Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse/Archive 1

The apology issue
Cut from article:


 * Bush ... however did not say he was sorry nor offered an apology.

This statement assumes that he ought to apologize, which is a point of view held by many. It would be more encyclopedic to identify which advocates hold this point of view. Is it human rights advocates generally? Or opponents of the US-led invasion? Or domestic political opponents (i.e., Democrats)?

Something like:
 * John Kerry and other prominent Democrats blamed Bush and Rumsfeld for the abuses, asserting that "the highest authorities" could have stopped the torture if they wanted to, but that they clearly either did not care or actively promoted it. (sample only, don't paste this in that article!!); or,
 * Several US reporters, Mr. X, Ms. Y, and Mr. Z (who had earlier tried to get Bush to apologize for 9/11) also tried to get Bush to apologize for the prisoner abues.

On the other hand, didn't I read something recently about how Bush and/or Rumsfeld DID apologize several times for the recent prisoner abuse? Help me out, someone. This event is unfolding faster than I can keep track of it. --Uncle Ed 18:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Bush apologized to the King of Jordan for the abuse photos last week . I'm not sure why the King of Jordan was specifically chosen to receive the apology, other than that he happened to be around for an official visit, but I'm no foreign policy expert. Saucepan 18:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the point was that if things have gone so babdly Bush goes on "Arab" TV to try to gain hearts and minds, to give a PR mea maxima culpa, a literal mea maxima culpa is par for the course. But it didn't happen, and the Whitehouse acknowledged that, claiming it was enough so many had done it in his stead. By the time the flamingly obvious dawned upon them, that it was NOT enough, it was far too late (IMO). 142.177.21.215 20:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Almost cardiac arrest
The article quotes someone as saying that a prisoner was hit so hard in the chest that he almost went into cardiac arrest... is that a meaningful statement, medically? Is there a state akin to "almost cardiac arrest"? Some specific rhythm or something? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:24, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. People "almost go into cardiac arrest" when they drink copious amounts of Red Bull. It's not a good way of phrasing it. - Mark 15:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

§ It has recently been discovered that a blow to the chest, and not necessarily a very hard one, can cause death by interfering with the heart's own "pacemaker" at just the right instant in its sequence of actions. This discovery was reported in, among other praces, Science News about a year ago. So it is possible that somebody suffered a temporary heart stoppage and the heart had to be restarted. P0M


 * I am aware of the phenomenon, note that I did not question the possibility of a blow to the chest leading to cardiac arrest. However, if the prisoner's heart stopped, I'd call that being IN cardiac arrest, not ALMOST being in cardiac arrest, so I'm not sure that this condition is relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:50, May 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you are referring to commotio cordis / myocardial contusion which we should have an article on if we haven't got one already. -- The Anome 15:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

§ I would not expect medical precision from whatever combination of observers and reporters contributed the information to the original report. I was just suggesting that it's more likely that language was imprecise than that the report is fundamentally wrong. There's no way to tell for sure without going to a more fundamental level, the level of competent medical personnel who may have been on the scene. P0M 21:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

§ Just checked. The info comes from Hersh's article and reports the words of the whistle-blower, Specialist Joseph M. Darby, an M.P. Who knows what his level of medical expertise may be. P0M 22:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Do the US soldiers' actions constitute torture?
Most of this section is spent providing analysis as to what looks or doesn't look like torture. Like a high school research report. The analysis of the author should be removed and replaced by factual reporting. i.e. these statements & conclusions should be attributed to somebody besides the Wiki author or they should be removed. Mdchachi|Talk 19:20, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The author does give a partiuclar definition of torture at the beginning of the section, so I don't think it's that much of a problem. It would be good to cite the POV's of some authoritative sources on what the treatment of the prisioners constituted, though. Cadr
 * The International Committee of the Red Cross said that the abuse was "in some cases tantamount to torture." Dpbsmith 20:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The Pentagon just admitted that the acts violated the Geneva Convention, so that's something. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:20, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Is the word "scandal" NPOV?
Oh, all right, it's a rhetorical question...

