Talk:Haditha massacre - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 04:10, 28 April 2016 (→Requested move 27 April 2016: sup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:10, 28 April 2016 by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 27 April 2016: sup)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States

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 not 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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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. Rura88 (talk) 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.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 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 denies the holocaust.

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 Reuters a few hours ago The Haditha massacre that killed 24 Iraqis,... Rura88 (talk) 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 find common cause with those who do.

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 didn't use the word at all. Neither did [the Seattle Times. CNN uses "alleged." Newsday says "became known as the Haditha massacre."

That's how it's supposed to be done.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 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.

Reuters the source i gave you is clear - Reuters 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 Telegraph "The Iraqi government is planning legal action on behalf of families of victims killed by US troops in a 2005 massacre in Haditha."

San Francisco Chronicle "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"

The Christian Science Monitor "Haditha massacre verdict stuns Iraqis.", "...pled guilty to involvement in killing Iraqi civilians in notorious 2005 massacre will serve no jail time,..."

Newsday "No jail time in massacre"

The Hindu "...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."

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

New York Times "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."

Gulfnews "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,..."

The Sydney Morning Herald "His cousin was killed by the marines in the Haditha massacre in November 2005."

NewsCore "...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."

AFP "...was spared jail by a US military court over the massacre of 24 unarmed civilians..."

The Atlantic "...for his role as squad leader of a group that massacred 24 unarmed Iraqis in Haditha..."

The New York Times "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,..."

The Australian "...disgust over the light sentence meted out to a US soldier involved in the massacre.", "...had performed an appendectomy a week before the massacre."

ABC News "While in court, Wuterich apologized to the victims' families and tried to explain how the massacre occurred."

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. Rura88 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

First you say I'm a Holocaust denier, which is pretty funny coming from a guy with "88" 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 wiktionary:massacre, 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.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 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: Times of London: "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."
New York Times: 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.”

--Carwil (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Category#Defining_characteristics ("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 WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT territory.--Carwil (talk) 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).--Carwil (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2012 (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:

an opinion piece by Marjorie Cohn.
an opinion piece by a 22-year-old history junior.
an AP story on a HuffPo that says "Wuterich has been falsely labeled a killer who carried out a massacre", and then later refers to the My Lai massacre.
a photo story that says "accused of leading a 2005 massacre."
an AP story on the Daily Mail that does use the word directly.
the Daily Telegraph does use the word directly.
CNN story that refers to "the 1968 Vietnam massacre at My Lai", but does not use the word for Haditha.
a CSM story that does use the word for Haditha.
an Al Jazeera YouTube video embedded into the results that (of course) does use the word quite a bit.
an AP story at Time 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.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times unequivocally describes this incident as a massacre. I do not see where in WP:RS "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 WP:BLP, 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, WP:NPOV is described as a "pillar" of Misplaced Pages unlike WP:BLP 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.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2012 (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 (even families with kids) 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.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 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. -- Randy2063 (talk) 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.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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 of the case here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem is that the US military has the luxury to redefine the pertinent law however it feels appropriate. It is unique in its ability to define its members in compliance with laws and treaties it has no authority to interpret and acts in violation of in doing precisely what it does.The laws of war are quite clear in demanding you have a bleeping idea what you are shooting at, that civilians deserve special protection and that proportionality has to be observed. But proportionality for you and the US military means that it's proportional when for every US soldier who dies, a few dozen civilians die. That is a perversion of the laws of war into their precise opposite that is possible ONLY because the US refuses to allow a neutral arbiter AND allows its military to run a state within the state. There's a reason other nations have abolished a dedicated military justice system - it suffers from a built-in conflict of interest. --95.90.54.245 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Again

