Talk:Haditha massacre

Requested move 27 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus obviously shows that the word "massacre" is used more than "killings" in this case. WP:COMMONNAME   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. 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  T al k 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 T al k 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 T al k 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly the most common name, despite the feathers it ruffles. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but move to Haditha massacre and not to Haditha Massacre. "Massacre" is not a proper name. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but to Haditha massacre, search results indicate suggested title is WP:COMMONNAME. Baking Soda (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The word massacre is loaded and non-neutral, and therefore WP:POVTITLE requires that the subject be "mainly" referred to by that name, which I don't think is satisfied here. Even the sources quoted above only suggest a 2:1 preponderence of the proposed name vs the current name, and that discounts all sources that don't call it by either of those two names. For example . It's also telling that contributors here want to downcase "massacre". That in particular suggests the massacre form has *not* become a proper noun, (as required by POVTITLE), therefore the conditions for a POVTITLE are not met and we should stick with the current more neutral descriptive title. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The BBC article linked in Amakuru's comment makes it pretty clear as to why the name "Haditha killings" is actually non-neutral (and why WP:POVTITLE cannot be applied). The term "Haditha killings" is non-neutral because it inherently favors the cover-up by the United States military of an event that most sources (2 to 1, as Amakuru points out) define as a "massacre" and others, as Amakuru also shows, a "tragedy" or "atrocity". Here is a New York Times article for more information . To recap, there is unfortunately no name available to describe this event in a neutral manner: "killings" favors the US military perspective and "massacre" favors pretty much the rest of the world's view. I'd rather favor the rest of the world on this one.-- MarshalN20 T al k 16:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But... that is kind of the point. Wikipedia favors avoiding certain provocative terms even when merited to err on the side of safety - and yes, this is non-neutral in favor of the "accused" so to speak.  It's most obvious with, say, accused but non-convicted criminals; the article Ariel Castro kidnappings was originally at Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight even when it was 100% obvious that Castro did it.  Even if the term "massacre" is wholly merited here, and let's face it, it probably is, do you trust Wikipedia to "get it right" 100% of the time?  The whole point of the policy is to play it safe, which means not using such terms except in truly exceptional circumstances. SnowFire (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By this point, in 2016 (well over a decade since the event), calling the occurrence at Haditha a "massacre" is hardly provocative. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck...and most sources call it a duck...then Wikipedia should call it a duck. Let's also keep in mind that the obvious 2 to 1 preponderance of sources in favor of the term "massacre" instead of "killings" is not a matter to be so easily minimized.-- MarshalN20 T al k 00:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, although somewhat weakly. "Massacre" does seem something of the WP:COMMONNAME, but per above reply to MarshalN20, Wikipedia should still avoid using "massacre" without a crazy huge preponderance of the sources agreeing, at least IMO. SnowFire (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Haditha massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061125124014/http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/02/iraq.main/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/02/iraq.main/index.html
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fhuff-wires%2F20070620%2Fmarines-haditha%2F&date=2012-04-11 with http://www.webcitation.org/66qiNmAPZ?url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070620/marines-haditha/ on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070620/marines-haditha/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haditha massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210837/http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/19/38286.htm

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

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

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

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