text:
Talk:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

Islamic State founded in Abu Ghuraib?
We only read in the news about the IS and its non-understandable cruelty. Should we try to understand how people become terrorists a bit better? Here is what the US-Government revealed much too long:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/u-s-military-now-says-isis-leader-was-held-in-notorious-abu-ghraib-prison/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.70.67 (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Botero
I deleted the section on Botero that was right after 60 Minutes II and Seymore Hersh and listed him at the bottom of the article under "Depections in Media". He is not relavant to, nor notable enough to warrant inclusion in that section of the article, which deals with how the scandal broke in the media. The images seared into people's minds forever come not from an artist, but instead from sadistic prison guards with a cheap digital camera.

 * This is a mistake to delete. Botero is an important artist of our times, and this series of paintings is a powerful statement, similar to the painting of Guernica. How people react to an event, including artistic reactions, is part of the story. So please, put this section back in. Dale Gerdemann 13:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * This is not the football player Joaquín Botero, the top google search, but rather Fernando Botero a Columbian/French artist who rose to prominance by painting art about the Abu Graib torture. Unlike Pablo who had already significantly participated and added to the late modernist project decades before producing the Spanish Republican government-funded propaganda Gurenica, which was all the more supported by the subsequent war against fascism, it appears that Botero (the artist) had his fifteen minutes of fame solely for capturing the zeitgeist of certain wealthy chattering classes. His other work seems to be glorifying rich drug lords.  Hardly an important artist, but certainly an active one, and eventually he may produce something of note.72.203.157.85 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Botero was internationally renowned more than a decade before Abu Ghraib, regardless of your opinion of his art. His sculpture was featured in New York City in Central Park, among many other prominent places. His work on Abu Ghraib is part of the international reaction.Parkwells (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Rumsfeld okayed abuses says former U.S. general
I take issue with the "rebuttal" argument in this section by Karpinskis being a liar. I find it represents a view, rather then fact. The line "Karpinski has been exposed for lying to the media" is not citated. Who exposed them, and is it a fact? If not, who states or believes she is a liar?

The statement that "she was later demoted to the rank of colonel for her negligence in this case" seems unsubstantiated. In fact the Janis Karpinski article specifically states that "on May 5, 2005, President Bush approved Karpinski's demotion to colonel from the rank of brigadier general. Her demotion was not officially related to the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison".

So I suggest either a major rewrite, with perhaps less viewpoints and more citated facts, of this argument or complete removal of it. Please find holes in my argument :) mceder (u t c) 14:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, the article needs a major rewrite, although I have no hope that anything would change. The "rebuttal" may or may not be accurate, but that isn't the core problem anyway, which is that Karpinski's words were deceptive to begin with, and probably intended to take advantage of the public ignorance of what really happened at Abu Ghraib in order to deflect some of the blame that she may deserve.
 * If it were up to me I'd remove that entire section. The caption is deceptive in slyly suggesting Rumsfeld approved the abuse (as in the pictures) that people commonly think of when they hear of Abu Ghraib.  Further, Karpinski's statement suggesting that Rumsfeld intentionally violated the Geneva Convention is only an opinion.  It isn't supported by that source that these techniques were authorized for use on those who qualified for POW status.
 * -- Randy2063 16:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I finally removed the baseless lying accusation against BG Karpinksy. This whole scandal just irritates the crap out of me. The most heinous abuses were done at the hands of Military Intelligence interrogators, CIA agents, and civilian contractors. The stuff these MPs did was very minor in comparison and was likely even orchestrated by the MI people. I was a MP and had to deal with the "secret squirrels" (MI and OGAs) from time to time and never failed to get a belly full of them. They like to run around in civilian clothes or uniforms without rank insignia and give orders with the insinuation that they rank much higher than they actually do. The only officer who stood before a court-martial for this whole thing was a Civil Affairs officer with questionable authority and access regarding the actual interrogation operations. The entire investigation into Abu Graib has been a whitewash from the beginning and has focused on Military Police soldiers and officers who had no authority or responsibility for policy and procedure inside the prison. Their own officers were denied access and yet they are to be held accountable? To characterize Karpinksy's remarks to the St Petersburg Times as lying and misleading doesn't tell the whole story. She wasn't even allowed into the cell blocks in Abu Graib where MI was doing their business. She didn't see what was going on because she was not allowed to. Those two paragraphs are just a character smear.--SEWalk (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

International law
This section is unsouced and appears to be quite questionable: "The United States has ratified the UN's Convention Against Torture and the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. However, the Third and Fourth Geneva conventions both state in Article 2: 'The High Contracting Parties shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof'. Since Iraq did not apply the protections of the Geneva Conventions to American POW's throughout Gulf War I (e.g. abuse of 17 American POW's at the now-infamous Abu Ghraib, by the Iraq Intelligence Service) and Gulf War II (e.g. the well-known story of Jessica Lynch's unit), it may be argued that Iraq lost its protections under these particular documents (but not others) long before the USA even took possession of the Abu Ghraib prison. The Bush Administration, however, takes the position that, in the words of Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the President: 'Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq.' ('The Rule of Law and the Rules of War', New York Times (op-ed piece), May 15, 2004). However, the Administration claims that prisoners taken in Afghanistan did not qualify as prisoners of war under international law."

