Talk:New photos of Abu Ghraib prison abuse

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Vonbergm in topic no more vandalism

Protected by Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unprotected Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV/NPOV edit

  • Some of the pictures suggest further abuse such as killing, torture and sexual humiliation...(POV and speculation)
  • Where is the defensive side here? This article, in my opinion, is written in a way that suggests that the U.S. is horrile etc. I am not going to tage this article, but I am really concerned that in its current form, it suggests that the US ONLY tortures prisoners and "kills them" as it was put in the article. Plus there are some grammer issues too. Jason Safoutin 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a very anti-US article, and as such could by some be considered to qualify for an {{NPOV}} tag. I don't think it needs a lot of work to minimise the anti-US angle so I haven't tagged it, but I'd like to see this worked on to make it less sensationalist. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added NPOV as I think it is HIGHLY anti US. Jason Safoutin 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The story is not nice fore u.s, not anti u.s. Come with actionable objections or do not tag International 21:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anti views of any country anywhere are POV. This article suggest a strong Anti US agenda. Jason Safoutin 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, it is news not anticountry. Your are in a pow position here.International 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand at my NPOV. You cannot suggest that the US or ANY country is bad or horrible. This is totally your POV. I am not saying the article CANNOT be published, All i am saying that in its current form, it suggests (and is) a highly anti US agenda. Jason Safoutin 21:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not tag, someone else did. Yet no effort has been made to address or even seek clarification on the objections that lead up to the tagging. The article reads like an anti-US hatchet job - the sort of thing I'd expect from Al-Jazeera. Undue credence has been given to a single source (SBS) which does not even read anywhere as anti-US as the version that has been put together for Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brian, this article is not as unplesent as the real world behind it. US patriotism is not an actionable objection. Lock for wrongreportings, unsorcer quotations and real unjustified pow. If you dont find it republish it and lock it if necessary to avoid US-pow editings. read the sources and find an outrage against this kind of behavour from any nations armed forces International 21:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it puts it in better terms, I believe the main factors of the objection are that it has a tone issue that is highly anti-US, and that some text has not been attributed to its source, of which should be held responsible if this information is found false or incorrect in the future. Please, stop right now, International - you're trying to incite violence, and I will not allow it. Be kinder on this wiki. If not, we'll fold. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it cant be nice for a patriotic american to read what their armed forces does if this is correct. And what is this about violence? Guess you lost your sense of proportions here. What are you not going to allow. Respectfully, that is plain bull. International 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No sir, you are plain bull. If you couldn't make that statement without making a jab against a nation, then you do not have the ability to work on a NPOV website. You are not fit for Wikinews if you continue to make comments like this. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My repect for national feelings that lead to killing of innocent people is as low for those with u.s.army flawour as thouse with flawour of bombbelted suicidebombers among civilians. Supporting the killer of innocents is not a good base for journalism. I dont care if they are called terrorists or usarmy. Thous who cant understand that are not fit for wikinews specially if they cencor journalist who expose the murders and torturer. Dream well of another airstrike like some terroristsupporter dream its dreams about more killed people. International 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine, but as long as you are on this wiki, you are to abandon your personal feelings while working on articles. So, do it. If you haven't harnessed the importance of NPOV yet, perhaps it is for the better that you are not present. You absolutely must abide by it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm.. which is POV... fully reporting crimes committed by US forces, or trying to support US forces by presenting those crimes in a less damning way? Spandex 11:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOW has nothing to do with USA-patriots easy disturbed feelings when their cowboysoldiers fuck things up. International 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of photograph edit

I realize that some may want this picture, however I do not think it should be included in the article for two reasons:

a) Subject to copyright/unknown status as of yet.
b) Is a graphic picture that really does not enhance the article any, and can be seen as offensive to many people.

