Talk:Hearing testimony; U.S. soldiers took turns raping 14 year old Iraqi girl before killing her

To start with this is single source, just edited slightly differently by the two sources.

It should, up-front, make it clear this is the trial of a previously reported on case, not sensationalise as if it is a report on a new event.

So, yes, per the edit summary it needs a lot of NPOV work. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think actually the second AP article is a report about other testimony at the trial which seems to provide a sort of "guilty with explanation" defense. The articles are not alike,imo, but I'll seek out another source for the trial. Perhaps the word "trial" should be in the title? Neutralizer 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ok I found a Wash Post staff writer source; will try to weave that into the article. Neutralizer 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Too late for me, but this was probably a very long newswire report and what you're finding as sources are edits to suit the editorial position of people like the Globe and Mail. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ok,thanks Brian, I think the washington post is a separate source as they give no credit to AP at all. So that'll be the second source. Neutralizer 23:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No need for more sources. If anywikinewsie want it there is plenty out there... I publish. international 01:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

unpublish
while it presents a detailed account of the testimony presented, article fails to mention what the news event is: trial of accused underway, in what jurisdiction?, what stage is the trial in? what, if anything, have the accused pleaded? btw, am also intending to shortening the headline. if anyone has any suggestions, post a note on the talk page below. Doldrums 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the additional source's details regarding the nature of the hearing will be sufficient. I will shorten the title as well and maybe others can change it if they knows of one better. Neutralizer 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Old News
This story is so August 7.

What is the point of putting it up August 9?

--216.75.93.110 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And not to mention, this is completely one-sided.


 * Disagree; the defense testimony is included in the article without the prosecutors' description of that testimony as being ridiculous;

'Murder not war. Rape not war. That's what were here talking about today," prosecutor Capt. Alex Pickands said in his closing argument before the three-day hearing concluded. "Cold food didn't kill that family. Personnel assignments didn't rape and murder that 14-year-old little girl.'" This version could be included as a source if the article was to be completely reflective of the testimony. If anything, the article gives more sway to the unanswered defense excuses for the events. Neutralizer 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One comment to combat a whole article is not balanced, and does not meet the NPOV policy of the WMF. (Unsigned by IP 66.227.194.89)
 * In a report from a hearing like this, who is the part whos POV is not heard here? international 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreadable
How much of the stuff in the middle is Bierce's testimony? But the real point of publishing an article that was news to days ago is to put the words U.S. soldiers and rape together and see how many times we can repeat that. This article is not biased in its writing, perhaps, yet it is unable to hide the fact that its creator is totally biased.--SVTCobra 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to wikinews; noone owns articles here. Please feel free to edit the article. One point to consider is that this hearing, much like a grand jury hearing, is by its nature quite one-sided as the prosecution has to bring out enough evidence to justify a trial. This news story is not about the event as the event did happen some months ago. This article is about this hearing only which is the only real news about the event. Neutralizer 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * SCTCobra is right, it is not easy to read, I can rework the first few paragraphs (and have done so), but beyond the section I commented out it is impossible to follow who said what, about who, etc. It just seems to flail about aimlessly in an effort to say the U.S. military employs "evil" people. --81.241.158.236 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is bizarre and unfounded to say that the US military employs "evil" people. I object to that slurr on the military servicepeople and do not see anywhere in the article where these accused are said to be evil and the only accusations about them come from other military service people. Please try not to be combative with the editors; if you fgeel they are being slandered, write a letter to the US prosecuters who are saying these things. Neutralizer 01:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

some confusion on number of soldiers
Green is not one of the soldiers charged in the Article 32 hearing because he is no longer in the military. He was discharged for a personality disorder before being charged "Green has pleaded not guilty to rape and murder charges in federal court in Kentucky". He would be the fifth soldier and 4 other soldiers are charged in the Baghdad pre-court martial hearing. It is difficult to report US court activities because of the various red-herrings like the age of the rape victim(remember we were reporting her as being 25 at first). However, we must take the time to read the sources thoroughly and try to present the news as simply and clearly as we can,istm. In this matter there will be a trial in the USA for the ringleader, Green, and this story is about the possible court martial of the other 4. I propose that we leave Green's trial out of this news article. Also fixed sources assuming that Brian's appraisal is correct about Globe and Mail being the author of 2 sources. Neutralizer 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)