Talk:Abu Ghraib prison/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk:Abu Ghraib (prison)/archive1

Contents 1 slur on prisoner 2 number of pictures in article 3 photo copyrights 3.1 Holiday 4 Prisoner Death? 5 Location of Images/Sensitivity of Viewers 6 Removed links 7 Auswitz (sp?) link 8 major edits needed 9 No reason to remove photos 10 Photo layout 11 What I'd like to know 12 Prisoners forced to masturbate, etc. 13 Separate photo incident 13.1 Separate photo incident 14 More photos 15 Perverted Behaviour 16 Renaming Article 17 Political statements 18 Separate photo incident 19 Qualification of pictures 20 Removed Rotten.com link 21 photo CD request 22 "Muslim Humiliation" 23 The photos - An idea 24 World Reaction 25 Move taguba report to its own article 26 Bush quotes - delete? 27 Splitting article, revisited 28 Isolated incident or systematic failure or official policy?

slur on prisoner

Is that word written on one of the prisoners "rapeist"? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:57, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

The prisoner in Pic 6 is recognizable. IANAL, but I am a human being. Shouldn't the img be tweaked (blurred, blacked out) to conceal his identity? (Re "rapeist" (sic) -- yes, that's what it looks like). –Hajor 17:06, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It looks like it could be RAPEIST or PAPFIST. News sources refer to it as a slur. 64.112.183.66 17:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've since read press reports (specifically, the Daily Mirror -- sorry, not one of the best possible sources) describing it as an Arabic insult transliterated into English. Far more reports describe it as an "American slur" or "English slur", however. –Hajor 23:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• At first I thought what was written was "PACIFICIST" but it isn't. Kingturtle 23:25, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

It says "Papeist", a mispelling of "Papist"! It's a religious insult, accusing the victim of being Catholic! Actually I'm pretty sure it is "Rapeist", given the context. Shouldn't we either make a call based on this high probability or just remove speculation in the caption since the reader can see exactly the same evidence as we can? --M4-10 08:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the Taguba report lists the word as "RAPEST (sic)". But there's definitely an I there.

Sorry about the incorrect information in the rapeist [sic] caption — I confused it with the contractor said to have raped someone in their mid teens (the photos taken of that hasn't been released). - Jeandré, 2004-05-06t23:22z

number of pictures in article

I don't think we should have 14 pictures in this article, as the additional 12-13 don't add any content to the story. That would be like having a huge listing of pictures at the end of Auschwitz, which we of course don't have, despite the existence of thousands of pictures we could put there. --Delirium 20:21, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Three pictures seems plenty. The article links to all 14 anyway. Quadell 16:02, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

The images are essential to understanding what happened. They will stay.--Eloquence* 20:32, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Having all of them is no more essential than having 15 images on Auschwitz is. Similarly, we could put up 50 images of torture during the Hussein regime, which would also not be essential to understand what happened, and would be inappropriate. In addition, you do not run this wiki, and I do not appreciate your dictatorial tone. "I believe they should stay" is within your prerogative to say. "They will stay" is not. --Delirium 21:14, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it's within his prerogative to SAY, just not to enforce. Admittedly, it was a poor choice of words on El's part IMHO... sort of like an edit summary that says Eloquence is a biased activist. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:10, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Right now we have ZERO pictures of what happened either at Auschwitz OR at Holocaust. Now that is sad. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:12, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

The whole point of the images is to illustrate what happened -- what was done to these people? This is not a matter of the historical record yet, so the comparison with Auschwitz is absurd; furthermore, we should have more images about what happened in Auschwitz in the appropriate articles.

What we should do is provide captions for each image to actually describe what happens here.--Eloquence* 21:26, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

This isn't a primary source document, but an encyclopedia. We should, for example, have illustrative images on Auschwitz, but an in-depth image gallery is inappropriate. Same with the Rwandan genocide: having an image gallery of 15 images of Rwandans being murdered would not help illustrate what happened. The same goes with just about any other atrocity: a few illustrative images are very helpful, but an image gallery is not. What do 14 images add that, say, 4 do not? I agree all 14 (and more, as there are certainly more in existence) are important for the historical record, but not for an encyclopedia article. Putting them all here, and not in other articles, seems a bit like an attempt to advance a particular agenda. What would you think, for example, of someone who added a lengthy image gallery depicting the victims of Palestinian terorrism to one of our articles? There are plenty of pictures of mangled Israeli bodies---should those be in Wikipedia in order to illustrate what happened? --Delirium 21:28, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Showing the same corpse out of two different perspectives is pointless. Showing different concentration camps, different gas chambers in different regions is not, nor is showing the wide range of atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. In this case, the different images show different types of humiliation (the electric schock threat, the hoods, the body pile, the sex acts), they show the behavior of the soldiers (laughing, smiling and pointing, proudly posturing in front of the "human pyramid") -- this is hardly redundant, and all of it is part of the evidence of what happened. What you are trying to pull off here is the most blatant attempt of censorship I have seen on Wikipedia in recent months.--Eloquence* 21:34, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

If I were interested in censoring the images, I hardly think Wikipedia would be the place to go, given that the news sites that have them have orders of magnitude more readers than we do---nearly everyone coming here has already seen the images, unless they live in a cave and don't read the news. What I'm interested in is why we have an image gallery here, when it is standard Wikipedia policy to only use a few illustrative images, and not use image galleries. We could, for example, show images of Palestinians blowing up cafes... or blowing up buses... or blowing up military checkpoints... celebrating in the streets afterwards... we could show torture committed by the Palestinian Authority... we could show any number of things, but don't, because this is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue of atrocities. This isn't the place for evidence, but discussion. --Delirium 22:20, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose I didn't formulate my objection well enough. I think this does give the impression of trying to show evidence of atrocities, which isn't our job. We should simply neutrally describe things. This has a bit of the feel of advocacy. For what it's worth, I didn't support the invasion, and don't support Bush, but don't think opposition to Bush and the war should be based on propagandistic images, but on actual reasons. --Delirium 22:23, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Describing things neutrally is not identical to evoking no emotions. The latter is inevitable when dealing with subjects like this. We do not portray these pictures as anything except exactly what they are - a description of the events that occurred in this particular prison at the end of last year. If you want to interpret this as a pro-Bush or anti-Bush thing, then that is your business. Describing the facts of a matter is the job of an encyclopedia, and in this case, the images and the article work together to tell the story of what happened.--Eloquence* 22:39, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but even simple descriptions can tend to bias things. If our article on the Taliban had an image gallery of Taliban atrocities, for example, that would be factual, but one would question why we were playing up that aspect. Very rarely these days does even outright propaganda actually make things up: instead it uses factual images, whether they're of mangled Israeli corpses or dead Palestinian teenagers or mangled bodies of US security contractors or whatnot. --Delirium 23:48, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Whichever example you use, I will always disagree with your stance on images. In the Taliban case especially, in fact. Who could forget the pictures of corpses in the streets, the mutilations, the destroyed Buddha statues? If we can use images to better tell the story of what happened in Afghanistan during the Taliban rule, we should most definitely do so. (I suspect the only reason that is not the case yet is copyright.) As I said to Merovingian below, when there is evidence that an image is used in a propagandistic way - that the extent of a crime is exaggerated, that important context is missing - then that evidence should be cited, and then one can talk about either making the article NPOV, or removing the images. Images which are factual and not redundant belong in every article. If that makes some people feel bad, tough.--Eloquence* 00:01, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth, El, I think 3 (maybe 4) of those photos are redundant, those fulfilling your requirements for removal. 7 and 13 seem functionally identical, as do 2 and 8. 9 doesn't show us anything that 1 doesn't show us. 11 and 12 are photos of the same incident, although the inclusion of the prisoner in the second angle shot does make a difference. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:06, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