I do not believe this photograph is in its best place considering the objections above, however I would like discussion on its inclusion/exclusion before taking action. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noticed the photo. I move for removal. There is no need to show this photo as we do not know if it relates to the current news. It also suggests that this is all the US does to any prisoner. Jason Safoutin 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Foto relates as mr Graner is said to be in the new photos. International 21:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't resolve either of my objections. Please offer something relevent. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mrm, what can be more relevant. Prisonerabuse and mr Graner, serving prisontime.
I meant relevent to my objections. If you missed them, read about 14 lines up. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

169.244.143.115 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) i think they should stay 169.244.143.115 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a) does not seem to be an issue here as this photo appears to be from the wikipedia article (unless there is a copyright issue there too). About b) I don't think that the fact that the pictures are graphic or offensive is a problem in itself, they should be fine if they enhance the article. Here it seems to me that you have a point, and maybe a detailed verbal description of the new pictures published on the SBS website would be better for the article. If new pictures can be obtained without copyright issues, then presenting one might also be ok, depending on how "bad" they are (sounds like they are a lot worse than the first batch, in which case we might want to refrain from repringing them anyway). --vonbergm 21:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)Reply[reply]
Not offensive? Its offensive to me. Thanks but I can handle my own concerns. This photo is highly POV and inappropiate. Jason Safoutin 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DragonFire, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to learn how to read! I never claimed that the picture is not offensive. --vonbergm 21:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did read I don't think that the fact that the pictures are graphic or offensive is a problem in itself...It is that. I think the whole picture is offensive. We do not know when it was taken or if it relates to this article. It suggests POV in the way that it suggests that ALL soliders do this. Thats what the article suggests too. Jason Safoutin 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, if you want to be taken seriously... --vonbergm 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does seem to fall under point #7 of WN:NOT. StrangerInParadise 14:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no more vandalism edit

If User:DragonFire1024|Jason Safoutin keep taging without actionable objection it is actionable. period.International 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminds me of an article. I'm letting this happen, as it was let happen on the other article. Perhaps this will teach some users of something. I've invited DragonFire to share his objections to this page, however, and I think we should allow him time to harness those. Let's hope it doesn't take three days, like it did on the other article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How low can you sink? Makes it really hard to "assume good faith"... --vonbergm 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actionable objections edit

I will try to make a start: The sentence "Some of the pictures suggest further abuse such as killing, torture and sexual humiliation." should be preceded by "According to Dateline" or something similar. Or someone should go and view the pictures themselves, and give a detailed description of the pictures. --vonbergm 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning edit

I will block all users involved with this article, if this does not get sorted out soon Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree this is getting a little out of hand, let me explain where I see a problem with the article. It is written from the perspective of someone who had access to all the evidence SBS had to make their report and thus takes their statements at face value. I.e. it is too "credulous" of a source that could later on to be found to either have been fed false information or overblown the significance of the information they have. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To offer some way out of this, the article needs to better cite who claims what about the current situation. I would have done a copyedit myself but felt it was inappropriate once the article was protected. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok for me to edit in who the sources is and that they claim it. International 21:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll unprotect it for now, but if I see any warning going on......21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian, apart from the change already suggested by me above, what else justifies your flag? --vonbergm 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me: the flow and tone of this articles is written in a very anti-US bias, and I do find this article to be objectionable because of it. I will work to make the view of this article NEUTRAL but will not allow news to suggest ANTI views of any country or nation. Jason Safoutin 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grrr... :-) Edit conflict :-) The BBC has an article on the topic, and yes it is pretty damning. Our article was a lot closer to passing judgement on one of the parties in the story. I'm going to do a copyedit on part of this now it is unprotected, and we'll see where we go from there. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a few changes to the wording. Hopefully this helps with the article. --User:JaymzSpyhunter 9:11am, 16 February 2006

