Talk:Mahmudiyah rape and killings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge

i definetly disagree, same like abu ghraib or Hamdania incident, all "actors" have their own articles.

  • I also disagree that the Mahmudiyah incident and all "person(s)" involved are required seperate articles, just like Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and the seperate U.S. soldiers that were convicted of prision abuse and listed as war criminals. Bnguyen 09:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I originally placed the merge tag on the article because almost all of the info in the Steven D. Green was identical to that in the Mahmudiyah incident. However, now there is more biographical information in the Green article, so they differ a bit. I guess I'll remove the merge tag in awhile unless someone thinks they should be merged.--Birdmessenger 13:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

form of addressment

The youngest victim is younger than me. Why is she being called a "young woman"? For that age, I would only hear it in the context of "young woman, go up to your room now!", rather than in the occurrence of a death. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:27, 6 July 2006 (UT

I hardly consider a 15 year old being a young woman!!! if she had lived in America she would've been labeled a child.

She was not 15 she was 14. In Iraq, what US, Western European and wikipeia stadards would refer to as 14 is stated as 15. I.e. a 14 year old is in their 15th year and hence they are defined as "15." that is why the death and birth certificates list her age as "15" while clearly noting her date of birth as August 19, 1991.
All listed individual ages on Wikipedia use the convention of dating from date of birth.By wikipedia standard she is 14 years old at the time of her death.
Her parents' ages are less relevent, but it is likely that her sisters actual age is not seven, but six. I will not change that as there is no reporting as of yet on the actual date of the younger child's death certiciate72.75.63.86 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

woman, girl, child

I've changed the description of the rape victim from "young woman" to "young girl". I now think "child" might be better and "young girl" seems kind of redundant.

teenager

It seems to me that the proper descriptor is "teenage", rather than "young woman" (which to me implies adulthood) or "young girl" (which implies, again to me) pre-teen, at least, if not under six. "teenage woman" or "teenage girl" would seem to be both more accurate and less inflamitory. --htom 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

pedophiles

Calling her a 'young woman' is kind of covering up the fact that these monsters had sex with a 14 year old girl... no RAPED a 14 year old girl. No state in the US would consider 14 to be the age of consent, making them pedophiles! Thats right... these guys are child molesters. Go fig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.160.62 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are some state laws that would call consensual sex between 14 year old and an 18 year old (4 years age difference being the cut-off point) to be "statutory" rather than "sex with a minor child". But neither of those standards apply here and it was obviously a rape and murder. nut-meg (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
American state law is not relevant. The events occurred in Iraq and involved an Iraqi girl. At 14 she was an adult under Islamic law, and of marriageable age. She was accordingly not a child, but a young woman. Iraq's current law provides for the minimum legal age for marriage at 18, but 22 percent of Iraqi women were married before age 18 in 2012, and the age of marriage will soon be reduced to 9. Be careful about calling rapists of a 14 year old pedophiles. Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old - Aisha - whom he married when she was 6.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Precious to see hardcore Islamophobes using Muhammad to make excuses for American pedophilia against Muslim girls.Rafe87 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

who carried out rape, according to affidavit

The affidavit only states that Green and (at least) one other person carried out the rape. The section about SOI1 saying 'everyone did it' could equally refer to murders, the fire or holding the family at gunpoint. It does not refer specifically to the rape.

Also, the other soldiers need not have actually raped Abeer Hamza to be charged with rape. They were there as accessories. Under US law, that would be enough to charge them with rape and murder, whether or not they actually participated.--Birdmessenger 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Reuters [1], the four soldiers, besides Steven Green were all charged with Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Article 120 BLOCKED LINK states:
a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.
My understanding of the above is that all 4 were guilty of the act of rape, and not just of conspiring to commit rape, or abetting a rape in some way. Please do correct me if you believe this understanding is incorrect.
As for the seeming contradiction in the affidavit, it is a matter of the SOI1's word against the SOI2's word, the latter being one of the accused. The affidavit was based on statements made in the preliminary investigation in June. Since then the soldiers have been charged under Article 120 for rape. Given the Article they were charged under, it seems that SOI1's testimony is valid over that of SOI2's testimony and that the rape did indeed involve 5 soldiers, not just two.
Please revert if you agree. --DrPak 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't really say whether the military might be charging them just as accessories or not. You may be right that they are not. But the text we're discussing here concerns what the affidavit has to say. Here's what our Wikipedia paragraph says:

The affidavit goes on to state that the soldiers entered the house and ordered Abeer’s father, mother and sister into another room where Steven Green summarily shot all in the head, emerging to say, "I just killed them, all are dead." As the rest of the family was shot in the other room, Abeer was held down to the floor by another soldier. After killing the other family members, Green and at least one other soldier raped Abeer, and then Green shot and killed her.

The affidavit does not in any place clearly state that all five soldiers actually committed the rape. Therefore, we cannot say that it does in this article. Two respondents specifically agree that Green and one other soldier committed the rape, however.
If there is some sort of clear evidence that shows that all five soldiers took part in the rape, then I wouldn't have a problem with placing that in the article. The affidavit alone does not support that though.--Birdmessenger 19:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see your point; the affidavit clearly says that at least two people were ever involved in the rape. It doesn't say 5. The paragraph you quote from the article stands.

However my understanding of the involvement of all 5 soldiers in the rape is related to the Article they have been charged under by the U.S. Military. (Article 120 of the UCMJ), which clearly states it is a charge of rape, not a charge or abetting a rape or conspiring to commit rape.

The charges brought against the soldiers are very exact. For instance, all the accused are charged with conspiracy to commit rape and pre-meditated murder (Article 81). This charge is sufficient for conspiracy to rape and for conspiracy to commit murder. If they had not committing the actual rape, they would be no need to charge them, in addition to this, with Article 120.

I think the text of Article 120 cinches the matter. It is quite unambiguous.--DrPak 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new subsection to reflect the conflict between the affidavit statement and the events that have occured subsequent to it.
I believe the Article 120 charge is enough evidence needed to state that 5 people are charged with the act of rape. I think the onus is one anyone who holds the affidavit testimony over that of the Article 120 charges brought forward by the U.S. Military to explain how the wording of Article 120 could be construed to mean a charge of conspiracy to commit rape, and not a charge of the act of rape.--DrPak 04:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not yet awake, but I think your fixes look good. We can certainly revise as new information comes along as to who exactly did what.--Birdmessenger 11:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, to follow up your comments: I'm not saying that the rape charge against all of the soldiers is tantamount to a conspiracy charge. I'm saying that it's possible that they're charged with rape as accessories because they were present when Green and at least one other person committed the rape. But I'm not sure at all whether US military law provides for this, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. However, just because a Reuters article says that the soldiers charged under a particular article doesn't make the legal reasoning behind it "unambiguous", especially if 1) we're not lawyers 2) we don't have access to information regarding the case the investigators are building and 3) the only eyewitness account of the events so far is that affidavit.
Saying that all five are charged with rape is fine because it's factually correct. I don't think we have a source yet that clearly states that all five actively particpated though.--Birdmessenger 12:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think that reports that the accused have been charged with Article 120 is a valid enough source--203.101.180.231
I think it's a valid source if you want to say that they've been charged with rape, as I said above. There is no source that I'm aware of that says that everyone present raped her.--Birdmessenger 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that they are charged with "conspiracy to commit rape and murder" rather than with "rape and murder" indicates that not all of them were actually raping and murdering, but that they were aware of the intent to do so. Something like the felony murder rule is probably in effect, making the non-rapists non-murderers chargable for an act that they did not actually commit. htom 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted reference to her possibly being alive or even conscious when set on fire, and motivation for burning her body as elimination of DNA evidence, because I don't think these possibilities have been reported by a verifiable source, so they are speculation.Edison 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WaPo reporting this morning that soldiers' defense will hinge on "combat stress." FYI. - Anonymous 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

USA Today story

USA Today ran a front-page story on the soldier who came forward about this atrocity in today's or yesterday's edition. I think we'll need to be altering the content of the article with the new information, such as the fact that he specifically requested a counseling session so that he could tell this to a military counselor who could then kick it up the chain of command instead of having to fight his immediate superiors to get it passed on. 128.153.205.138 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"allegedly"

Why is it "allegedly"? Don't we know by now whether it happened or not? Her rape & murder is clearly not "alleged" at any rate. I wouldn't say alleged at all. Mr. Meow 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

{{moveto}}

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Some unsigning person (not me (htom)) has requested it, let's discuss it again.

  • Support and proposed the move because the title should describe the event, which can be readily characterized. There is no particular reason to associate a town with a rape-murder, and even if not on wikipedia, surely many other things have happened in Mahmudiyah (compare Columbine High School massacre and My Lai massacre). The nature of the event is not in substantial dispute.--Carwil 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current title is long enough; if there are further incidents a move might be appropriate. htom 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • support proposed move-by itself the title is not descriptive, and there are way longer titles on the 'pedia. Chris 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel you are pushing an agenda but would support a move if something else happened in Mahmudiyah. For now ...no.--Looper5920 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article should be describing the event in such specific details. The current title is complete compliance with WP:PRECISION and is also the most common and WP:NPOV oriented. 205.157.110.11 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Premature statement of "Guilty"

The article presently says that five named men are guilty: "This crime was committed by five United States Army soldiers of the 502nd Infantry Regiment: (i) Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, (ii) Spc. James P. Barker, (iii) Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman, (iv) Pfc. Brian L. Howard, and (v) Pfc. Steven D. Green." It says they "gang-raped and murdered a the fourteen-year-old girl Abeer Qasim Hamza, after first murdering her family: mother, Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, 34; father, Qasim Hamza Raheem, 45; and five-year-old sister Hadeel Qasim Hamza." Later in the article, it says that Baker, Cortez and Spielman have been sentenced. Howard is "charged" but the article does not say he has pled guilty or has been convicted or sentenced. Green "will be tried in federal court in Kentucky." Accordingly the article should be revised to remove the assertion of guilt with respect to Howard and Green, per WP:BLP. Regardless of how guilty or innocent a person may seem to some Wikipedia editors, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to put itself forward as judge and jury and announce which accused persons are guilty in advance of a trial. Edison (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to 7Days March 23, 2007 and Houston Chronicle, March 22, 2007 Bryan Howard was sentenced by a military court to 27 months in prison for "being an accessory to the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl in Iraq and the killing of her family" after pleading guilty to being an accessory and to obstructing justice.. Murder and rape charges against Howard were dropped. This needs to be added to the sentencing section. That leaves only Green untried, but still entitled to WP:BLP limitations on what may be said with respect to his guilt. Edison (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Article needs WP:BLP cleanup

Green hasn't even been tried yet, yet there was still wording in the article indicating he is guilty. WP:BLP is very clear on these rules. No living person is to be referred to as a "murderer" or even "accused murderer" (a legally dangerous term the media still likes using) without having either confessed or been found guilty in a court of law. This article needs to be fine-tooth-combed. 23skidoo (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it. Where does WP:BLP say that no living person is to be referred to as a murderer or accused murderer without having confessed or found guilty?
The closest I could find is
Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.
Nbauman (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Preceding this line is an unsigned paragraph and two questions. How are they relevant or even appropriate for Wikipedia? It appears all the user wants to do is label the accused as "pedophiles" and "fags." Solidshake (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Removed. IQinn (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

explanation

I reverted this excision. It was too large to be explained in an edit summary. Geo Swan (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not merge Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi page now

Let's wait for the outcome of this review process: [[2]] Iqinn (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Abeer's age?