I also think the redundant photos Dante listed by number don't add any information that can't be had from the others and should be removed. 24.0.226.177 22:11, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Er, that was me. Forgot to login. Werbwerb 22:14, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Seems that Mr. Delirium is too much obsessed with the encyclopaedic nature of the wikipedia. Well, this is not at all a traditional encyclopaedia. This incident demands widespread attention throughout the course of the history of mankind. Future Americans need to know how uncivilised their ancestors were. Pictures are essential not only to portray what happened but also because these pictures themselves are part of the history. If these pictures were not published by the CBS and others, then, only stating the facts would never be able to draw much attention of the people. Even creation of an article on this would not be possible. The article is here because of the pictures and not vice-versa. --Hiwamy 18:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

There are allegedly 100s of photos out there from Abu Ghraib. What will our limit be on how many to have on this article? Kingturtle 19:03, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

photo copyrights

Aren't these photos copyvios? RickK 23:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think an easy fair use case can be made for at least including some of them. --Delirium 23:34, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

They are US army photos and therefore public domain.--Eloquence* 23:37, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. These were, according to all reports, taken by U.S. armed service members on active service. I believe that they are therefore works of the U.S. federal government, and thus in the public domain. In my (not a lawyer, not legal advice) opinion, it is questionable whether any news agency can assert any rights over images cropped or blurred or captioned from the originals, as they would have to demonstrate that doing so was creative expression, rather than a mechanical process. They are also clear-cut candidates for fair use.

Now, the public domain argument will probably not apply to the alleged UK abuse photos (although these are not relevant to Abu Ghraib). Is the Daily Mirror asserting copyright? If so, who did they obtain that copyright from? Are picture by UK servicemen on active service crown copyright? If they're fake, presumably the original copyright belongs with the fakers? Any copyright lawyers here? -- The Anome 11:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Publishing photos of POWs by the US (or UK) is against Geneva Law. And I disbelieve you asked the Irakies on the photos, they like to be published here. --Otto König 19:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Holiday

by the way, today is a holiday in most of Europe, i don't think too many people will get a new newspaper today at all. -- Zeitgeist 12:51, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

You don't get papers on holidays in Europe? Interesting. Here in the US we get newspapers every day of the year. On holidays though, we dont get mail... or every Sunday for that matter. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:18, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

In the UK we get papers every day but Christmas Day. Mail is the same as the States. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think Zeitgeist meant that it was unlikely that people would buy a newspaper, because it was a public holiday, and it was late in the day. Mintguy (T)

Prisoner Death?

When I watched Channel 4 News on Friday evening, they interviewed a relative of this Chip Frederick guy (I think he was his uncle). He was alleging that there was more serious abuse going on, and that a prisoner died whilst being tortured. I haven't seen any more info on this. Mintguy (T) 01:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)~

At least two, maybe as many as twenty-five so far, have been killed. Reuters article says "Two Iraqi prisoners were murdered by Americans and 23 other deaths are being investigated in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States revealed on Tuesday as the Bush administration tried to contain growing outrage over the abuse of Iraqi detainees."

Also, Rumsfeld refuses to use the word "torture". The folks at Little Green Footballs agree with him. I'm trying to find a reference to the text of the Convention, but I'm pretty sure that mock executions and torture so severe as to cause death violate the convention. The President of the EU agrees with me here. Grendelkhan 14:52, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Location of Images/Sensitivity of Viewers

i hope those who put these images understand they are harming for some people so they have to remove them immediately. and when they are removed not to readd them againe.

Of course these images are disturbing, but that does not give you the right to censore them. The best solution, I think, would be to add a warning about the disturing images at the top of the article, or maybe move them to a different page and add a link to that. pir 09:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I made a subpage Abu Ghraib (prison)/Photos of US abuses with the photos. The photos should definitely be part of wikipedia, but due to the graphic nature maybe its better to put them on a subpage? Just a suggestion, and if other users prefer the content on the main page we can move it back. A similar arrangement is on Clitoris, and was under discussion but not implemented on Penis -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

On the whole I think this is not a bad solution, but I can see one problem: a visitor has no idea what he/she will see when they click on the link. How about making some small thumbnail pictures that show too little detail for it to be disturbing but enough for viewers to know what they are in for? pir 10:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

We could add a less distrubing image, e.g. Image:AbuGhraibAbuse05.jpg ? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I find that one pretty disturbing. Reminds me of the Ku Klux Klan, I guess black Americans will find it even more disturbing. pir 10:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The pictures should remain in context with the article. Why are you moving them? Mintguy (T) 10:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am not that delicate, but I could imagine there are people who would not like to see a pile of naked men. Thats why I moved the photos. See also the discussion above. I agree that we definitely should keep the photos, tough, I only tried to find a better place. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:45, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The story is nothing without the pictures. The fact that the pictures are disturbing is central to the existence of this article. In June of 2003, a British soldier took some photos to his Chemist to be developed, and they were seized by the police. The pictures allegedly showed British troops maltreating Iraqi prisoners. This story then disappeared off the radar, essentially because nobody was interested in a story about dodgy pictures when the pictures themselves were not available. Everybody forgot about this story and when the Abu_Ghraib story broke everybody said "Ohh, this is terrible, but the British wouldn't do this, they are better trained", only for the new pictures of the British soldier urinating on an Iraqi prisoner to surface less than two days later. Everybody seemed to have forgotten the story from a year ago, because there were no pictures to hand. The pictures must be shown in the context of the story. Mintguy (T) 11:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore. These pictures have featured prominently on the front pages of newspapers across the world. I would not expect to see a picture of penis of clitoris on the front page of a newspaper. Mintguy (T) 11:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, It was a thought. I agree with you that the pictures are needed, but I still think a subpage would be better. But it is not a pressing issue for me, I can live with either option. I'll put the subpage up for deletion. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it is fair to have a few images. However, right now there are 13 on the page. That's a bit excessive, in my opinion. I believe that another page containing of all of the images can be put together. In other areas on Wikipedia where there are many images available, extra pages are often created. —Mulad 03:43, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I think it was a bit excessive of these guys to take a minimum of 13 photographs, but that's what they did. So please stop trying to censor this page. I see no justification for your actions. It's not like people have trouble scrolling or we're going to run out of space on the page or something. Mintguy (T) 17:42, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe two or three pictures is plenty to give a historical record and context. Since there is a link to where all the pictures can be seen -- several, in fact -- I don't see a problem. Quadell 18:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Removed links