Surely POWs are afforded the rights in the Geneva Conventions regardless of past violations by the country they are serving? This seems nonesensical. Also, what do prisoners from Afghanistan have to do with this case? Pexise (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The two "Further reading" sections should be combined into one
I figured out how to take care of this myself, so I no longer need to request that someone else do so. Ed Moise (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New Section needed?
Time for new section? There should be enough information around now to include President Obama's giving immunity to the torturers and the UN response. Obama wont prosecute as the torturers "were only following orders" with the UN dismissing this as illegal while other sources claim that the CIA is not covered by the immunity anyway as it's agents are legally exempt from punishment if they refuse to follow orders. In fact the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically addresses the question of torture by stating that following orders is not a legal defense so how Obama got around that I have no idea. Wayne (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 * It's not really relevant here. Obama's position on the alleged "torture" was about CIA interrogation methods on a small handful of high value detainees.  It doesn't apply to what happened at Abu Ghraib.  Note that the soldiers currently serving time for the abuse aren't being released.
 * Neither the UCMJ nor the military interrogation manual were ever meant to apply to the CIA, which is not part of the military. That's the way it's always been, and the manual was designed with the understanding that extreme cases would be handled by someone else.  Obama's presidential order currently does limit the CIA to that manual, but even he allows for the attorney general to grant exceptions when the situation requires it.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about mentioning something about the civilian contractors that were used as interregators (From CACI and Titan Corp.) that never faced prosecution? The CACI & Titan Corp. articles have some info regarding this, maybe we could provide a quick summarized copy here or at least a link? I just think it's noteworthy that save for the few CIA "high value" detainee interogations, most were conducted by third-party civilian personell. Quote from CACI article: "U.S. Army 'found that contractors were involved in 36 percent of the Abu Ghraib proven incidents and identified 6 employees as individually culpable', although none have faced prosecution unlike US military personal."--MiloKral (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Joe Ryan Merger
I support this merger. The Joe Ryan article is too small be stand one it's own. --KMFDM FAN (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)--KMFDM FAN (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support this merger in the short term since the Joe Ryan article is next to useless on its own and the only information on it is relating to the Abu Ghraib. However, considering how this article has already grown to a large size, maybe we should consider creating a "People involved with Abu Ghraib" article or something to that exntent, and only keeping the most notable people summaries here. --MiloKral (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be a separate article along the lines of Joe Ryan Abu Ghraib diaries. The diaries constituted a separate news event covered by the Independent and the Washington Post, among others. That article should then be referenced within the main article. BYT (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Talk: Joe Ryan
I've added substantial amounts to this Joe Ryan article from the complete (?) diary, which can be found here. Please take a look. I believe it merits a stand-alone article. BYT (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How often were tortures applied?
I've read the article and I don't see ąny information on how often were torture applied. In other words. how many prisoners are estimated to suffer no beatings, sexual assaults, deterring or extreme humiliation?????? 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, does that information exist? Why not go and get some sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mad as hell that good men are being rude to only find out the armies in Bartow are the every same girls in questions as before on my g_d really wife and girlfriend are the gay ones like salina the singer well goes to show women NCO are not always right the really should of looked in to 603 Auga Maza white truck, Anthony Cassey well couch Blake C. I miss Chino Cowboys news letter however the San Bernardino Coyote vet newspaper is a good read sisters can also hurt the line like Torres said to me before be watch always and it pains me to see Atlanta men prison missed used oh my God what a scary thing to happen on us grounds Ft. Irwin
 * sgt.7 JAG 66.74.128.22 (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Zimbardo theories
I note that you quoted the Lucifer Effect by Phil Zimbardo. Do you think that a section referring to his theories on situation evil would go beyond the encycopedic mandate? Propbably would. Masterly article. ADAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.172.109 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

clarification?
Apologies for asking what may seem a picky question, but I'm coming to this article for the first time and am genuinely unclear about a small point. What's meant by "where" in the following sentence from the lead section?

"As revealed by the 2004 Taguba Report, a criminal investigation by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since 2003 where many soldiers of the 320th Military Police Battalion had been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse."

What is the antecedent of "where"? I don't see a place named. Would I be understanding the sentence correctly if I read it as "a criminal investigation … had already been underway since 2003, in the course of which many soldiers … had been charged … ?" With which referring back to the investigation? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove the Pictures
The pictures should be removed from this page; they are inflammatory and highly offensive to muslims. The descriptions of these acts are more than adequate to convey what went on at Abu Ghraib. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.60.183 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to truly convey, in words alone, what happened. Even the photos are not able to truly convey the shocking treatment of these prisoners. Imagine the screams, the pain, the smells, the blood.... The photographs are also evidence that makes denial more difficult. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the pictures should absolutely not be removed, regardless of who you think they are offensive to. They are completely in line with Wikipedia's image use policies. They add important information to the article, and are very notable in and of themselves. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You go to hell, 173.174.124.211. And good job mods, for letting his comment stay up there that long. Amateurs. First, the pictures are necessary because this needs to be understood as best as possible for the evil that it is. Second, you are no conservative or Republican, you are a white-supremacy scumbag. Third, there should be two Abu Gharaib prisoner abuse articles, one on what the US forces did and one on what Saddam Hussein's regime did in this prison prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Don't try to make it seem like we're the only people who ever committed a war crime in Iraq. Fourth, Saddam ordered his torturing, our government and military did not. They were all sadistic privates who committed these crimes. Fifth, how dare you use Media Matters as a source against Rush Limbaugh. Media Matters is not a reliable source for anything, they called General Patreaus "General Betray-Us", among other ridiculous libel they have said. I can understand Michael Savage saying something crazy like that, but Limbaugh would never defend torture. Finally, our standard practice of interrogation is not torture, and that includes waterboarding, you liberals. This, Abu Gharaib, is torture, and we cleaned it up. So anyone who makes comments like 173.174.124.211 can go to hell. 24.231.246.30 (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically he did "Betray-us" when he leaked classified CIA material to his mistress.70.187.182.164 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add, simply: "I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda'." --General Dwight D. Eisenhower, on visiting the German concentration camps. The pictures need to be there to mitigate the deniers and those who feel that mere "horseplay" occurred. --Sstrader (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, screw you for comparing this tiny little prison to concentration camps in germany. Secondly, the idea that "most of these inmates" were innocent comes from a single source, which had no way of confirming any of the reported individuals guilt or innocence.  Thirdly, you want to talk about evil, lets talk about underage prostitution of little boys that Islam permits, known as "Bacha bazi", or the fact that these "people" strap bomb vests to children and throw them out of moving vehicles into crowded markets.  Sure, what happened in Abu Ghraib is unfortunate, but don't dare imply that it was somehow comparable to the concentration camps which targeted innocents, unprovoked.  You're literally justifying these numerous graphic images for the sole purpose of virtue signalling about how righteous you are.  Maybe someday you'll experience muslim extremism first hand.2601:49:1:5316:1D78:3A1:F574:8769 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

To the brain-washed who says Islam permits prostitution of little boys, first of all you know you are a LiER. Secondly, Can you please tell where Islam in the Holy Qur'an or prophet Peace be upon him permits these things. Thirdly, do you know ,in Islam, if somebody do such as thing he may be sentenced to death?! Fourly, bacha bazi is something related to Afghanistan, The country which has been destroyed by the Americans, not to Islam which forbids such as works Also , these things are there in Afghanistan even before Islam. And the last thing I advise you to read well-written book about Islam, that will be better than watching Fox news. الرشيد (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Prison pictures
I support the posting of pictures of the correctional facilities that the perpetrators attended. The prisons were direct consequences of their behavior, and prisons became a big part of their lives (not everybody has standalone articles!) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Title
Any chance of adjusting the page title so that it reflects the fact that this isn't about the sum total of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, merely the small proportion of it perpetrated by Americans?

