Talk:Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

Notability?
Why is there still a question on Notability. This young woman's life has been examined in reputable 2nd party sources and all of the details that can be brought together about herself, and her life outside of the incident that brought her to our attention should be accessible and linked together for a broader understanding. musesduaghter (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC).


 * It's come up again because the last killer has been sentenced as of yesterday. It's in the news. I don't know why there's another deletion nomination since it's already been discussed and ruled a "Keep"nut-meg (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Exact DOB of the 14 year-old girl
I corrected the date of birth but I couldn't do it on the picture comment which shows at the bottom page when you click on the picture. The comment is currently: "The card shows her date of birth as August 19, 1991." It should be February 28, 1992. Can someone do the modif. Thanks - Coramaroc (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
This discussion is now non-applicable. -- Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Against:


 * 1) This is an article about an individual. It is in no way less notable than other victims of the Iraq War like Miguel Terrazas. Socafan 23:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Each victim or alleged defendent is warranted a seperate article prime example Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse --Bnguyen 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I have withdrawn my "FOR" point. I agree with the above. Abeer Qassim Hamza must be warranted a seperate article, in addition to the main article in place --Mo77787 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --Anchoress 05:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) This was a significant incident. If her killer is notable, so is she. nut-meg 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree with the above posters. Jonas Liljeström 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree with the above posters. Do not merge. Darkmind1970 10:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) This incident haunts me... please, keep her memory. Don't merge... Bj1966 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a broad consensus, but consider this: This article should describe the person, and should mention the incident only by reference. What would be left from this article if everything was removed that is already mentioned in Mahmudiyah incident? Not much, I think; this article (and Wikipedia as a whole) is meant to be infomative, not commemorative. The fact that there is little information about her (and many other victims of many other wars) is part of what makes wars tragic, but should not lead to include redundant information in Wikipedia. It should be merged. --193.254.155.48

revert poorly explained edit -- see talk
Another wikipedian excised an external link with the edit summary -- rv addition of unnecessary link.

I checked out the link they excised. It seemed to be a very useful link, with further links to news articles, showing the timeline of how the press covered the story. I couldn't imagine why the other wikipedian excised it, unless they didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs.

So I restored it.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They probably read the URL and decided it wasn't NPOV without looking at it first nut-meg 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the page, almost none of it is original content but it DOES have a very good compilation of very well cited and documented information on this case. It should never have been deleted. Any link deletions are to be discussed on the talk page first. nut-meg 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction with other wiki article
There is an error in reporting in either this or the James Barker article. This article states that Hamza's sister was seven, the other claims she was five. Which is it? Shantron 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the BBC and Guardian articles say she was six. Anchoress 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly
Considering that legal proceedings are not over in this case, I think that "who was gang-raped, burned and killed, by American troops." should read "who was gang-raped, burned and killed, allegedly by American troops." Isn't this normal procedure for an ongoing case?

I already made this change once, and someone changed it back without comment. If you are going to remove it again, please explain why. 24.91.126.96 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like how the only doubt in your rephrasing is whether or not it was Americans who killed her. If you're going to dispute the prevailing account of the story, why not dispute the fact that she was raped or burned as well, i.e. move the "allegedly" in front of the "was".


 * Myself, I think the burden of proof is established here. --Saforrest 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe some of the men have already plead guilty. If this is true, "allegedly" is not appropriate nut-meg 06:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * They've also been sentenced - I believe that a second man confessed in court recently and was convicted. I think that the article should reflect this as it is no longer sub rosa. Darkmind1970 10:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Allegedly?they are already sentenced,and confesed it--Andres rojas22 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This Page
This page really needs a lot of cleanup. I'm not going to have time in the next week or so, but I'll come back to it if nobody else does. nut-meg 06:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
This discussion is now non-applicable. -- Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC) This article is clearly sub-standard and would need a lot of improvements. The only significant change since last year it's the deposition of Paul Cortez, which should be in the main article, and not here. The article now duplicates Mahmudiyah incident, and keeps lagging behind when the main article is updated and this one is not. I suggest merging the relevant content and redirecting to Mahmudiyah incident. GhePeU 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In favor
 * 1) GhePeU 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