Someone removed the link to the Stanford Prison Experiment. I would say that the link is very relevant, and I think it should be reinserted. Quadell 14:47, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

(deleted my comment. Because Inadvent confusion between See Also and External Link. Xah P0lyglut 19:13, 2004 May 3 (UTC))

The Stanford Prison Experiment showed how ordinary, humane people can act like monsters in certain prison settings. It certainly seems relevant to me, but we may have to disagree. (Someone else put the link back in.) Quadell 18:28, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of what the SPE showed. I would argue that the experimental subjects hardly acted as "monsters", and were rather fulfilling a perceived role. NOTHING, to my knowledge, explains the actions of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib other than their being the type of people who would commit these sort of acts. To assert that this is, in some way, explicable by the SPE, and to imply therefore, that these soldiers are "ordinary, humane people" who were acting in a certain manner because of a certain setting is, IMHO, laughable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:52, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Stanford Prison Experiment is highly relevant. There is a very strong case that the Abu Ghraib were fulfilling a perceived role. pir 23:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The Stanford Prison Experiment would be relevant if they use it as a defense in a court. To me, in my biased opinion, the SPE is not relevant. They are trained soldiers. It is safe to say if we put them in a battlefield, they will not act like Rambo or Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando who just grabs the toughest looking gun and fire. No, they are trained soldiers. They are trained to do what exactly a good jail official should do. And they have supervisors who are in offices. Loosely based on the moral of the SPE, these office workers might be doing a good job because they are in offices. Toytoy

Why is there a link to Auschwitz? Are you serious?? Also there is plenty about this facility from the Baath days. Andy McNab had a stay there and writes about it in Bravo Two Zero. You can read some of his experiences in a recent piece in the Telegraph. Of course he didn't have his camera, for when the Iraqis made him eat his feces. m410 3 May 04

Looks like someone deleted the Stanford Prison Experiment link again, without comment. I'm putting it back. If you feel it shouldn't be here, please, discuss it in the talk page instead of removing it. Thanks. Quadell 19:12, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think the SPE is irrelevant. I did not touch it. I think others will remove it.

The SPE was about random, untrained TV-watching subjects. They were taught by the movies and TV shows that every stepmother must be a bad one. So when they were given sticks and sunglasses, some of them became @#$% criminals.

This has nothing to do with the Iraqi jail managed by the US. These soldiers are trained ones. They are supposed to supervise each other. And they should have superior officers who manage them. To me, the SPE link is even more irrelevant than the Auschwitz link. In Auschwitz, there were trained soldiers who followed cold-blooded orders. They and their superiors must be held responsible. In Abu Ghraib, IMHO, these soldiers and contractors are supposed to be doing some ordered jobs with a creative twist. They were given a green light and then improvised the tricks happily by themselves.

Remove that stupid link, I mean it. -- Toytoy

Toytoy, you seem to have missed the importance of the Stanford Study results. Having a link to it from this article is completely appropriate, and I mean it. Kingturtle 02:14, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The SPE is irrelevant and very probably misleading. It suggests under that circumstance, an otherwise very normal Joe Six-Pack could do it. It suggests these criminal behaviors could be natural, well-hidden and undetectable. But they were not ordinary people without supervision. Therefore the SPE has nothing to do with it.

If I were these guy's lawyer, I will surely use the SPE to confuse the jury (I will probably use the Chewbacca Defense, because we are in such a dire situation). But I am not their lawyer. If they use the SPE in their defense, put the link on a page that covers the litigation process. Before that, please remove it. Many experts could probably agree with me.

Is it in anyone to abuse a captive? by Ryan Dilley, BBC News Online

[Historian Christopher Browning:] "You have to work very hard with a lot of training and supervision to stop this [abusive] culture spinning out of control."

... He argues that it is more subtle signals from very senior figures which can have the most profound effect on the behaviour of soldiers on the ground, setting the scene for abuse without explicitly ordering it.

"In the War on Terror, the US has set limits on the Geneva Convention to minimise the protections it offers, think of Guantanamo. These things filter down from the very top."

Mr Browning says that by casting military captives not as prisoners of war, but as continuing threats and sources of information "it was predictable that these abuses would occur".

... But psychologist Dr Patrick Tissington - himself a former British Army officer - says that the military can use loyalty to a group to encourage decent, rather than brutal behaviour.

He says that "without supervision, the Stanford guards quickly turned into nasty pieces of work", but where members feel a great loyalty to a group and a concern for the standing of that organisation they will want to behave impeccably.

See, subtle "orders" and willful negligence from the very top caused most of this. The SPE has nothing to do with orders. The "guards" of the SPE was not supposed to monitor each other's behavior because they were untrained. The SPE "guards" were not ordered to torture people. But they did. The Abu Whatever guards were supposedly ordered NOT TO torture them. And they were supposed to know the Big Brother is always watching. They did it because something must be deadly wrong from the top. It has nothing to do with the spontaneous torturing behavior displayed in the SPE.

If you make me into a bank guard. I have every "The Call of the Wild" in this world to grab the money and run. But training and suvervision makes me loyal to the bank, but my own welfare. I dare not do it unless some evil top brass allow me.

Is that clear? -- Toytoy

The New York Times has a front-page article today on how the Stanford Prison Study relates to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Toytoy, even if you disagree with the NYT and Kingturtle and me, you have to admit that many intelligent people find the link relevant. Quadell 13:39, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I read the Times daily, even though I don't find it especially intelligent on certain occasions. I have already read that article. But that's still irrelevant. The SPE is still a hypothesis. A lousy one, IMHO. The reasons are clearly stated above. No need to repeat.

If you use SPE on this case, you can use SPE on Auschwitz or My Lai Massacre. I think if I add it to the Auschwitz concentration camp article, many will call me a Holocaust denier. I will not remove this link myself. Please to allow me to add My Lai Massacre after the two experiments. After all, Colin Powell did mention it in an open speech.

• The Telegraph of India
• The Australian
• Red Nova News

Toytoy

Auswitz (sp?) link

I think it's blantantly un-NPOV to have a link to Ausvwitz. Regardless of what the US soldiers did, comparing it to the government-condoned genocide of millions is inflammatory and counterproductive. I'd suggest removing that link and maybe adding links to prison abuse in general (the sanford prision is a good start) and to articles on international law concerning prisoners.