Neither this page, nor the page on the prison itself seems to acknowledge the reality of the place's past (and probable future) as a torture facility and seems almost anti-American by (inadvertant) omission. 213.121.242.7 (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Involvement of civil contractors
The left wing news paper magazine "profil" (Nr 22/2011, page 84 ) in my home country Austria is running an article about Abu Graib. The US-psychologist Philip Zimbaro is giving an interview. In this article the beginning of the torture is related to pressure coming from the CIA. But I can remember that in the time the case was cooking up in the world press that their where reports about civil contractors which had actually trained the US- soldiers in torture techniques but nothing is here’d of this people again so far. Does anyone remember about this, ore does anyone know the name of this private company?

Second I think it should be mentioned in the article that there has been and is a lot of information about torture true the Iraqi government and their organizations. I think it is unbalanced and unfair not to say this.

Gassner7 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 * There are several problems with that. If you mean Philip Zimbardo, he was not directly involved with the CIA or Abu Ghraib.  He only talked about its supposed effects afterwards.  He has no personal experience on the subject.  But I'm not surprised he'd appear on a left-wing paper that probably claims to oppose torture.
 * The CIA was not part of the normal interrogation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Note this section:  Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse.  The CIA brought al-Jamadi in, and attempted to interrogate him separately.  They apparently did this with other prisoners, but they were also separate issues -- and they were the CIA's own prisoners, not the Army's prisoners.  The only Army-CIA link was that it happened at an Army facility.  The Army does not consult with the CIA over how to interrogate Army prisoners.  They hire their own civilian contractors when outside consultation is wanted.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rape allegations
Currently the article attributes the claim that Abu Ghraib inmates were raped to Wikipedia's voice. That is not an accurate representation of the reliable sources used to reference that claim, however. For example, the lead says (paraphrase),
 * Beginning in 2004, human rights violations including rape came to public attention.

And in the "Treatment of prisoners" section the article states,
 * An Iraqi teenage boy was raped....

The claim in the lead is sourced to Salon.com, which is problematic in itself as the article should really be relying on a more solid source than Salon. But even supposing the source is valid, it never itself makes the claim that anyone was raped. It quotes the Daily Telegraph, which quoted a retired army Major General, who said, "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."

The second claim is sourced to The Guardian. Again, that's not the kind of publication Wikipedia ought to be relying on for such a serious claim as rape. But even the Guardian reporter never actually reports that a rape took place. He quotes an Abu Ghraib detainee recounting his version of what happened at the prison.

Suggestions:
 * 1) Unless the rape claim in the lead can be sourced to a reliable source on the scale of New York Times, BBC and so on, it should be taken out or at least be in-text attributed to Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Taguba.
 * 2) The subsection "Raping of prisoners" should be renamed "Alleged raping of prisoners."
 * 3) Unless the rape claim in the "Raping of prisoners" section can be sourced to a reliable source on the scale of New York Times, BBC and so on, it should be taken out or at least be in-text attributed to detainee Kasim Hilas.—Biosketch (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Good points.
 * I suspect that General Taguba was merely speaking off the cuff when he said there were pictures of rape, and simply misspoke. I'm not aware of any official report showing this, including the Taguba Report itself.
 * The only allegations seem to be that by the civilian contractor raping a boy, a soldier forcibly kissing a female detainee, and the claims made by Huda Alazawi in The Guardian.
 * The problem with that third one isn't so much that it's The Guardian as much as that this woman isn't necessarily all that credible. She could be an opportunist.  I don't think she's in any of these reports unless the second and third allegations are really the same event.  I'm not aware of the press doing a follow-up.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you cannot have looked very deeply into this. First, the Guardian and Saloon have been accepted as generally reliable sources at WP:RS/N and all over Wikipedia. Secondly, they are not alone in their reporting. See the Washington Post here, the Village Voice here. Please also note that forced sodomization meets most modern definitions of rape, including the WHO definition, and are are explicitly mentioned in the Tabuga report and by the BBC here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The section title is "Raping of prisoners" -- plural, and not alleged rape. While forced sodomization may meet the legal definition, it's not the most accurate for the one case we're sure about.
 * I wouldn't argue that The Guardian isn't RS for Wikipedia purposes. We do need to wonder, though, when another source quotes The Guardian, whether it's just one story mis-told over and over again.
 * I have three concerns. One is if we're taking early reports (similar to your Village Voice link) and mixing them in with better materials.  Second, is that too much is based on that one line from General Taguba when his report doesn't mention it.  My third concern is that the section isn't clear about what really happened.
 * The Taguba Report is here. The only sexual allegations I can find are two of the three I've mentioned above.  If you can find more then please point them out.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one more sexual allegation, section 1.5.6.k, "A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee." Whether a prisoner can negotiate consent considering the balance of power is not addressed.158.81.13.146 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW: Your your BBC and Washington Post links seem to agree with me.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. BBC and WashPost also don't state as a fact that inmates were raped at Abu Ghraib. They merely quote other sources as saying so. Our article, on the other hand, states as a fact that there was rape. So far the only source that does actually say anyone was raped is the Village Voice. But therein lies our problem. The overwhelming majority of sources attribute the rape claim to other parties, like the victims and their attorneys or Taguba. It's policy to represent reality "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The perspective of the Village Voice has somehow become the position of Wikipedia – and it's not even cited until much later in the article. There's also another problem with the Voice. The article ends with an editorializing comment, "the Bush administration has refused to release photos of Iraqi women forced at gunpoint to bare their breasts—no doubt to spare Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld further embarrassment." That's not objective journalism, and I'm going to challenge our use of the Voice at all in this article, since it draws no clear distinction between objective reporting and biased editorializing.—Biosketch (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 * You're right that the Village Voice piece is garbage. We can find a better source regardless whether or not an actual rape took place.
 * I'd rather find sources that attribute something to the Taguba Report rather than Taguba himself. Better still would be to find something that cites the Fay Report, and even better would be to cite a trial, as the Taguba Report was pretty early in the investigation process.
 * User 158.81.13.146 is also correct. I had missed the MP guard having sex with a female detainee.  I don't know if this was the rape incident Taguba was talking about but the Army does consider sex with a detainee to be coercive regardless whether or not the woman thought it was consensual.  (And for the record, a consensual act is not completely out of the question, considering that there were also alleged prostitutes in custody at the time.)
 * I haven't located this incident in the Fay Report (here). I don't know if that means it was thrown out by that time, or clarified some other way.  But there are others.
 * The full list is in table form on page 130 (using the PDF's page numbers, not the ones written on the pages themselves). There is a column for Nudity/Humiliation and another for sexual assault.  You can search the PDF for the actual incidents for a full story.
 * I haven't been able to square the Taguba report's "sex with a female detainee" incident with what's in the Fay Report. "Incident #2" is the closest I could find but it was not actual rape.
 * And for those who might complain that I'm wandering into primary sources, I'm only trying to figure out what's what so that we can understand what the secondary sources are really referring to.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In that "Incident #2," where a female detainee was forcibly kissed and had her shirt removed(pdf pg 170), the Fay Report found that the allegations were credible enough to warrant further investigation and should proceed as the soldiers involved were not punished for the sexual assault. An ACLU FOIA request only turned up one Art. 15 for one of the soldiers, dated 3/31/2004. Either these further investigations were still ongoing when the FOIA request was made or the military did not follow up on the Fay Report recommendation.
 * -- Joshuaism (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Captain Carolyn Wood
The statement "Captain Carolyn Wood was head of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion from Fort Bragg" is incorrect. CPT Wood may have been a company commander, but a lieutenant colonel is normally the commander of a battalion, and CPT Wood was not nor has she ever been the commander of a battalion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnam volunteer (talk • contribs) 03:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Satar Jabar not the hooded prisoner on box
I have found virtually no citations that the person in the photo has the name "Satar Jabar." A 2004 Newsweek article is the first place I've seen it used:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2004/07/18/beneath-the-hoods.html

