Talk:Full extent of Abu Ghraib detainee abuse revealed


 * Protected by Chiacomo (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unprotected -- hopefully editors can grow up and work collaboratively to publish current news. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Is it time to show them now? International 23:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be said that the diputed picture in this article was shown in the SBS TV news program. Former U.S. soldier Charles Graner, convicted to 10 years prison. There are much more grafical pictures published in diferent places now. International 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But are those images copyright? If they are not part of the U.S. government or public domain, we cannot use them. Jason Safoutin 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright, unless the photographer successfully claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties. The photographers of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos have not made this claim, and have in fact denied it under oath." Cut and past from Wikimedia. And I would appreciate if you are constructive from now on specially about this article. International 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright of the pictures are owned by the subject of the photograph.(I think) watching out for copyrights is important and constructive. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right Bauwolff. The Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse photos are ok to use in the subject of copyright. International 00:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ???. Can you please reword your comment, I don't understand what you're saying. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

From the U.S. copyright office:

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:


 * (1) literary works;


 * (2) musical works, including any accompanying words;


 * (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;


 * (4) pantomimes and choreographic works;


 * (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;


 * (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;


 * (7) sound recordings; and


 * (8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general] Jason Safoutin 00:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Its all a moot point, the photos are covered under fair use. Nyarlathotep 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the case for Wikinews. We have extremely limited use of Fair Use defense by policy. Furthermore, images of prisoners of war are covered under the Geneva Convention, which prohibits their publication except by the subjects of the photos. I am looking further into this particular question. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I tagged the article NPOV. The pictures are extremely offensive. Not only that, they cannot be properly sourced therefore we have to assume they are coprighted and cannot be used as fair use. Jason Safoutin 01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not actionable objections. period International 01:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how the photos are released or licensed, only one or two (or three) are actually needed to illustrate the article. A link to the commons gallery of images should be included instead of inserting all the pics. --Chiacomo (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I made them small to give reader a fair warning. They have to activly click them to see them in usable size. International 01:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11 pictures is excessive and in my opinion not NPOV. one picture is enough, but again, none of them are properly sourcewd on the commons. Until a source (a proper source) can be submitted, then the pictures cannot be used. Jason Safoutin 01:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not wikinews work to whitewash. I think your taging is a clear way of impliment your pow in an article. To continue with it is worse than vandalism wich it practically is. Your copyright argumentation is quit redicilous. I can as a comromiss make the images even litle smaller but not to show them is really POW and cowardly. International 01:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with chiacomomo. I personnally found them offensive even in there small size. Although are disclaimers say we can contain offensive material, This looks like your purposly trying to ofend people. If you must have the gallery in the article, at least move it to the bottom, where it would be able to illustrate the article better, and let people read the article. Its not wikinews job to whitewash, but from the sounds of it, your pictures are probally going to be deleted from commons if they don't have a proper source (haven't checked that out myself, just based on what dragonfire said and commons policy)
 * Second point, Not actionable objections not entirly sure what you mean by that, because they look fairly actionable to me. I think you are holding a grudge against Dragonfire, and you are trying to find every excuse possible to get mad at him/her. Assume some good faith and drink some tea. Or if you're really mad goto Dispute resolution but stop this pointless quibiling. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV is clearly stated here and is actionable as it states above. Jason Safoutin 02:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the photo again for these concerns. While we aren't content-censored, we want to appeal to all people -- and certainly the majority of our readers would find these images offensive. I've replaced them with a link to the Commons album, and have included a disclaimer. '''In order to appeal to as many readers we can, these images or similar ones should not be posted on our website. There are no reasons to publish highly offensive images unless you were trying to make a political statement, as they can be described in a less offensive and neutral way in the article.''' Please abstain from publishing any more gruesome pictures on the wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just unaceptable excuses for implementing POV, picture stays. If you like to copyedit it is wellcome. This is its vandalism, blody unaceptable from an administrator. International 03:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, vandalism is what you did. I was editing an article, and I tagged it because I had concerns that were actionable, and yet you ignored it.  You are the vandal here.  You are trying to push a POV.  I am telling you this for the last time: stop it.  If you try to pull another stint like this again, I will bring your case up as the first for ArbCom to decide what to do.  You cannot ignore other users - you are not superior to anyone here, nor is anyone superior to you.  Start listening to other users.  You are no longer constructively editing this wiki if you continue to keep this disruptive behavior up.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We must remember the photos of Saddam's dead sons which were published everywhere and were even promoted as a way to discourage Saddam supporters. This image is appropriate for this article,imo. Neutralizer 14:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet, we never published pictures of Uday and Qusay posthumously. There is no reason why we should publish these pictures, they would only offend a large population of our readers and a large population of our editors.  They do not enhance the story, but they obviously can degrade it largely.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * good point,Mrm. I did not know whether we published them or not; so that is a good point,I think. Neutralizer 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Are you nuts? This picture is just as bad, if not wors...removed it again...NPOV. Jason Safoutin 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

ABC News is publishing this photo; would it be a good compromise? Neutralizer 17:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We are Wikinews NOT ABC news. As MrM said, we did not do saddams sons, we did not do any other prisoners...and what reason to start now??...they violate Wikinews' NPOV policy as far as I am concerned. Jason Safoutin 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First, saddam's sons actually arn't very relevant: people somehow see photos of dead people diffrently, even from photos of live people undergoing torture. Second, the blood streaks at the top of the article is really quite harmless, so lets keep it there. Third, a traditional compromise solution on wikipedia is to put offensive photos further down the article. So maybe put one more offensive picture lower down in the article, say next to sources? Anyway, we don't want to be sensationalist, but it'll help get more readers if we run at least some controversial visual material. Nyarlathotep 20:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You tell me where a POOL of blood, enough to have been from someone dead, could NOT be offensive? remember Wikinews is supposed to be as NPOV as possible. A POOL of blood, that is being alleged from a prisoner (again NONE of these photos are sourced and are requested for deletion on the commons). Tell me where any of theses images represent a NPOV...??? Jason Safoutin 21:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The new image is also not acceptable. Blood smears are still considered offensive.  A nice, non-offensive image that would be good to include in this article is a map outlining where Abu Ghraib is, or an outside picture of the building.  We want to appeal to all readers and editors, and in order to do that we should not publish any images that may be deemed offensive universally (such as gruesome pictures of dead bodies, blood smears, etc.).  In order to separate ourselves from MSM, we shouldn't conform to their methods - that means that although CNN or ABC may publish one thing, it doesn't mean it is acceptable here.  These photographs do not enhance the article in any way, but they do offend.  We need to restrain ourselves from publishing them, in order to retain all our readers and editors that may find them offensive.


 * Also, on the External links situation - I find these links to be spam, since none of them are necessarily required. We don't promote any websites here, as that would be a violation of the NPOV policy, and putting such sites under an "External links" section seems to be in violation of that policy.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the NPOV tag from this, but left cleanup. Can the  tag be removed or amended to reflect any current issues with the article, please? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As a reminder: Wikinews is not censored for the consumption of minors. Offensive images is not by itself a reason to prevent or delay publication of an article. Gratuitous use, or use to argue for or against point of view, would not be within policy, but that's where compromise on the talk pages needs to be made. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please list the actionable objections
to the article so they may be dealt with...is it just the photos? Neutralizer 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert war
User:International is attempting to begin a revert war with me over this article. In question are two diffs: one published by him, and one later revision tagged by me. On the tag lists specific issues with International's latest revision that the user chooses to ignore by reverting my edits. Being bold, I felt it was best for the wiki to appeal to all of its readers, in which I believe many would be offended by the image on the article. In addition, I did not believe the image enhanced the story in any way, other than to make a political statement. International has refused to comment on my revision, and has instead chose to just revert my edits as if deemed insignificant to his own. Since this disruptive behavior persists, I believe all editors of this article should be aware of the background of edits made by this user, who has failed to discuss the objections and has refused to accept edits made by other users of this wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Implementing pro u.s. concerns to block the publishing of a article much more kind to u.s. interests than other articles around on the subject just maybe help your feelings. But ok Im satisfied with overall reporting globaly. Just think of Wikinews as your own little pond. Wont help u.s. reputation. Wont do Wikinews reputation good. A sad day. International 04:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't even bother talking to you ever again if you try to keep pulling the "pro-US" crap on me. Not in any of my edits did I even express a feeling or statement that would be linked to that.  For you to try and pin that on me is irresponsible and is quite immature.  Your view of bias is that whenever someone detects your article isn't up to publish standards, it must be their bias.  I won't have it.  If you want to act like a baby, I'll treat you like one.  Here's your diaper: .  Here's your bottle: .  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

-- MrM, you have a long history of trying to skew articles rightwards on wikinews. Don't be a hypocrite. Although i agree that posting dozens of gruesome pics in an article is unnecessary, you are simply using this mistake of the early versions of this article, as a cover and justification to censor the article, so that the article does not make the US look too bad. I've followed your manipulation-attempts on wikinews for a while now and i do not think that you are a constructive part of the editor-community. Playing a bit of devils-advocate to avoid left-leaning articles is one thing, but what you are doing is something different. --82.141.52.228 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What a mess
are we here to publish pictures or write a story? -10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Pentagon (from story) --> "There is nothing new here." am I getting tired of that . -Edbrown05 10:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"A spokesman from the pentegon"... ? What, don't we know from whom we are hearing from? -Edbrown05 11:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Attack Iran.... (heard from a Pentagon spoke something). <-- pure jest-Edbrown05 11:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Whistleblowers, not thinking pure jest. -Edbrown05 11:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder, tell Wikinews, tell (say) the Washington Post. What would happen. -Edbrown05 11:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

CopyVio
I will not allow these pictures, which are highly offensive, and I agree with MrM, to be used. The images are not allowed to be used also because they have been submnitted to the commons page for deletion as per Copyvio guidlines. They have not been properly sourced. We are not a Crime Scene Investigator. There is NO need to show these kinds of images on Wikinews. I am removing them per MrM's comment. Jason Safoutin 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your arguments for exclusion are dubious at best,
 * They were clearly taken inside a military facility by active duty military personnel
 * There is no reason to think them likely to be deleted from Wikicommons&mdash; by jumping the gun, you appear to be attempting to exploit a technicality
 * They have not all been submitted
 * Even if they had been submitted, their global widespread publication makes a challenge to fair use unlikely to succeed
 * There is no real challenge to their authenticity
 * The fact you and others personally find them offensive is no bar to their publication, per WN:NOT, point #7
 * As they are the subject of the story, to assert their irrelevance is absurd
 * Given this last, no assertion of NPOV really makes sense here (did you want, for balance sake, the inclusion of photos of guards being nice?)
 * Please give in on this, your objection is unworthy of anything claiming to be journalism.
 * StrangerInParadise 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, Commons accepts no fair use. Seccond theres a difference between purposly ofending people and censoring offensive content. Whats wrong with putting a at the bottom with warning about images at top, or putting them on a commons gallery (best solution (IMHO), except that they are not acceptable to commons). Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly in reply, that is beside the point: that it is fair use makes it available to us (even if it's copyright status on Commons were problematic, which it is not. Secondly in reply, it is the subject of the article, it should be featured. Again, consult point #7 of WN:NOT. StrangerInParadise 21:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * clearly taken inside by an official??? Prove it... Jason Safoutin 20:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't need to, really, though do you think it was somebody on the guided tour?! Even if so, so what? They are represented as the additional photos published by the Aus paper.  StrangerInParadise 21:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Can we have a cleanup on the cleanup tag and clarify what are the remaining outstanding issues? I suspect there are excess sources as most of the material is now specified as originating with Salon.com. What I'm not sure is if the remainder needs attributed. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have read and re-read the discussion and it seems the graphic photo was the primary source of dispute. Hopefully it's ok to publish now, so I did. Neutralizer 23:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad precedent
The removal of this:



.. constitutes a bad precedent. The photo is clearly relevant to the story. Wikinews is not and should not be censored to protect people from being "offended". Would we have removed the photo of the malnourished child from Neighbours of Niger also facing food crisis because some people might find it "offensive"? If not, then why remove the photo above? Could it be that it is the kind of offensiveness that correlates well with political conviction? Is any single editor who has objected to the picture on grounds of offensiveness opposed to the current U.S. administration?

The practice on Wikipedia is that at most, an image is linked instead of embedded (e.g. autofellatio); however, this is only done in very rare cases. The same standard, which was carefully worked out over many years, should apply on Wikinews. Since essentially we are measuring personal offensiveness, which cannot be debated, I feel this issue cannot be addressed in any other way than by polling Wikinewsies in cases like this and only un-embedding (not removing) a photo if a clear majority feels that it is offensive (provided the picture is relevant).--Eloquence 03:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and will put the photo back. Neutralizer 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Per my comments above, I concur. To fail to include any representative photo in a story about these photos&mdash; which have been published world-wide and are in Wikipedia commons&mdash; would be inexcusably POV. StrangerInParadise 04:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again. We are not a CSI lab nor a morgue. I am nto gonig to allow this OFFENSIVE material to be published. If a picture cannot be agreed upon then we do not need to have one. But I am citing WN:NPOV. as this photo is NOT NPOV. I will tag this article again If necessary. Jason Safoutin 12:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The photo is a representation of fact, not of a point of view. It is you who chooses to read a particular point of view into it. There are many possible interpretations of the facts in Abu Ghraib; selecting and showing a photo does not endorse any of them other than, yes, this is one of the newly released photos from Abu Ghraib. If you feel that the photo is not representative of the selection of photos, feel free to propose a different one. Otherwise your NPOV objection is not actionable and as such can be ignored. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikinews are censored.--Eloquence 14:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You violate policy by telling me that its not actionable. There has been more than just I who has voiced these images as NPOV and I think you need to read them. All of them. You cannot override a MAJORITY. I am tagging this article as NPOV until a decision can be reached per I am not the only one objecting, see above messages. You need to tell me how this picture is NPOV. Jason Safoutin 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Also according to other Admins, we never used these kind of photos in articles and we should not start now. A link to all the photos, which is also in the article, is enough. Jason Safoutin 15:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that there is a majority in favor of removing the image, but I'm also in favor of a straw poll in matters like this. Beyond that, you are repeating yourself, and your objections are not any more substantial than before.--Eloquence 15:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Note also, removal of the image may be a violation of WN:NOT policy. Wikinews is not censored. I agree with Eloquence's discussions above, and the NPOV objection is not actionable. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 18:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with eloquence. my objections previously was to having about 20 photos that were extremly grusome. That was just to ofend people, this is to represent the story. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 19:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm defending my "right to be bold" and am removing this image once again on basis of: a) barely relates, as I do not believe this is one of the "new images", and b) the image does not enhance the story at all, therefore is redundant and only takes up bandwidth of both the servers and the readers. Eloquence, you're going to have to read the other part of that statement of WN:NOT, and I really want to hear a defining argument as to why that picture should be included in the article. So far, I've heard nothing. Nothing except some users asserting that my removal of the pictures constitutes an edit based on bias. I'm sick of it. Users have used my opinions in the way I wish they wouldn't have, and are now asserting my edits on it. I'm afraid this wiki has no reason to be a wiki anymore. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MrM, quite frankly, I am not interested in your "beliefs", especially when being bold you better have evidence to what you are claiming, especially if you are directly contradicting the information given in the sources (which I must assume you are aware of, otherwise your "boldness" bust can only be seen as "aggressive uniformed babbeling" at best). --vonbergm 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all lets calm down and Not murderlize each other. First the image is what the story is about, so I want to hear how it doesn't relate. Seccond, lets hear an argument on why the picture shouldn't be here. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look up. See reasoning.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Under what basis don't you believe its one of the New images?
 * 2) If its what the story is about how is it redundant?
 * 3) A picture is worth a thousand words. even if its just a company logo or something, I wouldn't consider it useless. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The photo should be included because the article is about the photos, and therefore the photos themselves are clearly relevant. Despite many claims to the contrary, I still see no actionable objection regarding neutrality. The offending nature of the images have no relevance to the neutrality of inclusion. At this point I support keeping the image. However, if it isn't one of the "new" images, as MrM has suggested, then the image may need to be changed. MrM, do you have anything that supports this? - Borofkin 02:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, however there hasn't been a present source of it being a new image, either. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like you haven't even read the sources! As I already said, the sources claim that it is new. Since you are probably still not really interested in reading the whole sources, try the salon.com source and flip through the image gallery. But next time please read the sources before "being bold". And how about putting that picture back, or are we playing the game of "changing reasons"? --vonbergm 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we gotta go there with pictures that support the story. Not to, means missing news. -Edbrown05 07:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Trail of blood image - new?
The Salon article on this issue contains a link to an image gallery. The image gallery says "Editors note: to the best of our knowledge, none of these images have been previously published (with the exception of the final image)." The caption under the image in question (two trails of blood leading down a hallway) says this: "The CID report does not identify this photo of a bloody cell. A document in this file suggests the possibility this scene may be related to a shootout incident. According to the CID investigation, a shootout occurred on Nov. 24, 2003, aftera detainee 'obtained a weapon and fired several rounds' at military police. The detainee was 'wounded in the leg and extracted from his cell". - Borofkin 04:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Abu Ghraib 10.jpg|thumb|left|100px|The pic Salon ran with]] I did prefer Salon's choice of lead photo, as it is more unambiguously inexplicable, though it would give the appearance of copying the Salon article. Is anyone else embarrased that, in all likelihood, Salon managed to do this story without the interference of POV warriors producing one specious reason after another not to include any photo at all?  StrangerInParadise 08:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the image of the blood trails was chosen in part because it is considered less offensive than some of the other newly released photos. MrMisc, as stated above, this is one of the new photos and therefore clearly relevant to the story. The truth is that we've had cases of much more symbolic and less directly related pictures in Wikinews stories -- pictures of cities, flags, objects, etc. So even if it was just one of the Abu Ghraib photos, such as the famous one with the hooded man, I would still make a case that it is relevant (when properly captioned) to the topic of the story.