The U. S. press is now generally using the word "scandal" to describe the prison abuse incidents. However, the definition of "scandal" (AHD4) is:


 * 1. A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society: a drug scandal that forced the mayor's resignation. 2. A person, thing, or circumstance that causes or ought to cause disgrace or outrage: a politician whose dishonesty is a scandal; considered the housing shortage a scandal. 3. Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace. 4. Talk that is damaging to one's character; malicious gossip.

That is, "scandal" concentrates attention on the disgrace of the person engaging in the scandalous behavior, and is usually used in the context of sexual misconduct (Senator Wilbur Mills caught with a stripper in the Tidal Basin; Bill Clinton not having sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky), bribery (Albert Fall taking bribes to give Harding's cronies Teapot Dome leases), etc. It seems to me that "scandal" trivializes the offense and concentrate attention on it as an embarrassment to the United States, rather than as a crime committed against the victims.

We certainly would not talk of the "Black Hole of Calcutta scandal" or the "Auschwitz scandal" or even the "Japanese-American internment camp scandal" (Abu Ghraib not being comparable to the first two examples, but perhaps to the third&mdash;particularly if the Red Cross estimate that 70-90% of the prisoners were innocent civilians is correct.) Dpbsmith 20:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point you're making. So what do you suggest as an alternative?  User:Palefire


 * Good question. My main concern, stated above, is I do not like the implication that the significant fact is the embarrassment to the United States (or that, as seemingly implied in some press accounts, the issue is somehow about the pictures themselves, rather with the abuse of which the pictures are evidence). My thoughts for a title would be:


 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse in 2003
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incidents
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incidents in 2003
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse during 2003 U.S-led occupation
 * Abuse of Iraqi prisoners in U. S. custody at Abu Ghraib, 2003


 * The existing title is so long that nobody is going to find it by typing it in precisely. It will be found either by search or by linking from the article on Abu Ghraib. Therefore it isn't essential that the article title begin with Abu Ghraib, or that it mirror press usage. Therefore it can be as accurate and NPOV as we can make it. Along these lines, I think the word "abuse" is NPOV since this characterization has been acknowledged by U. S. officials. I think it's appropriate for the title to be limited to Abu Ghraib, since it is very clear that such abuses did occur there, while allegations of abuse elsewhere or that it is part of a large-scale pattern of abuse are debatable.


 * Of the bunch I just listed, I prefer "Abuse of Iraqi prisoners in U. S. custody at Abu Ghraib, 2003". If the title should begin with "Abu Ghraib," then "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse during 2003 U.S-led occupation" would be my second choice. Both of these titles imply that U. S. involvement is an intrinsically important part of the matter, which I think is neutral and accurate. Dpbsmith 12:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, we could also have:
 * Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces at Abu Ghraib, 2003
 * mirroring a subhead in the article, and, of course, references to "2003" should perhaps be "2003-2004." Dpbsmith 12:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It is better to keep article names short. There was a similar issue in "Oil for Food" when a separate article was set up for the "Oil for Food Scandal." Even though that seems more like a "scandal" in the traditional usage (i.e., secret kickbacks, allegations of people up and down the chain getting greased) this was objected to, as none of the allegations have been adjudicated as yet. So "Oil for Food Allegations" was used, and eventually this was merged into the large "Oil for Food" article. Now, despite the pictures, most of the article (that is, the written specifics) are, as of now, allegations, in the same sense as the UN Food thing. I suggest:
 * Abu Ghraib prison abuse allegations
 * Abu Ghraib prison abuse investigation
 * Abu Ghraib prison abuse charges
 * Any of these would be fine by me. Dpbsmith 15:27, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think "scandal" is too loaded a word to attach to any article, as it is POV and telegraphs an allegation of truth. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The term itself is perfectly neutral. It describes the public perception of an event, not its truthfulness. As our own article scandal states, "a scandal involves widely publicized allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations."--Eloquence* 14:23, May 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just for comparison, these article titles use the word scandal: Harken Energy Scandal, Mutual fund scandal (2003), Yazoo land scandal, Crédit Mobilier of America scandal, Teapot Dome scandal, Whitewater scandal, Sharpstown scandal, Liberal Party of Canada sponsorship scandal, Pacific scandal, Spiegel scandal, Watergate scandal, Black Sox scandal, Olympic Games scandals........whatever we call it, please don't let it be Abu Ghraibgate. Kingturtle 14:31, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * NOOOOOOOO! No anythinggate. Some cliches deserve to die. But I notice something interesting in your list. Some "scandals" have come down to us as being called "Scandal": notably Whitewater, Watergate (is that now "Watergatagate" :), Black Sox, Teapot Dome) as that is how they have come to be known in history. But we don't take about other debacles which could as easily be described as "scandals": Iran-Contra (Affair), Bay of Pigs (Invasion), Profumo (Affair), Oil for Food (Allegations), Dreyfus (Affair). So "scandal" isn't quite NPOV. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Touching on earlier points: I would think that "scandal" does not imply truth. As I said, it implies embarrassment of the persons of whom the scandal is reported. Someone could be embarrassed or disgraced by a false report as well as a true one. But&mdash;in deciding on a title for the article: is there any question about the truth of abuse at Abu Ghraib? Any title carries some implication on the truth of the abuses. I'm not going to quibble over erring on the side of caution/weaseling by using a phrase like "allegations/investigations/charges." But as far as I know (and unlike the alleged photos of supposed abuses by British troops) nobody is suggesting the photos were faked. I believe U. S. officials have acknowledged that the incidents occurred--Bush gave an apology of a sort for them--and that the incidents constituted abuse.