 * Prisoner Satar Jabar's photograph, showing him hooded and wired up, has become familiar to Iraqis, who derisively call it "the Statue of Liberty." Far from being a dangerous insurgent, however, Jabar, 24, was an accused car thief.

Two Toronto Star articles do:

 * Sticking it to Bush at Whitney exhibit; Politics almost trumps the work: Goddard, Peter. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 04 Mar 2006: 2.

 * So now what do we do with prisoners?; Since 9/11, questions about torture and who's doing it have been deftly sidestepped and hotly debated. Recent events have dragged Canada deeper into the fray: Shephard, Michelle. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 27 Jan 2008: 8.

Both articles are behind a pay wall, I found them with a ProQuest newspaper database search. The first just says the person is Satar Jabar. The second uses the photo that was published in The New Yorker with this caption:

 * THE NEW YORKER Undated photo shows Satar Jabar standing atop a box at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The problem is that The New Yorker doesn't have this as the current caption: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/03/slideshow_040503#slide=1. The current caption reads: "A hooded and wired Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib prison who reportedly was told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off a box."

I am therefore deleting the name from the caption and will propose for deletion the article named "Satar Jabar" which redirects to this page.

One side note, a man claimed he was the person in the photo, but the editor's note retracts the claim. It mentions that:

 * The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi's claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11ghraib.html?pagewanted=all

But the name "Satar Jabar" appears in The Times twice, but not in regard to the photograph. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rumsfeld
It's well known, and established in Rumsfeld's book Known and Unknown: A Memoir, that Rumsfeld had wanted to resign after the abuse became publicly known. However, Bush said 'no' and ordered him to stay. He stayed, but he regretted that decision. I don't think these facts are clear in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * just because that is the way it is representat in his memoir - does not mean it is fact - it only means that that is his version of events... memoirs and auto-biographies often tent to trivialize/play down things 91.89.243.218 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncensored
Per WP: Bold, I've switched the File:AG-10.jpg image to uncensored equivalent: File:AG-10B.JPG. To address any objections ahead of time: 72.226.46.8 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The image should be censored": No, WP:NOTCENSORED. This case is the same in spirit as "a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all" WP:PROFANE (referring to text).
 * "The uncensored image is not necessary": Fine, then argue that the image in any form is not necessary to the article and try to remove it entirely. You will probably lose that argument.
 * "This is the partially blurred/censored version as reproduced widely in the mass media.": This is an acceptable rationale for including the file File:AG-10.jpg in Wikimedia Commons, but not for preferring it in a factual Wikipedia article. Additionally, Wikipedia is blissfully not bound by the same censorship restrictions that the mass media are.

TPOEMES, I've reverted your re-censoring edit of this article. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED and see my rationale above. Specifically regarding your edit message "child protection is not censorship": yes, it absolutely is censorship, but more precisely it is a rationale for censorship. In some cases, "child protection" may be a legitimate rationale, but not on Wikipedia, and certainly not on this article. Sorry, but for a page with images and descriptions of horrific torture, abuse, and death, removing a small grainy picture of a penis is not "protecting" anyone. 72.226.46.8 (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Removed as the individual who's private parts you want to show has not given his permission to do so. Have a look at Sexual content and Photographs of identifiable people. If you disagree with that than please take it to the Administrator noticeboard. Thank you. Danceneck3 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Photographs_of_identifiable_people pertains to identifiable people and "... do not apply to photographs where the subject is unidentifiable." The individual in question is depicted in a low quality photo with a bag over his head, and thus in not identifiable.
 * Sexual content is an essay. As the template states, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies."
 * Sexual content explicitly makes reference to WP:NOTCENSORED, which is an official policy, and which forms the basis of my previously-stated rationale to use the non-censored image. From WP:NOTCENSORED: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."
 * Accordingly, if you find the "sexual" content to be objectionable, then argue for the entire removal of the image, not its censorship. As also previously stated, in an article and a picture showing graphic abuse, a blurry penis is hardly the most 'objectionable' element (though admittedly this has no bearing on the decision to keep/remove the image).
 * I will not be bringing this to the Administrator noticeboard yet, as it's a matter of black-letter Wikipedia policy. I don't need to waste the time of Administrators to support my position, I have official statements of Wikipedia policy. If others chose to ignore those policies, then we can bring the Administrators in.72.226.46.8 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo deletion
Hi. I'd like to suggest the deletion of the photo depicting the soldier pointing to an inmate's penis, or at least the blurring of his and the other inmates' genitals (as has happened in other photos). My starting point is that, as a Christian, I think that people (publishers included) should treat others as they would want to be treated themselves.

The photo is clearly humiliating and degrading to a victim of crime who may be still alive, and while his face is obscured, he will know that he was abused in this way. Showing the photo is likely to be distressful to him and could cause mental or emotional harm; we cannot second guess that. Wikipedia can easily by viewed by children, for whom this explicit photo is clearly inappropriate.