I've not read Jaymz's contribution yet, but I've changed the first paragraph to reflect the origin of the story information more clearly. I also put it back to develop as I think there is a need to make the entire thing more objective. There is a big difference between reporting on someone's analysis of a situation and telling the world that an event confirms your belief-set. Which, before anyone gets offended, isn't to say I disagree with the analysis. The conclusion may be dead-on, but it is POV. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is looking a lot cleaner and less POV, good work to all who contributed in the last 15 mins or so. JaymzSpyhunter 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actionable objections (2) edit

any? --vonbergm 22:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like to have pictures illustrating the crulenes of this subject. Why whitewash it?International 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo is not acceptable as it was. Concerns:
  • The Guardian cites an unnamed US defense official saying that the Army had reviewed the pictures posted by SBS and confirmed that they were amoung those that are subject to the Freedom of Information Act request made by the ACLU. (who? I thought we had to be specific?)
  • Saleh al-Humaidi, a Yemeni journalist, told Reuters "This is truly American ugliness that no other country in the world can compete with... the Americans ought to apologize to mankind for their government's lie to the world that it is fighting for freedom and that it came to Iraq to save it from Saddam Hussein's oppression." (how does the pertain to the story? who is this guy? Is his opinion, as a REPORTER necessary? Jason Safoutin 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, maybe cut his opinion in half though. It does relate to the story, so maybe: Saleh al-Humaidi, a Yemeni journalist, told Reuters "This is truly American ugliness that no other country in the world can compete with." JaymzSpyhunter 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope that suggests that no country ever did this and never will...His statement is irrelavant. He is not qualified to say that. He is just a reporter, not an official. Jason Safoutin 22:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JaymzSpyhunter, that sounds good. I agree that the long quote was giving too much emphasis to that point. It would be better to diversify the groups quoted by adding in an amnesty international quote, or an ACLU quote. --vonbergm 22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No...his quote has no basis. He is not a foreign professional or diplomat. He is a reporter and is UNQUALIFIED to make that JUDGEMENT which is his POV. Jason Safoutin 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can we have a photograph? Considering the subject, saves some meaningless searches, especially considering that wikipedia is publishing a non-copyrighted image[1]. Aaron Winborn 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sometimes think about how good Wikinews could be...International 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maps edit

I see the map is back, but at that smaller resolution I think we'd be better with a plain Iraq map. The main thing that bugged me was the pointer to where the prison was. I thought it looked tacky. Why not try with the infobox and a small map (sans label) on the left side before the last or 2nd last paragraph? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't scratch edit

As this has spent time as a disputed article, I would strongly advise that edits from this point on be restricted to spelling and grammar corrections. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Jason Safoutin 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brianmc, your language is somewhat inappropriate here, especially as the article seems to converge and open issues (like the picture question) are beeing discussed on the talk page. --vonbergm 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is my language inappropriate? I've made what I think are good-faith edits to get this article to a point where a consensus to publish could be reached. That's publish as in "finished". --Brian McNeil / talk 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldnt say there is a concensus, issue is very open. When pictures, the new ones if considered not copyviolating, is surfacing it is right to publish them in this article ore a newe on if time runs to far. International 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw two concerns listed as to publishing the photograph. The first, the copyright issue, seems to have been resolved, at least for the photograph published at Wikipedia.[2] The second concern is that it is offensive to some people. That may be the case, yet there have been many offensive photographs published in the last century of a similar nature. The Rodney King beating, the Vietnamese soldier being executed, photographs of victims of WWII concentration camps. I'm not trying to make any connection, I'm just giving examples of horrifying and offensive photographs that have been published, and need to be published to help people understand the nature of these events. I'm not sure what else still needs to happen, but I think that whatever resolution is found needs to involved publishing a representative photograph. Considering the current title of this piece: "New Photos..." To do otherwise makes Wikinews a second-rate operations. Aaron Winborn 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus on the picture were reached, text was POV and so were the pictures. Jason Safoutin 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No consensus is reached, just som loud voices.International 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aaron, those evcents happened before Wikinews existed. And on Wikinews we MUST abide by the NPOV policy on all articles we write. Period. Jason Safoutin 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning all. I'm not sure if this is relavent to the dispute here, because I haven't read all of the talk page, but I've written some thoughts on actionble objections. - Borofkin 00:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to "New photos of Abu Ghraib prison abuse" page.