 * Anyway, I think your and Kingturtles observations of the use of the word supports my view. Abu Ghraid is not comparable from other things called "scandals", and the things that are comparable to it are not called "scandals." Dpbsmith 15:27, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is arguing the photos were faked. But there are a lot of charges in the article (text) that are not depicted in the photos. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I notice that Slate is now referring to the issue as "Interro-Gate". Just thought you'd like to know. Saucepan 22:51, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for ruining my whole day. Please excuse me, I must go vomit. Dpbsmith 00:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

SUMMARY of discussion above re "scandal"

 * Mild consensus that the word "scandal" does in fact present POV problems, because
 * The word "scandal" is traditionally used for less serious situations, as in the article Scandal
 * The word "scandal" is not traditionally used in situations of comparable seriousness
 * Some think the word "scandal" implies that the allegations are true. Those that think that are probably mistaken, but even so it is a reason to avoid the word.

as a title for the article.
 * No yet-articulated objections to:
 * Abu Ghraib prison abuse allegations
 * Abu Ghraib prison abuse investigation
 * Abu Ghraib prison abuse charges

Unfortunately (arguing against myself here)
 * "Scandal" seems to be the word the U. S. press is settling on for headlines, etc.


 * Is this correct? Dpbsmith 18:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The Village Voice flirted with "Torturegate" but now, apparently having heeded Dpbsmith's anti-"gate" plea, is using "Torture Scandal" as a generic subject area. I agree that "scandal" seems to be coming into the most common use. JamesMLane 13:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Propose move from "Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal" to "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports"
If there is no further discussion, in about a day I'm going to move the article to:
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports

I know this isn't exactly the same as any titles that have been mentioned above. My rationale for this one:
 * Avoids the word scandal (my concern)
 * Keeps the title short&mdash;same number of words as before
 * Continues to have the title begin with "Abu Ghraib"
 * prison->prisoner puts the focus on who was abused rather than where the abuse occurred

For the use of "reports"
 * objective (since abuse was reported&mdash;by Taguba, by the ICRC, by Sixty Minutes, and subsequently by the press in general).
 * Doesn't state unequivocally that all the abuse (and other items) mentioned in the article necessarily occurred as reported; leaves open the possibility that some of the reports could be inaccurate
 * But does lean toward the likelihood that abuse really did occur, while "investigation," "charges," and "allegations" seem to me to lean too far in the direction of questioning the basic credibility of events which U. S. officials pretty much acknowledge.

