Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Manadel al-Jamadi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wording

[edit]

"Died during interrogation at Abu Ghraib prison". Now that's a nice way to put it... GregorB 20:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

As I commented above, the initial intro of this article read "died during interrogation at Abu Ghraib prison". Back then, I changed it to "tortured to death during interrogation at Abu Ghraib prison". Now it's "thought to have been tortured to death".

I find it still a bit too weasely. The article documents well that he was indeed tortured to death, as confirmed by multiple witness accounts, and further backed by authopsy findings. There is nothing uncertain nor unclear about this, nor there is a reasonable alternative explanation of his death - at least none that is mentioned in the article. Therefore, I'm changing it back to the prior wording. GregorB 17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That happens in war. It's unfortunate 100.10.63.205 (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to change it to the "tortured to death part" 68.147.221.49 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)sammyG[reply]

I dislike the wording "...tortured to death..." in the opening line, as I believe that represents a statement of opinion. If it's a statement of fact, can someone point me to an external source, where a neutral source established that he was in fact "tortured to death", and not simply "was killed as a result of repeated beatings and a Palestinian hanging"? I see the "tortured to death" line (especially in the opening line of the article) lending itself to a potential NPOV tag unless it's backed up with external sources. UUbuntu 04:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the previous "tortured to death" wording. I believe the text of the article itself fully supports this, as I explained above (21 October 2006 comment). GregorB 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UUbuntu, i would say "tortured to death", and "was killed as a result of repeated beatings and a Palestinian hanging" were synonymous. particlularly in the context of interrogation--Mongreilf (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graner and Harman phtographs

[edit]

The use of the photos of Chuck Graner and Sabrina Harman seems excessive. Neither was involved in al-Jamadi's death, only in its documentation, and the use of these photos distracts attention from the article. There are many other photos of al-Jamadi in the body bag that could be used here, while these photos are found in many articles. --Vrmlguy (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interrogators

[edit]

The DoD investigation docs show two CIA interrogators, also they describe the conditions much better than the article does, and the chain of events, together with the length of the interrogation. Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Appropriate Use of Language with respect to American War Crimes (Moved from reference desk)

[edit]

Manadel al-Jamadi was murdered in 2003 while in U.S. custody at Abu Graib Prison in Iraq. On the page about him it merely claims he died while in U.S. custody. Dying is something that happens naturally. Murder is a crime. Why doesn't this article hold the U.S. military accountable for this war crime by calling it what it actually was (i.e. a murder as as opposed to a mere "death")? Such language is necessary to accurately convey the nature of what went on there.

This article treats its subject far too softly. It also creates a double standard for Iraqis since all the dead American casualities are always reported as having been "killed" (which is a a variation on murder). This implies that American lives were "taken", whereas the Iraqi's lives simply ended. There is no accountability on the American side.

This may sound trivial and, yes, it is obvious that anyone who reads the article will quickly understand that what happened there wasn't just an ordinary "death". But nevertheless, for the sake of fairness and consistency, I think we ought to re-word it. Just because the mainstream (western) media all report it this way is not a justification in itself for our doing so as well.

Just as it is possible to damn someone with faint praise, it is also possible to praise someone with faint condemnation. That, in my opinion, is what this article is doing in it's treatment of this war crime. 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Chuck1278 (talk)

What is the article in which this appears, and have you taken up this issue on the relevant talk page? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, the word "murder" is normally only used after there has been a conviction in a court of law. "Alleged murder" is acceptable beforehand. And "killing" is not a variation on murder, since killing during war isn't a crime, in many cases (killing somebody in custody or killing a non-combatant, intentionally, is a crime). StuRat (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Killed doesn't imply murdered at all, a soldier acting within the laws of war can legitimately kill an unsurrendered enemy combatant. Regarding article content, articles are meant to follow the preponderance of reliable sources, and where multiple weighty legitimate descriptions exist, use and differentiate all descriptions. If the death of Manadel al-Jamadi is commonly described as a murder in reliable sources, or in a significant body of reliable sources, then the article should be amended and citations noted. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To add to Stu's reply, even if it is determined that a crime was committed, using "murder" still may be inappropriate because "murder" is defined as a specific kind of homicide. There are other types of negligent homicide that would not be called "murder" such as manslaughter (which itself can be further broken down into "voluntary manslaughter" and "involuntary manslaughter"). In any case, as Fifelfoo points out, the terminology used in a WP article should be that which is used in the (reliable) sources upon which the article is based.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dying implies nothing about whether it happened naturally or not. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That very much depends on the context. For example:
  • "When did President Kennedy die?"
  • He died on 22 November 1963 - That gets a tick, because it's answering the question asked.
On the other hand:
Can we at least link to the article: Manadel al-Jamadi. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Manadel al-Jamadi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Manadel_al-Jamadi&oldid=1258649428"