Talk:Haditha massacre/Archive 1

message: I love the way that someone just removed the NewsMax information on account that it is "unreliable."  Something tells me that this person wouldn't show such high standards if the story had tended to incriminate as opposed to exonerate the Marines.
Not only did they remove the article information, but they removed the reference, preventing someone finding it by accident. --htom 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Information that is exculpatory

message: I mentioned this in the main Haditha article as well.
"The unreleased report of the US military investigation into the event is said to have found that 24 unarmed Iraqis, including 11 women and children, were killed by 12 members of the US Marines" Is said by whom???? 70.114.32.133 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Voice 

message: Can someone put up a map showing where this town is in Iraq? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 01:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not that hard to find... there is map showing the location of Haditha. It happens to be in the Haditha article itself. JohnM4402 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now on this article's page.  --hydnjo talk 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added the province to the introduction to make it that little bit easier for people who haven't read Haditha to understand it's geographical location. Also the article linked to on Al Anbar provides information on the province's political/military situation, which is useful in trying to understand the situation the u.s. marines were in, not that i'm trying to justify their actions in the massacre, it's just useful background information is always a good thing and a link to this article works well with info-flow. 81.132.51.161 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the hell is Haditha? 

message: I do not have a source to put this in the article, but here is a list of alleged victims from another wikipedia article. I am posting this here in hopes that it helps others research this alleged incident.
House 1: 
Asmaa Salman Raseef, 32, Abdullah Waleed Abdul Hameed, child, Abdul Hameed Hasan Ali, late 70s, Waleed Abdul Hameed Hassan, 35, Rasheed Abdul Hameed Hassan, 30, Khameesa Toama Ali, 65. 
House 2: 
Younis Salim Raseef, 41, Aida Yaseen Ahmed, 35, Muhammad Younis Salim, child, Noor Younis Salim, 14, Sabaa Younis Salim, 9, Aisha Younis Salim, 2, Zainab Younis Salim, 3, Huda Yaseen Ahmed, 28. 
House 3: 
Jamal Ayed Ahmed, 41, Chassib Ayed Ahmed, 27, Marwan Ayed Ahmed, 28, Kahtan Ayed Ahmed, 24.
Taxi passengers: 
Ahmed Finer Muslih, 25, (taxi-driver), Khalid Oyada Abid, 27, Wajdi Oyada Abid, 22, Akram Hameed Flayeh, 21, Muhammad Fatal Ahmed, 21.
-- Paul E. Ester 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no:Haditha-massakren /Vints 05:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of alleged civilian victims

message: In the first paragraph, people are said to be "neutralized". This is military jargon and, in any case, human beings are not "neutralized". Could we change it to "killed"?--Zhengfu 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutralized? 

message: And I see we've moved from Haditha massacre to Haditha incident.  Without disputing this now (does anyone seriously doubt these people were "massacred", whether by the Americans or someone else?) I'll just comment that changes as major as a page renaming, for an article of such current importance, deserves an explanatory note on this talk page. --Saforrest 06:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think incident is best until the investigation is completed. Right now we cant even say if some where used as human shields as the latest story is proposing etc. If they are convicted then I think it should be moved back to massacre. Innocent till proven guilty. --zero faults talk 10:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see no justification in using the weasel term "incident" to describe this event. Googling "haditha incident" vs "haditha massacre" clearly indicates how the world refers to it. The original title was "massacre" (small "m" is correct, as this isn't a formal title but a descriptive one); if someone wants to justify renaming it to incident, please do so here. — JEREMY 16:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google hits have no bearing on WP:NPOV. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide that this was a massacre. No official investigation has been concluded and no one here knows for sure what happened. So pending the results of such an investigation, the article should remain named Haditha incident to avoid advocating one POV over another. Before you start a move war, I recommend we file a request for comment. —Aiden 17:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite my belief that it probably was a "massacre", we as wikipedia editors must stick to the facts as they emerge.  We should continue to call it an "incident" until we have sufficient citations to use the label "massacre".  As for Google, we just need a redirect so that those searching for "Haditha incident" will find this article. Anarchist42 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to wikipedia to try to apply its NPOV ideals to what the world is calling this event. To everyone else, this is the Haditha massacre; just look at the titles of the interwiki links. That en is calling it an "incident" — which I've got to say carries all the newspeak stench of "collateral damage" when applied to the mass killing of noncombatants — is highly POV. — JEREMY 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the label "indident" appears weaselish, and I do believe that is was indeed a massacre; nonetheless, readers expect wikipedia to be unbiased and accurate.  I suggest that we not use the label "massacre" in the articles' title just yet.  At a minimum we should not allow the title to change until us editors can reach a consensus. Anarchist42 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree it probably was a massacre. However, pending the results of an official investigation, we cannot know for certain. Thus, we should avoid jumping to conclusions and adhere to WP:NPOV, which states we should not take a side. Calling it an 'incident' applies something happened without drawing conclusions not supported by any facts. —Aiden 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:ILike2BeAnonymous changes the title from 'incident' to 'massacre' withiut discussion.  I suggest that we return it to 'incident' until we can reach a consensus. (Although I also suggest that we return the 'War crimes' Catagory).  Can we all agreee upon that, at least for now? (I will refrain from making such changes until we discuss the matter a bit more) -Anarchist42 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on; this is just so much mincing and prevaricating and pusillanimous parsing bullshit. Undisputed facts are that noncombatants were killed by U.S. military personnel. Hence, a massacre, no matter what the eventual outcome of whatever investigations there are. We don't need all the details to emerge to at least call this "incident" what it really is. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My complaint was that ILike2BeAnonymous made the title change without discussion (a point he failed to answer).  My hesitation to use the word "massacre" (despite my belief that is was) is partially due to the qualifer "a considerable number" in the word's definition. - Anarchist42 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boston Massacre -- see any Brits edit warring over that? Ashibaka tock 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any neutral editors making the same analogy? Haizum 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, the incident is pretty much "undisputed" and it most probably is a "fact" that "US Marines transgressed", according to US soldiers statements and the fact that the military has arrested and detained the troops involved. As for your made-up fantasy that "some local fanatics killed extra of their own people", well what can I say?  Perhaps you simply refuse to believe that it is possible for one unit to go bad out of 150,000 stressed-out troops, but please try to refrain from your lame attempt to dimish the unwarranted slaughter of small children. - Anarchist42 21:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no shots from the houses.  There were shots from a field in the opposite direction, and the order was given that the Marines were to light up the houses to make sure that there was nobody around to provide shelter or protection for those in the fields.  The squad initially opened fire on the houses with large caliber weapons, and then went door to door clearing each house and killing anyone inside them.  They then collected the bodies, tagged each with a number by writing it on the forehead of the corpse with a marker, and then photographed each one separately.  The explosion of the IED earlier in the day was the catalyst for the incident.  The high losses of soldiers, along with the deplorable living conditions at the FOB, both contributed to an atmosphere of revenge within the unit, and when the order was given to attack the houses, there was very little resistance to what they all knew was an illegal act.  Brian1975 05:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sheesh - why can't editors DISCUSS title changes first?  Is it all that difficult.  I prefer the new title (for now, at least), but unilateral title changes for controversial articles about current events is simply bad form, no? - Anarchist42 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old title was simply not NPOV - if you see something that is plainly not NPOV you should be bold and fix it. I've temporarily protected the article against further moves to avoid further move warring. -- ChrisO 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  My only beef was the lack of prior discussion (I was getting a bit tired of endless title changes, but the current one works best for now). - Anarchist42 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Most the other language Wikipedias call it massacre. Skinnyweed 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irrelevant.  Use of the word massacre presumes guilt.  Killings is an accurate description until the case has been adjudicated--Looper5920 01:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm expecting an immediate revert from the rightwingPOV :P but I've removed 'Incident' all together as it was inserted to avoid calling it a massacre in the classic "'rape of nanking' into 'the china incident'" style. 'killings' was substituted as an acceptable middleground to maintain NPOV untill the guilty verdicts come through, so 'Incident' is a relic no longer needed.81.151.124.131 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't speak for others, but I personally am disgusted by the incident and would never dance with glee when innocent civilians were massacared by soldiers. It's good that the people resposible are being charged, but it doesn't change the fact civilians were massacared because of some deranged soldiers Nil Einne 10:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident vs. massacre 

