Talk:Lynndie England

Ethnicity

 * Does anyone know what England's ancestry is? Most people with the surname of England are of Irish origin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares? 201.231.81.83 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeanne Boleyn cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.251.46 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So no one cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.88.56 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I care. 159.14.232.34 (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with you that you care who cares? This is history, information for intelligent people. Therefore intelligent historians should care. Now can you die in peace?  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 05:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Prison
Is she out of jail? If so, when was she released? Czolgolz (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

- 3 years is not enough. How could they do that to other living beings?! i say life time imprisonment. or at least ten years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.204.153 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Please note WP:BLP. It may be time to remove the most graphic material from this BLP, in favour of a short summary, and link instead to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, incorporating any unique material there. Jayen 466 23:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think more than one of the Abu Ghraib pictures needs to be on this page.Totorotroll (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Prostitute Hobo
Can someone explain this reference in the opening sentence - which does not appear to be supported anywhere in the text?Irish Melkite (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This kind of vandalism has always been a problem here. I removed the phrase, although I'm now having some regrets, as it illustrates the times we live in rather well.
 * Critics of U.S. policy have some need to express their opposition to Abu Ghraib and GTMO as strongly as possible. I think it comes from the fact that they're rather feckless when their fascist friends use real torture, and so they must overcompensate to reestablish an appearance of human rights bona fides whenever a scandal like this comes along.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That kind of politically charged rhetoric, Randy, in unnecessary, and betrays bias. Let's keep things objective here, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.68 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Randy2063 Sheezits that is a brilliant analysis! And you make the point very well. You've only overlooked one thing- you forget to mention how when rather feckless editors snd their fascist friends use real torture, they prefer to do so anonymously; and most will hide their behavior behind a sexually dysmorphic image  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 05:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Image galleries
Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynndie_England&diff=385621505&oldid=385615861

Firstly Lynndie England served time there. When someone serves time at a prison, a photo of it is helpful (after all those places do change the way people behave!)

Secondly the gallery tag is needed. The photos are too crowded and clustered, and the Lynndie England article is not close to becoming a GA/FA yet (that is the time when gallery tags get ditched) - Until then, the tag should stay. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Just a quick reminder that, regardless of what this woman has done, talk pages are for discussing changes to the article and are not a general forum for chatting about the topic. I don't want to remove random IP comments that are unhelpful and disruptive myself, so just bear in mind that comments like "the bitch deserves longer" just aren't welcome here. . . . Pascal (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC) fixed it for ya...
 * How about registered editors subscribing to the same point of view? BadaBoom (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Biography
"In July 2009, England released Tortured"

But she's not the author, or? Isn't it by some Gary S. Winkler? Rolf-Peter Wille (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Image Use
I could not find a Wikipedia rule for this but, I think the image with the leash should be removed. Similar images are mosaiced but this one clearly shows the prisoner's face. It can be replaced with the one used in Megan Ambuhl's page if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.230.121 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of Source on the "Evangelical" Claim
The actual source does not say she was an evangelical, but that Xavier Amador, the psychologist for England's lawyers, made that allegation. Thus I corrected the claim, making it agree with what the source says. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynndie England. 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/20080321123034/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jogSsQSlJxgSA4ZgGa0cvJskN6SQD8VG307G0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jogSsQSlJxgSA4ZgGa0cvJskN6SQD8VG307G0

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) 11:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncensored Photo
In this article, there is a photo of one of the prisoners that is uncensored. If it is to be consistent, then the genitalia in that image should be censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Lynndie's Actions are seen totally out of context to reallity
Anyone familiar with the Military habit of 'Hazing' will know Lynndie's actions at the prison were tame compared with many Hazing scenes. Soldiers being beaten, urinated on, Marines being forced to fight bear knuckle on mud pools, others being thrown into cold baths and held under water. This happened often in North America and among European Armies. In one Russian Army Hazing incident a recruit was stripped naked and tired up in a stress position. He was so badly injured his testicles had to be removed. If everyone was held to the same account as Lynndie who had been involved in Hazing there would be thousands of Court Marshels from Moscow to San Francisco. People should just let her get on with her life. Johnwrd (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Good. So do you, Johnwrd, want to be beaten, urinated on, stripped naked, etc. And then just let go on with your life?

Oh, you do not?

Why, it is quite tame, as you say, compared to e.g. your Russian example. Or better yet, to ancient Assyria: none of them silly "court marshels" back then. Zezen (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

War Criminal
Why isn't she described as a "war criminal"? All of the others involved are described as such on their respective pages. 🤔 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.165.116 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Psychopathic Personality
Her mental examination should be added if available. She all but certain to meets the major diagnostic criteria of psychopathy. Alicanberkman (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The state of consensus (or lack thereof) on starting the lead with "(Subject) is a convicted war criminal..."
For sixteen years from 2004 to 2020, the lead of this article did not include describing the subject as a "convicted war criminal." An IP editor added that in May 2020, and it has been removed and re-added a number of times since then. The fact that it may have been in the article for some number of months at a time does not create a consensus for inclusion, and suggesting that editors must get consensus to remove it first is a misrepresentation of how consensus works on Wikipedia. Quite the contrary, we normally require consensus to be established for inclusion of something that is contentious, not its exclusion, especially with regard to WP:BLPs, which are to be written conservatively.

Wikipedia's List of convicted war criminals has a long list of BLPs for subjects who were convicted of war crimes. The majority of those BLPs do not contain an opening statement in the lead like "(Subject) is a convicted war criminal...", and many of those BLPs were for people convicted of serious crimes like murder and genocide. A BLP for a person who was convicted of less serious offenses like mistreating detainees is not an appropriate place to force in "convicted war criminal" in the opening of the lead, especially when there is zero discussion anywhere else in the article of the subject being primarily referred to or known as a "war criminal" in the sourcing. The second sentence of the lead is a far more balanced and appropriate description; it states England was "convicted in 2005 by Army courts-martial for mistreating detainees and other crimes in connection with the torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad." That accurately and sufficiently explains to readers exactly what this subject is known for without resorting to a contentious opening label like "war criminal." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it is proper to note her conviction for war crimes in the intro. I am even fine with callind her "a convicted war criminal" in the intro. However, it should not be the very first sentence as if that was her entire life. Other war criminals who "played in a bigger league" compared to anyone involved in the Abu Ghraib atrocities, do not get that kind of treatment. Str1977 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It definitely should be included in the lead. It's what England is most notable for. I'm not sure why it matters that an IP user added it, or that it wasn't in the article for 16 years. IP users have the same rights as normal editors, and articles can change over time. While it had been added and removed a few times, I think it's fair to presume consensus given the fact that no editors had bothered to dispute its inclusion recently. The severity of England's crimes doesn't make the label any less apt. I'm not sure that just because other people have carried out genocide that it means England isn't suddenly a war criminal. It's not a contentious label, it's a matter of fact. As for the comparisons to other figures, "war criminal" isn't the first thing that comes my mind mind re. the likes of Hitler. It's no question he organised and carried out war crimes but I imagine most people would first think "leader of Nazi Germany" or something along those lines. Perhaps that might explain why it's not included in his lead, but nothing stopping editors adding it if they see fit. I can't say I really mind how it's mentioned in the England lead, whether "war criminal" or "convicted or war crimes" (I just felt it made sense to keep the wording in line with the other articles about the Abu Ghraib torturers/prisoner abusers/war criminals), but it should be included in one form or another.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToeSchmoker (talk • contribs)


 * "I'm not sure why it matters that an IP user added it, or that it wasn't in the article for 16 years.
 * It merely matters in so far as it shows that the label was added recently and that there was never a consensus for it. Str1977 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus part I can perhaps understand but the editor being an IP editor is of no relevance. They are just as welcome as long-time established editors. That is however, a discussion for another day and more appropriate talk page. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You've misapplied WP:SILENT in this regard; WP:SILENT means that if no one disagrees, consensus can be presumed. Once you become aware there is disagreement, you also become aware that there was never consensus.  Appreciate the prominent examples given above (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc).  Good that you noticed that "war crimes" do not appear in the leads of any of those BLPs.  More importantly, outside of their leads, in the rest of the entire body of text in the articles for Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong, where everything is fully sourced and fleshed out, how many times do the words "war crimes" appear?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the heads-up. Not really sure where you're going with the whole Hitler/Stalin/Mao stuff. From a quick glance at the List of convicted war criminals, I see articles which do mention "war criminal" or some variation in the lead. I also see articles which do not mention "war criminal" or some variation in the lead. I'm not going to make claims or guesses of which one rules prevalent because 1) I don't see how it really matters and 2) I don't really want to spend my time doing that. The same goes for the Hitler/Stalin/Mao pages. I'm afraid I don't really have the time to check for you how many times "war crimes" appears in their articles but you can use the shortcut CTRL+F/Command+F to search for words on a page. That should help you. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CTRL-F shows there is zero mention of the term "war crimes" anywhere in the entire body content of those high profile BLPs. Does that surprise you?  If that fact that they are political leaders somehow puts them in a different category for you, then check out this example: Vasily Blokhin was a soldier who shot tens of thousands of helpless captured prisoners of war in the head by his own hand, yet the words "war crimes" appear nowhere in his Wikipedia BLP.  That puts in perspective how ridiculous it is to argue the lead of this BLP should begin with "England is a war criminal."  Wikipedia avoids contentious labels for a reason, as they actually push a particular POV that is not present in the characterizations of the reliable secondary sources, as if England is up there with the likes of notorious war criminals who murdered untold numbers of people.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't surprise me, as I later searched the Hitler article myself and too received no results. I'm not sure if Blokhin was convicted of any war crimes. Pretty certain I remember reading something about the ECHR describing the Katyn Massacre as a war crime, but I can't be too certain. Whether or not Blokhin was singled out, I do not know. Perhaps you could start a discussion for adding the label to his lead if you see fit, given his involvement. I digress. We are talking about Lynndie England, not the Soviet Union, Hitler, etc. Don't see why the label shouldn't be applied to England just because someone else has a higher body count. Not exactly some sliding scale, is it? The acts committed at Abu Ghraib were abhorrent. I certainly would rank her up there with the "notorious war criminals" because that's all she is notorious for in the first place. Highly doubt she would even meet GNG if she wasn't one. Reckon Blokhin would even if he hadn't shot a bunch of people in the head. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is not that the label cannot be applied to Lynndie England but, given its absence from this other articles (which are however not whitewashing their subjects - well, Mao is a bit), it is not of the utmost necessity here, with a relatively minor war criminal. In the end, the question is how to include it. It should be in a non-circumstantial way and without reducing the entire person to simply being a war criminal. Str1977 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * For now we should include "prosecuted and convicted of the war crime of mistreating detainees" and not include "is a war criminal". In BLPs we should always err on the side of not reducing a living human being to a single negative label. There's no deadline. —valereee (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)