I agree. The Auschwitz link seems npov to me. Quadell 13:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

major edits needed

This article reads like a thriller. The style involves suspense. We need to come out at the very top informing the reader immediately why this prison is significant. I am going to give it a shot. Kingturtle 03:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

No reason to remove photos

The reason the article exists at all is because of the photographs; it did not exist before they were released. To remove the photographs is foolishness itself. Without the photographs, the article loses its significance.Stargoat 19:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Removing all photos and all links to photos would be a bad idea. But providing two or three photos, and linking to the rest, is fine. (The article is, I think we all agree, significant.) Quadell 20:32, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

The article did not exist before the photographs, they are what make the article "significant". Why then, have the article if you are not going to have the photographs? Why bother describing the photographs when they can be displayed?

Furthermore, removing information is almost always inherently bad. There needs to be a better justification other than, "well, we don't really need it", particularly when it is easily justified that the photographs should be there. Stargoat 21:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Attempt to remove the photos are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. These pictures are essential to not only understand the nature of the abuse itself, but also the public reaction. This article would be a stub or non-existent if these photos had not been released and only words had been used to describe the situation. However, I have moved the photos into the article proper and removed some redundant ones (a second body pyramid etc.) which, I think, we can do without. I have also added captions.

I'd like to know where the claim comes from that the prisoners in the pyramid were forced to masturbate. Did I miss anything? This does not seem to be clear from the pictures.--Eloquence* 23:04, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

"This prisoner is dead, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. It is unclear if the soldiers were responsible for his death, and why he was photographed." If we're not at all sure of the context of this photograph, why is it in the article at all? m410 4 May 04

Because it is one of the incidents which are presently being investigated by the US Army.--Eloquence* 00:40, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Photo layout

I much prefer having all these images at the end of the article. Staggering so many images like this makes the printable version simply hideous. Please, let's go back to having all the images together at the end. Kingturtle 01:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a photo-oriented article so that will naturally be reflected in the printed version. I think the images could be spaced out better though. I tried to align them with the passage the respective caption refers to, but that results in too much clutter.--Eloquence* 01:17, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've rearranged the images. What do you think? We're now down to seven pics, BTW, and that's the lowest I will go.--Eloquence* 01:54, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Right on. Only as many pics as the article on September 11th!----M4-10 07:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

That arrangement makes the printable version palatable. Well done. However, I don't understand why we can't have the images in a block at the end, like in this version. Kingturtle 06:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I much prefer images to be naturally associated with the article text, so that the reader can quickly get to the images from the relevant sections of the text. Think about it - if you're telling a story to a child, would you first read them the story -- "And then the Big Bad Wolf said .." -- and then, after the story is complete, show them all the pictures at once, or wouldn't you say: "This is Little Red Riding Hood. She's going through the woods .." It's a much more natural way to describe what happened.--Eloquence* 11:05, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

What I'd like to know

There have been some stories on how Iraqi prisons stopped using hoods a month ago. However, not all of them include this part: "Instead, the detainees' eyes will be covered by a blindfold, or with goggles taped over with duct tape." [1] What I'd like to know is what the justification is for routinely blinding prisoners, especially in light of the Third Geneva Convention, and whether there have been any stories investigating this issue further.--Eloquence* 01:43, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Prisoners forced to masturbate, etc.

Eloquence asked where the claim came from that the prisoners were forced to masturbate. It's in the Taguba report, made before the pictures were released, and leaked to the media on May 4, 2004. Here are the relevant sections:

6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing 'I am a Rapest' (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

...

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

This is torture, folks. The full report can be read here.

Quadell 14:42, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

And there's an informative NYT story here (interview with one of the prisoners in the photos). –Hajor 17:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Other than the fact that this article right now is not neutral in the least, it occurred to me that it may be more appropriate to put the description of the incident in a separate article linked to from the Abu Ghraib article. That way there would be no sense of bias due to the excessive description of American misdemeanors next to a very brief account of Hussein's butchery. Plus, who knows, perhaps this is not the last notable event in the history of this particular prison. Watcher 00:03, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that there is, in fact, a difference between a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein tolerating or ordering the abuse and torture of prison inmates, and soldiers of the United States army engaging in it? The US are an occupational force in Iraq; they have claimed to liberate the country and to move it towards democracy and human rights. That is why these acts - which were, to some extent, deliberately promoted for the purpose of interrogation - are widely considered so abhorrent.

It's the same reason that it raises much more awareness when Israel kills several women and children in an attack on civilian areas than when a suicide bomber does it. We expect terrorists to act like terrorists and brutal dictators to act like brutal dictators. That does not in any way excuse their actions, of course, but it means that they are in line with what we already know about them. That is why we fight them, after all. We have much higher standards for democratic governments and their armed forces, and when these standards are violated, that should ring the alarm bells, it should cause an outrage, and it should be fully investigated. That is the only way it can be prevented. And that is what happened here. We should be glad that the outrage exists to this extent, it is in fact a demonstration of our freedom. Wikipedia's purpose is not to endorse the idea of freedom or democracy, but we must accord the level of attention to a topic that it deserves.

Furthermore, the type of degradation -- primarily sexual abuse -- is particularly offensive to religious fundamentalists (many of them would condemn sexual abuse much more than torture or murder, especially when it is sexual abuse by a female). That is another key reason why the story of Abu Ghraib is receiving so much attention, it is threatening to do very serious long term damage to the already very bad image of the United States in the Arab world. Regardless, I would have no objection to writing more about what happened under Saddam Hussein, if there was a lot of information available -- there isn't. That is another effect of a brutal dictatorship. Neither the US nor the European media who condemned Abu Ghraib exist under such conditions.--Eloquence* 04:38, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Eloquence, there is no legimate justification for the argument that the humiliation from this event is any more offensive to 'religious fundamentalists' than to anyone else. I know the media keeps saying it, but it's simply untrue. Also there is no 'Arab world', only Earth. Though some of us are tempted to ask "What planet are they on?" --M4-10 05:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course there is such a justification. See The True Clash of Civilizations, Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence. Pretending that this planet is united does not make it so -- it is divided culturally, politically, and economically.--Eloquence* 11:18, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your collectivist racism is abhorrent.

I don't pretend the world is united. It is divided much finer than you believe: about 6 billion ways. --M4-10 22:03, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

True, but it's also hard to deny that certain regions of the world tend to share some values and beliefs; f.ex, walking around in a bikini is better accepted in Miami than in Pakistan. MikeCapone 22:32, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Separate photo incident

I've removed the following because it has no context which indicates that it belongs in an article on Abu Ghraib prison:

Separate photo incident

In November 2003, three female U.S. soldiers were showering when they ::discovered captain Leo V. Merck on his hands and knees taking pictures of ::them with a digital camera. The next day, the women reported Merck to ::authorities. A search of his government computer uncovered many other ::inappropriate photos. Merck currently faces a court martial.