message: This article would greatly benefit from a chronological outline of the events of the night in question.  Some things, like the initial bombing and the time of death of the American soldier, should be agreed upon by all concerned.  Other events which are contested can be sourced as appropriate. --Saforrest 06:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a source for that. — JEREMY 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We really need a much more detailed timeline.
* When did the Marines(group1, those attacked) arrive?
**When did the IED explode?
*When did the Marines(group1) leave?
**Did they all leave together?
*When did the Marines(group2, those taking photos) arrive?
*When did the Marines(group2) leave?
*When did the Marines(group3, the body transport team) arrive?
*When did the Marines(group3) leave with the bodies?
**Are these two groups (2 and 3) the same, or different, or is one a part of the other?
*When were the videos taken?
**Were all of them made at the same time?
htom OtterSmith 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Changing the quote style back and forth makes no sense, so let's discuss it here.
My point is: Wikipedia has more to offer than bold and italics; let's use it. Using semantic tags makes sense in all kinds of ways, eg. for accessibility reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.210.168 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for discussing your changes. Indeed, italics are very useful in clarifying what part is quoted. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, as I said elsewhere, take it to the style sheet guys. These are block quotes and should be marked as such. Accessibility is one reason, uniformity of Wikipedia style another. The alternative would be that every article has its own style sheet, hand-crafted by using various font tags, tables and other twencen HTML crutches..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.210.168 (talk • contribs) 
Blockquote makes more sense. - FrancisTyers 13:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote Style 

message: --Joe Decker 21:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replication of date (Nov. 19, 2005) redundant in first two paragraphs? 

message: There is a misinterpretation of the cover-up in the June 2006 section of this article.  The misinterpretation occurs here: 
::...the Los Angeles Times reported,[6]
::Military officials say they believe the delay in beginning the investigation was a result of the squad's initial efforts to cover up what happened.
:Despite this, the article continues to say:
::Military and congressional sources said there was no indication that the members of the intelligence team did anything improper or delayed reporting their findings.
The two statements quoted are unrelated.  The first statement refers to the fire squad that covered up the massacre, while the second statement refers to US military intelligence.  The military intelligence were doing a routine information gathering exercise that follows any combat situation, and took pictures that may or may not have been acted upon.  Hence, the following statement:
:There is no question that the Marines involved, those doing the shooting, they were busy in lying about it and covering it up — there is no question about it. But I am confident, as soon as the command learned there might be some truth to this, they started to pursue it vigorously. I don't have any reason now to think there was any foot dragging.
I believe that the current version either 
*inappropriately insinuates that the military intelligence was complicit in the cover-up, based on the timelines and the lack of media reports
OR
*incorrectly assumes that the MI unit was there at the same time as the fire squad
OR
*incorrectly reads the article which it is quoting
In any case, I think that the word despite causes the problem.  However, the attempted cover-up by the principle US soldiers is the real issue at hand, and I think we can do a better job of this.  What do you all think?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciathedog (talk • contribs) 
: I agree, and took a shot at clarifying the distinction between the Marines involved and the intelligence squad.  Take a look at my changes and the LA Times article and let me know what you think.  Thanks, TheronJ 03:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you!  Excellent writeup done with an economy of accurate words.  I think that the article accurately and honestly represents the situation with as little bias as possible.Luciathedog 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Nomen reverted my write-up.  I've started a new talk section here. (Whoops - forgot to sign)TheronJ 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect interpretation of article?

