Talk:Haditha massacre: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:11, 29 December 2012 editRanger2000 (talk \| contribs)126 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:39, 25 September 2024 edit undoFreedom4U (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers12,053 edits add crime wikiprojectTag: 2017 wikitext editor
(73 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talkheader}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell \|blp=yes \|1=
	{{WikiProject ~~Disaster management~~ \|class= \|~~importance~~= }}		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=low}}
	{{WPMILHIST \|class=Start
			{{WikiProject Disaster management\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=B
	<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->		<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
			\|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =y
	<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all
			\|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
	major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
			\|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y
	\|B1=y
			\|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y
	<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
			\|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y
	does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
			\|Middle-Eastern=y\|US=y\|Post-Cold-War=y}}
	\|B2=y
			{{WikiProject Pritzker-GLAM\|importance=Low}}
	<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including
			{{WikiProject Death\|importance=mid}}
	a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
	\|B3=y
	<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
	\|B4=n
	<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
	such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
	\|B5=y
	\|US-task-force=yes\|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Death\|class=c\|importance=mid}}
	}}		}}
	{{controversial}}		{{controversial}}
	{{OnThisDay\|date1=2011-11-19\|oldid1=461370302}}		{{OnThisDay\|date1=2011-11-19\|oldid1=461370302\|date2=2015-11-19\|oldid2=691332196}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 28:		Line 22:
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(90d)		\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = Talk:Haditha ~~killings~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Haditha massacre/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{archive box \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index \|
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	}}		}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn		{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Line 39:		Line 28:
	}}		}}

	== 24 ~~civilians~~ ==		== External links modified ==

	As far as i can see the sources say that all 24 killed are civilians. So i would like to change the lede accordingly. Any objections? ] (]) 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
	Changed, reference added. ] (]) 03:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	:There's a reason for the difference.
	:Earlier stories () used the number 15.
	:I know they use the number 24 now. It would be good to know the story behind that. I suspect that reporters simply got lazy.
	:-- ] (]) 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	::The story behind? Obviously the result of the cover up. ] (]) 04:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::Nope. Nothing obvious about the situation.
	:::The link I gave you that says 15 civilians was long after. Only 15 received condolence payments.
	::: Wuterich reported what happened as he saw it. It was a public affairs officer who mangled the story. Wuterich never had to change his.
	:::-- ] (]) 05:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::: They initially said that the civilians were killed by a road site bomb while knowing that they shot them from close range and then even one of the guy urinated on the corpse. No cover up? Not to be rude but i think you must be either blind or you might belong in the same category as the people who ]. ] (]) 05:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::Did you even read what I wrote? (It was only three lines.)
	:::::I said "It was a public affairs officer who mangled the story." Got that? (I even gave you a link.) Wuterich never said the civilians were killed by a roadside bomb. If he had, he'd be in prison.
	:::::The military really isn't as portrayed in graphic novels.
	:::::-- ] (]) 06:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::::The public US military public affairs office covered it up? So did Wuterich and his gang report to them they had killed a bunch of unarmed women, children, and infant and a man in a wheel chair or did the report they were killed by a road side bomb. What do you think? ] (]) 06:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::Apparently, you didn't do any reading.
	:::::::The public affairs officer didn't intentionally "cover it up." He simply wasn't there, made assumptions, and thought it was good enough. People make stupid mistakes, particularly in wartime.
	:::::::Wuterich did indeed report that they had accidentally killed women and children. Fog of war. If he hadn't reported it, he'd be in prison.
	:::::::Nobody seriously believed Wuterich ever blamed those deaths on the roadside bomb. Not for five years, anyway.
	:::::::-- ] (]) 00:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::::::I guess you did not enough reading. I read it all.
	::::::::So the US military covered it up. Nobody is so stupid to publish a paper that says 15 people were killed by a roadside bomb when in fact these women and children were massacred in their houses in their bedrooms in their night cloth from close range by the weapons of these soldiers.
	::::::::Why did the US military only started to investigate the case after they were shown the videos and after months when they actually knew what had happened? You say they knew, right? ] (]) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::::What they "knew" had happened was that Wuterich and his marines were sent to a house that had been firing upon them. They knew that women and children were killed during their pursuit of the insurgents. At the time, it was reasonable to believe that the marines' version was true. After the investigations, forensic evidence, and trials, it turns out to still be the most likely version to have most truth.
	:::::::::The link I gave you says:
	::::::::::''The 130-page report, by Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell of the Army, '''did not conclude that the senior officers covered up evidence''' or committed a crime. But it said the Marine Corps command in Iraq was far too willing to tolerate civilian casualties and dismiss Iraqi claims of abuse by marines as insurgent propaganda, according to lawyers who have read it.''
	:::::::::You obviously imagine that the marines went in, lined everyone up, and shot them. That's not what happened. In reality, none of the women or children were killed by a direct shot where it is known that the marine could tell they were killing women and children. There was one accusation but it fell apart along with most of these cases.
	:::::::::The original McGirk story reads differently, but most of that comes from Iraqis, who either support the insurgents, or would get their heads chopped off if they opposed them.
	:::::::::The press release was certainly sloppy but not criminal. He justified it in that the IED and the sniper fire were part of the same coordinated attack, which is technically true. But it could easily have been written to follow Wuterich's version of events. Wuterich would initially have been no worse off for it, and McGirk's story could not have had the veneer of a cover up.
	:::::::::Yes, the military should have investigated more, as my quote of their report concludes, but you're forgetting the nature of this war. Insurgents have been fighting around civilians since the beginning. The people who claim to be upset at civilian casualties are (assuming they meant it when they said they care about the Geneva Conventions) supposed to demand that insurgents separate themselves from noncombatants in accordance with the laws of war. The Marines decided to train for this better. What have the critics demanded of the insurgents? Nothing.
	:::::::::-- ] (]) 17:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