I know that, judged on copyright and free speech grounds, there is no legal restriction on displaying the photo. However, I think that there are more important moral factors (explained above) about how people should be treated when they are distressed, as he was at this moment, and how we respect victims of crime, especialy sexual offences. Looking forward to your suggestions and thanks for your time. Gecko177 (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. I do not believe that the photo is humiliating and degrading to the victim. The torture and unspeakable treatment that this man endured was. 119.247.227.236 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Torture memos
From 2004 to 2008, more material was finally revealed about the Torture Memos, legal opinions prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel, Dept of Justice - specifically three signed by Bybee and drafted by John Yoo in August 2002 and one by Yoo in March 2003, five days before the US started its invasion of Iraq. These were sent to the CIA (first 3) and DOD at the request of their General Counsels, and were essentially the administration's policy on narrowly defining torture, and authorizing what most of the world contends as torture - what they euphemistically called enhanced interrogation techniques. One of the 2002 memos was leaked in 2004; the 2003 memo was not revealed until 2008 during a Senate Committee hearing, but we need to try to place them in relation to this article and abuses at Guantanamo for the account to be complete. Jack Goldsmith, Bybee's replacement as head of OLC, withdrew the memos in 2004 but did not issue replacement opinions before his resignation in July of that year; his successor reaffirmed the memos in Dec. 2004. The NY Times, ACLU and other major sources have sites that list all these memos, and journalists such as Jane Mayer have written about this side of the war, The Dark Side (2008) as her book is entitled. We need to add to this article with more than opinions expressed at the time.Parkwells (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not really all that relevant. The so-called "torture memos" were mostly for what would be legally authorized for the CIA.  If you'll notice, Abu Ghraib was under control of the DoD.  The limits in those memos weren't relevant to what actually happened.
 * Jamadi's pseudo-strappado sounds closest, and it was by a CIA interrogator, but those limits weren't relevant there either.
 * It's a clumsy curve-fitting exercise. They found pictures of prisoners being treated badly, and the critics of the U.S.-side of the war decided to shoehorn these memos into it.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for sexual violence against men
VolunteerMarek seems to believe that this article should not be in the category. I am providing the following sources to dispute his (ridiculous) point of view:
 * "The Taguba report also contains a finding that groups of male detainees were forced to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped...The forced masturbation of the victim and the perpetrator is considered to be one of the most common forms of sexual violence experienced by men" Sexual violence against men in armed conflict, S Sivakumaran - European Journal of International Law, 2007
 * "The most widely circulated images of gender-based violence from US-occupied Iraq are the notorious Abu Ghraib photos. Released to the public in April 2004, the photos document the sexualized torture of Iraqi men by US soldiers. They include images of prisoners forced to stand naked, masturbate, simulate gay sex, and wear women’s clothing. In essence, the torture consisted of an attack on the gender identity of the prisoners. The forcefulness of that attack derived from the misogyny of both the detainees and their torturers. As Dhia al-Shweiri, an Iraqi who was tortured in Abu Ghraib said, “They were trying to humiliate us, break our pride. We are men. It’s OK if they beat me. Beatings don’t hurt us, it’s just a blow. But no one would want their manhood to be shattered. They wanted us to feel as though we were women, the way women feel, and this is the worst insult, to feel like a woman.” Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy Gender-Based Violence and the US War on Iraq (Part 2) - See more at: http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=6231#sthash.S2tK2IOx.dpuf, By Yifat Susskind
 * "In this chapter, I will conduct an intersectional analysis of two cases of sexual violence against men that will be taken as examples of the extremes of media exposures and invisibilities…The second example is the high exposure of sexual torture of Iraqi men in the Baghdad prison Abu Ghraib, in American (and international) media - on TV, in the press and on the Internet." Framing Intersectionality: Debates on a Multi-Faceted Concept in Gender Studies, edited by Professor Helma Lutz, Ms Maria Teresa Herrera Vivar, Ms Linda Supik
 * "In the meantime, sexual violence against males continues to flourish in prison and other forms of detention. Men have been abused and sexually humiliated during situations of armed conflict, such as the highly publicized Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq." Hastings L.J. 605 (2008-2009), Male Rape and Human Rights, by Stemple, Lara
 * “Further, sexual violence against men is best understood as part of a continuum of violence against men in society, from bullying of boys, to the rape of men in prison, and the sexual humiliation of Muslim Arab men in Abu Ghraib.”, Sexual Violence Against Men and Women in War: A Masculinities Approach, Valorie K. Vojdik, University of Tennessee College of Law, July 2013, Nevada Law Journal, Forthcoming, University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 217
 * Now, I'm waiting to hear from him, or anyone else, on why you think that the Abu Ghraib case, which is HIGHLIGHTED by many studies of sexual violence against men in wartime as a massively studied case, does not belong in the Violence against men category. This clearly passes WP:DEFINING by a mile.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, from the article itself we have:

Other photos show interrogators sexually assaulting prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube, and a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts

In other alleged cases, female inmates were said to be raped by soldiers.

"a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee"

Why exactly should this be singled out as some kind of "violence against men"? It was a horrible phenomenon which was directed at Iraqis of both genders and for political/psychopathic reasons. Obiwankenobi is very clearly pushing a WP:FRINGE POV here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me and all of those sources that discuss sexual violence against men, and use Abu Ghraib as a primary example of same. We're all agenda pushers, you caught us!! Marek, you seem to suffer from the same problem another editor had, which is, an event, where bad things happen to men, and bad things happen to women. How can we call that Violence against men! That's not fair!! Let's take two examples of violence: #1 Atomic bomb on hiroshima, #2 Abu Ghraib. Now, for #1, men and women and children died, and while we could call it Violence against men and Violence against women and Violence against children, it doesn't make sense since the bomb itself was indiscriminate, and the target was neither men nor women nor children but rather CIVILIANS. Now, we have case #2, Abu Ghraib - we have OODLES of sources (I just gave 4 above, but a google scholar search on "violence against men" +"Abu Ghraib" will find dozens of hits or more) that use Abu Ghraib as a case example of both prisoner abuse and sexual abuse of men. Were women sexually abused as well? Absolutely. Were both genders targeted? Yes, but in very different ways, and of course the number of male detainees was greater. Does the "Violence against men" category somehow mean that women didn't suffer at all? Absolutely not!! At Srebrenica, one of the most famous examples of Gendercide in the late 20th century, 8000 men were killed, but also hundreds or maybe thousands of women were raped or otherwise abused, and some were even killed. So, we add this to the category as well. A single event can comprise gender-based violence against BOTH men and women. Repeat that, please. A single event can comprise GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AGAINST BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. Again, adding something to the "Violence against men" category does not mean that there was no violence against women, and if sources can be provided that discuss Abu Ghraib as an example of sexual violence in war against female detainees it should be added at least to the  category and possibly . Marek, I hope this is the moment when you wake up and realize that YOU are the one pushing a POV. I hope you read those sources above carefully, and reflect - why would all of those reliable sources use Abu Ghraib as a primary EXAMPLE of sexual violence against men, and why does that bug me so much? Isn't that, after all, a good case for inclusion in the category? You seem a bit blinded by your frustration with me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Hello! I am responding to a request for comment posted at WP:WikiProject Human rights. My initial thought is that I do not want to see this issue debated. If this article is to be put into a category, such as "violence against men", then it would be ideal if someone could provide sources which discussed this event as violence against men. I do not think it is worthwhile to have editors here debate how this should be classified; if sources have already classified this, then note those sources and perhaps even list them on the category talk page so that the issue is more fully addressed.
 * In this case, it seems that some reliable sources have described this event as violence against men. It may additional also be violence against women. It seems that gender was a focus of the attacks described based on interpretations in the provided sources.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Raping children
, you were correct in your assessment the first time; however, the source does mention children being raped in front of watching women. Therefore, I modified the text to reflect that, I did not simply revert your edit. If you have further disagreements, I'd be happy to take them up here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Thats fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaroldCD566 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The rape of children may have originated with reporter Seymour Hersh, who has since walked that statement back along with quite a few other claims he's said to audiences (as opposed to what he says in print)-- detailed here at "Hersh apocrypha" and again here as to Iranian nuclear weapons. The credibility of this once great reporter sadly, is now in serious doubt. I think the Guardian also published stories about the rape of children in 2004, so that publication should be the more source cited for this allegation, rather than Hersh. ElijahBosley  (talk ☞)  19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pictures
I don't care if you show nudity or you censor them, but make up your mind. Some are censored some are not. Inconsistency is not a strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.229.46 (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Wikipedia is censoring any images; some of them come to us censored. Could you be a little more specific? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130115074447/http://cryptome.org/icrc-report.htm to http://cryptome.org/icrc-report.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Pictures acceptable for general audience?
I don't think some of these photos should be displayed on this page, such as the man covered in human excrement. This page is accessible to all ages and could be distressing to some. They should at least be hidden in a drop down menu that warns viewers of their content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regn752 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Regn752, please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that a warning and opt-out option would be valuable. What would be lost by allowing readers to decide for themselves whether to view the photos? That would not be censorship. 2601:646:C100:1340:F0B7:86E0:C0C:B560 (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 one external links on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211163317/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,18166472-26619,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18166472-26619,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091016005519/http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb-2004.pdf to http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb-2004.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061026094900/http://www.harpers.org:80/WeeklyReview2004-05-18.html to http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2004-05-18.html

 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051116224726/http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=18838 to http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=18838
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120309110725/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002960310_ghraib29.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002960310_ghraib29.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080210073849/http://www4.army.mil:80/news/article.php?story=7348 to http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=7348
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100920053941/http://msnbc.msn.com:80/id/4999734/ to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070512175803/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/13773997/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120122043325/http://www.newsday.com/news/justice-opens-grand-jury-on-cia-detainee-s-death-1.2956098 to http://www.newsday.com/news/justice-opens-grand-jury-on-cia-detainee-s-death-1.2956098

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110804222842/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2678756 to http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2678756
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714173546/http://breaking.examiner.ie/2004/05/13/story147437.html to http://breaking.examiner.ie/2004/05/13/story147437.html

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071107133700/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,18166472-26619,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18166472-26619,00.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071123112051/http://www4.army.mil:80/news/article.php?story=7348 to http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=7348

 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070311055805/http://www.thenation.com:80/doc.mhtml?i=20050718&s=holtzman to http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050718&s=holtzman

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071107133700/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,18166472-26619,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18166472-26619,00.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071123112051/http://www4.army.mil:80/news/article.php?story=7348 to http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=7348
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140702075639/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/23/yoo/index_np.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/23/yoo/index_np.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071107133700/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,18166472-26619,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18166472-26619,00.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071123112051/http://www4.army.mil:80/news/article.php?story=7348 to http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=7348

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=6764

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Who is the victim on the first picture?
The caption of the first picture (man on box wired with electric wire) says "Ali Shallal al-Qaisi", but the picture's description in the summary section of the "File:" page says "Satar Jabar". Additionally, the caption of the same picture on Torture article also says "Satar Jabar". I don't know how to ascertain which one is true... Lionel Elie Mamane (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916223055/http://www.salon.com:80/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html/ to http://salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212035108/http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212035108/http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929134347/http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=791 to http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=791
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016005519/http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb-2004.pdf to http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb-2004.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114040412/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/30/1333214 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/30/1333214
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114081906/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444246 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444246

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150516075342/http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/german-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld%2C-et-al. to http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/german-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld%2C-et-al.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150516075342/http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/german-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld%2C-et-al. to http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/german-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld%2C-et-al.
 * Added tag to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7926
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C10117%2C18166472-26619%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://italy.usembassy.gov/viewer/article.asp?article=%2Ffile2004_05%2Falia%2Fa4050713.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.moveonpac.org/goreremarks052604.html
 * Added tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-17/justice/graner.parents_1_irma-graner-guy-womack-charles-graner
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130201094136/http://www.defense.gov/news/Aug2004/d20040824finalreport.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/news/Aug2004/d20040824finalreport.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05%2F06%2F30%2F1333214
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F11%2F09%2F1444246

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Permission for use of images?
I realise that the images shown in this article have a lot of value in communicating the sort of horrors that prisoners have been put through. I doubt, however, that the prisoners who are depicted have been asked for their permission to be shown in this article. The photos are of people, who belong in communities and families. Should they ever see this page, or should a family member recognise them in one of the published photographs here, I have little doubt that they will be re-traumatised.

In other words, I suggest that the photos should not be published without the consent of the victims. To publish them otherwise is to commit another crime upon their person, and to bring back to their memory events that nobody should ever be put through.

While the pictures tell a powerful story, and undoubtedly add enormously to the words they sit beside, surely the mental and physical health of the victims must come first. Please, can this be considered and acted upon? Thank you. Ambiguosity (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The image may be depicting Abdou Hussain Saad Faleh
The article describes the following as an image of the prisoner Ali Shallal al-Qaisi, but the description on the image's own page identifies the prisoner as Abdou Hussain Saad Faleh. Unless the prisoner has two names, this is a contradiction that needs to be rectified.

204.191.243.35 (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Abu Ghraib 49.jpg

WHAT ABOUT REPERCUSSIONS AGAINST THE SOLDIER
WHAT ABOUT REPERCUSSIONS AGAINST THE SOLDIER who reported the abuses up the chain of command and was outed by Rumsfeld? ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC))

Major issues
I made significant changes to this article recently. There were major issues with the article, including:

 * An overly lengthy lede;
 * Inclusion of material in the lede that was not significant enough to be there;
 * A "War on Terror" section that contained dubious content, raised WP:NPOV concerns, and relied on only one source;
 * Failure to include key content and background;
 * Unsourced material;
 * Questionably sourced material;
 * Excessive detail; and
 * Poor writing.

I made over 30 edits in an effort to correct many of these issues. Vanamonde93 reverted all of my edits in their entirety, saying, "Please discuss your changes first; some of your additions are fine, but I'm concerned that you're removing a lot of good material, and you haven't explained those removals nearly enough." The problem with this wholesale revert is that it was overinclusive; it undid many edits in which I did not remove any material (to say nothing of the edits where I added material). Of more than 30 edits I made, I see only five where I removed sourced material. With the exception of those five (which I will discuss further below), I have reinstated my edits. SunCrow (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Five bold edits
Per the previous entry above, I made five bold edits in which I removed sourced material. I have reinstated that material and now raise it for discussion here.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=916292382&oldid=916292151

 * According to the authors, the September 11 attacks led to demands from the public that U.S. president George W. Bush take actions that would prevent further attacks. This pressure led to the launch of the War on Terror.

This is a modified version of the following text:

 * The September 11 attacks in the United States led to demands from the public that U.S. president George W. Bush take actions that would prevent further attacks. This pressure led to the launch of the War on Terror.

The material is dubiously sourced and highly debatable.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=next&oldid=916292382

 * (Brig. Gen. Janis) Karpinski told a reporter in 2014 that military intelligence personnel had told her that 90 percent of the inmates were innocent of the crimes of which they had been accused and had been detained simply by virtue of having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This material is tangentially relevant and impossible to verify for anyone who does not read German.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=next&oldid=916292469

 * Documents popularly known as the Torture Memos came to light a few years later. These documents, prepared shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States Department of Justice, authorized certain enhanced interrogation techniques, generally held to involve torture of foreign detainees. The memoranda also argued that international humanitarian laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, did not apply to American interrogators overseas. Several subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), have overturned Bush administration policy, and ruled that Geneva Conventions apply.

I moved this material out of the lede. It is not sourced in the lede, but appears to have a basis in the body of the article. I would argue that it doesn't relate specifically enough to Abu Ghraib to be in the lede. Inclusion in the body of the article is enough.

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=next&oldid=916292545

 * During this insurgency, the United States was in the role of an occupying power.

Raises POV concerns, dubious, and comes from a tertiary source.

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=next&oldid=916292608

 * The abuse was also perpetrated by three female military officers shown in the images on this page, where they received a wide range of attention and were later convicted with several other members.

Seems odd to single out the sex of these three perpetrators.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. 1) I think this is a bit nitpicky; it's fairly well-established that the 9/11 attacks were the trigger for what the Bush administration called the War on Terror. We can find a better source. Unless what you're objecting to is specifically the "demands from the public" part; that phrase may indeed be dubious, and I wouldn't object to its removal. 2) I disagree, I think it's very relevant. These abuses were frequently defended, or at least perceived as not that big of a deal, because the victims were "bad people". As such, Karpinski's quote is quite relevant. English sources are preferable where available, but removing something just because the source isn't English isn't okay; indeed one could argue that given the direct involvement of the US and the UK in the Iraq war, a source from a different country gives necessary perspective. 3) Again, I disagree. We could maybe look into trimming it, but the biggest debate among reliable sources about these incidents is the "isolated vs systematic" question. As such, the torture memos are related; which is why sources mention them in connection with this topic. 4) What is the problem with a tertiary source? Are there sources which dispute the fact that the US was, at the time, an occupying power in Iraq? 5) No objections here, though I suggest we keep the source. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Israelis were the Interrogators
Numerous news articles reported that Israelis were employed as the actual interrogators because they  spoke Arabic. This should be included in Wikipedia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3863235.stm 47.202.49.36 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: States and their Secrets
— Assignment last updated by Mnbvcxz1234567 (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Prisoner information
Can we add some information on who the prisoners where and what they were in there for because there are a large part of the topic and information about them is not mentioned enough Conrad Morrell-Nichols (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Abu ghraib feces 06a.jpg

Identification of prisoner in photo
As stated in the references the photographed prisoner is NOT Ali-Shallal al-Qaisi.

[first https://worldcrunch.com/this-happened/hooded-man-photo]: "He was originally thought to be Ali-Shallal al-Qaisi, who was imprisoned at Abu Ghraib after US military seized his football pitch in Iraq for the purpose of dumping corpses and waste. He was arrested after attempting to contact foreign reporters about the incident.

"The prisoner who'd been nicknamed Gilligan was later correctly identified as Abdou Hussain Saad Faleh."

[second https://web.archive.org/web/20110514000853/http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43783-2004May20?language=printer]: "Another publicized photograph -- that of a hooded detainee hooked up to wires and standing on a box -- is also described in the statements.

"'On the third day, after five o'clock, Mr. Graner came and took me to room Number 37, which is the shower room, and he started punishing me,' said Abdou Hussain Saad Faleh, detainee No. 18170. 'Then he brought a box of food and he made me stand on it with no clothing, except a blanket. Then a tall black soldier came and put electrical wires on my fingers and toes and on my penis, and I had a bag over my head.'"

-Kez (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Ashraf Abdullah Ahsy" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashraf_Abdullah_Ahsy&redirect=no Ashraf Abdullah Ahsy] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Haj Ali (mayor)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haj_Ali_(mayor)&redirect=no Haj Ali (mayor)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Nick Berg et al.
I removed the following:

On May 7, 2004, Nick Berg, an American businessman who went to Iraq after the U.S. invasion, was captured and decapitated on video by the Islamist militant organization al-Ansars in response to Abu Ghraib.

The source in no way claims that the torture caused the beheadings. On the contrary, it points out that the beheadings could not have caused the torture.

However the video of the beheading (according to our article) did claim that it was in retaliation to the Abu Ghraib torture. A well referenced mention of this should ideally be in the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC).


text:
Talk:Eddie Fenech Adami

Untitled
I found a duplicate page which is a suspected copyvio (cut-and-paste) from. I listed the duplicate on Copyright problems and added the missing facts to this article, in my own wording. Andris 22:11, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Name
What is the rationale behind the title of the article as "Eddie" while his name is "Edward" (as also written in the text)? -- Goldie (tell me) 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In Malta he is known as Eddie even though Edward is his official first name. Wikipedia regulations say something about naming articles about people in accordance to the name or variant that is most recognised and used by the people; he should thus be listed as Eddie --Roderick Mallia 22:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Officially Dr. Fenech Adami had stated that in view that he is President, now he should be referred to as Edward... Maltesedog 12:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That might be true, but he is still known as Eddie among the majority of the people. --Roderick Mallia 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst his name is Edward, he is indeed known as Eddie. On the electoral ballot paper EDWARD was written during the years. This is the same as Giorgio Borg Olivier. I think someone had commented that we should use official names for the title of the article and indicate the popular name in the article. Maltesedog 19:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I was asking. His name is Edward, while the text can highlight the fact people tend to use the less formal form. Even the change of his attitude after taking the office might be valuable. -- Goldie (tell me) 16:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing his name from Eddie to Edward does not change the man.!!!!