message: Sources:
*www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/020606tape.htm
*www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/030606_b_Haditha.htm
*www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/030606_b_gunfire.htm
*www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/030606_b_misquoted.htm
*www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/030606_b_probe.htm
--Striver 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of sources

message: I replaced the link because although the military probe has cleared it the Iraqis are have since rejected it and it is still nonetheless related to this article. --Jersey Devil 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ishaqi massacre link

message: Dont delet that. Even if it is cleared of being one, it still will be a *Alleged* war crime. If it becomes proven, then it will be included in the *war crimes* category. --Striver 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wait a minete.. "the only war going on right now"? were you being serious? There are many, many wars 'going on' at this moment. Even if you're going to take the stereotypical american stance and ignore the rest of the world then you've still got Afghanistan. 81.132.51.164 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Alleged war crimes

message: First of all, "Differing accounts" seems to be a good title. However, this part of the article is not at all about eye witness accounts. While one of the two might have been present (the other wasn't), it's not an account of the incident, but an observation of the general state of warfare in Iraq.
:Hence changing the section title to Differing accounts. —Aiden 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye witness accounts 

message: Nomen, it looks like you reverted my changes without reading the relevant discussion on this talk page, or at least without responding to it.  I will try to draft a new section that meets your concerns, but if you find it necessary to revert again, please discuss it here.  Thanks, TheronJ 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LA Times article in Developments

message: I think this term is undescriptive and overcomplicated. What is an IED? Can we just call it a bomb?
Also, what kind of IED sparked the Haditha killings? A landmine? A remote-controlled bomb?
IED for the term; it is not considered a bomb or a landmine because those are produce in quantity (usually) and there are specific procedures for dealing with them once they are identified. We don't know what kind of IED it was. htom OtterSmith 17:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvised Explosive Device? 

message: The first sentence currently reads:
:The Haditha killings (also called Haditha massacre, Haditha incident) was an attack on Iraqi civilians by United States Marines in the town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. 
This is obviously ungrammatical ("The (killings) was ..."). That's why I changed the order of terms in the sentence so the first term would be the singular "Haditha massacre", which would solve this problem. (Before, we had another similar problem: "The Haditha killings were an attack ..."). But someone didn't like this and changed it back.
I suppose what's there now is less glaringly wrong, since there's some distance between subject and verb, but it's still wrong. Short of renaming the article Haditha massacre, the better option in my view, I'd suggest a reordering of the terms to solve the number-agreement problem. Who really cares if the name of the article isn't the first term? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a style thing. How about
The Haditha killing (also called the Haditha massacre or the Haditha incident) is an (alleged) attack on Iraqi civilians by United States Marines in the town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. It has been claimed that a squad of Marines intentionally killed 24 Iraqi non-combatants after their convoy was attacked by Iraqi insurgents with an improvised explosive device which resulted in the death of Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas.[1]
htom OtterSmith 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly no grammar expert but if the Haditha Killings is the proper name for the incident than the singular was would not be incorrect, just like "The United States is" is correct afaik, even though states is clearly plural. Otherwise, you could always have put incident (singular) as the front one as well....--Kalsermar 01:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm probably even less of a grammar expert(i'm a writer, i have people to do grammar for me :P ) but it could be that Killings is being used here as a noun in a similar way to 'the troubles' in Ireland. TBH i was expecting a revert to massacre by now.. But anyway I'd agree with ILike2BeAnonymous in that a simple reordering of terms, putting the most used one 'massacre', first would sort this problem out 81.151.124.131 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ungrammatical first sentence 

message: Having served as a US Army Infantryman in Iraq for a year, I will tell you straight up that the insurgents attempt to take advantage of the average grunt's sense of decency by using "non-combatants" as human sheilds, observers and artillery spotters. These acts I've seen personally. I've seen boys on bicyles ride up to unwary soldiers and stuff the muzzles of pistols up under their body armor and shoot them. I have personally killed a 14 year old boy who was aiming an AK-47 at me. Knowing what I know about Iraqi insurgents and their ability to terrorize civilians into doing their will and knowing soldiers and marines like I do, I would have to say that the Iraqi version of events is reasonably unlikely. Refusal of Iraqis to turn over the bodies of the alleged victims only reinforces this belief. However if it turns out that Marines did in fact target unarmed civillians in some sort of revenge killing, then the people involved should get the harshest punishment allowable by law. Lastly, both sides of this debate are too quick to give the accused attributes that don't accuratly reflect their true nature. These are not knights in shining armor that their supporters would portray them as, nor are they the blood thirsty killing machines that "soldier haters (if the shoe fits)" would portray them as. These people are just regular folks with a very hard job to do. No one who has never fought on the unconventional, non-linear battlefields of Iraq can say that they or anyone else could have done any better in similar circumstances.
Matt Epps
:From what I understand, they do not turn over the body because of religious reasons, the bodies cannot be dug back up unless an ayatollah permits it, am I right? The real problem I have is the doctor that performed the examinations of the bodies was a doctor who claims to have been kidnapped and tortured by US soldiers, a bit of conflict of interest. I would think people seeking justice would turn over the bodies to accomplish just that, then again according to their beliefs the bodies cannot goto heaven then, I think. Am I getting this wrong? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ayatollah is a Shia title.  The article is dealing with Sunni people, but the point is correct.  Exhumations in the Muslim world are extremely rare, and usually not up to the surviving family to decide.  Brian1975 05:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Veterans Point of View

message: I added a "Murder Charges" sub section to the developments section based on a new Reuters report . Sysrpl 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarifying, I'm moving the Reuter's report, not the article. Agreed that spellings do vary and I would leave the article unless there's compelling arguments for a different spelling. --Mmx1 18:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No compelling arguements, I thought you were moving the article not the Reuters report. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder Charges 