	Wow randy2063, get off your soapbaox for once. It is amazing how much of what you spew is completely irrelevant. This whole article is a farce and is one of the main examples that taught me how pointless Misplaced Pages really is. All it takes is one dedicated partisan hack and the truth is smothered and nearly drowned. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	The discrepancy is because Ahmed Khidher, the taxi driver, plus the four unarmed male passengers in the taxi, as well as four pajama-clad men living in the Haditha houses that were cleared by Wuterich and his squad initially were deemed to be "military age males" by US Marine officers. (ie Iraqis older than kids and younger than senior citizens!) When the NCIS investigation determined that they did not possess weapons the death tally rose. McGirk's original story refers to "at least 23 deaths" and explains "It considers the four men killed in the fourth house, as well as four youths killed by the Marines near the site of the roadside bombing, as enemy fighters."

	Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649,00.html#ixzz1lAAwgfOh

	== Killer between 2006-2008 ==

	What about the killers between 2006-2008 and Wuterich 2006-2012? Were these in the normal service of the army?--] (]) 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	== Repeated deletion of the Category: "Massacres in Iraq" ==

	Please ] content you do not like. Intention is not needed for a massacre, more than enough sources call it a massacre. Categories are helpful for people to find the stuff they are looking for. That you personally think that the slaughtering of these people is not a massacre does not matter and it just speaks for you. The category is needed so that people can find the article under the category they are looking for. Enough people and sources think it is a massacre and enough people and sources have call it a massacre. ] (]) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	:There's a lot of content I don't like that I don't delete. I deleted this one because it's wrong, not neutral, and it's a BLP. And, let's face it, your viewpoint is out of date. The "cover up" claims were known to be B.S. years ago.
	:Newspapers sometimes qualify the word "massacre" with quotes because critics do use the word. Sometimes you'll see a reporter use it because they're just plain ignorant. They've watched a few Star Trek reruns, read a few graphic novels, and thought they understood how the military works. You'll also see "massacre" in headlines, without being in the story, when the reporter knows it's not a massacre but the editor either doesn't know any better, or thinks it will sell newspapers. Foreign newspapers, columnists, and bloggers will call it a massacre, but they don't care. They don't have the BLP issues that we do. There's even a BLP warning on this talk page.
	:If every mass killing was a massacre then we'd call the Costa Concordia disaster a massacre, too. But that's not a massacre, and neither is this.
	:As for the people looking at the categories for civilian deaths, that's the very reason we have a category for civilian deaths. Haditha is already listed. People looking for any major incidents involving civilian deaths will find it there. The massacre categories are where they go if they want to find genuine massacres.
	:-- ] (]) 00:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::Your description about what a massacre is and your interpretation of the sources are plain wrong and your arguments are along the lines of someone who ].

