Talk:Kristian Menchaca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kristian Menchaca article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force

Contents 1 Merge 2 I disagree with TomtheHand 3 Name for merged article 4 Ogrish is not a reliable source

[edit] Merge

I believe this article and Thomas Lowell Tucker should be merged and placed at a new title. These two soldiers are not notable in and of themselves. Their notability stems from their kidnapping and murder. There should be one article dealing with that. TomTheHand 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I must say i disagree, when there were other hostages kidnaped, wiki never connected their articles even if they had same fate

Yes, I see no reason they shouldn't be merged into Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Lowell Tucker.--Pharos 20:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

DISAGREE these are two seperate indiviuals and once more time is given to each article for more information to be added it will develop both articles seperatly. These two indiviuals had seperate lifes and the only common point they have was when they were killed by the Iraqi insurgents.Bnguyen 04:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but their common point, the manner in which they were kidnapped together and killed by Iraqi insurgents, is the entire reason why they're in the encyclopedia.--Pharos 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Their separate lives are not notable; the notable thing is the incident in which they were killed, which is what should be covered by an encyclopedia article. We aren't going to have an article about every private in the US Army. TomTheHand 11:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur, one article describing the attack and its aftermath with biographical sections for the soldiers involved might be more appropriate. On the other hand, Wikipedia does have individual articles for several other executed hostages.--Wurmis 13:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Personal details and histories can be placed in their respective subarticle sections. -Fsotrain09 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this requires a larger merge then? Something like List of Coalition soldiers killed in post-invasion Iraq. Oberiko 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

MERGE - these articles should be merged. Neither entry would be here if it were not for the single tragic way in which they were murdered. Thanks Hu Gadarn 17:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

DISAGREE No merge.- To be on safe side, in case future content is added for both men, it is thus safer to have both articles share some information instead of having one article for both with seperate information added to each individual in that one article. It will get messy if they are merged. They are two different people, and have their own lives. Their families and friends might add more info on them in the near future. Thanks Infozeta 2:43, 12 July 2006

Information from families and friends does not belong here; Wikipedia is NOT a memorial. TomTheHand 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

One day, journalists, researchers, and writers will be using wikipedia for extensive research. The more detail an article has about a subject the better. Infozeta 2:49, 12 July 2006

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Stuff inserted by friends and family CANNOT go into Wikipedia. TomTheHand 12:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the researchers of the future have more sources than Wikipedia to help them navigate our place in history! Speaking of more detail the better - I don't think you mean this literally. For example, favorite colour is not likely useful information for our brothers and sisters of the future. As such, our interest in these two gentlemen and the tragedy that was inflicited on them is only relevant in its context, i.e. as part of the US/UK-Iraqi war/pacification and as a unique incident involving both men. Please MERGE. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

DISAGREE No merge. - I don't think the move betters the organization of this encyclopedia to combine these to articles. Look at the sections they are specifically about Menchaca. You have a mess combining them or more like it would result in a lot of deletion. We have an article about each Simpson character so why not real life people that have been involved in a notable event. And the suggestioned new names are too vague since there have been a lot of people kidnapped in Iraq. And one more thing this incident involved three people, not two. --SirYoda 07:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Since the merge tag is still there, I suppose people still want opinions. The incident is one event, and should have its own article. Create that first. If someone still wants to merge them with that after the single article is created, propose that. I think we'll still not want to do it. --Alvestrand 21:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I disagree with TomtheHand