message: #There shouldn't be a redirect for "Haditha Massacre." 
#There is no mention of the frag and clear doctrine used by the Marine Corps when securing buildings that are actively firing upon them, mainly because 99% of Wikipedia editors are more concerned with anime, C++ and yoga. (a general criticism, not a personal attack, so don't even try)
#"B-B-B-B-But Haizum, why don't you cite the contextual information?" Because it should be done correctly the first time. Haizum 01:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick question, why shouldn't there be a redirect for Haditha massacre? It may be POV, but we are trying help our readers. Many may type in "hadita massacre", so it would be very appropriate to redirect them here, rather than just leave that page as empty. Seems like a valid redirect. --LV (Dark Mark) 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that explaination. Thanks. Haizum 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that a redirect might prevent someone from creating the massacre article anew not knowing that the incident one already exists--Kalsermar 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Crock of POV 

message: I'm probably stepping into a snake pit here, but I felt that given the citation of all the news articles claiming that the Marines did carry out a massacre, it is only fair to cite the NewsMax article that makes counter-claims that are completely irreconcilable with conventional wisdom on the case.  
I hope that in the interest of fairness people are willing to include this. 
My gut instinct is that we are never going to know what happened at Haditha given the fact that the alleged crime scenes were not preserved and the fact that the insurgent control of the town is so pervasive.
:Any other source than NewsMax? Somehow, relying on such a source alone is not reliable. Mutiple sources is better (See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources) 203.109.210.197 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also need to paraphrase this large verbatim quote:
"Within minutes of the early morning IED explosion, a firefight erupted between insurgents and Marines. Civilians were caught in the middle of the firefight. Also, although civilians did die, their deaths were the result of door-to-door combat as the Marines sought to clear houses and stop the insurgent gunfire.
Ample evidence proves that a firefight took place. For example, every second of the ensuing firefight was monitored by numerous people at company, battalion, and regimental HQs via radio communications.
Video evidence supports the Marines' claims. Within a very few minutes, battalion, regimental, and division headquarters were able to watch the action thanks to an overhead ultralight aircraft that remained aloft all day. Photos of some of the action were downloaded and in the hands of Marines and the NCIS.
Some of the insurgents involved in planning the attack and firing at Marines during a daylong engagement have been apprehended and are in custody." 203.109.210.197 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Section with Claims made in Recent NewsMax Article

message: I reformatted the article to make it more structured, and added some quotes. What do you think? 
Also, is NewsMax a credible source for "Allegations of Evidence Supporting the Marines' Version of Events"? Since it's not yet reported in any of the mainstream media after a week, I propose to remove that section. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 08:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat credible; at least as credible as some of those accusing the Marines of war crimes. Time Magazine seems to be quietly backpedaling from some of the accusations, according to the opinion piece at by Mary Kathrine Hall at TownHall.com (last of the external links.) Someone has already removed that bit of POV, however. (The section, not the link to TownHall; it will be interesting to see what happens next.) -- htom 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it as credible? So, is NewsMax as credible as the Time?. I personally think that the media sources which have accused the marines of war crimes are much more credible.It's still suprising how many newspapers haven't picked up this new evidence. I think we should wait till "Allegations of Evidence Supporting the Marines" is covered in the mainstream media, before we include it in the article. Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 06:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see at all how it is any less credible than many other news outlets that have an overtly left-wing bias, like the Guardian, NPR, and Slate.  I think it's unfair to characterize it as not being a credible source when SO many sources from the left are used quite liberally (no pun intended) throughout the article (and elsewhere in Wikipedia).  I mean this completely in good faith, Vorpal, but might you be considering such media sources (the Guardian, etc.) "more credible" because they just make more sense to you personally?  I certainly don't consider them any more credible than Newsmax.  They just have a larger circulation (or at least the Guardian and NPR do; I don't know if Slate does).  On that basis, will you consider reverting again to reinsert that story?  --Beth C. 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the issue of NewsMax's general credibility or readership is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. Surely the more important issue is whether its claims have been substantiated elsewhere? It's significant that they apparently haven't been. Many of Time's original claims were later substantiated by further reporting from other media outlets as well as comments from the military, Congressmen etc. By contrast, NewsMax seems to be isolated in making its claims. I think Vorpal's approach is right - a single-sourced claim which hasn't been endorsed by anyone else isn't really appropriate to include at this stage. (See WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.) If other outlets do follow up the NewsMax story, then we should include it, but right now it's not really appropriate. -- ChrisO 09:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with that. If other outlets carry this story, only then we should include it.Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 14:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much of the confirmation is merely rewriting of Time's account? -- htom 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the US press, but I can tell you that the Times of London did its own investigation which provided additional details as well as corroboration of Time magazine's account. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2201470_1,00.html . The Times by the way is generally regarded as a right-wing newspaper. The reporting of this issue on all wings of the UK press has been very critical of the US, so there's no perceptible left/right division on the issue over this side of the pond. -- ChrisO 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NewsMax's claims 