Please do not use "reports". That word has connotations too. It implies that they may not have occurred at all! "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse" is factual. Paul Beardsell 22:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely understand (and agree with) your concern. But see discussion above. I used "reports" because I thought it was stronger than "allegations," "charges," or "investigation." In choosing "reports," I was, I think, responding to some of Cecropia's concerns. I don't think we can be sure that absolutely everything reported is going to turn out to be factual. For example, it appears as if there were some faked photos of British abuse of Iraqi prisoners. I felt comfortable with "reports," because I don't think any of us really know for sure just what happened in Abu Ghraib, but we do know for sure what the ICRC, Taguba, Seymour Hersh, etc. reported.


 * Anyway, I've already moved it.


 * I'm sure you're aware that you or any other editor could move it to some other title, but I strongly advise discussing it carefully here first!


 * Got any specific suggestions for a better title? Dpbsmith 00:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

more reports
Maybe some of this can be included: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DD73BD0B-70D0-4AAE-81AA-D19914E4219D.htm. Kingturtle 04:53, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Observed vs. assumed
I changed the wording of the prisoner being sat on. First, "torture" is an evaluation. Second, we don't know whether the prisoner in the picture is a POW, a detainee for questioning, or what. POW has legal meaning.

However, we need to let the pictures speak for themselves where we don't have separate documentation or testimony. The thing I find especially perverse is that most of these pictures are clearly not documenting actual torture (i.e., the process of inflicting extreme pain or coersion to punish or elicit information) but are staged. I can understand (not approve) why people torture other people; I can't understand the mind that stages these scenes for "what I did on summer vacation-type pictures." In the particular picture, it is obvious the sergeant is sitting on the prisoner, and a good assumption it is for the picture-taking. Anyone who has gone through military training endures lots worse than that. But how did the Sgt. get the prisoner to that? Some good guesses: "Do this or I'll beat you," "Do this or I'll shoot you," "Play along with this and you'll get extra rations." Point is, let's not "gild the lily," let the pictures speak for themselves, absent verifiable information. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm condoning it, but the pictures were likely not staged for "summer vacation" photos, but for psyops. The psychological stress that being forced to submit to such humiliations, and subsequently view photographs of them, is likely to have induced in the captives may have made them more valuable intelligence assets. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:33, May 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * And not that I'm contradicting you, but... the reported motion picture documentation of amours between Miss England and her boyfriend/fiance/whatEVER... what were those? Psyops? Blackmail material? "Animal House" hi-jinks? I can't really imagine military intelligence instructing them to do that, or even hinting at it. So if that was just good-natured high-spirits or something, is it conceivable that some of the other pictures could have had an element of the same thing? Who knows? Thankfully, not I. Dpbsmith 21:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * not staged for "summer vacation" photos -- evidently you think Psyops is a lot more clever than I do. If they were staged for Psyops, why were the participants under investigation for courts-martial before this got out to the Press? -- Cecropia | Talk 21:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

More serious than 9/11
I won't remove this comment:
 * "The torture? A more serious blow to the United States than September 11 (attacks). Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by Americans against themselves."-- Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, foreign minister of The Vatican.

because it is a direct quote. But I don't appreciate Archibishop Lajolo gratititous observation. If the Vatican were hit by a 9/11 type attack and I (or anyone in the west) were to say, about the major US scandal of priests molesting children:
 * "The abuse? A more serious blow to the Vatican than than the terror attack. Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by the Catholic priesthood itself"