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:58, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'll re-add it, giving context. This is an article about the Abu Ghraib prison, and this is an incident that took place there. Kingturtle 07:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

More and more reason that this article should be split up. Because an incident takes place in a location, it deserves to be listed in that location's article? That's a bad Wikiprecedent. How about a link in a much shorter Abu Ghraib (prison) article to a new article entitled U.S. Military abuses (Operation Iraqi Freedom), which in turn is linked to an article about British Military abuses (Operation Iraqi Freedom) and back to Abu Ghraib (prison)? --M4-10 08:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really should be mentioned at all. Cases of people taking pictures of women in the shower are not particularly rare, and we could add one such case to probably a good percentage of the city/town articles on Wikipedia, or really any of the place articles. Exhaustively enumerating each and every instance doesn't seem useful. --Delirium 09:48, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

The shower incident seems to remain. I suppose if anyone gets photos from that, they should appear on this article as that seems to be the standard right now. The whole methodology of this article is messed up. Are people pushing agendas? --M4-10 18:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Delirium, that the paragraph doesn't belong in this article (any more than a similar incident in Baltimore, Maryland would merit a mention in that article). Quadell 12:17, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

More photos

This Lynndie England is a real piece of work. [2] --M4-10 08:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

4 more photos here [3] and one of them again in higher res [4], apparently from the washington post. <humor> If they ever release the original CD with a thousand images, do we have to put them all in the article? </humor>-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Heck no! Wikipedia's not a primary source, it's a reference. Wikipolicy would probably be to show a few (depending on the length of the article; one or two per printed page) representative images, and link to a page on MemoryHole, ibiblio or the like which contained the full archive. There's no need to actually store them on Wikipedia. Grendelkhan 15:00, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Perverted Behaviour

The perverted behaviour of the U.S. and British soldiers make me sick! Make them do the same things as their victims! But then again, soldiers are generally hard and brute with a significant low IQ and moral stature.

What would you know about it? Go to hell. --M4-10 17:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Internet troll

Who is being called a troll here? How ambigious! --M4-10 19:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, figured I was being clear. Obviously I wasn't. ;) I was trying to clue you in to the fact that the original anon contributing the "perverted behaviour" comment was obviously trolling. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:52, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

It's getting very difficult to separate trolls from sincere loony leftists these days. Does being sincere in one's dementia absolve one from being a troll? For example, the third link on google about Pat Tillman --M4-10 09:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am not a sincere loony leftist but I happen to agree that, on average, soldiers tend to be hard and brutal - it's in the training. The evidence is plain: The average IQ is a little lower than the pop'n at large. It is difficult to have moral stature when you are trained to obey orders unquestionably. Remove command and control and what happens? When the cat is away the mice will play. Encourage misbehaviour (explicitly or tacitly) and the troops will misbehave, no encouragement needed. I am not surprised that US and UK soldiers have misbehaved. Soldiers always misbehave. And I am sickened too. In what way is any of that loony or leftist? None of my conservative sane friends think different either. M4-10 might be in the military or not. In any event I would like to make plain I am talking about soldiers on average, I am saying nothing about any individual soldier, and it would be stupid to think I am. Paul Beardsell 20:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

"Encourage misbehaviour (explicitly or tacitly) and the troops will misbehave, no encouragement needed." I invite you to clarify this phrase. If George W. Bush said this it would end up as another example of how "stupid" he is. Feel free to delete this comment if you fix it. I may comment later on your comment as a whole (probably "I respectfully disagree.") --M4-10 20:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Clarification: What is Rumsfeld (ostensibly) taking responsibility for? It has to be for not ensuring that this type of thing could not happen. That this was not done (by proper training, or inspections, or by example) is the tacit permission to which I refer. That the US govt and the Pentagon sanctioned some of these interrogation techniques is the explicit permission to which I refer. Very senior UK army officers have reported being disturbed by the very anti-Iraqi attitude of many US soldiers and officers. US soldiers are not naturally torturers and humiliators any more than any other army is, where did it come from? Any unsupervised group given power over others tends to cruel and inhumane treatment, as numerous psychological experiments testify. How do explain what has occurred? Paul Beardsell 00:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Renaming Article

We could rename the article Abu Grahib Coalition Detention Camp or "Abu Grahib allegations" or something like that to indicate that the article is about the current allegations rather than the history of the prison. Would that be acceptable TDC?AndyL 08:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think we need to. I believe Abu Ghraib is also the name of a city (perhaps the city where the prison is located) and the city is referenced in at least one Wikipedia article. Check the "What links here", at least one link that links here isn't about the prison. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:30, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK, what's the best name for the article (or those parts of the article dealing with the prison under coalition control)?AndyL 19:06, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Dunno, really. The salon.com article (linked) says it was renamed the "Baghdad Correctional Facility", if that's any help. –Hajor 19:28, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

There is no point in creating Abu Ghraib (Coalition detention facility) if all Abu Ghraib is going to be is a redirect to Abu Ghraib (Coalition detention facility) . Kingturtle 23:06, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Will you wait five minutes before reversing the redirect! I was trying to create a disambig page with information about alternate uses of the name but you keep reversing the redirect before I'm finished. Why don't you wait until I'm finished and then comment. Ok?AndyL 23:14, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

This article needs to be split, for sure. There should be an article about the prison (with some reference to the experiences of Andy McNab [5], and John Nichol [6], as well as any Iraqis with testimonies about the prison. Then there should be an article about this recent incident involving Americans. Thousands of people have likely died there, and tens of thousands physically tortured (not just humiliated). This is one small episode in the prison's history. m410 3 May 04

I think this article should be renamed to something more fitting. Like: Iraqi prison scandal, US Army abuse of Iraqi detaniees or something.. It smells like this will grow. BL 14:38, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

My vote: U.S. Military Abuses (Operation Iraqi Freedom), or U.S. Military Abuses (Iraq Occupation 2003-2004) --M4-10 18:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Anyone see a problem with making the US Army abuse a separate article? Quadell 15:44, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is already an article called Human rights situation in post-Saddam Iraq. Move it there? - Jeandré, 2004-05-06t23:42z

I see no reason at all to split up the article. The abuses all occurred in Abu Ghraib prison, so they should be discussed in the article about Abu Ghraib. This also makes for much more natural linking.--Eloquence* 17:47, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

But note: Attica Correctional Facility is separate from Attica Prison riots. Gettysburg is a disambig to the town and the battle, separate pages. It's fairly standard to have separate pages for locations and events that happened at those locations (especially when, as in this case, the place is notable for other reasons as well.