message: I think that the introduction can be improved to explain about the haditha killings. I think the intro as it stands now, with the line "A convoy of United States Marines was attacked with an improvised explosive device which killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas." isn't really needed in the intro, and doesn't explain what the Haditha killings actually are.
IMO, a better intro would be
"The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha massacre or the Haditha incident) refers to alleged killings committed by U.S. Marines on up to twenty-four local Iraqi residents , in the town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005 . It is alleged that the local residents were massacred by the Marines in the aftermath of an insurgent attack.[1]
What do you think?Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, the events leading up to it are essential.--Kalsermar 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree, no need to make it a lifeless sentence.  Prefer the detail.--Looper5920 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, the events prior to the massacre aren't relevant to the events of the Haditha killings.81.152.196.24 12:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course they're relevant. The basic allegation is that the killings were revenge killings executed by the Marines. If you remove that motivation, you're going to have to invent another reason for the killings, even if it's that Marines are wandering around Iraq randomly killing people. Since the reason is known, put it in, in cronological order. --htom 15:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's warfare, one group of combatants attacking another group of combatants isn't exactly an exceptional event, there are other equally possible causes of the massacre; poor disipline, poorly operated chain of command etc. I fail to see why this one excuse is Put first and foremost in an article about a seperate event. Or am i wrong in thinking this article was meant to be about the Massacre, rather than the excuses for the massacre(If so i could set up a seperate article for the massacre if necessary); If not then wouldn't it make sense to start the introduction with information about the event the article is meant to describe? As it is it's the equivillent of starting an article on World War II with "The treaty of versaille was harsh and left germany jaded and economically crippled, it was this treaty which caused a chain reaction leading to the 'alleged' World War II." Wouldn't it make sense to start with the events of the massacre and keep the excuses somewhere further down(or in a different article).? 81.132.51.164 23:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it wouldn't. As you said, "It's warfare, one group of combatants attacking another ...." You seem to want to leave out what appears to be the initial attack, pretending that it didn't happen at all. We could leave out all of the deaths -- which are, after all, only an excuse for the trials --  and write about the slowness of the legal process, but I doubt that you'd want to take your principle that far. --htom 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: not exactly, I wouldn't remove the information about the events leading up to the massacre. I just think that it's completly out of place dominating the introduction to the article as it does. Isn't the purporse of the introduction to introduce the item that the article is about? That's certainly the case with every other article i've ever seen on Wikipedia.  Strangely in this article this whole introduction section, barring the first sentence is about the build-up to the massacre not the massacre itself, surely this belongs elsewhere under a different subtitle. As it is, it sounds as though the convoy attack was the 'Haditha massacre'(a.k.a whatever) as the actual attack on Haditha is barely mentioned at all in the introduction... 81.132.51.164 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Sergeant Raymond Girouard, Private First Class Corey Clagett and Specialists William Hunsaker and Juston Graber - all of the 101st Airborne Division 
Those are charged in a different case, as you can tell from the 101 Airborne tag (Army, not Marines.) --htom 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of militaly involved 

message: *The Massacre of Haditha - The Revenge Killing of 24 Iraqi Civilians Documentation of the Haditha killings
More of a hyperbolic allegation than documentation. --htom 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but we reach NPOV here by linking some other well referenced page to balance it. Meggar 17:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange form of NPOV, doubly-biased-if-available POV I'd call it. --htom 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a link to an open letter that warns of the dangers of railroading those accused. "Open Letter to Gen. Mattis" http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/09/from_the_marine.html#more --htom 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a good letter htom. We need to be NPOV. External links aren't required or expected to be, seldom are, since writers work to get across their point of view rather than to make an encylopedia. Maybe the best ones start with "Expose-the-war-profiteers" or "From the Marines". It saves us the work of figuring out what they want to say. Meggar 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link Deleted

message: Someone else look and decide whether or not to delete this; note that the article in their right hand sidebar at the linked story seems to have a considerablely less biased viewpoint. --htom 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes of War Project external link 

message: Would anyone object to the inclusion of a stillshot from the video? ATM the map of iraq with the word 'Haditha' on it doesn't really add that much to the article. It would be easy enough to obtain but I thought I'd ask before doing anything because pictures of bullethole sprayed bedrooms, morgues, crying mothers, dead children etc. All tends to be inherently POV...
81.151.124.131 13:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I agree that the information is useful, but could it be expanded on? Or I was thinking of trying to fit it into the 'Reactions' section.. To be quite honest, it's mainly just a style and flow issue but a sub section for a single sentence is a little inelegant, no? 81.152.196.46 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any justification for that being a separate section.  As for the "Reactions" section, that title implies sort the section is about "How people responded".  In fact, it's most facts about the incident's aftermath, and about the coverup and investigations.  If I had more time, or interest in the article (and an unknown amount of time to defend my changes), I'd reorganize the article to make it flow a lot better (I think).  Since I don't have that time, I encourage someone else to make this article read more like a story and less like a conglomeration of unrelated paragraphs.   John Broughton  |  Talk 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I Deleted it as what small amount of information it contained was of little worth, had no citations and isn't really connected to the massacre closely enough to justify it's presence. In the context of the massacre it only served to portray US marines as too stupid to realize shooting elderly non-combatants pointblank in their own homes is "unethical". 81.151.124.255 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics Seminar 

message: It'll be interesting to see what happens. 59.92.48.21 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposed to be a press conference later today where all of the charges will be announced. htom 19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally, the charges. Eight charged, four with murder.
Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, 26, unpremeditated murder of 18 civilians; one count of making a false official statement; one count of soliciting another sergeant to make false official statements.
Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, 24, unpremeditated murders of five people; making a false official statement with intent to deceive.
Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, 22, unpremeditated murder of three Iraqis.
Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, 25, unpremeditated murders of two Iraqis; negligent homicide of four Iraqi civilians; assault upon two Iraqis.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, 42, failing to obey an order or regulation, encompassing dereliction of duty.
Also charged were 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson, 25, Capt. Lucas McConnell, 31, and Capt. Randy Stone, 34, a military attorney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges to be announced