	::I could imagine to discuss about the "war crimes" category but i think we can leave that one out for the moment but that this was a massacre is reflected in the sources and more that enough people on both sides think so.

	::First sentence ] a few hours ago ] (]) 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::It's funny you say that. It is actually the people who oppose the Marines, and falsely accuse them of crimes, that either ''literally'' deny the Holocaust, or
	:::Yes, ''literally''. It's obvious I'm not on that side.
	:::What Wuterich did would be a war crime, and a massacre, if it was intentional, or intentionally indiscriminate. It wasn't either of those things. If it had been, they'd have killed all the women and children.
	:::For your link, the intro is probably written by the editor, which is like what I said about headlines.
	:::There's only one use of the word "massacre" in that story that's probably intended to be legit. It's the line that begins, "The Haditha massacre that killed 24 Iraqis," but that could be because people called it that. The others are not direct uses of the word.
	:::With this many stories in the news, we're going to get some idiots. When you're talking about living people, you need a higher standard than a couple of odd articles. This is especially true when you're not willing to call other accidents "massacres."
	:::One problem is, you seem to have been of the belief that this wasn't an accident; that they went wild for revenge because that bomb went off; and then targeted children. But you'll have to face the fact that this isn't the case.
	:::Proper news stories don't use the word "massacre" that way: The BBC Neither did . CNN uses Newsday says
	:::That's how it's supposed to be done.
	:::-- ] (]) 17:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::While it is disputed if the massacre constitute a war crime or not, it is not disputed that the slaughtering of these 24 women, children and men is a massacre.

	::::Intention is not needed for a massacre to be a massacre. Please provide references for your claims. What source did you use for your research about what a massacre is and what not?

	::::You mischaracterize the sources in a way that makes me wonder if you might be a 6th grader who has no idea what he is talking about or someone who is so blinded from denial that he can not read the sources. Your words are so full of false statements that i begin to question your good faith.
	::::*] the source i gave you - ] says it is a massacre.
	::::"killed by U.S. troops in a 2005 '''massacre'''"
	::::"The Haditha '''massacre''' that killed 24 Iraqis,... stoked global outrage
	::::"The last U.S. soldier accused in leading the '''massacre'''..."
	::::Reuters is a highly reliable source and that are there words.

	::::I guess that you are so blinded by your denial that you simply overlooked all the other sources that contradict your claim. Here are just a few more coming from an easy Google search.

	::::*] "The Iraqi government is planning legal action on behalf of families of victims killed by US troops in a 2005 '''massacre''' in Haditha."

	::::*] "Haditha residents and relatives of those killed in the 2005 '''massacre''' voiced shock and disgust after manslaughter charges were dropped...", "Haditha outraged as Marine avoids jail in '''massacre'''"

	::::*] "Haditha '''massacre''' verdict stuns Iraqis.", "...pled guilty to involvement in killing Iraqi civilians in notorious 2005 '''massacre''' will serve no jail time,..."

	::::*] "No jail time in '''massacre'''"

	::::*] "...the light sentence meted out to a soldier involved in the '''massacre'''.", "...a woman upon whom he had performed an appendectomy a week before the '''massacre'''."

	::::*] "It was the '''massacre''' which left 24 unarmed Iraqis dead and cast fresh shame on the American military,..."

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::::*] "Junkyard Gives Up Secret Accounts of '''Massacre''' in Iraq", "Transcripts of military interviews from the investigation into the Haditha '''massacre''' were found...", "...the 2005 '''massacre''' by Marines of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha."