I would probably be roundly condemned both as an anti-Catholic bigot and a person with no sense of proportion. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:03, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You are misreading the quote. What Lajolo is saying is that 9/11 (terrible as it was) increased international sympathy for the US. Nations around the world were easily swayed to participate in U.S. responses to 9/11. Whereas, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse case severely undermines the credibility of the U.S. It is a more serious blow because it damages the ability of the U.S. to garner support. Kingturtle 19:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * How did you come up with that evaluation? I don't see any expression of sympathy for the US (9/11 or otherwise). Here is more from the AP:
 * ROME (AP) ? The scandal of prisoner abuses by U.S. soldiers in Iraq has dealt a bigger blow to the United States than the Sept. 11 attacks, the Vatican foreign minister told an Italian newspaper.
 * In an interview published Wednesday in the Rome daily La Repubblica, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo described the abuses as "a tragic episode in the relationship with Islam" and said the scandal would fuel hatred for the West and for Christianity.
 * "The torture? A more serious blow to the United States than Sept. 11. Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by Americans against themselves," Lajolo was quoted as saying in La Repubblica.
 * Lajolo said that "intelligent people in Arab countries understand that in a democracy such episodes are not hidden and are punished ... Still the vast mass of people ? under the influence of Arab media ? cannot but feel aversion and hate for the West growing inside themselves."
 * And, he added, "the West is often identified with Christianity."
 * What I read there is concern that he fears Muslims will associate Christianity with the abuses and anger them toward the Church. I see a lot of concern for Muslim public opinion and not a bit over 9/11. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You overstate your case a touch, Cecropia. Of course the killing of 3500 innocents in NY was despicable, terrible.  More thousands (most of them innocents) have died in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  All civilised people must regret that too.  Barbaric acts were once seen to be committed by Afghanis and Iraqis exclusively, but we now know that this isn't true.  What is the exchange rate?  How many Afghan/Iraqi innocents are worth one American?  Killing them or torturing them.  Why is it somehow allowable when it is in retaliation/revenge?  Remember that the enemy also justified 9/11 (however wrongly) as retaliation/revenge.  The damage the Church refers to is that many people never used to consider the USA capable of barbarism and now they do.  The USA always were the good guys in most Western eyes.  That is the damage the USA has done to itself.  Paul Beardsell 22:08, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The Archbishop was comparing 9/11 to prisoner abuse. Period. He didn't refer to damage done to US standing in the eyes of the West. He referred to the Catholic Church's and Christianity's standing in the Muslim world. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:17, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That is not how I read "The torture? A more serious blow to the United States than September 11 (attacks). Except that the blow was not inflicted by terrorists but by Americans against themselves."-- Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, foreign minister of The Vatican. Paul Beardsell 14:12, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cecropia that the quote should stay in. As far as I can tell, no one has disagreed.  Given that consensus, we don't really need to debate on this page whether the quote is a brilliant insight, a slight exaggeration, or one of the Top Ten Stupidest Remarks of 2004.  (No, I'm not proposing that as a new article.)  As for the other POV, my guess is that quite a few American and pro-American officials privately agree with Cecropia.  They may hesitate to say so publicly, though, because they don't want to seem to defend the abuse and because they don't want to criticize an Archbishop.  If anyone notable does take him on, that quote should also be included. JamesMLane 00:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Could somebody please add Copper Green to the box at the bottem? -- MINAC! PS: Id like to make a Abu Ghraib scandal, chain of command page. This should work.

Poll on page title
I find the current page title "prisoner abuse reports" POV, because much of the abuse has been acknowledged as factual, including confessions by the perpetrators, and the photographic evidence is very strong. Nobody, to my knowledge, has alleged that the photos from Abu Ghraib were forged (as opposed to the British abuse photos).

Since page titles are so subjective, I think it's a good idea to poll on what the page title should be. Before the poll can start, however, we should collect all reasonable options. As a tentative deadline for doing so I suggest Sunday, May 23.--Eloquence*


 * Indeed, "much of the abuse has been acknowledged as factual." For the record: Rumsfeld's apology. "there has been a good deal of discussion about who bears responsibility terrible activities that took place at Abu Ghraib.... They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't, and that was wrong... So to those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of the U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology... I'm seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to those detainees who suffered such grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the United States armed forces." So: I'd say that in evaluating page titles, we should all agree that the page title should not imply doubt that many serious abuses occurred. Dpbsmith 13:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to add your suggestions below.
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal
 * See discussion above on the word "scandal".
 * 1. Scandal. Wikipedia lists Watergate Scandal, Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater Scandal, Harken Energy Scandal, Quiz show scandals, Olympic Games scandals, Mutual fund scandal (2003), Accounting scandals of 2002, Teapot Dome Scandal, Black Sox Scandal, and literally dozens more. There's never been a problem with the word until this article. The Wikipedia article scandal begins: "A scandal involves widely publicized allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations." This doesn't sound npov to me. Would you want to change the above to "Teapot Dome Corruption Reports", "Lewinsky Sex Reports", "Blacksox Gambling Reports", etc.? How about "Reports of 9/11 attacks"? The abuse of prisoners is not contested; one abuser just pled guilty. In my opinion, either the word "scandal" should be removed from all wikipedia articles, or it should stay here, since this is clearly as much of a scandal as the others listed above. And removing the word "scandal" throughout wikipedia is a matter for the Village Pump or a wikipedia-wide vote. Quadell 13:42, May 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to be perfectly clear... my objection to the word "scandal" is that what happened at Abu Ghraib is far beyond scandalous. Dpbsmith 16:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm taking the liberty of quoting something {User:Quadell:Quadell] said on my talk page, as I think it very nicely illuminates one of the questions at issue. He said (lightly edited):