support Two articles are not necessary for one event. The Mahmundiyah Incident article already states everything that is mentioned in here, and if isn't, why not just move it over to the Mahundiyah Incident article anyway? RiseRobotRise 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Against If her killer warrants his own page, so does she. She is notable on her own as she has become a symbol of Iraqi civillians' struggle to survive. Her killers all have their own pages, but they are no more notable. A merge suggestion has been made in the past, and it was kept. Nothing has changed with this story since then. Also, this is a person, not an 'incident' nut-meg 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Against OneGuy (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Articles about crime victims who are otherwise non-notable should be merged to or retitled to be about the crime itself. This has been the general practice in numerous AFDs for articles about crime victims. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and individuals who do not satisfy WP:BIO should not have biographical articles. The existence of other pages which should be merged or deleted is not a valid argument for keeping this one as a stand-alone article. Edison (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Against The article is in no way a memorial (in it's current state at least), she was the most notable victim of the killings and was the only one raped afaik. Thisglad (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 1993/3/28
The 2 in 28 looks different from the other 'twos.' It looks to me like a three, though I am not sure since it is not very clear. Thoughts? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.189.39 (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion review
I plan to bring the just closed Articles_for_deletion/Abeer_Qassim_Hamza_al-Janabi to the deletion review section. Because it was closed with the label "consensus to merge the content into the article Mahmudiyah killings". What was quite stunning for me. I and others have always strongly opposed a merger and there was no sign of consensus at all. The discussion could have been at least extended. I have left a message at the closing administrators talk page to explain the reasons for his decision. And i am taking steps now to start the review process as soon as possible. As i am new to Wikipedia any help would be appreciated. Iqinn (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Who closed it? The whole discussion consisted of people giving their opinions and User:Jauerback telling everyone they were stupid. This article has been through this a few times before and the result has been "keep". The arguments against were all about notability but only argued from an American media POV. In other words, "it's not notable because it's not on MY tv." It really seems like a POV crusade to have this deleted or merged. nut-meg (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nut-meg, you can believe what you want, but I challenge you to find anywhere in the discussion where I made any personal attacks. Specifically, where I called anyone stupid or even implied it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've shown very little respect for anyone else's opinion in your crusade to get rid of this article. Who knows why, but I don't think an article can be deleted because of one person's desire for it to be gone. It really seems more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue,and this article was merged without consensus. nut-meg (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The closing administratom is Sandstein and i have just started talking to him about the closing at his talk page. Jauerback has edited Mahmudiyah killings in order to perform the merge. I have reverted his edits because it is far to early for anybody to do this. He knows i have reverted them and he says he respect it. Iqinn (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nut Meg, I really don't appreciate the accusations that you're throwing at me. Can you provide any specific examples?  If not, I'd ask you to drop it put your personal feelings aside.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jauerback, One example would be that you have redirected this page here only hours after the closing of the discussion without even give us a chance of discussion. I just found out when coming in over a search engine i landed at Mahmudiyah killings. There is not even a banner at the the page that let people know that a merge is on the way. We have not even started to discuss the merger. I have tried to revert to the edition before the redirection but it failed. I am not sure if it is because i made a technical mistake or if the page is even blocked from reverting. Help to revert it back would be appreciated. And after that we could just calm down, relax and discuss how the merger is performed in a good way. Iqinn (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your example of how I was rude? Please. This is normal procedure on AFDs that end in merges. I thought I was helping you out by doing it myself and I think I did a pretty decent job at the merge. It's called being bold.  Did you even read the merged article or did you just blindly revert it?  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to take it to deletion review (I agree there was no consensus to merge), then do it already! It will probably take you about 10 minutes. Badagnani (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * New discussions go at the bottom, you are new here Iqinn, we are telling you how this place works, listen. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

←Yes it is because it happened just hours after the closure of a heated debate with very little consensus. And with a banner that says please go to the Talk page to discuss the merger. I have read your edits and appreciate your work and intention to help us out. But you were not helping us out in this special moment. I read your edits and i have not reverted blindly! I reverted them because i think it would not be a good start for two reasons. Firstly, people need to calm down to create an acceptable working environment. Secondly we should wait the outcome of the deletion review. Depending on the discussion with the closing administrator which is in progress. After that i might bring this to deletion review. Things need time to work out. We have already put in a lot work in a very short time. Would it be fine with you to wait until the review process is over or at least a week if the review is done earlier? I have a family and i guess so many others do also. Could you also please revert the page back to the version before the redirect? That would be nice. I think from there we could have a good start for a discussion on the intended merger and the following work. So that the quality of Wikipedia is improved at the end. - Sorry, i am listen Ryan4314, i was just confused as there are now other new discussion at the top. I hope it is fine now? Iqinn (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow up - After my discussion with the closing administrator i have decided to submit the AfD for deletion review. It will take me about a day to do so as i am a newcomer and busy. I will announce it here when it has been done. I also succeeded to perform the revert back to the version before the redirection. I hope that is ok with you? Iqinn (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Further news - Abeer's page is redirected again. I just tested it from inside Wikipedia and bing.com. As the history does not show a change after i have reverted the redirection. I wonder. I do have tested it before. Please help to lift the redirection. Iqinn (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Iqinn, you might want to check your internet browser settings, because the page isn't redirected. I was wondering why you did a revert again yesterday, because it wasn't redirected then, either. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I now understand. You were going to the Abeer Qassim Hamza page, which is not the article itself, but a redirect to it.  I never even knew this page existed (it was redirected by a bot after my merge attempt).  Anyway, it looks like it's fixed now. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, browser and server caching could have been the problem. So i checked the page in two different browsers on two computers over some period of time... Yes looks like a robot gave us some more problems. It got finally fixed. You can read about it here WP:Administrators' noticeboard. I am happy things have been cleared now. I will sent the deletion review tomorrow. And will respect the decision of the wider Wikipedia community there. I think we all have put in great work into it. And i now believe that it is possible that Wikipedia will have improved at the end. Sorry for all the trouble that i have caused as a newcomer. Iqinn (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Article has been submitted to for deletion review. [] Please go there and take part in the process. Also it would be nice when we agree not to perform the merge until the review is over. Is there a banner that we could put at the top of the page? To alert people to wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)