So all the soldiers that were involved in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse in a Baghdad prison articles should be grouped together? Should all the executed foreigners and people in Iraq be grouped together in one article? The lives these men led and the individual reason why they joined the military is different. The only option that should be merged is the FACTS concerning their kidnapping and execution.Bnguyen 17:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The soldiers that were involved in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse all had very different involvements and have had different things happen to them since then; a single article would be confusing. That is why they have individual articles. The notable thing about these men is their kidnapping and execution, and that is the only thing that should have an article about it. They're just two privates out of thousands who wouldn't be in an encyclopedia otherwise. The lives they led and the individual reasons for joining the military are irrelevant; if that sort of thing were encyclopedic we'd need an article for each of the millions of men and women in the US military. We don't have an article about every American soldier who died in Iraq, or everyone who died on 9/11. We shouldn't have articles for every person whose only claim to fame is having died dramatically. TomTheHand 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Died dramatically" your comment is very insensitive and appalling. Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Lowell Tucker were tortured and then murdered by vicious terrorists. I am very displeased by your comments!Bnguyen 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Be displeased all you want. I'm not here to be sensitive to your feelings, I'm here to try to write a good encyclopedia. Rather than talking about how appalling my comment is, perhaps you might like to respond and tell me your policy on encyclopedia articles for people whose sole claim to fame is the manner of their death. Do you believe that every victim of 9/11 should have an encyclopedia article about them? If not, why? Should we have an article about every soldier who dies? If not, why?

If you are of the opinion that everyone who dies in a tragic way deserves an encyclopedia article written about them, please come out and say it. If not, explain what your criteria are. TomTheHand 18:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't people who died in a notable way get their own article? 199.200.252.17 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[[User:TomTheHand|TomTheHand] Made amazing point about abu gharaib now it was another massacre, 1st it was haditha, then mahmudyah or sometin, there wew 7 marines and one sailor involved in that, we simply cant merge all these ppl 2gether becouse they 2gether kidnaped and killed same guy, and acutaly that killing is reason why they will soon come on wiki, definetly i must say im against merging. Look at other kidnaped ppl, when 5 russians are kidnaped 4 example, they have separate bios, altho they were kidnaped 2gether... How can USA expect that Geneva convention is valid on their kidnaped soldiers, when they deny the same right to fighters that are chalenging them?

06/22/06 AP: U.S. investigates Iraq deaths - Salahuddin Salahuddin: Four U.S. soldiers have been charged in connection with the May deaths of three Iraqis who were in their custody. The detainees died during an operation near the Thar Thar Canal in northern Salahuddin province on May 9 06/22/06 AP: U.S. investigates Iraq deaths - Haditha Haditha: Investigation is ongoing into allegations that two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. Marines in the western town of Haditha on Nov. 19. Iraqi witnesses say after a Marine was killed by a roadside bomb troops went house-to-house... 06/22/06 AP: U.S. investigates Iraq deaths - Hamdania Seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with murder and kidnapping on June 21 in connection with the shooting death of an Iraqi man in Hamdania west of Baghdad. The man was reportedly pulled from his home April 26 and shot to death

Again, what is your criteria? Is it the fact that they were captured before they were killed? Or is it that they were on the news a lot? Is news coverage what makes these two individuals more notable than the thousands of other soldiers killed in Iraq who were not captured first? TomTheHand 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly but it is so.... These 2500 have died and nobodey noticed it... only guy that is known to have died is sydney sheehan son... mat maupin... and theese two... When you get on TV yu become public figure, when such thing happens... yu get in encyklopedia. Today 4 other were killed in al anbar, look iccasualites, but as you notice, nobodey gives a damn. 600 bilions were spent. There is less security, less freedom, less justice, more kidnaping, beheading, bombings, massacres... WHat is use of this war, america is now in loose-loose sitation, if it stays in, it looses, if it moves out, it looses too! Oil is expencive, thousends have died, there is no freedom or security, what was this war for???!! I see that some ppl in USA get extreemly rich, while others are getting killed! Its no justice, George bush doughter is getting drunk, and ppl in iraq are getting shot at. George bush didnt acutally win first mandate, this all war is nonsence, 50.000.000 are with out health insurance in USA, education is aviable only to rich ppl. Why i say all this... I have been speaking with a guy that can see a bit future, he guessed few times, for example, he guess when war will start at my country, what he has seen about world future is dark, future is not good, bush is anticrist, this war looks more like begining of the end, then start of future, nostardamus said that anticrist will come in 7th month of 1999, same moment when bush announced to elect for president, go on google and write down george bush, then look at "anticrist" remark... yu will realize everything im saying

[edit] Name for merged article

Consensus seems to be to merge the articles. Bnguyen and an anon are opposed, but Pharos, Wurmis, Fsotrain09, Edrigu, myself, and possibly Oberiko are in favor. So what do we name the new article? Above, Pharos suggests Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Lowell Tucker, which sounds alright, but I would prefer something that describes the incident rather than their names. June 16 U.S. Army kidnapping incident or something? I don't know. I don't really have a good, concise title, but I would prefer something similar to the above rather than their names. Then details about the attack could be added, as well as details about Al Qaeda's claimed reason for the attack, etc. TomTheHand 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 U.S. Army kidnapping incident sounds a bit better; can't remember if it's MOS specifically, but giving the year will stand better for longer. I think it would be good if the article's title mentioned Iraq, but I can't see how. -Fsotrain09 15:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 U.S. Army kidnapping incident (Iraq)? I agree about the need for the year, but worry that 2006 is too general. Perhaps 2006 is fine for now, and if there is need in the future to make it more specific we can do it then. Moves are easy. TomTheHand 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... if we're gonna go with something without the names, what about 2006 United States Army kidnapping? Abbreviations are generally against style, and "incident" is I think superfluous.--Pharos 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What about 2006 United States Army kidnapping (Iraq)? Do you guys think the Iraq notice is necessary or no? Would 2006 United States Army kidnapping in Iraq be preferable? I'll probably perform the merge later today when I get a little bit of time; after the article is created we can move it to a better title pretty easily. TomTheHand 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ogrish is not a reliable source

WP:RS, WP:NOR.--Jimbo Wales 13:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you expand on that a little? Ogrish.com says the site includes "uncensored news coverage," which doesn't sound inherently unreliable, and I haven't seen any discussion suggesting the video was fake. Tossing a handful of acronyms into talk: doesn't strike me as much of an argument. Bryan 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds very much inherently unreliable to me. It is a shock site. It has been victimized by hoaxes in the past. If you can find a copy of the video at a reliable news site, then by all means, please link to that. I recommend CNN.com or bbc.co.uk, but of course there are thousands of others.--Jimbo Wales 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What hoaxes? Once again, Ogrish.com gives no indication of unreliability. There have been plenty of sources that got suckered by hoaxes that are still considered "reliable". Bryan 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

CNN appears to have a link to a video of "how the bodies were recovered", but the site requires credit card information even to view the video for free so I haven't actually looked at it. Which I guess is fair considering I haven't seen the Ogrish video either. Anyone want to see if this is it? Bryan 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And here's a synopsis of the video's contents from Salem News. Based on the description, I don't imagine the CNN one is likely to be it. Bryan 09:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be that a much simpler solution to this whole issue was sitting right before us. I finally decided to bite the bullet and have a look at the video to compare it to the Salem News description and the link didn't work, it just dumped me straight to the Ogrish main page. Rummaging around in their archives, the closest link I was able to find was this: [1] (should be quite "safe" to click) which is just a short textual news story about the two soldiers being killed, along with thumbnails of the two head shots we already have. So as far as I can tell the link is defunct and Ogrish doesn't have the video up any more. I guess nobody else actually tried to look at it. Bryan 10:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I'm told the video's at [2] (page has thumbnails from it). So, I watched it. It is indeed nasty. However, it does seem to match the description at Salem News; "In the video, an al Qaeda member holds the severed head of one of the dead soldiers. The men's bodies are lying on a bridge. ... The video also blurs out one of the dead men's genitals." I don't speak Arabic so I can't confirm that the voice over says what the article claims it's saying. The clip on Ogrish appears to be just the first bit of the video, it's only 1:09 long whereas Salem News says the whole thing is 4:39 and goes on to describe stuff later on in the video that isn't seen. Still, it seems unlikely to me that it's fake. Bryan 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The full video is available on the terrorist media website and clearly shows that it is of the two men in question. Roydosan 11:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the URL? Bryan 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Go to here. You will need to register first before you can download the video. Roydosan 14:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)