User:Walterego 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 reliable sources 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 boldly restoring the category.--Carwil (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Randy, this wasn't a massacre. Stop citing news sources as "proof!" Media outlets LOVE to use the word, because it sounds horrible and sinister and sells copy. Massacre has everything to do with intent: was the Boston Massacre a "true massacre," when five people were killed, and it appears (in hindsight) to have been an accident? It depends upon whose side you're on. The British apparently call it the "King Street Incident," to this day. I'm glad there's somebody who keeps changing the title to "Killings." The correct term is clearly the "Haditha Incident." In the absence of any actual trial, and very few "facts" at our disposal, we have a "trial by media," which is always predictable. But it isn't history, and the persistent forcing of this issue makes Misplaced Pages seem like an incredibly biased and useless source. 75.170.6.188 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, labeling this incident as a "massacre" diminishes the quality, objectivity, and utility of wikipedia. Some sources refer do it as a "massacre", but far more use the less dramatic term "killings". All the evidence and trials and testimony have revealed that this was some Marines who legitimately thought they were being attacked by insurgents in some house, fired into it and at persons they thought were potential insurgents, inadvertently killing a number of civilians. This sort of accident happens in war all the time. Some sources refer to that as a "massacre" but without contradicting the actions described, actions that clearly do not fall under the term massacre. A massacre clearly indicates intent. This is why I removed the category before, and it seems there is support for doing so again. Before the category is restored then it should be discussed why an incident that has been legally determined not to have been a crime should be declared to be a massacre. Walterego (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is generally not custom that an organization defines itself into compliance with overarching standards. Kindly move your cursor over the links to other wikipedias, and you will find that internationally, "massacre" is the accepted term. Just because people of the same organization accept excuses doesn't make such excuses in any way valid under the Geneva Conventions. --95.90.54.245 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2015 (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. Ranger2000 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not how the "civilian attack" infobox Wworks, so you effectively blanked the details. It's also rather disingenuous to suggest that because charges against various individuals were successively dropped, that that somehow means that the soldiers who clearly did kill the civilians somehow... didn't. I'm certainly sure that nobody would ever try to seriously suggest that Wuterich alone must have carried out each and every killing, since he was the only one who was actually prosecuted with anything vaguely connected with the deaths. After all, there are numerous Misplaced Pages pages detailing war crimes that clearly identify the perpetrators, even if - for whatever reason - they never stood trial for them. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "perpetrators" is problematic, it implies that the soldiers unquestionably did something criminal, or did something very wrong. It is indeed alleged by people (who opposed the Iraq war and have a bias against US forces in that war) that the squad perpetrated a massacre, despite the fact that the Marines have been exonerated. From the testimony and trials this incident seems to simply be a squad that thought they were under attack by insurgents and lawfully fired on those who they thought were those insurgents. Misplaced Pages does have pages detailing war crimes that identify perpetrators even if they never stood trial, but these "perpetrators" all stood trial in a series of courts-martial facing a determined prosecution spurred on by an intensely hostile media.Walterego (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That the Marines have been "exonerated" is devoid of relevance as the decision was not passed by a neutral authority under the conventions. They might have stood trial in a series of courts-martial, but their superiors supported a cover-up and to call the prosecution "determined" is wishful thinking - totally aside from the fact that the US military justice system suffers from a built-in conflict of interest. If they cannot identify children as children, then maybe they shouldn't be equipped with a firearm. The incident is universally considered a massacre aside from those individuals with a vested interest in not considering it one. The links to corresponding articles in other languages speak volumes. --95.90.52.150 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary defines perpetrate as "Carry out or commit (a harmful, illegal, or immoral action)." Allowing for "illegal" to be in dispute, this is still a good description. And it's far more accurate word than "accused." The perpetrators are all of the soldiers described by reliable sources as carrying out the acts. Their legal and moral culpability can be discussed in the article, per other RS. :::::I second Nick Cooper's concern about restricting perpetrators to Wuterich, and the IP users concern about the involved military service's court's place as the final arbitrator of truth as to who is a "perpetrator.--Carwil (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)"

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haditha killings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928023942/http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/ChessaniBOIAugust2009.pdf to http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/ChessaniBOIAugust2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive {newarchive} to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNUaTPsL6OBHarjCDUGxJ0EYsm9AD8SCLMR00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2016

It has been proposed in this section that Haditha massacre be renamed and moved to Haditha Massacre.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Haditha killings → ~~Haditha Massacre~~ Haditha massacre – We need to leave personal biases on the side and consider the title of the article based on the common name policy of Misplaced Pages. A Google Books results indicates that the current title "Haditha killings" has only 413 results in published works (), while the name "Haditha Massacre" is far more common with 726 results in published works (). Albeit slightly, we can also find support for the proposed title in news sources with 352 results () versus the current title's 289 results (). Google Scholar also indicates a majority of sources favor "Haditha Massacre" with 138 results () versus the current title with 101 results (). In total, this demonstrates an overwhelming support for the proposed new title of Haditha Massacre. Thanks.-- MarshalN20 21:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the suggested capitalization, but support Haditha massacre, which would be OK according to books n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen it spelled both ways; similar to the My Lai Massacre, which also has the "massacre" part at times in lowercase. The n-gram does not provide evidence in relation to the capitalization. It does, however, further support the new title with "massacre" included instead of "killings" or (much less used) "incident".--MarshalN20 02:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's spelled both ways, we default to lowercase. The n-grams find that that capped version is too rare to include in the stats: . The My-Lai has a similar problem; we can work on. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the extra explanation. Yes, I think a move would also benefit the My-Lai article. I'm changing the original move request by striking through the old proposed move title. Have a good day.--MarshalN20 03:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Support the lower-cased version. The "massacre" title is also better for WP:PRECISION and WP:RECOGNIZABLE reasons than "killings", which could refer to anyone ever killed there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 04:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories: