Talk:Two Iraqi women, one pregnant, killed by US soldiers

title
Even the title is POV. Article reads like the US have sinned. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well title represent facts, article not published yet so you are free to npov article instead of tagg it. international 23:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And suggest better title, specify your objections if you dont going to edit. The sin theory is, though quite interesting, to vague to motivate a npovtag and I tend to fall in atheistic reasoning mostly international 00:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Title and article seem accurate; even if disturbing. If it was about al-queda "beheading" people it would not be seen as POV nor as an accusation that it read like al queda have sinned. I see no actionable objection. 64.229.67.118 00:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats my opinion also international 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the title is somewhat out of context, which lends itself to being misinterpreted upon first reading. I was taken aback when I first read the headline, but upon reading the article and understanding the context of the situation, I better understood the action. Basically, I think a more apt title would be something along the lines of "U.S. troops kill pregnant Iraqi woman in car entering restricted area", but probably a bit more succicnt. I think a title along these lines will effectively address the concerns of those that see bias in the title. Braincandle 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That goes to the extreme of providing an excuse for the shooting; which armed forces of any country always seem to have. The killing is a known factwhereas the "restricted area" is only info from the US side. The Post headline says "US troops kill a pregnant Iraqi woman in Iraq"; maybe we should just use that. 64.229.67.118 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ummm ... the title reads like the troops entered the clearly whatever zone. i don't see a pressing need for an exculpatory explanation in the title itself. what's wrong with a troops shoot dead pregnant woman title (which lays out what is "notable" about the incident) and a lead paragraph that clearly states what the circumstances of the killing are? the one story i read on this incident highlighted that the signs around prohibited areas and not always clear (esp. the safe distance from convoys). so i don't see why the troops view of it's supposed clarity shld enter the headline.
 * all that said, how does "Pregnant Iraqi woman shot for entering no-go area" or the active voice equivalent of, sound?. Doldrums 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This title is clearly pov as the driver claims he didnt see any signs. international 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," international 02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Somewiki have to change or revert title imho international 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * done. Doldrums 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its better, maybe closest to npov we get for now international 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But why "shoot dead"? "killed" is more adequate, we talking humans here. international 03:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: "US troops kill pregnant Iraqi woman for entering a "no-go"" international 03:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)  Maybe good enouth...
 * "US troops kill pregnant Iraqi women" is the best,imo. 64.229.30.162 05:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The current title is silly. It can be interpreted as to mean "U.S. troops pregnant women WHo WERE ALREADY DEAD." Someone change it.

The current title is not "silly". It reflects the story. As a title is supposed to. Greenknight 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the new title is much-improved. Personally, I am more sympathetic to unarmed Iraqi civilians than armed foreign troops, but I think the title does a better job of summarzing the story now. Braincandle 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs some serious POV neutralization. MyName


 * The title is factual in nature. We don't need to change it simply because it reflects badly on U.S troops. PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] (Talk) 05:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

related news
''Since the military began a criminal investigation of the massacre on 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha, west of Baghdad, the number of investigations on misconduct of US forces in Iraq has grown. US military spokesman Major-General William Caldwell said "There are three or four at least at this time" when questioned about how many other similar incidents been investigated. About details and the status of these investigations Spokesman Caldwell said that they are in "the first stages".''