message: Haditha, Iraq Investigation
Preferred Charges and Specifications
Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey R. Chessani
Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATIONAny person subject to this chapter who--(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Specification 1 (Violation of a lawful order): wrongfully failed to accurately report and thoroughly investigate a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war by Marines under his command. (Maximum punishment dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years) 
Specification 2 (Dereliction): willfully failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters. (Maximum punishment:  Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months) 
Specification 3 (Dereliction):  willfully failed to direct a thorough investigation into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war. (Maximum punishment:  Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months)
----
Sergeant Sanick P. De La Cruz 
Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118918. ART. 118. MURDERAny person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -(1) has a premeditated design to kill;(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.
(Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment:  such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.  [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life]
Specification 1: did murder Ahmed Khutar Musleh, also known as Ahmed Fenr Muselh.
Specification 2: did murder Wagdi Aida Alzawi, also known as Wgedi Aida Abd. 
Specification 3: did murder Kaled Aida Alzawi, also known as Kaled Aida Abd. 
Specification 4: did murder Mohmed Tabal Ahmed, also known as Mohmed Betel Ahmed. 
Specification 5: did murder Akram Hamid Flaeh, also known as Akram Hmid Fluih.
Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTSAny person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(False Official Statement)(Maximum punishment:  Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years).
Specification: did with the intent to deceive, make to a false official statement. 
----
First Lieutenant Andrew A. Grayson 
Charge I:  Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92
(Dereliction) (Maximum punishment:  Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months)
Specification 1:  willfully failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters.
Specification 2:  willfully failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was initiated into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war. 
Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107
(False Official Statement) (Maximum punishment:  Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years)
Specification: did with intent to deceive, make a false official statement.
Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLEThough not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
(Obstructing Justice) (Maximum punishment:  Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years) 
Specification: did wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation.
----
 
Captain Lucas M. McConnell 
Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92
(Dereliction) (Maximum punishment:  Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months)
Specification 1: willfully failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters. 
Specification 2: willfully failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was initiated into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war.
---- 
Lance Corporal Justin L. Sharratt
Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118
(Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment:  such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.  [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life]) 
Specification 1: did murder Jasib Aiad Ahmed.
Specification 2: did murder Kahtan Aiad Ahmed.
Specification 3: did murder Jamal Aiad Ahmed.
----
Captain Randy W. Stone 
Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92
Specification 1(Violation of a lawful order): wrongfully failed to ensure accurate reporting and a thorough investigation into a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war by Marines from his Battalion. (Maximum punishment dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years) 
Specification 2 (Dereliction): negligently failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters. 
Specification 3 (Dereliction):  negligently failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was initiated into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war. (Maximum punishment: [willful] Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months [through neglect or culpable inefficiency] Dismissal, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months)
----
Lance Corporal Stephen B. Tatum
Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118
(Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment:  such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.  [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life]) 
Specification 1: did murder Noor Salim Rasif.
Specification 2: did murder Zainab Unes Salim.
Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134
(Negligent Homicide) (Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 3 years) 
Specification 1: did unlawfully kill Abdul Hameed Husin Ali. 
Specification 2: did unlawfully kill Guhid Abdalhamid Hasan. 
Specification 3: did unlawfully kill Asmaa Salman Rasif, also known as Asamaa Salman Rasif. 
Specification 4: did unlawfully kill Abdullah Waleed Abdul Hameed, also known as Abdullah Waleed Abdul. 
Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128928. ART. 128. ASSAULT(a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(b) Any person subject to this chapter who--1) commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm; or(2) commits an assault and intentionally inflicts grievous bodily harm with or without a weapon;is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Assault) (Maximum punishment:  Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 8 years) 
Specification: did commit an assault upon Eman Waleed Al Hameed and Abid Al Rahman Waleed Al Hameed. 
----
Staff Sergeant Frank D. Wuterich
Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118
(Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment:  such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.  [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life]) 
Specification 1: did murder Ahmed Khutar Musleh, also known as Ahmed Fenr Muselh. 
Specification 2: did murder Wagdi Aida Alzawi, also known as Wgedi Aida Abd. 
Specification 3: did murder Kaled Aida Alzawi, also known as Kaled Aida Abd. 
Specification 4: did murder Mohmed Tabal Ahmed, also known as Mohmed Betel Ahmed.
Specification 5: did murder Akram Hamid Flaeh, also known as Akram Hmid Fluih.
Specification 6: did murder Huda Yasin Ahmed.
Specification 7: did murder Aida Yasin Ahmed.
Specification 8: did murder Mohmed Yunis Salim.
Specification 9: did murder Aisha Unes Salim.
Specification 10: did murder Sebea Yunis Salim.
Specification 11: did murder Zainab Unes Salim.
Specification 12: did murder Marwan Aiad Ahmed.
Specification 13: did murder six persons inside a house identified as House 1, by disregarding the requirement to have positive identification prior to engaging a target; and participating in clearing House 1 with deadly force without conducting positive identification prior to engaging individuals in House 1.    
Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134
(Soliciting Another to commit an offense) (Maximum punishment:  Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years) 
Specification 1:  did wrongfully solicit Corporal Dela Cruz to make a false official statement.
Specification 2:  did wrongfully solicit Corporal Dela Cruz to make a false official statement.
Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 107
(False official statement) (Maximum punishment:  Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years) 
Specification:  did with intent to deceive, make a false official statement.
End-
===References===
Specific UCMJ Language
 
http://www.usmc.mil/lapa/Iraq/Haditha/Haditha-Preferred-Charges-061221.htm
htom 00:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Charges and Specifications 

message: Specific UCMJ Language
 
http://www.usmc.mil/lapa/Iraq/Haditha/Haditha-Preferred-Charges-061221.htm
htom 00:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Interesting that this article is headed "Killings" while the shooting in Virginia Tech was a "Massacre". Is this depended on the nationality of the dead?  --87.189.122.60
:No. There's been lots of discussion of this here. Without trying to speak for others, in this case there were questions as to who did the killings and what instigated them. In the Virginia Tech case, who seems pretty solidly known, and that the victims were not instigators of the violence seems also well-known.  htom 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short the answer is yes. The decision to rename the article to 'killings' was mainly taken to placate right-wing US editors and USMC fanboys. Victims in Virginia were mostly US citizens and therefore the same editors are unlikely to kick up a fuss concerning that article. The article on the Haditha massacre in all probability won't get a more apt designation until enough time has passed for the murders to no longer be considered a political embarrassment for the American right and their beloved marine corps. I don't agree with it, but regrettably with wikipedia it's just the nature of the beast, rationality gives way to weight of numbers every time. Just grin and bear it until feelings surrounding the event have cooled. 81.151.124.185 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it was. I don't think massacre is very NPOV though; I think killings is better. I've been fighting to get the Virginia Tech page called Virginia Tech Shootings, as it was originally before some bleeding hearts felt it necessary to up the ante to massacre. Titanium Dragon 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed spelling of "Marine Corps". htom 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes using a less emotive out-of-place term like 'killings' or 'incident' in the place of the matter of fact 'massacre' can cause just as much damage to NPOV as it would be using a more emotive one like 'slaughter' or 'murders'. eg. If the article 'Nanking massacre' on the rape of Nanking had been renamed 'the Nanking incident', 'the Nanking killings' or 'the Nanking nastiness' then it would be obvious to all that it was politiziation of the events and a breach of NPOV. Articles like this only recieve special treatment because the perpetrators were yanks and the wikipedian USMC lobby has been increasingly defensive of late in the face of various war crimes and other embarassments. 81.151.124.255 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wahhhh.--Looper5920 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well done, your most eloquent post yet. Of course there is the lesser issue with the 'killings' designation, and that is that we are now using less precise language to describe the range of the article. Unfortunately quite a few people have been killed in Haditha; 'Massacre' would be more obviously referring to these particular deaths. Combined with the inclusion of extraneous information on other deaths in the area, this brings an unwelcome degree of ambiguity to topic of the article. 81.151.124.255 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was responsible for the "killings" designation, way back in June 2006. Prior to that, it had pingponged between "massacre" and "incident". My decision to rename it had absolutely nothing to do with placating anybody - if an article's name is disputed it's standard practice on Wikipedia to find a neutral alternative that both sides can live with. In renaming the article, I followed the precedent that I'd set earlier on Borovo Selo killings, an article about an incident in the 1991 war in Croatia. There was a similar dispute in that case (Croatians call it a massacre, Serbs call it an incident). I resolved that dispute in the same way by renaming the article to "killings". It's possible to debate whether it's a "massacre" or an "incident" but nobody on any side can dispute the fact that people were killed. -- ChrisO 14:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Your decision may not have been but the decision not to revert it was, but w/e that's irrelevant now. 
The deniability of whether the title describes the events doesn't really come into it. Nobody could have rationally disputed that an "incident" took place or that there was a "massacre". The problem was and is the presumption of innocence or guilt implied with the words chosen for the article's title, thus breaching NPOV. The POV issue with the "killings" designation is that it's not a neutral alternative, it’s intentionally vague and by the very absence of the more matter of fact and precise "massacre" innocence is implied which is POV.  81.151.124.255 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  One way around the problem with the language being too imprecise would be to introduce a date into the title e.g. "The November 19, Haditha Killings" as was done with the 'september 11, 2001 attacks' article because as there have been several famous attacks on september 11(but only one notable one in 2001), there have been many killings in Haditha. How does this title currently distinguish between the assasination of the mayor or the snipers getting pwn'd and the massacre the article is meant to be about? Adding a date would remove this unwelcome ambiguity, so how would you guys feel about doing that? 81.153.253.94 09:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I understand, the word 'massacre' was avoided at first, because some people felt that it was still unclear what actually had happend. Now a US soldier has testified, and (from my POV) has admitted that they carried out a massacre. So I think there's no reason not to use the word. I propose we change the name of the article to Haditha massacre. --Merat 23:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you accept changing it back when others testify that they did not commit a massacre? htom 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The defendants definitely have self interest in making this look like an accident, thus they aren't very credible. If we later get credible information saying that the killings was not intentional then I'm absolutely ready to change it back to "killings". So do you support a name change? --Merat 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until there are convictions. The accusors definately have self-interest in making it look like a massacre. Take a deep breath and let the process play out. htom 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely obvious that a massacre has taken place, we don't need convictions write it out. And explain to me, what possible interest could Dela Cruz have in lying about the killings? --Merat 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His immunity agreement is that he will testify against the others? He's told four? five? six? versions of what happened? (Eyewitness testimony to events is frequently wrong, and it's possible that he just plain does not remember.) htom 13:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make any sense at all. You mean that he'll have to lie about his comrades in order to keep his immunty? To me, that sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory. And it is still obvious that a massacre has taken place. This special treatment of the US military is very frustrating. We don't have any convictions for the mass executions in Lidice, but wikipedia still calls it a massacre. --Merat 14:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killings vs. Massacre 

message: Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. military forces have been stationed in and around Haditha to control the Haditha Dam, a major hydroelectric installation. The predominantly Sunni-inhabited area was, from the start, a major center of insurgent activity[citation needed]. As early as June 2003, American soldiers attacked an insurgent training camp near Haditha.[citation needed] Many insurgent attacks followed in the next three years[citation needed], and the area gained a reputation as one of particular danger for US[citation needed] and Iraqi government forces.[citation needed] On August 1, 2005, six marine snipers were killed outside or near Haditha.[7] Two days later, on (August 3, 2005), 14 Marines were killed in their Marine amphibious assault vehicle by an IED.[8]
This information has nothing to do with the Haditha massacre and serves no purpose unless you are trying to put the marines actions down to 'combat stress' which would be a POV issue. This article isn't on events in which US troops were attacked in the province or the area around Haditha and so this all falls outside of the scope of an article on the Haditha massacre and should therefore be deleted. I would 'be bold' but it's a fair bit of text and has been there for a while so I thought I'd ask for other views before doing anything. 81.151.124.255 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this for an intro.  I can't imagine you'll find any POV issues with it.  United States Marines are obviously brainwashed individuals who indiscriminately kill innocent people on a regular basis.  They are incapable of any kind of thinking or compassion because 1) they are American, 2) they obviously are incapable of original thought if they joined the military 3) do not posseess the same knowledge of the situation on the ground as I (81.151.124.255)  have gained sitting in front of my computer on my fat ass 4) they are American...let's not forget that 5) they are only their to kill Iraqis and other Arabs and have never once tried to help these people out.  Would that suffice for an intro?  Alleviate you POV concerns?--Looper5920 22:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: fixed Looper's spelling 81.151.124.255 13:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, a fine attempt at trollery sir. Looper here is a marvellous example of why this section in its current form is a POV problem. In the same way that Looper's attempt at sarcasm portrays the marine corps as morons, the 'background' section only serves to portray inhabitants of the area as evil insurgents and back up one side in a 'does combat stress justify war crimes' debate. If someone were to start an article that includes that in its scope then I would have no objections to that and would gladly contribute what I could, but the place for information on this debate is not here. The 'Introduction' section of the article already makes clear that the area around Haditha is a currently volatile place by detailing the events of the convoy attack that preceded the massacre, there is no need to list every single US soldier who has died in and around Haditha since the war begun. Doing so only makes it clear that the article is openly taking the side of the perpetrators of the Haditha massacre and is thus an apostasy of wikipedian values. 81.151.124.255 13:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get it.  The reason it is called a "killing" at the moment is that it has not been adjudicated.  I was not there when the events took place and I am sure that you were not so we don't know what happened until it is adjudicated.  When it is all done, if they are found guilty of a crime then you can change it to massacre.  If it is found that although they acted properly the people died then it should remain as is.  Hate to be the one to break this...but sometimes innocent people die in war and it is not always bloodthirst that causes it.  I know, I know, this is a new concept and the BBC and the Guardian tell you otherwise. Until then you can rant and rave and stomp your feet like a spoiled child but the title is correct.  Do us all a favor and take the time to read all of the above information before making everyone have to explain to every new editor why the title is what it is. --Looper5920 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well how about rewriting the background section so it doesn't mention the training camp raid or other combat unrelated to the massacre, but instead expands on the subject of the convoy attack here instead of doing it in the introduction. The convoy attack is curiously absent from "background" for something that is refered to later and yet we devote space to extraneous information on unrelated deaths... this chunk "Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. military forces have been stationed in and around Haditha to control the Haditha Dam, a major hydroelectric installation." is good though.SemperFideliS81 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest delete of Background section 

message: I removed the rationale section. It should at least be renamed or the information should be integrated into other sections. We can hardly speak of "a rationale" for killing toddlers, etc. If the goal is to represent the accounts of troops involved in the killings, the section should have a title that reflects that. But to speak of a "rationale" here implies that the Haditha killings were a considered policy, not exceptional activities by particular troops. I consider that disrespectful of the military, among other things. But most relevant here: it's unencylopedic.Benzocane 03:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point, and a good edit. Besides some guy who sat next to some other guy who got killed before the events had even started only had the most tenuous of links to the "killings". Still, seeing as we have a quote from one of the victims, it would be good for NPOV to get a quote from one of the suspects or a marine source more closely related to them. And I agree that the whole "rationale" section implies policy, which the Haditha massacre was clearly not. This isn't the way the US military usually kills non-combatants it's clearly against the rules of engagement. 81.151.124.255 10:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed rationale section

message: I reworded the intro to ensure that the encyclopedia describes what the haditha incident is, and then describes the supposed rationale. Previously, the rationale was present first, followed by the actual incident.59.92.85.224 07:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reword intro 

message: I have reworded the section on him. As per my comments on Talk:Ilario Pantano#Cleared of charges?, saying he was cleared of all charges is misleading since from what I can tell, the murder charge was dropped due to insufficient evidence (it was recommended the charge of conducting unbecoming of an officer be persued but this was not done for whatever reason). This is a different outcome from being cleared of all charges Nil Einne 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ilario Pantano]] 

message: I am inclined to think that discussion of the film should go on its own page, with links between this page and that. Agree? Disagree?
:: Kinda-Disagree, the film getting it's own article would be a good idea, but I think it's noteworthy enough to have a mention on the main article. But maybe the plot details, cast information & filming style is too much. Prehaps limiting the discussion of the film in this article to just noting it's existence, who the director is and when/where it will air would suffice? Elmo 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film 

message: An article like this isn't easy, and this talk page shows how tough consensus can be to reach. But the article as I read it just now was really good; NPOV, encyclopedic, well-referenced...just very proud of all you editors for the work you did. I do think that the Camp Kilo section at the end is not relevant enough to the subject of the article though, and think it should be dropped, as well as the film section, about a project not yet released, that is essentially "based on a true story"; i.e. fiction. (Making up the dialogue as they go along is fine for Blair Witch Project, not so good for historical accuracy). Besides, it reads like a promotional press release. Just MHO, anyway, again, great job. Lipsticked Pig 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  heh that's strange, I was just thinking that. Well done everyone who's worked on this article so far, this sort of thing is always a tough article to write to a good standard. This article really has come along way, I'm a firm believer in the idea that every wikipedia article should try to be of a good enough standard to be a featured article(at the very least) and although we're not quite there yet, we've come along way in the right direction. Good job guys. Elmo 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great job everyone! 

message: BBC article showing the initial statements from the US millitary and the survivors of Haditha. from the External Links contains a misspelling of the word military. akuyumeTC 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it -- Randy2063 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling of "military" 

message: Look - this is bunk. I love how Wiki notes that "the topic is disputed" and then directly references the false Haditha "massacre" several times (and as captions to pictures).
Here's the real scoop on the traitor behind this hoax:
http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2007/06/time-and-haditha-lies/
:You listen to Savage, don't you :) Me and my dad love listening to him. Sr13 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you try waiting until the legal proceedings are concluded before proclaiming judgment? That goes for both sides, naturally. -- ChrisO 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be specific, this is probably a reprecussion from Savage's comment on the article yesterday; just see his page. Sr13 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how anyone could take Savage seriously. He has a crappy web designer for a start. ;-) -- ChrisO 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I dunno, I think the website needs more cowbell.) Regarding this article, let's just summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. That usually works.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, I knew a semi-protection was going to happen sometime later... Sr13 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impartiality is highly suspect in this article