			I have just modified 8 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::::*] "Marine's plea deal for Haditha '''massacre''' sparks outrage", "The '''massacre''', which is often described as one the major events in the War in Iraq,..."
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120021340/http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3283 to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3283
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230215242/http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/21/iraq.haditha/ to http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/21/iraq.haditha/
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/military/general-drops-charges-for-two-marines-in-haditha-shootings/article_20b159c0-290b-52f0-84c1-a25dc41aefb3.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715221551/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070712-9999-1n12haditha.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070712-9999-1n12haditha.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115032850/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57358997/desecration-of-the-dead-is-as-old-as-war-itself/ to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57358997/desecration-of-the-dead-is-as-old-as-war-itself/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918030805/http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/06/08/haditha/index.html to http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/06/08/haditha/index.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415194701/http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=23219 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=23219
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/27/124438.shtml
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605084806/http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11335 to http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11335
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070509-9999-7m9haditha.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::::*] "His cousin was killed by the marines in the Haditha '''massacre''' in November 2005."

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::::*] "...will not serve any time in confinement for his role in a 2005 '''massacre''' of Iraqi civilians...", "Wuterich is the last of seven Marines to face charges tied to the '''massacre'''."

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
	::::*] "...was spared jail by a US military court over the '''massacre''' of 24 unarmed civilians..."

			== External links modified ==
	::::*] "...for his role as squad leader of a group that '''massacred''' 24 unarmed Iraqis in Haditha..."

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::::*] "Anger in Iraq After Plea Bargain Over 2005 Massacre", "...whose cousin was killed by the Marines in the '''massacre''',...", "The shadows cast by the Haditha massacre,..."

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::::*] "...disgust over the light sentence meted out to a US soldier involved in the '''massacre'''.", "...had performed an appendectomy a week before the '''massacre'''."
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::::*] "While in court, Wuterich apologized to the victims' families and tried to explain how the '''massacre''' occurred."

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:::I stop here as it seems very likely that no matter how many sources someone shows you, you will not agree that these sources are sufficient for the inclusion of the "Massacre in Iraq" category what is a fact. I do not see any reason for further discussion with you here on this talk page. See also your talk page. ] (]) 20:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
	::::First you say I'm a Holocaust denier, which is pretty funny coming from a guy with ] at the end of his single-use account name. When that turns out to be 180 degrees out of phase, you resort to saying I'm like a 6th grader. That's also pretty funny, considering that this entire discussion is about your insistence on having the article make accusations.
	::::You say "slaughtering" as though that's how it happened. That word also shows intent which hasn't been proved -- or brought to trial.
	::::I'm looking at ], which says it's intentional. Is there such a thing as an accidental massacre? I don't think so. But the really sad thing about the incident and its aftermath is that, with all the critics pretending to care about it, none of them bother to ask friends with connections to the insurgents that they put an end to fighting near civilians.
	::::But this is really about your intent. Everything you've said indicates you think it was deliberate. If there was no difference, you wouldn't be so insistent on using the word. As I said, we have a perfectly good NPOV category for civilian casualties.
	::::As for your sources, a number of those articles are either AP or AFP. Yes, they're considered RS. I'm just making the point that your wide variety of sources isn't that wide.
	::::But the San Francisco Chronicle item is an AP story. It doesn't actually call it a massacre in the body of the story. It's as I said about editors trying to sell newspapers. The reporter had the standards I'm talking about.
	::::Same deal with Newsday. But what's interesting about that one is that if you look at all Newsday's stories about it, they're all AP stories, but they don't call it a massacre themselves. The only time those reporters use the word is when it's being quoted by someone else.
	::::The Atlantic link is an opinion piece. I'm surprised you even bothered with Gulfnews.
	::::But I'll concede here that you have enough reporters using the word, and I don't think WP is going to hold to BBC standards. I will probably bring it up in the noticeboard at some point in the future.
	::::-- ] (]) 21:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Third opinion: Some of the media constitute reliable sources. The military courts of one of the belligerent parties engaged in counter-insurgency warfare (and therefore with a vested interested in "winning hearts and minds"/"winning the propaganda war"/etc. cannot be treated as the sole neutral arbiter. See also:
	::::::*More media coverage: '''''': "The killings were described by Iraqi witnesses and prosecutors as a massacre of unarmed civilians - including women and children - carried out by Marines angered by the death of a member of their unit in a bombing."
	::::::*'''''': The collapse this week of the prosecution of a Marine for a civilian massacre in Haditha, Iraq — a striking outcome, even in a military justice system with a mixed record of charging soldiers for war crimes — has not only outraged Iraqis but also stunned some American military law specialists.
	::::::*So it's clear my bias point isn't simply my own, from the same source: “There is a surprising pattern of acquittals,” said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. “I think there is an unwillingness in some cases of military personnel to convict their fellow soldiers in the battle space.”
	:::::--] (]) 02:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