This statement has nothing to do with the article along with the related news. Jason Safoutin 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree; it's in the sources and when talking about a fresh terrorist attack it is ok to show the numerous and continual quotes referencing the 5 year old 9/11 event...so it's also ok to mention other associated investigations of US killings of civilians. 64.229.187.194 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well thats a POV and goes against WN:NPOV. The incident is NOT related to the previous events. Jason Safoutin 02:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing pov in this, maybe litle kind to those with pov to make us force lock better. But it establish a link to similar incidents witch widly discussed in all mayor media. To remove this link is povpushing as it already is 'soft formulated' and can be much more harch. I edit it back international 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite; paragraph as it was suggested conviction by media of "misconduct" and taking part in a "massacre"&mdash;they may well have been, but that's supposed to be up to military and/or civilian courts, not the press.  Radio Kirk    talk to me   04:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I made clarification in your rewrite, hope you think its ok. Related news is a term quite common used and I changed it back from Other news. And the 'massacre' is common used about the incident whish enough info and fewer argue against that it was the fact. international 04:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, notice the source says "alleged massacre". Even in quotes, the use of the term is prejudicial without sourcing the comment or using "alleged" (and, "related" got lost in the revert and, as a news reporter IRL, it still makes me nervous).  Radio Kirk    talk to me   04:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept alleged massacre or alleged massmurder. But you reverted my changes that is more accurate. It is US troops and the 24 dead iraqis are civilians. "According to the Wall St Journal, there is evidence that marines killed civilians, including women and children, without provocation." international 04:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, per the source, I'll grant "US marines" instead of the "coalition forces" I had seen in other reports. On the other hand, this source states:
 * "According to initial US military reports, 15 civilians and eight insurgents died after a bomb killed a marine in Haditha, a militant stronghold in Anbar Province."
 * So, again, any suggestion that all victims were civilians is, at the very least, disputed.  Radio Kirk    talk to me   04:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Compromise text per the source; also, "mass murder" is two words :)  Radio Kirk    talk to me </tt>  04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanx for correcting the bad spelling. The initial US military reports is clearly a cowerup an even it by definition is the second side of the story its lost its truthwortyness and we dont have to bring npov to absurdum. international 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way I wait little more clarity about a related story that develop befor I writ a new article because of very diferent statements. Maybe that is wrong to let it lose heat but easyer and more etical. international 05:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how "clear" any cover-up is; as stated at Wikipedia, the standard is "verifiability, not truth", and the same holds for a properly formatted news story. Want to assert cover-up? Quote a reliable source. Otherwise, it appears to push your own POV, even if you're perfectly neutral. :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  05:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is my last change adressing your pov concerns? Now both side of story reported. international 05:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Amgine reverted the mitigating sentence; I've put it back because the paragraph reads as intentionally damning without it. I will point out that I still find the relevance of that entire paragraph to the incident quite shaky. <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

title change
to my knowledge, that the US military has not contested the shooting or the entering, so i don't really see a reason for attributing in the title, the attribution makes it look like the claim is a debatable/contested one. i'm considering reverting to the old title. Doldrums 02:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I write news for a living; the first rule is "attribute". While the US military does not dispute the shooting, it does dispute the particulars, and those must be attributed or they betray a POV. I've also done something of a major rewrite; feel free to comment. :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * oops, didn't see ur comment before changing. note the first line in NYT says "The American military command said Wednesday that United States troops had fatally shot two Iraqi women whose vehicle failed to stop after entering a "prohibited area"". Doldrums 02:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * so what is in the headline is not disputed, hence need not be attributed in the headline itself. Doldrums 02:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Meantime, the dead women were passengers; I'll agree to the revert if the title is changed to US troops kill pregnant Iraqi woman in car entering "no-go" zone. Title as is suggests she was doing so herself. <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * i have no opinion on adding "in car". Doldrums 02:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. A good collaboration, I think :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How about, "Iraqi Woman killed as car enters "no-go" zone" MyName

Or, "Pregnant Iraqi Woman killed as car enters "no-go" zone" but pregnant seems unnessary for a title. MyName 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * the style guide (link at top of page) has many guidelines and suggestions on framing the headline. reg. ur suggestions above, active voice headlines are preferred, the "pregnant" is notable about this incident, i (and every other news source i've seen) think. Doldrums 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

lead paragraph
do the witness and police account confirm the "no-go" area? the US confirmation of the incident needs to be added to the opening paragraph. how about something along the lines of

"Two women, one of them about to give birth, were shot dead by US forces as they rode in a car according to witnesses and Iraqi police Capt. Laith Mohammed. US military officials confirmed the fatal shooting shooting, and said that the soldiers fired as the car entered a prohibited area and failed to stop on warning/demand/command." Doldrums 02:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, sort of; the lead was supposed to include the location and I lost that in the rewrite. The lead now states facts only and leaves "zones" to the witnesses/officers. (Edit: this is where writing for radio can hurt me from a print perspective; in radio, the mantra is "get to the point.") <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

POV
The article seems to be focusing on the fact that US troops killed woman, rather than being neutral to the incident. IMOHO MyName 03:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to be frank, that is the incident. :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  03:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that but, I feel in order to "balance" the article out either:

1. The Title should read, "Pregnant Iraqi woman killed by US troops in car entering "no-go" zone"

Or

2. The quote about US apologizing should go before the quote about the Iraqi person asking God to take revenge on the U.S.A.

That way both sides of the incident will get their “fair say” in some part of the article MyName 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * i've no problem with 1. but i think the victim's brother gets a say before some mealy-mouthed spokesman expressing "regret" (there's no apology, btw). Doldrums
 * Agreed MyName 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, as this a he-said-she-said type of situation, the structure demands it follow. As written, the story succinctly states who/what/where/when/why, and the "why" is explained by the driver. Continuing his quote makes sense in the context, and also makes sense as it allows the rebuttal of the quote (which cannot textally be rebutted until it's made) to follow. Meantime, the title Pregnant Iraqi woman killed by US troops in car entering "no-go" zone suggests the troops were in the car... :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  03:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How about, "Pregnant Iraqi woman killed by US troops as car enters "no-go" zone"? MyName 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * also, I'll thow out sugesstion 2
 * I presume you mean "throw" (sorry, I'm a spelling pedant)? As for the title, they're substantially the same and not worth changing, IMHO :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, your way works. Also, I'm not going to tell a seasoned veteran what to do after I've just been a vandal for three weeks :) MyName 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a 12-year veteran newsman, but still new at WN :) <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  04:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The title is actual in nature and should not be changed just because it reflects badly on the U.S troops concerned. The fact is they killed a pregnant woman. The title simply represents that fact. We are not responsible for what conclusions readers may draw from this fact. PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]]  (Talk) 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * About the title, really, whats the problem with the original one? I suggest we us "US troops kill pregnant Iraqi woman" Article explain the circumstanses. international 06:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with international. The point was the woman was killed. If a U.S soldier is killed, we will keep the title as "American soldier killed by insurgents in Iraq". We will not change the title to "American soldier killed by insurgents in Iraq for supposedly oppressing the people of that country and for invading it under the mistaken assumption that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction." We don't need to explain any reasons in the title itself, we can mention them in the article. PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]]  (Talk) 08:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * U.S. probes killing of pregnant Iraqi (CNN)
 * U.S. Troops Kill Pregnant Woman in Iraq (Associated Press)
 * US forces shoot at vehicle, kill pregnant Iraqi woman in labour (The Jamaica Observer)
 * Two Iraqi women killed at US checkpoint (Middle East Online)
 * So, some went longer, some shorter. My personal preference after reading the objections and these headlines would be a variation of the last one:
 * Two Iraqi women, one pregnant, killed in car at US checkpoint
 * "US checkpoint" implies US troops. <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that idea for a headline. MyName 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, per no objections for nearly six hours <tt> Radio Kirk </tt>  <tt> talk to me </tt>  02:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do have an objection, I was unable to voice it earlier (within 6 hours) due to a difference in timezones, it was too late in the night. I have changed the title to make it clear that the woman was killed by US soldiers, otherwise it may appear that insurgents killed her while she was at a US checkpoint. PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] (Talk) 09:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it fact it was real checkpont? seem to me we take US POV for title? Driver said no checkpont,just bullets. Yrtsihpos 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)