Talk:Time: 15 Iraqi civilians dead; U.S. Marines under investigation

Title

I used the word "murder" as the term "massacre" beingused by other press seems too sensationalist. Perhaps there is a better word? Neutralizer 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is, I'll try and come up with one.

Hey, don't publish this until we get some good editing from a number of people. I want to make sure nobody is going to get blocked over this. irid:t 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "U.S. Marines under investiagtion for 15 civilian deaths" ? It sounds a lot less like we're assuming they're guilty. irid:t 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey; thinks for chipping in:) gotta admit, I'm a little surprised but very pleasantly; thanks so much :). Re; Title, the "Intentional killing of civilians" is the accusation here.Somehow it has to describe an accusation of intentional killings without sounding sensational. Remember this is not an accusation of collateral damage here. It might turn out to be that, but that is not what the allegations are. What about "U.S. Marines under investigation for intentionally killing 15 civilians"? Neutralizer 22:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that, as long as "under investigation" is in and "murder" is out. That's pretty much what I want to avoid; these are facts, and "murder" tends to hedge on POV. Thanks for starting this article. :) irid:t 22:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, bud, I gotta go to work now, seeyalater. Neutralizer 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The article title

Well, crap. I hate to do this right after you left for work, but the title of the article is still drawing some concern. There was a suggestion in the IRC channel of "Time Magazine reports on allegations of civilian killings by United States Marines". I think that's a reasonable suggestion, and I want to ponder on it for a couple minutes. Anyone else with ideas? irid:t 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer that title, the accusation in the title isn't as clear cut as having footage of the marines shooting unarmed civilians, the point is to make it clear in the article that the survivors claim this is what happened. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done (obviously, if you're reading this) irid:t 23:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the title before is ok but maybe the IRC crowd wants Time in the title for some reason. I don't think IRC conversations should trump talk page discussions. I don't understand exactly what Brian is saying above. Neutralizer 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to undermine talk pages, of course. I took that suggestion under advisement because there was some really good discussion going on there already. The point is that Time magazine made the accusations based on interviews they did, so it's important to have their name in the title.

Really, so far we've done well keeping this away from flame wars. I'm impressed. Let's keep this up. irid:t 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes,agreed.I also got on IRC last night with Amgine and Chiacomo to discuss this title so, I guess great minds think alike.:) Neutralizer 13:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Interwikilink to add

Can anyone add the italian interwikilink it:15 civili iracheni morti: marines statunitensi sotto indagine? Thank you! --Trek00 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done--MarkTalk 11:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Category and link

{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Time (magazine) and localize a link of the same name. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)