Talk:Abu Ghraib prison/Archive 2

message: I don't think we should have 14 pictures in this article, as the additional 12-13 don't add any content to the story.  That would be like having a huge listing of pictures at the end of Auschwitz, which we of course don't have, despite the existence of thousands of pictures we could put there. --Delirium 20:21, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
: I agree. Three pictures seems plenty. The article links to all 14 anyway. Quadell 16:02, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
: The images are essential to understanding what happened. They will stay.--Eloquence* 20:32, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
:: Having all of them is no more essential than having 15 images on Auschwitz is.  Similarly, we could put up 50 images of torture during the Hussein regime, which would also not be essential to understand what happened, and would be inappropriate.  In addition, you do not run this wiki, and I do not appreciate your dictatorial tone. "I believe they should stay" is within your prerogative to say.  "They will stay" is not. --Delirium 21:14, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
:::Well, to be fair, it's within his prerogative to SAY, just not to enforce. Admittedly, it was a poor choice of words on El's part IMHO... sort of like an edit summary that says Eloquence is a biased activist. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:10, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
:::Right now we have ZERO pictures of what happened either at Auschwitz OR at Holocaust. Now that is sad. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:12, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
The whole point of the images is to illustrate what happened -- what was done to these people? This is not a matter of the historical record yet, so the comparison with Auschwitz is absurd; furthermore, we should have more images about what happened in Auschwitz in the appropriate articles.
What we should do is provide captions for each image to actually describe what happens here.--Eloquence* 21:26, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
: This isn't a primary source document, but an encyclopedia.  We should, for example, have illustrative images on Auschwitz, but an in-depth image gallery is inappropriate.  Same with the Rwandan genocide: having an image gallery of 15 images of Rwandans being murdered would not help illustrate what happened.  The same goes with just about any other atrocity: a few illustrative images are very helpful, but an image gallery is not.  What do 14 images add that, say, 4 do not?  I agree all 14 (and more, as there are certainly more in existence) are important for the historical record, but not for an encyclopedia article. Putting them all here, and not in other articles, seems a bit like an attempt to advance a particular agenda.  What would you think, for example, of someone who added a lengthy image gallery depicting the victims of Palestinian terorrism to one of our articles?  There are plenty of pictures of mangled Israeli bodies---should those be in Wikipedia in order to illustrate what happened? --Delirium 21:28, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
::Showing the same corpse out of two different perspectives is pointless. Showing different concentration camps, different gas chambers in different regions is not, nor is showing the wide range of atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. In this case, the different images show different types of humiliation (the electric schock threat, the hoods, the body pile, the sex acts), they show the behavior of the soldiers (laughing, smiling and pointing, proudly posturing in front of the "human pyramid") -- this is hardly redundant, and all of it is part of the evidence of what happened. What you are trying to pull off here is the most blatant attempt of censorship I have seen on Wikipedia in recent months.--Eloquence* 21:34, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
:::If I were interested in censoring the images, I hardly think Wikipedia would be the place to go, given that the news sites that have them have orders of magnitude more readers than we do---nearly everyone coming here has already seen the images, unless they live in a cave and don't read the news.  What I'm interested in is why we have an image gallery here, when it is standard Wikipedia policy to only use a few illustrative images, and not use image galleries.  We could, for example, show images of Palestinians blowing up cafes... or blowing up buses... or blowing up military checkpoints... celebrating in the streets afterwards... we could show torture committed by the Palestinian Authority... we could show any number of things, but don't, because this is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue of atrocities.  This isn't the place for evidence, but discussion. --Delirium 22:20, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
:::Actually, I suppose I didn't formulate my objection well enough.  I think this does give the impression of trying to show evidence of atrocities, which isn't our job.  We should simply neutrally describe things.  This has a bit of the feel of advocacy.  For what it's worth, I didn't support the invasion, and don't support Bush, but don't think opposition to Bush and the war should be based on propagandistic images, but on actual reasons.  --Delirium 22:23, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
::::Describing things neutrally is not identical to evoking no emotions. The latter is inevitable when dealing with subjects like this. We do not portray these pictures as anything except exactly what they are - a description of the events that occurred in this particular prison at the end of last year. If you want to interpret this as a pro-Bush or anti-Bush thing, then that is your business. Describing the facts of a matter is the job of an encyclopedia, and in this case, the images and the article work together to tell the story of what happened.--Eloquence* 22:39, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but even simple descriptions can tend to bias things.  If our article on the Taliban had an image gallery of Taliban atrocities, for example, that would be factual, but one would question why we were playing up that aspect.  Very rarely these days does even outright propaganda actually make things up: instead it uses factual images, whether they're of mangled Israeli corpses or dead Palestinian teenagers or mangled bodies of US security contractors or whatnot. --Delirium 23:48, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
::::::Whichever example you use, I will always disagree with your stance on images. In the Taliban case especially, in fact. Who could forget the pictures of corpses in the streets, the mutilations, the destroyed Buddha statues? If we can use images to better tell the story of what happened in Afghanistan during the Taliban rule, we should most definitely do so. (I suspect the only reason that is not the case yet is copyright.) As I said to Merovingian below, when there is evidence that an image is used in a propagandistic way - that the extent of a crime is exaggerated, that important context is missing - then that evidence should be cited, and then one can talk about either making the article NPOV, or removing the images. Images which are factual and not redundant belong in every article.  If that makes some people feel bad, tough.--Eloquence* 00:01, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
:For what its worth, El, I think 3 (maybe 4) of those photos are redundant, those fulfilling your requirements for removal. 7 and 13 seem functionally identical, as do 2 and 8. 9 doesn't show us anything that 1 doesn't show us. 11 and 12 are photos of the same incident, although the inclusion of the prisoner in the second angle shot does make a difference. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:06, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
::I also think the redundant photos Dante listed by number don't add any information that can't be had from the others and should be removed. 24.0.226.177 22:11, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, that was me. Forgot to login. Werbwerb 22:14, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
Seems that Mr. Delirium is too much obsessed with the encyclopaedic nature of the wikipedia. Well, this is not at all a traditional encyclopaedia. This incident demands widespread attention throughout the course of the history of mankind. Future Americans need to know how uncivilised their ancestors were. Pictures are essential not only to portray what happened but also because these pictures themselves are part of the history. If these pictures were not published by the CBS and others, then, only stating the facts would never be able to draw much attention of the people. Even creation of an article on this would not be possible. The article is here because of the pictures and not vice-versa. --Hiwamy 18:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are allegedly 100s of photos out there from Abu Ghraib. What will our limit be on how many to have on this article? Kingturtle 19:03, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of pictures in article 