I agree. The methodology for this article is not very good. Can we get another opinion from a veteran Wikipedian who is an expert on methodology but is disinterested in this topic? --M4-10 18:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Not a single good reason has been cited for splitting this article up. This looks politically motivated to me.--Eloquence* 21:35, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

You look politically motivated to me. We need an outside voice.

I don't know if I am politically motivated or financially or whatever, but I also disagree to split the article. What's wrong with discussion what happened in the prison is in the article of that prison? -- Taku 11:51, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

This rather mundane organizational question seems to be highly politically charged. I'd like to tone down the rhetoric a bit here.

I, for one, have no desire to bury this article. My own bias is anti-Bush (which makes me hope this episode helps end Bush's political career.) But, as stated above, it is standard operating procedure to have separate articles on places (e.g. the Watergate Hotel, Attica prison, the town of Ghettysburg) from events or scandals that occured there, especially when those locations are important for other reasons. Of course the article on the Watergate Hotel mentions the Watergate scandal and links there, but the scandal is too big to fit on a page ostensibly about a hotel. Here, the article should mention the torture, give a brief description, and link there. But it seems to me that an article about a prison should be mostly about the prison itself; if an event or scandal that occured at the prison is important enough to merit its own article, then it should get its own article.

Does this need a vote?

Quadell 13:31, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Good point in that it is standard operating procedure for Wikipedia. It would seem politically motivated NOT to split it in light of that. --Werbwerb 20:56, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

Please, separate the article. Surely nobody wants US conduct excused in comparison with Saddam Hussein? That's how it looks. Paul Beardsell 23:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Political statements

I don't know why Eloquence deleted the statements about Abu Graib being used by Hussein to torture prisoners. It's a matter of historical fact, not a political statement. Whose politics is this supposed to be supporting? Saddam Hussein's? He's gone. The US Republicans? Even the Democrats agree that Hussein tortured people in Abu Graib. Find a news article in any political or mainstream spectrum about Abu Graib that doesn't talk about the former prison's use.

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I remove such a statement?--Eloquence* 03:45, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Separate photo incident

The section titled "separate photo incident" appears to be unrelated, and pales into insignificance compared to the main allegations. I have moved it below. -- The Anome 10:09, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

In November 2003, three female U.S. soldiers stationed at the Abu Ghraib prison were showering when they discovered captain Leo V. Merck on his hands and knees taking pictures of them with a digital camera. The next day, the women reported Merck to authorities. A search of his government computer uncovered many other inappropriate photos. Merck currently faces a court martial.

This story gives further perspective of the misconduct occurring at the site - another clue into the hubris there. Kingturtle 15:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Qualification of pictures

According to the Oxford advanced learner's dictionary, "graphic" means: [1] of visual symbols (eg lettering, diagrams, drawings) ; e.g. graphic displays ; [2] (of descriptions) giving one a clear detailed picture in the mind; vivid ; e.g. She kept telling us about her operation, in the most graphic detail I conclude from this that the adjective "graphic" does not universally have the meaning which you give it, which seems to be a more American usage. I agree to your point, Delirium, that to qualify them as "disturbing" is telling people how they are supposed to feel about the pictures, i.e. quite strongly POV. How about the warning : this article also includes photographs which some visitors may find disturbing ? It is after all about the visitors' likely emotional reaction to the pictures. pir 11:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I would hope that viewers would find the pictures disturbing. I'd also hope that they won't need a cue ("feel disturbed -- now"). The truth will set you free, you see, but they didn't say it wouldn't hurt you first. -- The Anome 11:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I think you are missing the point, which is in my opinion that (1) we have a responsibility to warn people about the content of the article ; (2) we should not tell them how they are supposed to react.

Now we are warning our tender-hearted viewers about nudity? We are showing pictures of prisoners being abused by soldiers. What do people imagine that involves? Being sat in the comfy chair? The whole point of including these pictures is to depict the reality of this abuse (or at least some of the least nasty bits: the International Red Cross report suggests that this is only the tip of the iceberg). Let's be less prissy, and simply tell them that there are pictures of abused prisoners in the article. -- The Anome 12:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Removed Rotten.com link

User Pir removed the link to the Abu Grahib story on the Rotten Library, saying "link to voyeuristic shock websites like rotten.com is not appropriate in this context".

Rotten.com is a shock site, and much of its content is not particularly informative. But the sub-site called the "Rotten Library" is a very different site. It's irreverant but very informative. For instance, the Rotten Library's information on Khalid bin Mahfouz, Richard Scary, or Bob Ross, is the most comprehensive information I can find of these people on the Internet.

Rotten.com links are most often not useful, but Rotten Library links might be. I'd like to ask you to reconsider, and suggest we keep the link in.

Quadell 13:54, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

The events in this article are highly disturbing, yet we have to describe them in a NPOV matter-of-fact way. However if we take that ideal too far, if we add too many detailed facts, the article ends up being voyeuristic. We should never forget to also consider the interests of the victims who may be traumatised a second time by the exposure of their torture and their humilition to a worldwide audience. Wikipedia can't become a curiosity show circus, or become too closely associated with such sites by linking to them from articles such as this one. This is my motivation for removing the rotten.com link. Hope you understand what I mean, not sure if I make much sense. It's the problem of not forgetting our humanity while dealing with inhuman acts. But I get your point about the rotten library, and I won't make a fuss if people think this link is important enough to be included in this form.pir 14:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Pir. Rotten.com is one of the more well known websites, but not for its library. I think it would be not appropriate to link it here, and I am sure there are better links to be found if needed -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with User:Quadell|Quadell]] that rotten.com/library is not the same sort of thing as rotten.com. I might even purloin Quadell's comments above (which are, of course, under the GFDL) and use them to expand the Rotten.com article. In this specific case, however, i don't think the rotten/library link added much that we didn't already know from our article here. So, removing it was the right decision, but for the wrong reason. –Hajor 14:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Quadell (obviously). rotten.com's library is *not* a shock site, and saying it can't be linked to simply because it's part of rotten.com (which generally is) is silly. -- Schnee 13:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the content of the library is actually quite good. But Rotten.com has a certain reputation in the internet that is a bit ... well ... rotten. I believe that because of this reputation, linking to anything on rotten.com is a very sensitive issue. Unless the content is absolutely necessary I would prefer not to link there. It also seems from the above comments, the content is not all that unique. BTW, i removed the link again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

So the "reputation" of the site does matter while the actual contents does not? That's silly. -- Schnee 15:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The content is OK, although not much new compared to the Wikipedia article. I still believe, however, that a link to a site called "rotten", and having a reputation for snuff may be offensive. Similar if for example www.sex.com would have a library subpage. Potential offensiveness alone does not validate removal, but if the content is redundant then there is no need to offend. BTW, from the comments above, so far Pir, Hajor and myself tend towards removal, whereas Quadell and you tend towards keeping. It seems the issue is controversial, and would need more input. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

rotten.com has a reputation for snuff? That's new to me. Anyhow, if sex.com had a library that contained well-written and interesting articles, I wouldn't see anything wrong with linking to those, either. Would you remove a link to a Geocities page simply because other pages on there might be offensive? -- Schnee 16:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if snuff is the right word, but if you want to know how a body looks inside out, then rotten.com is the way to go. Anyway, link gone now, problem solved (for me that is) -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

If you don't even know what you're talking about exactly, then you probably shouldn't talk about it. -- Schnee 21:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed the rotton.com link because that URL does not give any new information. Kingturtle 15:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

---

photo CD request

in seems there are CDs circulating among US personels that contained some 1000 photos. If anyone has the CD, please contact me. Thanks. The photos will be used for documentary purposes. Xah P0lyglut 01:27, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

• Note, when the other user removed this comment from this page, I copied it onto Wikipedia:Reference desk. That might be a better place for it. Kingturtle 02:37, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

"Muslim Humiliation"

Okay, I made a cheeky edit, but I did it to make a point about a phrase which is objectionable and doesn't belong in an NPOV article. There is no "Muslim World", and if you can find evidence that coercive male nudity is considered shaming in that culture (moreso than in "The West") I invite you to post it with a credit to the source. If, alternately, you want to add a sentence or paragraph that the type of degredation that occured was deliberately aimed at a perceived cultural more (with evidence), then be my guest. As it stands it is strictly opinion. Of course if you accept that male nudity is in fact considered shaming in "The Muslim World", then it must have a reason, which can only be homophobia (likely caused by an inferiority complex born out of authoritarian rule). But I don't really believe that. Do you?

--M4-10 04:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The ONLY reason male nudity could be considered shaming is homophobia? Are you serious, am I misreading you, or did you word that strangely? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:04, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't think of any other reason, though generally low self-esteem (still linked back to an inferiority complex born out of authoritiarian rule) is another. I guess it wasn't good to use such exclusive language ("which can only be") since maybe someone else better insight. I still don't believe that those photos are any more humiliating for Muslims than non-Muslims. All the people I read insisting that they are, are Western commentators.

--M4-10 07:14, 8 May 2004 (UTC)----

Here is the current sentence (with the important phrase bold) and my edit. My preferred solution is to remove all the bold text and start with the NPOV "The pictures..."

Particularly humiliating in the Muslim world, a culture in which male nudity is considered shaming, the pictures show the prisoners naked, being forced to engage in simulated oral sex and other sex acts, images of a female soldier, grinning and pointing at the genitals of a hooded naked prisoner.

Particularly humiliating in the Muslim world (Earth), a culture in which male nudity is considered shaming because of homophobia, the pictures show the prisoners naked, being forced to engage in simulated oral sex and other sex acts, images of a female soldier, grinning and pointing at the genitals of a hooded naked prisoner.

--M4-10 04:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that being naked in front of dressed people is humiliating in muslim culture only. But I can very well think of a few reasons that it IS humiliating other than homophobia. For instance:

1. we are dressed, so we are more human than you, you are an animal
2. naked person is usually more vulnerable than dressed one, you are vulnerable, because we want you to
3. we can order you to do anything we want to, you are nothing, you are a slave

There sure are many more. Male nakednes being more humiliating than female could be attributed to generally higher position of a man in muslim societies. If you have higher position, then bringing you down from that position hurts more.
Attributing humiliation to homophobia only, or making it the most important reason is ungrounded. --matusz 14:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Good points, and to clarify my whole point, I accept that nakedness, especially coerced nakedness is shaming (for the reasons you listed, amongst possible others), but that this kind of coerced nakedness and accompanying humiliation is no less humiliating for Muslims than anyone else, unless there is some institutionalized cultural reason why Muslims are particularly shamed. The reasons you stated are not culture-specific, except for misogyny. Therefore in the absence of these explanations, there is no reason to draw attention to "Muslim humiliation", only "Human humiliation". I'm going to make an edit to remove the sentence "Male nudity is considered shaming in some Muslim cultures, and particularly humiliating." If anyone disagrees I'd like a discussion here, or at least a more thorough justification in the article as to why it is considered shaming and particularly humiliating in "some Muslim cultures". --M4-10 02:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The photos - An idea

I have an idea relating to the photos (excepting the prisoner on box, since it's less graphic). How abour we put them on a separate page with a warning as to the content? I feel this would do two things:

• It would put the focus on the text, and not on the photos.
• It would treat the photos with the senstitivty they deserve.

The title I was thinking of would be [[Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Photos]] or somesuch.

Comments? - iHoshie 11:16, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

I would support that, but previous attempts for that got reverted pretty quickly. See the section Location of Images/Sensitivity of Viewers above. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:29, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

World Reaction

I think we need a section on the fallout around the globe on this topic. - VTEX 23:35, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

We have no idea what the "fallout" is. Have any countries done anything concrete in reaction (recall ambassadors, declare war, withdrawal troops)? I suppose there might be (or might soon be) a meaningless UN resolution that would possibly merit inclusion. Right now the "fallout" is bleating from the various media (mostly Western). --M4-10 01:30, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Move taguba report to its own article

The Taguba report is referred to elsewhere so I thought it would be useful to move it to its own article. And then, half way through doing this, I remembered I should ask what others think. What do you think? Paul Beardsell 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

• I think that is a fine idea. This article should have a decent summary of the report. And then a separate article can go into great depth. Kingturtle 01:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Bush quotes - delete?

As a reference to anybody joining this discussion, the deleted quotes can be found HERE.

Rick, I agree the quotes are not directly relevant but they are relevant. Just as the Taguba report (it being about all US military misbehaviour of this type in Iraq) should be in a separate article perhaps so should the Bush quotes. There ought to be a place to document this whole sorry mess: It won't be here in this article as it is much more widespread than this prison. But we there is an ongoing discussion re splitting this article. Paul Beardsell 01:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Although the Bush quotes are revealing, and may point out current or future contradictions, a mere list of long quotes goes against the conventions of good article writing. Wikipedia is not a repository for fulltext quotes.