			== Possibly unnecessary link ==
	::::::::I already said the NYT is among those who do this.
	::::::::Your other link is different. They're doing what I said about headline writers being different from reporters. The headline and the tease both use the word "massacre" but the article writer qualifies it as "described by Iraqi witnesses and prosecutors." Interestingly, that article has a link to another story with "massacre" in the story, and it does the same thing twice.
	::::::::Fidell is a well-known critic of the American side of the war. It would be more of an embarrassment to Wuterich if Fidell sided with him this time.
	::::::::-- ] (]) 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::I really have no idea what this "embarassment" issue is; seemingly the Iraqis dead at his unit's hands are more emotionally relevant than a college professor's opinion.
	:::::::::Anyhow, NYT, the Times of London, AP, AFP, etc. being reliable sources, we have a pretty clear basis for this categorization. Rereading '''Category:Massacres''' ("This is a spectrum category. Although the title is Massacres, the category collects together events that can be described with a variety of names, and which cover a wide spectrum.") and ] ("A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having"), it seems clear that the category belongs to this article.
	:::::::::Beware going too deep into ] territory.--] (]) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::For further consideration of the "common" use of the term, note that in recent articles indexed by Google News on Wuterich and the Haditha case we have and 969 with the term (search: haditha "massacre" wuterich) and 813 not including the term (search: haditha -"massacre" wuterich).--] (]) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

			Should the word "anonymous" in "The investigation found evidence that "supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot civilians", according to an ] Pentagon official," be linked? I think the readers know what anonymous means, we don't ] to ] the ] with ].
	::::::::::The incident is emotionally relevant to me, too. But if it was that emotionally relevant to the critics and the Iraqis then one would think they'd have demanded the insurgents not start fights around civilians, particularly children. They haven't.
	::::::::::I've done those exact Google News searches. I think those without it are a better caliber of sources. But note that your search with "massacre" also includes those who quote somebody using the word, which is proper, but makes my point as well.
	::::::::::-- ] (]) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

			] (]) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::Not that this will change minds, but to show you what I mean about your search results, I did the search Google News just now, and examined the first 10 results for the ''haditha massacre wuterich'' search at the moment:
	::::::::::* by Marjorie Cohn.
	::::::::::* by a 22-year-old history junior.
	::::::::::* that says "Wuterich has been falsely labeled a killer who carried out a massacre", and then later refers to the My Lai massacre.
	::::::::::* that says "accused of leading a 2005 massacre."
	::::::::::* that does use the word directly.
	::::::::::* does use the word directly.
	::::::::::* that refers to "the 1968 Vietnam massacre at My Lai", but does not use the word for Haditha.
	::::::::::* that does use the word for Haditha.
	::::::::::* embedded into the results that (of course) does use the word quite a bit.
	::::::::::* that only says "became known as the Haditha massacre."
	::::::::::That's two opinion pieces, four news articles that qualify the word correctly, and four that use the word directly. So, of the "969 with the term" that you found, keep in mind that about 60% (with an admittedly wide margin of error) don't count. Judging by the rate that they qualify the word "massacre" it's apparent that many news reporters are maintaining their own NPOV standards.
	::::::::::-- ] (]) 22:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The New York Times unequivocally describes this incident as . I do not see where in ] "foreign newspapers" are excluded. You might have a point re "sell newspapers" if the headline was from a notorious headline sensationalizer like HuffPo but that's not the case here. re ], tagging this article as a BLP is more than a little bit dubious... it strikes me as more than a little bit odd that Misplaced Pages should lose interest in the POV of the victims just because they are dead. In any case, ] is described as a "pillar" of Misplaced Pages unlike ] and accordingly BLP is overruled by NPOV if there is a conflict, not the other way around. Why you want to take issue with this categorization while leaving a clear smear against a US serviceman like "order his men to shoot children in vehicles" stand in the article leaves me at a loss as to what your priorities are.--] (]) 06:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

