Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The apology issue

message: *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.
*No yet-articulated objections to:
**Abu Ghraib prison abuse allegations
**Abu Ghraib prison abuse investigation
**Abu Ghraib prison abuse charges
as a title for the article.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: SUMMARY of discussion above re "scandal"

message: 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)
thread_title:  more reports 

message: 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 ===
# Quadell
# Eloquence
# Pcb21
=== Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse ===
# Dpbsmith (Avoids any suggestion that abuse did not really occur)
# Psb777
# Get-back-world-respect
# Eloquence*
# Saucepan (short, to-the-point, keywords for Google)
# The Anome
# Quadell (talk) 15:51, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
# Morven
=== Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces ===
# Eloquence* (allows us to cover Camp Bucca, etc.)
# Dpbsmith 12:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on page title 

message: # Eloquence* (allows us to cover Camp Bucca, etc.)
# Dpbsmith 12:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces 

message: # User:Cecropia
# Dpbsmith 12:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus on move

message: 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)
thread_title: About the photos

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro changes