Talk:U.S. Government ordered to release more images related to Abu Ghraib case

Good article! This unsigned comment was made by Nyarlathotep

Where's the media???
Let's get it out; let freedom ring! Neutralizer 22:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No real justification
for holding back this story,imo. Its nice and tight as is. Neutralizer 00:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's terrible; it describes nothing and is bordering on NPOV. Do you not understand we have a standard for QUALITY on this site?  The article, in its present form, does not reflect that.  But, you could always spend more time working on it rather than making dissenting comments and accusing others of protecting others on the talk page.  Choice is up to you.  --Mrmiscellanious 00:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't it hypocritical that you aren't "working on it"? Also,.please quit baiting me into an argument and trying to disrupt the site. You were not involved in this article at all until I tried to publish it + no one else is agreeing with you that it's a "terrible" story. Neutralizer 10:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into this again, "Neutralizer". If it's not professional - it won't get published.  And there is no one that can argue in a viable way that this article, in its present form, is even semi-professional.  Stop whining about others and actually do something.  From the big bully, --Mrmiscellanious 13:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attack characterizations "whining". Only you want to stop the publishing of this article as it currently is. I certainly do not think you qualify for the term "bully" so please stop the false insinuations; and PLEASE put the personal comments on the my talk page from now on; not on this article's talk page. Neutralizer 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutralizer, You need to keep a cool head about this sort of thing. Here are some simple strategies for dealing with perceived or real editorial bias: Always remember that you are right to push your agenda here, as this is the only way wikinews gets articles, but individual articles should be as NPOV as is reasonable. - Nyarlathotep 11:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Make a recongnizable effort to make the story "more" NPOV, but don't violate your agenda in doing so.
 * 2) Flame wars never push your agenda.  Be generally helpful, good natured, and trying to make a better story always does.
 * 3) Put real work into finding additional information which supports your agenda, a task which can make any story more NPOV and lets you channel your anger away from flame wars.  By doing this in an NPOV way, you effectively scilence "disinterested but hostile" editors, such as those who might simply want a story to be dropped.  Example:  If the story stands accused of NPOV by virtue of linking two tenuously related things, you can usualy split the story into two seperate stories, both of which push your original comparison agenda through internal crosslinks and as related news, both of which are much more NPOV on their own, and require a hostile editor to do more work to oppose them.  Plus you garner more frontpage space for your information.
 * 4) If the tager does not leave a comment on the talk page, and you had a hard time making it any more NPOV, you may accuse them of "tag and dash" on the talk page.  If they do not respond with explicit suggestions within 8 hours, it will seriously discredit them and their tag, making it more likely that a third person will remove it.  Clearly other people need to agree with your assesment that it is already NPOV for this to work.
 * 5) If the tager leave vague and useless comments, as is common with those pushing a conservative agenda, you must try to reinterpret their critisism in a sane way.  Often their are just a few small parts of the article which use "over the top" POV phrasing.  You can usualy rephrase these to both better support your agenda but be more NPOV.  You should then politely respond on the talk page by explaining what you've interpreted their comment to mean; thus making it clear that they did not think much about it but that you thought about it for them, again discrediting further suggestions of theirs.

P.S. Here I've added the Bush administration's silly claims about insighting terrorists to make the article more balanced. But I've also inserted the judges statment that their claims are silly and wrong, which actually makes the story more balanced while pushing your original agenda even more!


 * Thank you; I'll give it a try; what I'm doing now isn't working that well,I must admit. Neutralizer 13:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not push your agenda in Wikinews articles at all. There is no way to do so without destroying the value of the article. Please READ THE NPOV POLICY. A method of "pushing an agenda" on Wikinews is with the SUBJECT CHOICE of your contributions, but you cannot within the articles themselves push an agenda. Repeated posting of NPOV material is considered a disruption to the Wiki, therefore vandalism, and is grounds for blocking. Please see the blocking policy. Policies may be found at Policies and guidelines - Amgine/talk 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also realize that while admins may be sympathetic to your agenda, they cannot put that before the policies of the wiki.

Uncensoring
I have replaced the previous edit which included the gripping and riveting aspects of this story. If its too ugly to read,then don't read it. Neutralizer 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please explain why a quote from a US Gov't report about its own abuses is relevant to a FOIA court case news article? I have removed the quote as it clearly is not NPOV in this article. - Amgine/talk 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The quote goes to explaining the Bush administrations position on insighting terrorists, so we can keep it. However, I had a bit of trouble working it into the narative. - Nyarlathotep 10:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The quote says nothing of the kind. It is not related to the FOIA court case. It makes the article a dismissable partisan attack because it is misleading, biased, and irrelevant to the facts about the court order. It is relevant to what the administration is attempting to keep out of the public eye, but that is not what this article is about. - Amgine/talk 00:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Johnodee,Nyarlathotep and myself feel this quote belongs in this published story, so I have put it back Neutralizer 12:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Develop" tagged once more
This story needs much work on it to describe more about the case, as well as the ruling. Surely for an article with so much sources it shouldn't be difficult to add more. All editors of this article please read the Content guide, the style guide, the three revert rule (becoming close to some users' counts), and all other policies and guidelines. Remember, we do want our published articles to reflect professionalism. --Mrmiscellanious 00:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry MrM. you are the only one who thinks it's not ready to publish. Neutralizer 11:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, MrM was right, it needed the administration stated objections, as well as the judges dismissal of those objections. It could also stand with a wrapup paragraph about all the other times this administration has tried to silence pictures, like the New Orleans bodies, soldier coffins, etc.  As I said above, if you feel your being unfairly treated by an editor with a conservative bias, you can simple burry them in good writing and good information. - Nyarlathotep 11:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Or alternately continue as you are doing right now - bury them in misleading titles and your own willingness to bend the truth to serve your obvious bias. Claiming that "various sources" indicate that there are images of child rape involved when in fact this is based solely on the testimony of one detainee shows a total lack of any resembling journalistic integrity on your part. But I'm sure you're aware of that already. I am in agreement with Mrmiscellanious in my belief that this article should not be published as it currently stands. - Unsigned comment by 144.37.176.56