			:I assume the author was trying to make sure it was understood that this was the journalistic version of "anonymous", but I agree that it is ''probably'' unnecessary to wiki-link it here. People most likely understand what is meant. ] (]) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I already said, "''But I'll concede here that you have enough reporters using the word, and I don't think WP is going to hold to BBC standards.''" I'd discount it if it was one or two outliers but it's the NYT plus a significant minority.
	::::::::::::I never said, "''that Misplaced Pages should lose interest in the POV of the victims just because they are dead.''" But that would be ''their'' opinions, and is often reported as such. As a matter of the laws of war, the people who claim to be upset about this are supposed to first condemn the insurgents for using these homes, and then complain to their allies who have links to the insurgents.
	::::::::::::The "''order his men to shoot children in vehicles''" is more difficult to sort out. It wasn't really relevant to this article, but it's probably true. There have been several cases of insurgents forcing innocents () to drive their cars into checkpoints. It must have been difficult to order them to shoot in such a circumstances but it probably saved lives in the long run. It's no surprise that such context was missing here.
	::::::::::::-- ] (]) 18:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Slight correction: I just realized that it says "shoot children in vehicles" rather than "shoot vehicles with children." Naturally, they shouldn't aim at the children, but I doubt anybody said that's what they were doing. -- ] (]) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::This " condemn the insurgents"? argument you regularly advance really has no place here. If you want to extend the chain of causality to some sort of background, it strikes me as arbitrary to then cut it off at a convenient point instead of letting it play all the way out. In other words, if you are going to argue that it wouldn't have happened if there weren't insurgents in or about the house (is that even true?), one could just as easily argue that it wouldn't have happened if there weren't US military in or about the house. Just how sound is the rationale for the US military being in the country if the primary rationale offered was that there were WMD in the country? The bottom line is that arguing about this would not only be off-topic to the article but would invite a ready counter-argument such that little would be resolved.--] (]) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

			== Claim of suicide without citation ==
	::::::::::::::No, that's not what I was arguing. This isn't about a chain of causality. (Iraq had an election a month before these attacks; insurgents could have argued this out politically, if they had wanted to, and that could have ordered the U.S. to leave by the end of 2008 -- if not sooner.)
	::::::::::::::I was replying to your point, where you said, "''it strikes me as more than a little bit odd that Misplaced Pages should lose interest in the POV of the victims just because they are dead.''" Who are they the victims of? For that, we need to turn to the laws of war. The problem is that too many people want more blame to be heaped upon Wuterich than the law allows.
	::::::::::::::BTW: Good summary
	::::::::::::::-- ] (]) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
	===Again===
	] has deleted the category ''Massacres in Iraq'' again (along with the interwiki links that illustrate that most other language wikipedias use cognates of massacre as their article titles). I thought the above discussion, while not a ringing unversal endorsement, ended with grudging acceptance from Randy that plenty of ] use the term "massacre." There had been a dispute between Rura and Randy and I steppped in as a third opinion.
	Now, Walterego, if you want to contest the numerous RS calling this event a massacre, please do so here. For now, I'm ] restoring the category.--] (]) 14:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

			The lines "In 2011, Sharratt's lawsuit was dismissed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Sharratt killed himself at his home in Pennsylvania on August 3, 2022. He was 37." include 3 citations:
	== Lead section ==

			- <nowiki>https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm</nowiki> a record of the court dismissal mentioned in the first sentence above
	The lead section is far too long and does not adhere to ]. A lead section should be '''short''' and serve as a quick-and-dirty introduction to the reader who knows nothing about the subject. This lead simply has too many details. It also seems to focus far too much on the procedure of the hearings. The subject of the article is the killings, not the hearings. The hearings should get no more than one paragraph and should really only talk about the conclusions. Also, as a general rule, it's inappropriate to reference sources in the lead. For example, "The New York times reported..." - this shouldn't go in the lead. Just say what the New York Times reported.