At the time news of the killings becoming public there was widespread confusion over Abeer's age. Some reports claimed she was as old as 26 years old.

As of early June -- about a week after an {{afd}} over the discrete article about Abeer concluded it should be merged with this article, the Abeer article currently says she was just 12 years old. The reasoning offered for this age seemed suspicious to me.

This article, the Mahmudiyah killings article, doesn't list her age at all. I regard this as a very serious weakness.

I argued, in the {{afd}}, that the Abeer article should remain an unique article because it seemed likely to me that those who maintained this article were likely to want to excise reports of the controversy over Abeer's age as off-topic. No one in the {{afd}} offered a counter-argument to this point. Proponents of merge kept repeating that there wasn't anything known about Abeer that wouldn't fit in this article. So I am counting on them helping to make sure referenced coverage of the controversy over her age is not excised as "off-topic".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, however it should be sourced rather than the original research that it is now. Other than her ID card, can you find a source that correctly shows her age? This would help a lot. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The initial reports of her age were incorrect. The ID card is a good enough source. There isn't really much controversy on her age except for on wikipedia. She was certainly a teenager, and not 26. nut-meg (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that. A source (other than her ID card) would be helpful that says she's 12 and not 14, however. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm at a loss on what age to put here. I've searched through some news articles and most state her age as 14, but a few do have 15 as her age. I was assuming 14 was the correct age, but this article specifically mentions the false age reports, yet states her as being 15. Quote: "Preliminary information in the military investigation put the age of the alleged rape victim at 20, rather than 15, as reported by her neighbors, officials and hospital records and officials in Mahmudiyah.". Thoughts? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Accounts based on interviews with the Iraqi officials, neighbors and Abeer's family were consistent, from the beginning, that Abeer was 14. US officials, on the other hand, kept claiming she was an adult, form months afterwards. I can't find any references that explain what the adult ages US officials stated were based on. On August 5th CNN stated:
There is some confusion over the alleged rape victim's age. Identity cards and death certificates of the victims, which were obtained by Reuters news agency, show that the alleged rape victim was Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, with the birth date August 19, 1991. The mayor of Mahmoudiya confirmed her identity and birth date to CNN.
The U.S. military had previously referred to the alleged rape victim as a "young Iraqi woman." A Justice Department affidavit in the case against Green says investigators estimated her age at about 25, while the U.S. military said she was 20.
CNN reports being shown Abeer's birth certificate -- which they said put her birth date as (1991-08-19)August 19, 1991. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
According to this story as late as September -- ie six months after the event -- DoD spokesmen were still trying to claim Abeer might have been as old as 20. Was this a deliberate campaign of disinformation? The result of naive wishful thinking? I don't know. I don't think any of us wikipedia contributors should offer an unreferenced explanation for the different dates offered. But I think our coverage of these topics definitely should include the phenomenon that it took months before her age was agreed upon. Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This account quotes a DoD affidavit that estimates her age at 25. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In July The Guardian quotes "US officials have said the woman was 20 or 25". Geo Swan (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC) And another. Geo Swan (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You'd have to find an article that opines about the "phenomenon that it took months before her age was agreed upon" otherwise that's speculation and that violates WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTHESIS. But, after all of that, what's her age? 15? 14? Any claims of age of 12 will need sources (and the ID card doesn't count because of WP:OR). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but I believe this is a misinterpretation of policy.
First off, why would you suggest it is my sole responsibility to make sure the article is balanced and neutral? Isn't it the responsibility of all of good faith contributors?
Second, why would you suggest that it is necessary to "find an article that opines about the 'phenomenon that it took months before her age was agreed upon'". Please review what WP:NPOV says about Wikipedia:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. The policy advises we don't say "Hitler was evil" -- we let the facts speak for themselves. The WP:RS references are crystal clear. US officials continued to maintain Abeer was an adult for at least six months after the incident became public.
User:Jauerback asserts that covering the well referenced reports that American officials continued to assert Abeer was an adult would lapse from compliance with:
I fail to see how neutral coverage of the well-referenced fact that US officials continued to maintain she was an adult could be meaningfully characterized as "original research". Similarly, I suggest it is a misinterpretation of policy to characterize neutral reporting of well documented facts, that does not offer an interpretation of those facts, as "a synthesis ... that advances a position".
I agree, whether some reports stated she was fifteen, not fourteen is not really important, as she was actually fourteen and a half. I have no problem ignoring minor reporting errors attributable to innocent roundoff error. But the continued claims by US officials that she was an adult -- 20, or 25, or 26, is remarkable. These errors are remarkable without regard to why they occurred. We have references that show US officials continued to make this assertion for six months after Iraqi officials confirmed the birth date from her birth certificate.
I am concerned that someone who relied on the wikipedia to learn about this incident, and then learned that wikipedians had been well aware of the long-standing US claims that she was an adult, and chose to suppress coverage of that well-documented phenomenon, could interpret this as a knowing collaboration with the US spokesmen -- taking sides in a dispute -- a clear and undeniable violation of the wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view. Geo Swan (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that her age was misreported for a long time, but it is an opinion that it is a "phenomenon". If you can find a source that says this, then by all means, put it in there. Otherwise it's conjecture, original research, and opinion. And, no offense taken, because that is exactly what the policy means. Find yourself an uninvolved, third party. They will tell you the same thing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're wanting to put in. If you simply say something along the lines that "the US military's preliminary reports incorrectly stated her age at 20, rather than 15" is fine. That's sourced in the link I found above. However, to characterize it as a "phenomenon" is your opinion (unless you can find a source that agrees with you). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cover up

The issue of a cover up raised in the edit summaries goes hand in hand with this section. With the sheer number of sources, I think we can all agree on this:

  1. Abeer's age was initially misreported as in her 20s.
  2. Abeer's age is, in fact, either 14 or 15.
  3. The soldiers involved in this attempted to cover up the crime by killing the entire family, destroying all evidence by burning the bodies and home, and blaming it on another group.

All of these facts have sources. Whether they are actually in the article or not, I honestly haven't checked. If they aren't, they aren't hard to find, so they can be easily added.


However... what we don't have are any sources that state the misreporting of her age as either a "phenomenon" or a "cover up" by anyone. Anything stating this (without a source) is pure original research, synthesis, and speculation. If sources can be found to say otherwise, then that's different. However, until then, we don't draw our own conclusions on why the age was misreported nor do we suggest otherwise. Don't agree with me? Try asking a third, uninvolved party. You can start at the No original research - Noticeboard. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Iquinn and Categories

Iquinn, these categories are redundant to this article because this article is about the incident. Categories that imply any sort of individuality (i.e. "victims" or "war criminals") belong more on the individual's redirect page (see Occuli's edit). You have to concede that the result of the AFD was to "merge" and that decision was endorsed, you cannot have Abeer's article take over this one.

In short, I'd like you to please revert your edit and remove those 2 categories. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, you merged and immediately redirected Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi without leaving the categories. In addition you went to CDP to have these categories deleted. without a strong rationale. Further during your merge you got many facts wrong. Sorry but you not even get my name right. It is Iqinn.
I still think these two categories should stay but go ahead and delete them for now if you wish. I will see the outcome of the CDP and then make maybe further adjustments. Iqinn (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Iqinn, Ryan is correct. The categories don't belong in this article. Stop complaining about how it was merged. At least he merged it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Jauerback, i am not complaining. I am stating my concerns and discussing them with Ryan. I am working constructive on the improvement of the article. Please do not attack me and do not follow me around.Iqinn (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Iqinn, don't flatter yourself. How exactly am I attacking you or following you around? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Ad hominem you use it frequently here and in the discussions before. You may have not notice it. It is disruptive. Please stop it and let us come back to the topic. Iqinn (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Example? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Iqinn I believe your neutrality has been compromised, you !voted keep in the AFD and started a deletion review, you also stopped two previous attempts at merging. I, on the other hand, did not !vote in the AFD and have experience with the Abeer article (I did the re-write you tried to save). Ryan4314 (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Steven Dale Green