 * To me, a scandal occurs when a people become are upset about an embarrassing controversy. In my view, the My Lai atrocity came first, then the cover-up, and then, when the story broke, there was a scandal. In the Lewinsky affair, there was a scandal but no atrocity. The Russian rape of Berlin was something akin to an atrocity without a scandal.


 * (I don't agree, of course, because I still don't believe revelations of atrocities are or should be called scandals. But I see his point. A clear and logical point of view which I don't think matches the way the words are really used. Dpbsmith 19:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC))


 * 2. Dpbsmith invited me to comment here as I had weighed in on the general question about whether scandal is inherently POV and to be avoided as asked at the pump. I said no its not. I think this option is the most acceptable, despite all the talk above, because that it is what others are calling it (e.g. 220,000 Google hits for "abu ghraib" scandal), and it isn't up to Wikipedia to either play up or play down the event, that wouldn't be neutral. However, in the spirit of compromise, I will also support Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse given below. I think the current title "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports" is unacceptable as it plays down the event too much, and is thus not neutral. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
 * 1) I'd actually prefer this to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports if we could get consensus on it. Dpbsmith 16:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) This is neutral to a fault: Anybody would think the prisoners' breakfast was late.  Nevertheless, it has my vote.  Paul Beardsell 21:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree that the word reports has a connotation of not being certified and is therefore misleading. Regarding the argument that not all reports were certified, if this was a reason for adding reports to the title a great many articles needed reports in the title. It is sufficient to specify in the article which reports were certified and which were not. The fact that abuses happened in the prison is beyond question. Get-back-world-respect 21:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the title with currently most votes in the poll for the article's title. Get-back-world-respect 22:07, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Reports (well, of course, it was my own suggestion). My personal opinion is that it would be deeply offensive to imply that abuse did not occur, when U. S. authorities have acknowledged it. However, having just the tiniest bit of wiggle room in the title made me feel more comfortable about adding a paragraph about Hersh's article in The New Yorker to the section entitled "Isolated incident, or systematic failure, or official policy?" I regard Hersh's article as a credible "report." But DoD Spokesperson Mr. Lawrence DiRita... well, we could have a debate on whether or not the DoD "denied" it. If we restricted the page to facts that were proven beyond a reasonable Wikipedian doubt, I think the entire "Isolated incident, or systematic failure, or official policy?" section could be questioned... and I think that section is very important.
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse in 2003
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incidents
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incidents in 2003
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse during 2003 U.S-led occupation
 * Abuse of Iraqi prisoners in U. S. custody at Abu Ghraib, 2003
 * Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces
 * Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports
 * 1) Reports. "Reports" may not be punchy enough for some, but the term in not POV. "Reports" does not comment on truth, and much more detail is alleged than is seen in the pictures alone, such as who, what, why and motive. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hersh's article might not be quite so reliable. NPR Morning Edition had a piece (May 18) in which they were saying that he's done some brilliant work but his blunt political perspective and public history make some of his material problematic. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that's my point. Given that DoD has non-denial-denied Hersh's report (Newsweek has a very similar, independent story BTW) you can't label it as unquestionably factual. Either the article includes relevant, important emerging reports whose truth is open to discussion, or you restrict the article to the photographs and not much more. I don't think you can say anything in the article about involvement by higher-ups without getting into iffy territory. A year from now maybe Hersh's report may be seen as yet another inaccurate-news-story scandal. I have to say that I personally parse the DoD statement as "Hersh's story is broadly correct but shouldn't have been published because it was based on lucky guesswork. "
 * My "spin" watching suspects the Hersh's report is deeply flawed because several official sources have been ridiculing it. Usually they don't rise to ridicule (as opposed to weasel-word denial) unless they feel fairly confident. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The Bush administration might be glad to hear that at least one individual still trusts them, Cecropia. Get-back-world-respect 21:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you think of "The Roots of Torture", a Newsweek report? (Not a rhetorical question). Dpbsmith 20:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * About as POV as you can get, begging the question of "torture" and assigning it cosmic meaning at the same time. (Not a rhetorical answer). -- Cecropia | Talk 21:37, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As for the others: I object to "scandal" for reasons articulated above. I wouldn't really object to "Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces" but it does have the following problems: a) it doesn't even include the name "Abu Ghraib;" b) Whodunnit? Was it "coalition forces?" Surely it was only the U.S. at Abu Ghraib Alleged abuses by British soldiers elsewhere are not quite as solidly established, in my mind (it's acknowledged that some photos were faked, isn't it?) And do U. S. civilians in the employ of defense contractors count as "coalition forces?"