But, it is not just one of them -- it is one of the newly released ones. Your argument boils down to "offensiveness", and that is a very subjective criterion. Unless there's a rough consensus in the community that something is offensive, it should not be censored. Such a consensus is clearly not visible here, so please do not edit war to impose your personal view of offensiveness on others. This is especially true given that we're already deliberately using a compromise photo that does not really reveal much. Compare this with, for example, the German weekly newsmagazine Der Spiegel, which has a photograph of a feces-covered prisoner on its colored frontpage, on newsstands all across Germany this week.

Again, if you feel that the particular photo selected here is ill-suited, you're free to suggest a different one. But we're already being very cautious in what we show, and I feel that you're taking a hardliner position which is not helpful.--Eloquence 11:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Me?! What hard-liner approach?! I was just commenting on Salon's choice, and that the attempts to suppress the photo is itself an exercise in POV-warring, this is hardly me edit-warring. Please reread what I said, as I was supporting you.
 * StrangerInParadise 13:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My comment was in response to MrMisc, sorry for being unclear.--Eloquence 14:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I tagged it NPOV. There are other pictures that are dated 2006 that can be used. We do not need to display a pool/trail of blood. No one has been convicted of murder, and this image depicts that someone has been killed. Until anyone on here can prove to me that someone was killed then we cannot have this (current) image. Otherwise, it is NOT the job of Wikinews to make ANY judgement on any case, including murder. We cannot display a picture that ASSUMES (POV) that someone was killed. Thats the message that this picture sends. Also, By the mere fact that anyone disputes this image also represents that this image is NOT NPOV. And therefore this issue needs to be resolved. Would you want your kid or teenager reading Wikinews and seeing this image? Jason Safoutin 13:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no such judgment, interpretation or conclusion except in your head. What other image would you suggest? Instead of tagging, please make constructive proposals.--Eloquence 14:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

From the above, this doesn't seem to be related to the abuse at all - but rather an unrelated shootout. So, I'm not seeing the relevence it has. There doesn't need to be a photo here, and I do not see it enhancing the article at all. This is about the detainee abuse, right? Then why publish a photo as a result of something that may not have been related at all to it? There's nothing that links the photo to the abuse, based on what was posted above by Borofkin.

And Eloquence, view my messages above. I have listed a few examples of images which I think would enhance the article, but at the same time not show any gory items. This current one, I do not see how it enhances the article at all. And it isn't relevent. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Use an image that show a prisoner maybe? there are a hundred to choose from. I stated my reasons for another image. And since there IS a concensus for a new one, or none at all, please do not remove tags. Jason Safoutin 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Back to develop!
This is cracy. As I was, but not the creator of this article but, major contributor and part of this editconflict I take the privilige to move it back to develop for solving all disputes before publishing. After that is fixed I suggest page is protected and date bumped. My view is known so I dont have to participate much more in this case. International 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the dispute will not be solved to the satisfaction of MrM and Jason,imo, but the consensus is clearly in favour of publishing as the article is right now; so I support SIP's republishing. Neutralizer 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have learned to my cost, being either a major contributor or even an originator affords an editor no privileges, even those of simple courtesy. StrangerInParadise 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, sorry for taking the privilege of playing devils lawyer. International 20:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Commons: Bad link
The Commons link at the photo is to a redirect (which had been deleted; I restored it). Correct link should be to Commons Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected 'familar' => 'familiar' Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Anonymous101talk 08:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)