Hi i personally believe that the merge decision on Steven Dale Green wasnt correct as other wikipedians has spoken of to. Their where no definite consensus on merging or deletion in any case, I think it should have been a No consensus decision or Keep. Also the fact that soem peoples opinions wasnt taken into account as it seems it still not a corrext way of handling an Afd.--Judo112 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated information based on Steven Green Trial

I am currently updating this page based on new information from the trials of Cortez, Barker, Spielman, Howard, and Green, particularly based on the Steven Green trial. Up to this point much of what was on this website was based on articles that came out in the news before any of the testimony in any of the trials. Now that we have pages and pages of transcripts of testimony from all of the trials, particularly Steven Green's trial, which lasted multiple weeks, I figured it was time to update this page. However, for some reason somebody just reversed all of my changes with no explanation, and I'm a little confused about why.

As I said on your talk page and in the edit summary, blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. If you could find another source for this information, that would be great. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you still removing my edits? I am citing the transcripts correctly, and am also citing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalnerd (talk • contribs) 04:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Guilty plea vs. conviction

I changed the intro to say two were convicted and three pleaded guilty, but the Legal proceedings section says all five were convicted. This seems contradictory but it depends on whether you count a guilty plea as a conviction or not. Legally I think you do, but in common usage you don't. Rees11 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An Appreciation

I would like to show my appreciation to the neutrality that the page have been dealt with especially if one knows that most of the folks (editors) here are American, I say so because I am an Iraqi and I thought for the a moment that it wouldn't be the case.Glasszone33 (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm British and must also compliment our American editors on their neutrality. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

James P. Barker redirect

Following a series of edits made yesterday [3] users may be interesting in adding their thoughts to the relevant discussion here, regarding the use of categories, thankyou. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankfurt shooter claims to have been motivated by Redacted clip on youtube

Arid U., the guy sooting US soldiers at Frankfurt Airport claims he took the rape and killings for real

The rape and killings are real. Is there anything you want to add to this article here? IQinn (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
From a machine translation it appears the person mentioned was indeed confused, believing a clip from the movie Redacted was a clip of a real life event. While the movie was based on these real killings and rape, clearly the clip in question is not real (at best a reconstruction but even that is I suspect questionable since it appear to be primarily aimed as a movie based on real life event rather then a documentary style reconstruction intended to accurately portray something that happened based on all known details). However none of this is particularly relevent to this article IMHO, perhaps mention of that belongs in the Redacted article but not here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Background Section Rape Justification

The last paragraph of the Background section is written in a way that implies that thinking of raping the young girl was justified by the stress of being in a unit with a lot of casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.233.14 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Currently, the only picture of Abeer Qassim Hamza depicts her at the age of seven. As she was fourteen at the time of the killings, I think a photo of her at that age might be more appropriate and accurate. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That photo is amazingly manipulative. Although the crimes are terrible, the only image of the girl is half the age of the event. It leads to readers creating a false mental image, and tarnishes the quality of the article. It should be replaced with a much more recent one, or removed entirely. It's current form manipulates the reader into thinking worse about the event. For a crappy scale, say they think the event is 8 bads, the photo increases this to say 12 bads. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Soldiers who participated in the incident told the Iraqi Army that "it had been perpetrated by Sunni insurgents". Was there no investigation carried out? "This lie prevented the event from being recognized as a crime". It was still a crime, it did not matter whether it was committed by Sunni insurgents or American occupiers.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahmudiyah rape and killings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mahmudiyah rape and killings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings/Archive_1&oldid=1175047932"