 * Dpbsmith 13:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments

 * I added a query at the Village Pump regarding the use of the word "Scandal" in article titles in general. I thought you might be interested. Quadell 14:04, May 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, so far, there hasn't been a whole lot of consensus. I guess I'd be okay with any of the options. (All should be rds to the current selection though.) Quadell (talk) 18:34, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, I'd say that not very many people seem to be very concerned about it. I asked JamesMLane, who commented above that the press seems to be calling it "Scandal." Not sure whether this meant he wanted the page to say "Scandal," I called his attention to the vote, and he replied "my failure to vote was deliberate, not an oversight. I just don't feel strongly enough either way. 'Scandal,' 'reports' or even 'incident' (which I think no one has suggested) would all work for me."


 * Since I made the last page move, I'm going to (try to!) avoid doing anything more myself. I will leave it to you and/or others to add redirects and/or move the page.


 * If you are saying that you are OK with leaving the page as it is and setting up redirects, I certainly wouldn't object to that--the more redirects the merrier. Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal is, of course, already a redirect to the page as a result of the move. If you want to move the page again, I would be much happier with "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse" than with "Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal", but I'm not sure whether Cecropia would accept that. As I understand it, his point is that the title shouldn't imply that everything mentioned in the article text is necessarily true. Dpbsmith 20:02, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I am indeed saying that we should probably keep it as is for now -- unless a consensus emerges that the name ought to be changed. Who knows? The press might start universally calling it "The Photo Imbroglio", or something equally silly. Or it might turn out to be Modus Operandi, but Abu Ghraib is where it was first caught. It's too soon to know, I think. Quadell (talk) 21:03, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * (And now it looks like it might not just be Abu Ghraib. Read this.)

Charges and Sentences
This article needs a clear and obvious section on who has been accused, charged and sentenced in this mess. Right now the names of those charged are at the bottom of a more general section, and there is no mention of the first sentence passed. I couldn't find a good place to add it. Rmhermen 14:03, May 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is tough. Different organizations become more useful as new facts emerge, almost daily. The article probably won't be really well-organized (for any length of time) until next year. Quadell (talk) 21:03, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Spelling of misspelled "Rapist"
The picture on the arm says "Rapeist". The Taguba Report says "Rapest". Someone changed the Taguba report's spelling to say "Rapeist", but that's not correct. Either Taguba spelled the misspelling wrong, or it was written twice. I'm changing it back for this reason. Quadell (talk) 14:48, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Poll on page title
As a result of the above, somewhat chaotic discussion, I have moved all suggested page title proposals here. You now have a chance to vote on your preferred title. We will use approval voting, so you can vote for as many titles as you like. This vote will not be binding, but if the current title doesn't come out on top we need to find a way to accommodate majority opinion. As deadline I suggest Sunday, May 30, 20:00 UTC.