message: i hope those who put these images understand they are harming for some people so they have to remove them immediately. and when they are removed not to readd them againe.
: Of course these images are disturbing, but that does not give you the right to censore them. The best solution, I think, would be to add a warning about the disturing images at the top of the article, or maybe move them to a different page and add a link to that. pir 09:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a subpage Abu Ghraib (prison)/Photos of US abuses with the photos. The photos should definitely be part of wikipedia, but due to the graphic nature maybe its better to put them on a subpage? Just a suggestion, and if other users prefer the content on the main page we can move it back. A similar arrangement is on Clitoris, and was under discussion but not implemented on Penis -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the whole I think this is not a bad solution, but I can see one problem: a visitor has no idea what he/she will see when they click on the link. How about making some small thumbnail pictures that show too little detail for it to be disturbing but enough for viewers to know what they are in for? pir 10:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add a less distrubing image, e.g. :Image:AbuGhraibAbuse05.jpg ? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find that one pretty disturbing. Reminds me of the Ku Klux Klan, I guess black Americans will find it even more disturbing. pir 10:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I am not that delicate, but I could imagine there are people who would not like to see a pile of naked men. Thats why I moved the photos. See also the discussion above. I agree that we definitely should keep the photos, tough, I only tried to find a better place. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:45, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is nothing without the pictures. The fact that the pictures are disturbing is central to the existence of this article. In June of 2003, a British soldier took some photos to his Chemist to be developed, and they were seized by the police. The pictures allegedly showed British troops maltreating Iraqi prisoners. This story then disappeared off the radar, essentially because nobody was interested in a story about dodgy pictures when the pictures themselves were not available. Everybody forgot about this story and when the Abu_Ghraib story broke everybody said "Ohh, this is terrible, but the British wouldn't do this, they are better trained", only for the new pictures of the British soldier urinating on an Iraqi prisoner to surface less than two days later. Everybody seemed to have forgotten the story from a year ago, because there were no pictures to hand. The pictures must be shown in the context of the story. Mintguy (T) 11:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Furthermore. These pictures have featured prominently on the front pages of newspapers across the world. I would not expect to see a picture of penis of clitoris on the front page of a newspaper. Mintguy (T) 11:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, It was a thought. I agree with you that the pictures are needed, but I still think a subpage would be better. But it is not a pressing issue for me, I can live with either option. I'll put the subpage up for deletion. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it is fair to have a few images.  However, right now there are 13 on the page.  That's a bit excessive, in my opinion.  I believe that another page containing of all of the images can be put together.  In other areas on Wikipedia where there are many images available, extra pages are often created. —Mulad 03:43, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Yes I think it was a bit excessive of these guys to take a minimum of 13 photographs, but that's what they did. So please stop trying to censor this page. I see no justification for your actions. It's not like people have trouble scrolling or we're going to run out of space on the page or something. Mintguy (T) 17:42, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Images/Sensitivity of Viewers

message: This article reads like a thriller. The style involves suspense. We need to come out at the very top informing the reader immediately why this prison is significant. I am going to give it a shot. Kingturtle 03:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  major edits needed 

