Talk:Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Iraq Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. 
== Merge suggestion ==
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This discussion is now non-applicable. -- Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Against:
  1. This is an article about an individual. It is in no way less notable than other victims of the Iraq War like Miguel Terrazas. Socafan 23:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Each victim or alleged defendent is warranted a seperate article prime example Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse --Bnguyen 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. I have withdrawn my "FOR" point. I agree with the above. Abeer Qassim Hamza must be warranted a seperate article, in addition to the main article in place --Mo77787 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Anchoress 05:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. This was a significant incident. If her killer is notable, so is she. nut-meg 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I agree with the above posters. Jonas Liljeström 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. I agree with the above posters. Do not merge. Darkmind1970 10:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. This incident haunts me... please, keep her memory. Don't merge... Bj1966 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a broad consensus, but consider this: This article should describe the person, and should mention the incident only by reference. What would be left from this article if everything was removed that is already mentioned in Mahmudiyah incident? Not much, I think; this article (and Wikipedia as a whole) is meant to be infomative, not commemorative. The fact that there is little information about her (and many other victims of many other wars) is part of what makes wars tragic, but should not lead to include redundant information in Wikipedia. It should be merged. --193.254.155.48

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Contents

[edit] revert poorly explained edit -- see talk

Another wikipedian excised an external link with the edit summary -- rv addition of unnecessary link.

I checked out the link they excised. It seemed to be a very useful link, with further links to news articles, showing the timeline of how the press covered the story. I couldn't imagine why the other wikipedian excised it, unless they didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs.

So I restored it.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

They probably read the URL and decided it wasn't NPOV without looking at it first nut-meg 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the page, almost none of it is original content but it DOES have a very good compilation of very well cited and documented information on this case. It should never have been deleted. Any link deletions are to be discussed on the talk page first. nut-meg 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction with other wiki article

There is an error in reporting in either this or the James Barker article. This article states that Hamza's sister was seven, the other claims she was five. Which is it? Shantron 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and the BBC and Guardian articles say she was six. Anchoress 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegedly

Considering that legal proceedings are not over in this case, I think that "who was gang-raped, burned and killed, by American troops." should read "who was gang-raped, burned and killed, allegedly by American troops." Isn't this normal procedure for an ongoing case?

I already made this change once, and someone changed it back without comment. If you are going to remove it again, please explain why. 24.91.126.96 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I like how the only doubt in your rephrasing is whether or not it was Americans who killed her. If you're going to dispute the prevailing account of the story, why not dispute the fact that she was raped or burned as well, i.e. move the "allegedly" in front of the "was".
Myself, I think the burden of proof is established here. --Saforrest 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe some of the men have already plead guilty. If this is true, "allegedly" is not appropriate nut-meg 06:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
They've also been sentenced - I believe that a second man confessed in court recently and was convicted. I think that the article should reflect this as it is no longer sub rosa. Darkmind1970 10:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Allegedly?they are already sentenced,and confesed it--Andres rojas22 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Page

This page really needs a lot of cleanup. I'm not going to have time in the next week or so, but I'll come back to it if nobody else does. nut-meg 06:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== Merge suggestion==
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This discussion is now non-applicable. -- Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly sub-standard and would need a lot of improvements. The only significant change since last year it's the deposition of Paul Cortez, which should be in the main article, and not here. The article now duplicates Mahmudiyah incident, and keeps lagging behind when the main article is updated and this one is not. I suggest merging the relevant content and redirecting to Mahmudiyah incident. GhePeU 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In favor

  1. GhePeU 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

support Two articles are not necessary for one event. The Mahmundiyah Incident article already states everything that is mentioned in here, and if isn't, why not just move it over to the Mahundiyah Incident article anyway? RiseRobotRise 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Against If her killer warrants his own page, so does she. She is notable on her own as she has become a symbol of Iraqi civillians' struggle to survive. Her killers all have their own pages, but they are no more notable. A merge suggestion has been made in the past, and it was kept. Nothing has changed with this story since then. Also, this is a person, not an 'incident' nut-meg 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Against OneGuy (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Articles about crime victims who are otherwise non-notable should be merged to or retitled to be about the crime itself. This has been the general practice in numerous AFDs for articles about crime victims. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and individuals who do not satisfy WP:BIO should not have biographical articles. The existence of other pages which should be merged or deleted is not a valid argument for keeping this one as a stand-alone article. Edison (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Against The article is in no way a memorial (in it's current state at least), she was the most notable victim of the killings and was the only one raped afaik. Thisglad (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.