I have copied existing votes here. No long comments in this round, please.--Eloquence*

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal

 * 1) Quadell
 * 2) Eloquence
 * 3) Pcb21

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse

 * 1) Dpbsmith (Avoids any suggestion that abuse did not really occur)
 * 2) Psb777
 * 3) Get-back-world-respect
 * 4) Eloquence*
 * 5) Saucepan (short, to-the-point, keywords for Google)
 * 6) The Anome
 * 7) Quadell (talk) 15:51, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Morven

Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces

 * 1) Eloquence* (allows us to cover Camp Bucca, etc.)
 * 2) Dpbsmith 12:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports

 * 1) User:Cecropia
 * 2) Dpbsmith 12:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC) (Acknowledges that article may and should refer to well-sourced but unproven reports)
 * 3) P0M 01:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incidents

 * 1) Quadell (talk) 15:51, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Consensus on move
Well, it's June. It looks like we have a consensus. Quadell (talk) 15:50, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the consensus. (I'm assuming your perception of the consensus is the same as mine.) I moved the page last time, someone else should do it this time. Dpbsmith 16:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Isn't anyone going to do it (move the page to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse ? AFAIK anyone can do it. Dpbsmith 19:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * And that's a wrap. Quadell (talk) 14:03, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Why is the article title now Coalition prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, contrary to the above consensus? It would seem that attributing the abuses to a "Coalition" is misleading, since afaik, only members of the US military have been involved. dab 12:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the photos
First, are they actually in the public domain? The summaries for some of them contain things like "in the public domain, if you believe that the soldier in question took them as part of his official duties," and "public domain, seeing as they were taken by a soldier."

Second, the subjects of these pictures have stated that the very fact of being photographed naked was humiliating, given their culture's tradition of modesty surrounding nudity. Is it fair or right for us to be publishing them? Exploding Boy 15:41, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's been quite a while since I posted this comment. No one so far has seen fit to comment.  ANYBODY at all?  Exploding Boy 18:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point, especially the second paragraph. But I am ambivalent. No words could replace the pictures.  Maurreen 03:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But does it matter and is that really the point? Exploding Boy 15:22, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe these photos are in the public domain. I'm going to list them on Possibly unfree images. I would like for these photos to be used on Wikipedia, but I don't think they can be, legally. If you feel this is in error, say so here, or on the images' discussions on the Possibly unfree images page. – Quadell (talk) (help)  16:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree with article move or rename
This article was moved September 21, 2004. It should have been left as "Abu Ghraib prison abuse." not "Coalition prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison." The former name is how most people would look it up, and it was chosen in a poll in June. Maurreen 16:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm planning another article about Abu Ghraib prison abuse about the torture, murder and rape carried out by Saddam's regime. It's hundreds of times worse and thus hundreds of times more significant.


 * You wouldn't want Wikipedia to give the impression that Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces was the only crime to occur at Abu Ghraib prison, would you? --Uncle Ed 16:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * More articles are always a good thing I guess, although I can't help but notice that nobody seems to have been particularly motivated to spend time documenting Saddam's crimes at Abu Ghraib until after it became a source of emabarrassment for the US. Nevertheless, a clear majority of interested contributors was in favor of leaving the article at "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse" last time this came up (just scroll up a bit).  Wouldn't it make sense to have another poll first, or at least some discussion, rather than just disregarding the poll whose result didn't come out the way you wanted? Saucepan 16:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Intro changes
I deleted parts of Ed's intro. They didn't belong in the intro and they were opinions that needed attribution. Also deleted "Englishwoman," which I suspect refers to "Lynndie England." Maurreen 17:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also deleted the statement that the general in charge of the prison resigned. She no longer works at the prison, but she's still in the Army. Maurreen 03:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No one wants to write about murder, torture or rape. Period. That's why no one wants to write about what Saddam Hussein and his henchmen did. It has nothing to do with your imputation that it's from exculpatory motives. It goes without saying that the US is thousands of times better than Iraq, in terms of human rights. But if you dispute this, perhaps we should write some articles comparing the human rights record of the the United States with that of other countries, like the Sudan (slavery, mutilation, murder, rape) and all those Communist countries which killed 100 million civilians in "peacetime".

I'll come back and attribute the "opinions" which Maurreen deleted. --Uncle Ed 17:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)