Talk:American soldiers accused of desecrating enemy bodies

Video Link?
There wouldn't happen to be a link to this video would there? It would make a good source. Good work! --Wolfrider 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this constitutes Breaking News, as the burnings took place on the first of October and the broadcast and investigations have been happening over an extended time period. --Wolfrider 14:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The news just seems to be coming out in a big way today, from what I can tell from the sources? but perhaps you have heard about this before?? Neutralizer 15:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice work. This is the first time that I heard about this. Not sure that adding a video link (if available) would be appropriate and ethical. The only good reason I can see for adding the footage is if there was any doubt on the accuracy of the description. But this seems not to be the case here.--vonbergm 16:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a point. I've just always appreciated the idea of having first hand accounts of everything in a news story. --Wolfrider 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Charges"?
Back to develop. There have been no charges filed, and not to mention there should be a section which describes that the Taliban government did not adhere to any international treaties, including the Geneva Convention. --Mrmiscellanious 19:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * replaced the word "charges". Since the Taliban have been out of power for years their misdeeds are no longer news; do you think in the Saddam trial story we need to add references to what Kurds or Iran did wrong in the past? Nonsense. Neutralizer 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, what exactly would be the reason for adding information about a government removed over a year ago? the way you want to have that added (could do it yourself and publish again of course) makes it seem like doing this is right or such. 130.89.166.46 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone else needs to re-publish
I'll be blocked if I do it. Neutralizer 21:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Your change should take care of the concerns given. Listing Taliban crimes does not belong in this article as explained below. Taliban crimes are terrible as we all know. Listing them here would merely create the impression of comparability. There is no point in trying to compare. Therefore I will republish with the changes that have been made.--vonbergm 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No need to add list of Taliban crimes
The crimes of the Taliban have no bearing on this article, just like the Abu Graib scandal is not related. Just because groups of people mentioned in the article have committed certain crimes does not mean that references to these crimes need to be included to achieve a "balanced" point of view. What is important is that the article provides room for the perspectives of all parties in question, which the article does.--vonbergm 21:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I never asked to put in Taliban practices, I said that I feel it would be better if we added the fact that the Taliban did not recognize the Geneva convention.  --Mrmiscellanious 21:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * and because you feel that way it can't be published? several people don't feel there is any need to involf an old government in this but because you do you can keep putting it back in publish? 130.89.166.46 21:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Several people"? We are not here to serve the majority.  We are here to listen to what ALL users have to say, equally.  Just because some people disagree with me doesn't mean they can ignore my concerns.  There is a huge issue with that.  I invite you, anon, to read our style guide.  Perhaps it will come in use with further contributions to our site.  --Mrmiscellanious 21:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * it's interesting that anything can become published then, because there is always anyone who doesn't agree and feels something extra needs to be added. 130.89.166.46 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * MrM, the fact that the Taliban did not recognize nor adhere to the Geneva Convention should have no bearing on wheather U.S. troops should do so. By adding in a reference to the Taliban here you are effectively trying to compare Taliban practices with U.S. troops conduct. This is neither useful nor does it make any sense. The point is simply to report on one particular instant. And the misconduct of Taliban should have no bearing on this act. I do not think that are you suggesting that the alleged conduct of the U.S. armed forces in this instance can be justified even partially by Taliban misconduct. This would go against all rules set by the U.S. armed forces and the administration and would openly undermine any claim to moral high-ground.


 * If you're trying to incite a discussion, I'm out. I suggested the tidbit of information relating to the mentioned Geneva Convention, but for some reason you do not want it in the article?  I certainly believe that it is relatable to the article and topic at hand.  --Mrmiscellanious 00:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was merely trying to address your concerns.--vonbergm 01:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)