			- <nowiki>https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10110591811606638&set=a.10101634311289078</nowiki> a Facebook obituary post from Sharratt's sister that can be argued has a vague implication of suicide
	Sorry about the hit-and-run, but I'm busy working on my own unrelated contributions to WP and I just wanted to know a little about the Haditha massacre. Maybe someone with more knowledge about the subject and the article can fix this. --] (]) 06:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

			- <nowiki>https://www.greenleefuneralhome.com/obituary/justin-sharratt</nowiki> the official obituary posted by the funeral home (which can also be found in the local paper https://www.observer-reporter.com/obituaries/2022/aug/10/justin-louis-sharratt/)
	:Agreed. --] (]) 05:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

	==My Lai section==
	I have removed the following from the section on comparisons with My Lai...
	<blockquote>Interviews conducted by '']'' revealed the following about Iraqi civilian deaths: {{cquote\|Some participated in such killings; others treated or investigated civilian casualties after the fact. Many also heard such stories, in detail, from members of their unit. The soldiers, sailors and Marines emphasized that not all troops took part in indiscriminate killings. Many said that these acts were perpetrated by a minority. But they nevertheless described such acts as common and said they often go unreported - and almost always go unpunished.<ref>""</ref>\|cquote}}</blockquote>
	... since it has nothing to do with comparisons with My Lai. Perhaps it can be incorporated into another section. ] (]) 19:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

			Based on the FB post, one could make the case it is reasonable to assume Sharratt took his own life, but is that enough to justify the definitive statement "killed himself" used in the quoted line above? I mostly ask as a clarification of Misplaced Pages's standards on details like specifying the manner of death of a real person. ] (]) 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
	= Summary or facts box =
	I attempted to edit the box's content by replacing the term "Perpetrators" with "Accused." This resulted not in replacing "Perpetrators" with "Accused" but instead deleted the entire section or portion of the summary or fact box. I am unable to understand how to remedy the problem. The only reason for the change of perpetrator to accused is that only one Marine was prosecuted and he was only found guilty of dereliction of duty. The term perpetrator(s) is appropriate for someone that commits or carries out a crime. The alleged crime here is the unlawful killing of multiple civilians by a squad of Marines. However, as noted only one Marine was charged with acts in conjunction with the killings and he was only found guilty of dereliction of duty. Nevertheless, it was not my intent to have the section eliminated. ] (]) 21:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:39, 25 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Haditha massacre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 19, 2011 and November 19, 2015.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Haditha massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haditha massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly unnecessary link

Should the word "anonymous" in "The investigation found evidence that "supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot civilians", according to an anonymous Pentagon official," be linked? I think the readers know what anonymous means, we don't want to clutter the page with links.

Woozybydefault (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume the author was trying to make sure it was understood that this was the journalistic version of "anonymous", but I agree that it is probably unnecessary to wiki-link it here. People most likely understand what is meant. Foilnewt (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Claim of suicide without citation

The lines "In 2011, Sharratt's lawsuit was dismissed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Sharratt killed himself at his home in Pennsylvania on August 3, 2022. He was 37." include 3 citations:

- https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm a record of the court dismissal mentioned in the first sentence above

- https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10110591811606638&set=a.10101634311289078 a Facebook obituary post from Sharratt's sister that can be argued has a vague implication of suicide

- https://www.greenleefuneralhome.com/obituary/justin-sharratt the official obituary posted by the funeral home (which can also be found in the local paper https://www.observer-reporter.com/obituaries/2022/aug/10/justin-louis-sharratt/)

Based on the FB post, one could make the case it is reasonable to assume Sharratt took his own life, but is that enough to justify the definitive statement "killed himself" used in the quoted line above? I mostly ask as a clarification of Misplaced Pages's standards on details like specifying the manner of death of a real person. Foilnewt (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: