, George Bush, is said to have learned of the Haditha incident from a journalist earlier this year and has already had a briefing on it from his national security advisor, Stephen Hadley.

from who? If bush did not say this who did? this is again speculatio.

Jason Safoutin 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The above comments are not understandable to me and there is no actionable objection deserving of a tag,imo. Enigma 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The main actionable objection raised by Jason is that assertions should be attributed. For example, the statement "This has lead to speculation the Haditha incident will be the next "Abu Ghraib" scandal" immediately raises the question: Speculation by who? It should be reworded to say something like "Mr XXXX speculated that the Haditha incident will be the next "Abu Ghraib" scandal" - Borofkin 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok; it looks like that sentence was just removed. Enigma 02:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am new so please forgive me if I am not acquainted with the tag protocol here; but would not it be better to edit the articles rather than apply tags? It seems to be counterproductive if I want to improve an article to put a tag on it because then I and others have to spend time discussing my objections. Wouldn't that be like making up a big sign saying "I have a flat tire" to show passing motorists rather than just changing the tire myself and getting the car(article) back on the road? Enigma 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said, Enigma. If a contributor can see a problem with an article, it is much more efficient and practical that they make the changes themselves, rather than tagging it and insisting that others make the changes. - Borofkin 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready to publish?

We've only been working on this article for an hour. Are you sure it's ready to publish? You should at least give DragonFire1024 a chance to review the changes since he tagged it. - Borofkin 02:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Borofkin; we should see what DragonFire1024 thinks. Enigma 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It never hurts to leave a message on the users talk page inviting them to take another look - they may be working on something else and not paying attention to this article. - Borofkin 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, we are not allowed to use copyrighted exclusive interview quotes in the article. Jason Safoutin 04:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrected the quote attribution. Someone experienced please comment on the permissibility of using one-line quotes from various news outlets, If Jason were right we could not use any quotes in our articles. --vonbergm 04:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. There is a difference when officials or whatever say "so and so told reporters' as opposed to in an interview. In an interview genewrally means in an interview only with BBC or ABC or CNN or whoever. That material, based on the policies of WN is not allowed. Hence the wrod exclusive. Jason Safoutin 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Jason, you are wrong. Quotations through other news organizations, properly attributed, are absolutely permissible. The only person who could potentially make any copyright claim about them is the speaker, not the news organization they gave an interview to, and that claim would be highly debatable due to not meeting minimum criteria of expression. All this without even touching upon fair use, which provides broad exemptions specifically for news reporting.--Eloquence 04:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I will have to agree with you but I was confronted with the same exact situation in the past but I cvannot recall what article it was on. All I remember is an admin told me exclusive interview cannot be quoted regardless of citing unless they had expressed permission from the source itself. Jason Safoutin 04:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Digging deeper, it appears that copyright claims have been made in the past on interview quotes, and that such claims have been upheld in Canadian courts at least. The argument here has been that the interviewer holds copyright to the words because they are the ones who reduce them to a "fixed expression" by using a tape recorder or taking notes. However absurd this argument may sound, it makes such quotes somewhat problematic when used in large amounts. I would argue that the quantity used in this article poses no problem, especially because U.S. copyright law grants fair use specifically for the purpose of news reporting. When in doubt, it is safest to rewrite; paraphrasing is always OK. But there's no need to be paranoid about such things.--Eloquence 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the tags have been removed. I will not tag the article anymore since they will just be removed, as my concerns, although actionable, IMO seem to be nearly ignored. Jason Safoutin 04:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason, your concerns were ignored because you were plainly wrong. (There are better words for this, but they would probably violate WN:E.) If you have valid concerns, you will find that they are much appreciated and will be taken seriously. --vonbergm 04:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Read Eloquences reply above. It goes the same as an image. The source, an exclusive emphasize exclusive) is copyrighted as such. thats why its called exclusive. That goes for the same with May's IOTM. Jason Safoutin 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i just noticed, Please cite all sources. CNN etc...we cannot say CNN says And BBC says then not list the sources. Cleanup again. Jason Safoutin 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

the current sources support the statements under discussion. if u'd prefer to use primary sources first hand sources(a worthy thought), please go ahead and add them. Doldrums 05:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason, please read the article and the sources before you claim that something is not sourced. Also, as you point to Eloquence's comment, try to understand the phrases "when used in large amounts" and "the quantity used in this article poses no problem". I think you have exhausted your quota for baseless claims on this talk page. Maybe we should have a 3BS policy, i.e. more than 3 b.s. comments on a talk page result in a 24 hour block. --vonbergm 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

policy and block is overkill, i think. more than 3 b.s. comments on a talk page will result in explicitly calling them B.S. (and therefore ignoring them) is sufficient. Doldrums 06:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

agree; 3 b.s. comments means labeled as such; additional b.s. will be ignored. 65.95.149.156 12:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that determining a user's contributions are "B.S." is POV and, likely, a personal attack. We're trying to be civil when working with each other. - 66.235.79.157 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (Amgine, at marina)

People who livbe in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; e.g."Simeon edits from Australia, a continent populated entirely by criminals! And, as a criminal he would expect that we would not trust him, so obviously we cannot drink from the glass in front of us..."- Amgine/talk 03:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC). Perhaps you can offer a better way to deal with the obstruction of articles? 64.229.67.118 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)