message: User Pir removed the link to the Abu Grahib story on the Rotten Library, saying "link to voyeuristic shock websites like rotten.com is not appropriate in this context". 
Rotten.com is a shock site, and much of its content is not particularly informative. But the sub-site called the "Rotten Library" is a very different site. It's irreverant but very informative. For instance, the Rotten Library's information on Khalid bin Mahfouz, Richard Scary, or Bob Ross, is the most comprehensive information I can find of these people on the Internet.
Rotten.com links are most often not useful, but Rotten Library links might be. I'd like to ask you to reconsider, and suggest we keep the link in.
Quadell 13:54, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
: The events in this article are highly disturbing, yet we have to describe them in a NPOV matter-of-fact way. However if we take that ideal too far, if we add too many detailed facts, the article ends up being voyeuristic. We should never forget to also consider the interests of the victims who may be traumatised a second time by the exposure of their torture and their humilition to a worldwide audience. Wikipedia can't become a curiosity show circus, or become too closely associated with such sites by linking to them from articles such as this one. This is my motivation for removing the rotten.com link. Hope you understand what I mean, not sure if I make much sense. It's the problem of not forgetting our humanity while dealing with inhuman acts. But I get your point about the rotten library, and I won't make a fuss if people think this link is important enough to be included in this form.pir 14:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Pir. Rotten.com is one of the more well known websites, but not for its library. I think it would be not appropriate to link it here, and I am sure there are better links to be found if needed -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:Quadell|Quadell]] that rotten.com/library is not the same sort of thing as rotten.com. I might even purloin Quadell's comments above (which are, of course, under the GFDL) and use them to expand the Rotten.com article. In this specific case, however, i don't think the rotten/library link added much that we didn't already know from our article here. So, removing it was the right decision, but for the wrong reason. –Hajor 14:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with Quadell (obviously). rotten.com's library is *not* a shock site, and saying it can't be linked to simply because it's part of rotten.com (which generally is) is silly. -- Schnee 13:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the content of the library is actually quite good. But Rotten.com has a certain reputation in the internet that is a bit ... well ... rotten. I believe that because of this reputation, linking to anything on rotten.com is a very sensitive issue. Unless the content is absolutely necessary I would prefer not to link there. It also seems from the above comments, the content is not all that unique. BTW, i removed the link again. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So the "reputation" of the site does matter while the actual contents does not? That's silly. -- Schnee 15:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is OK, although not much new compared to the Wikipedia article. I still believe, however, that a link to a site called "rotten", and having a reputation for snuff may be offensive. Similar if for example www.sex.com would have a library subpage. Potential offensiveness alone does not validate removal, but if the content is redundant then there is no need to offend. BTW, from the comments above, so far Pir, Hajor and myself tend towards removal, whereas Quadell and you tend towards keeping. It seems the issue is controversial, and would need more input. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: rotten.com has a reputation for snuff? That's new to me. Anyhow, if sex.com had a library that contained well-written and interesting articles, I wouldn't see anything wrong with linking to those, either. Would you remove a link to a Geocities page simply because other pages on there might be offensive? -- Schnee 16:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if snuff is the right word, but if you want to know how a body looks inside out, then rotten.com is the way to go. Anyway, link gone now, problem solved (for me that is) -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't even know what you're talking about exactly, then you probably shouldn't talk about it. -- Schnee 21:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I removed the rotton.com link because that URL does not give any new information. Kingturtle 15:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Rotten.com link

message: in seems there are CDs circulating among US personels that contained some 1000 photos. If anyone has the CD, please contact me. Thanks. The photos will be used for documentary purposes. Xah P0lyglut 01:27, 2004 May 8 (UTC)
*Note, when the other user removed this comment from this page, I copied it onto Wikipedia:Reference desk. That might be a better place for it. Kingturtle 02:37, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: photo CD request

message: I have an idea relating to the photos (excepting the prisoner on box, since it's less graphic). How abour we put them on a separate page with a warning as to the content? I feel this would do two things:
* It would put the focus on the text, and not on the photos.
* It would treat the photos with the senstitivty they deserve.
The title I was thinking of would be Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Photos or somesuch.
Comments? - iHoshie 11:16, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
:I would support that, but previous attempts for that got reverted pretty quickly. See the section Location of Images/Sensitivity of Viewers above. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:29, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photos - An idea 

message: I think we need a section on the fallout around the globe on this topic. - VTEX 23:35, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
We have no idea what the "fallout" is.  Have any countries done anything concrete in reaction (recall ambassadors, declare war, withdrawal troops)?  I suppose there might be (or might soon be) a meaningless UN resolution that would possibly merit inclusion.  Right now the "fallout" is bleating from the various media (mostly Western).  --M4-10 01:30, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Reaction 

message: The Taguba report is referred to elsewhere so I thought it would be useful to move it to its own article.  And then, half way through doing this, I remembered I should ask what others think.  What do you think?  Paul Beardsell 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move taguba report to its own article 

message: Can anyone suggest a title for an article which would deal with the issues surrounding US (mis)treatment of Iraqi detainees.  US mistreatment of Iraqi detainees?  Paul Beardsell 01:25, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting article, revisited

message: This header is weird.  Is it Isolated incident or systematic failure of official policy? or Isolated incident, or systematic failure, or official policy?? RickK 20:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Isolated incident or systematic failure or official policy?