Title needs to reflect the real story
As the Senator says; this story is not just about more images of humiliation. This story is about images of child rape.Please let's not be sanitizing the story. Neutralizer 11:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, titles should be interestng. - Nyarlathotep 12:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest: Court orders U.S. Government to release Abu Ghraib "rape and murder" images, as that reflects the content via a quote.

Great story; made lead
The existing lead story has been sitting there for days and is boring,imo. This story,on the other hand, is riveting and has not been saturating the newswires as has the appointment story. If anyone has a better lead story, please go ahead. Neutralizer 11:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

So, where are the photos? or can someone define "release"?
A...judge...ordered the release of...photos and videos. So, have they been released? Has the release been limited in some way (eg, not to the public)? Has the ordered release not happened yet?

Leaving these questions unanswered makes the story confusing. 85.28.66.218 13:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Government is masterful at delay and deflection when things go against them...this is just one more example of that; I would not be surprised if the images are never seen by anyone other than members of the US government who saw them many,many months ago. Hopefully someone will put them on the internet which is the only platform for free speech left. Neutralizer 14:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's all very interesting, but I came here to discuss improving the article. Is there no one that knows the meaning of a judge ordering the release of photos? 85.28.66.218 18:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The judge's order undoubtedly includes a timeline when it must be complied with - one of the many facts not reported in this article. The current administration has a history of ignoring FOIA orders it plans to appeal, and usually requests injunctions staying the decision only when they are taken back to court to enforce decisions. It is likely the administration is engaging in the same legal delaying tactics in this case.


 * When the media are released, they will be released only to the requesting parties and may have additional restrictions on their publication based on a case-by-case basis. In other words, if they are allowed to do so Human Rights Watch may choose to make them available or not - it's up to them. In previous decisions they have made publically available all documents they are allowed to make publically available. - Amgine/talk 19:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that your second paragraph would be a good addition to the article. Part or all of your first paragraph would be good too, but would need some backing up or some "may/might/can" softening words. 85.28.66.218 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we put some of the photos up when they are released? Does wikinews have rules about pictures of people being killed? Alos what happened to the infobox, etc. - Nyarlathotep 14:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We try to keep Wikinews open to all people - no matter age, ethnicity, etc. - so, I would like to ask all users here to not upload any graphic photos (even if fair use) or use extremely profane language in articles (as well as other items that may be extremely offensive to people - such as decapitated persons, pornography, etc.). I just don't want to see Wikinews on public computer blocklists for small items such as this, and to tell the truth - I don't believe they would help the story all that much.  --Mrmiscellanious 20:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A vandal blanked the story, he has been blocked and I reverted it back to the version before the vandalism (the one with the infobox etc). While we have no policy on it general consensus here and on pedia is disturbing images should be linked to not included in the story. --Cspurrier 15:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the external links be about this story?
More than half of the external links are not about the release of these photos at all. They are links to old articles about old photos. Since this is an article about the news of new photos being released - and not an encyclopedia article about Abu Grhraib torture photos in general - I think the links that are not about this story should be removed. It would be useful to have an Abu Ghraib category, so that anyone looking for old info about Abu Ghraib could find it easily. No? 85.28.66.218 18:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure, some of them are clearly old, but also about these photos. Which ones are not?  - Nyarlathotep 20:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nyarlathotep's paragraph
The final paragraph is good, however... "The Bush administration claimed that the images would provoke terrorists further." Do we have a source which states this? If not, it is a factual statement which is not supported and must be removed. I suspect it should read "The Bush administration claimed the images might provoke further terrorist actions." But even then it must have a supporting source. - Amgine/talk 21:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The AP article say "U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected government arguments that the images would provoke terrorists and incite violence against U.S. troops in Iraq." Maybe we should try to resort the sources, with the best ones at the top? - Nyarlathotep 23:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably. Good call on the source for this statement; I hadn't seen that line. (The AP article is overstating the administration's arguement, imo, since no lawyer would be fool enough to state something would do/cause something.) - Amgine/talk 00:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Develop (once more)
Upon reviewing the content of the article, I removed the quote from the Senator that was made over a year ago because it was not related to the ruling described in the article. In addition, I also removed numerous sources that did not contribute or even relate to the article in question. The quote from the detainee has been removed as well, as there is no consensus to include it and it does not relate to the ruling. --Mrmiscellanious 03:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)