Rather than simply listing the quotes and the dates, write a paragraph that summarizes their content and that explains their importance. Kingturtle 01:10, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion of summarizing the quotes is good general policy and in most cases I would agree with you, but I think that this is one of the exceptions where the vehicule is part of the message. Saying that Bush said this or that and interpreting/explaining it does two things; one, it's less precise and robs the president's words of their impact, like being told about something instead of seeing for oneself. Secondly, explaining and interpreting can and will bring POV into it. Just the quotes themselves are public facts and are not POV. MikeCapone 03:11, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put the quotes into the article but I was interested to read them. It seems to me that those who wish to delete them on the grounds that they should be summarised should themselves take that task on. Paul Beardsell 01:15, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I added the quote in the article and am very suspicious of whoever removed them. George W. Bush and his administration are in the middle of the Abu Ghraid situation and their position, past and present, is incredibly relevant. These quotes cannot be summarized without losing their impact. I demand that they be put back immediately and only removed when someone has correctly argued that they are not relevant instead of a vague "it goes against the conventions of good article writing" excuse. MikeCapone 02:27, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted them because they're pushing a POV. I personally think Bush is a lying hypocrite, but it's not Wikipedia's place to say that, and that's what the quotes do. RickK 02:35, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

They are Bush's words. They are a part of what he said in public and is directly relevant to the Abu Ghraid situation. Are you saying that Bush's own words are anti-Bush and that it is where the POV is? It's like, if I show the pictures of Abu Ghraib to someone without telling them anything about them; it's just a bare objective fact and if there's a POV, it's in the person who sees the photos' interpretation. The pictures themselves are not POV, they are just presenting a fact, as with those Bush quotes. If that fact reflect negatively on someone, it's just too bad for that person but being neutral is NOT about hiding negative facts. These quotes were pretty short compared to the article's lenght, and that's what a table of content is for, to navigate long articles, and complex situations often require longer articles. The quotes were relevant since there's actually a very big worldwide situation right now about war crimes and the president of the country at the center of that situation has said things about war crimes -- there's a direct link. I renew my request for the quotes to be reinstated, they are just giving more facts for the public to process. MikeCapone 03:04, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue it. It's POV and unacceptable. Full stop. RickK 03:16, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for making wikipedia a little worse. What was I thinking? War crime quotes from the president of the USA in a page about war crimes commited by the USA??! Inacceptable! I must be censored by sysops who don't want to explain themselves more than by one-liners. For future reference: [7] -- MikeCapone 03:32, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Rick, make your mind up. Is it "poor style" or is it "POV full stop". If something is "POV full stop" how can a summary of it not be? But Bush giving his own opinion as Bush, as the leader of the "free world", POV? Give over! The more I think about this the more I think my initial reaction to revert your deletion was correct. However I wonder if you are now reacting to my reversion. Listen to MikeCapone, he puts his point very well. I can do little other than repeat it. You need to supply a cogent argument. As to who is or is not a sysop, surely that is irrelevant in this discussion? Paul Beardsell 03:45, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, but I think it matters that he's a well-known sysop. If I - a regular nobody - went and deleted one of his entries and said: "I'm not going to argue it. It's POV and unacceptable. Full stop." people would be laughing at me and I'd have no weight. But in this case, I know that he can get away with not explaining himself if he doesn't want to, and if I try to put it back in he'll just say that I'm the one asking for it and trying to make trouble and he or another proxy sysop friend will "whack" me. It's effective censorship. MikeCapone 03:56, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't reminding Rick that he being a sysop doesn't matter; I was reminding you! Rick knows very well that he cannot say "full stop" like that on an issue like this. What Bush has said is news not POV. I think to surround the quotes with text explaining the relevance of the points will demonstrate that it is not POV. The opinion of Rick, it cannot be a ruling, that it is not for Wikipedia to expose the dificult position of the President of USA using his own words is ridiculous. Nixon is identified here on Wikipedia as a schemer, Clinton as an adulterer and a dissembler, (Wikipedia says: Clinton claimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Rick, that reeks of POV!) If Clinton can be quoted why can't Bush? Paul Beardsell 04:17, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the quotes are pushing an agenda. The issue is that listing a number of lengthy quotes in that manner is lousy writing. This is an encyclopedia. News style is important for the Wikipedia. Please review it. Kingturtle 04:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

That's misrepresentation. It is three quotes and they are not long. The longest is about 75words, the shortest 25 words. Wiki is not paper. Paul Beardsell 04:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and the longest one could easily be shortened to 23 words while keeping the essential. MikeCapone 04:59, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I already answered that above. Please review it. Rules and general policies can't apply to all cases, and this is an exception. These quotes are relevant and NPOV (since they are just words spoken out in public), they aren't lenghty compared to the lenght of the article and can't be summarized without losing a part of their relevance for the reasons stated above. Now if I absolutely have to summarize them, I will do it. But that would be lousy writing. MikeCapone 04:14, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how a summary of POV can be anything but POV. To be consistent Rick would would have to object to that. Paul Beardsell 04:17, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I have said all I have to say on this subject. RickK 05:19, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Mike, I refer you to User_talk:RickK#Bush_quotes where Rick eventually makes it plain he is not pulling rank: What he has said is just his opinion as a Wikipedian. Paul Beardsell 05:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Alright. Then I retract some of the things I said above. I do want to make everyone happy and write an article that all sides can agree is fair. I will try to think up a way to keep the quotes as short as possible and have them as well integrated, with explanations if necessary, into the article. But I just see no valuable reason to remove them completely while they are quite relevant. I'm sure that if some big papers had reported them everybody would agree that they should be on the page, but we shouldn't be timid about doing research and be on the forefront of reporting factual situations. MikeCapone 05:41, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Splitting article, revisited

Can anyone suggest a title for an article which would deal with the issues surrounding US (mis)treatment of Iraqi detainees. US mistreatment of Iraqi detainees? Paul Beardsell 01:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with splitting this article before it exceeds the recommended maximum length for Wikipedia articles (35-40 KB). When it does, but only then, the section from the Taguba report could be split away into its own article. I am somewhat opposed to that and would prefer that it is summarized instead, as I prefer to have a coherent picture of what happened in Abu Ghraib presented in a single article. In the interest of our readers, we should ask: Will there be many people who will want to read an isolated article about General Taguba's report? Or will more people prefer to read a comprehensive article about the prison abuse scandal? Splitting an article into many pieces is often annoying to the reader.

As for splitting away the US abuses specifically from this article, I would only be in favor of doing that if the scandal extends beyond Abu Ghraib. As it stands right now, Abu Ghraib is the name under which this scandal is generally known, and there's absolutely no point in moving it to another, more difficult to find title. The images themselves should of course stay in the article and not be split away -- they are the central element of this story.--Eloquence*

I think if we do split the article, the most relevant split would be between Saddam-era history and US-occupation-era history. The histories are fairly unconnected, somewhat accidentally sharing the same facility (mostly because it happened to already be there), so it would cause the least incoherence to split it along those lines. To maximize finding information, Abu Ghraib could simply link to each directly. --Delirium 02:46, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Isolated incident or systematic failure or official policy?

This header is weird. Is it Isolated incident or systematic failure of official policy? or Isolated incident, or systematic failure, or official policy?? RickK 20:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The latter. I thought the commas unnecessary but they would make for easier reading. I'll change it. Paul Beardsell 20:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)