Why is the name in Maltese "Dwardu"? He was never known as Dwardu! Always Eddie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.26.234 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

2004 libel case
The article refers to a libel case (not "slander" as it was broadcast) successfully instituted against Fenech Adami. The description of this case takes a good one-fifth of the section of a political career that spans close to three decades. I think this is both disproportionate and out of place. First, this libel case was inconsequential. Second, since when do inconsequential libel cases get a mention in biographical articles?

Demdem (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Eddie Fenech Adami


text:
Michael Stivic

Michael Casimir "Mike" Stivic is a fictional character played by Rob Reiner on the 1970s American television sitcom All in the Family. He is the live-in son-in-law of the series' lead character, Archie Bunker, who frequently calls him "Meathead". Michael is the husband of Archie's daughter Gloria (played by Sally Struthers).

Character overview
The character of Michael Stivic is an Americanized version of the British original: Till Death Us Do Part's Mike Rawlins, the Trotskyist "Randy Scouse Git" who arouses the passionate ire of his conservative father-in-law Alf Garnett. For the American version, the Trotskyist angle is drastically softened: Michael Stivic is a social liberal and somewhat of a leftist, but does not adhere to any form of communism. He is sympathetic to the Students for a Democratic Society movement (SDS), which is suggested by his occasional use of SDS ally and Yippie leader Abbie Hoffman's guerrilla theatre antics.

A Polish-American from Chicago, Michael is orphaned at a young age when a car crash claims the lives of his parents. He is raised by his uncle Casimir Stivic, a former Marine lieutenant turned florist, who calls him "Mickey" with great affection. He also has an uncle Alex.

When All in the Family begins, Michael is married to Gloria and shares a bedroom with her in the home of her parents, whom he addresses as "Ma" and "Archie" (or "Arch"), while focusing his efforts on earning a college degree in sociology. His first meeting with Archie (seen in flashback) portrays him as a bearded hippie with a tie-dyed shirt. His wardrobe throughout most of the series is much more subdued: most often he wears a denim shirt, jeans, and boots. He shaves his beard for his wedding with Gloria, but keeps his mustache afterwards (on rare occasions later in the series, however, he would sport a clean-shaven look) and wears his hair well below the collar. (Reiner's hairline receded very rapidly early in the series and he began wearing a toupee when playing the character.) In season 2, episode 5, "Flashback: Mike Meets Archie" (October 16, 1971), Michael and Gloria celebrate their first wedding anniversary. A 1972 episode centers on their second anniversary and the 1978 episode "The Stivics Go West" reveals that the couple are nearing their ninth anniversary.

In the show's early years, conflicts between left-leaning Michael and his bigoted father-in-law Archie Bunker are exacerbated by the characters living under the same roof. This arrangement, which begins immediately after Michael and Gloria's wedding, allows Michael to save for his college tuition. On their second wedding anniversary, he mentions lecturing Archie for "these past couple years I've been around here." (During his first meeting with Archie, Michael complains to Gloria that not only is he about to have Archie as a father-in-law, he'll soon be living with him until he graduates.) The close proximity results in frequent disputes, often over the simplest of topics, such as the proper order for putting on socks and shoes. Along with other issues, such as Michael's propensity for sitting in Archie's coveted chair and his huge appetite for the food purchased with Archie's working-class paycheck. Their huge ideological differences greatly contribute to the conflict between the characters. Michael is a determined agnostic, although he occasionally identifies himself as an atheist to provoke Archie, who assumes Michael has no belief in God. This is a stark contrast to Edith's quiet Christian church attendance and his own non-practicing but nonetheless staunchly Christian viewpoint. Michael is also a dedicated humanitarian who wants to change the world. Originally intending to become a social worker, his career aspirations shift towards teaching as the series progresses. When the neighboring Jefferson family leaves the neighborhood, this allows Michael and Gloria to rent the house from patriarch George, finally giving the couple a home of their own. The new arrangement eases the tension between Michael and Archie, but still allows for frequent visits and interactions between all of the family members.

Michael enjoys a warm relationship with Edith, whom he calls "Ma". She frequently intervenes to try to defuse tensions between her husband and son-in-law, though she also occasionally takes Mike to task for initiating unnecessary arguments with Archie. In the 1973 episode "Games Bunkers Play", Edith offers Michael some insight into Archie's attitude toward him. She explains that Archie dropped out of high school to help support his family during the Depression and he resents the fact that Michael has the chance to attend college and advance his education.

Michael is presented as a representative of the counterculture of the 1960s (reflecting current events during the run of the series). Michael is a dedicated academic, however, and there is no suggestion of the drug use or "free love" of that subculture. It is revealed in the season eight episode "Gloria and Mike Meet" that in 1969, Michael's dedication to humanitarianism was galvanized in order to weaken support for newly elected President Richard Nixon. Furthermore, that he was probably a member of the SDS's newly formed Worker Student Alliance that sought to encourage university students to find ways to fix problems within the working class.

Though supportive of human rights, Michael at times displays male chauvinism as well. This is evidenced when he objects to having his appendix removed by a female doctor and when he reveals himself to be a sore loser when playing a board game called Group Therapy with his family and neighbors. He differs with Archie over the potential successes women and racial minorities can achieve. Michael also believes that neither can evolve socially without a quality education from people like himself. This is demonstrated when he falsely characterizes a blue-collar handyman's black assistant as a minstrel show stereotype who dons the same "happy-go-lucky" attire as his boss in the season 3 episode "Everybody Tells the Truth" (Archie's version is just as stereotyped—the assistant is a member of the Black Power movement and his boss is a mafia thug). Michael is also determined to ensure that Gloria shares his beliefs.

In 1971, Michael is surprised but excited to learn that Gloria is pregnant, though the pregnancy ends in a miscarriage. Gloria becomes pregnant again in 1975 and their baby Joseph "Joey" Stivic is born in December of that year.

During early episodes, Michael's best friend is Lionel Jefferson. In the first season, Lionel surprises Michael by announcing that he and his family are moving into the house next door. However, the characters rarely see or refer to each other after the Jeffersons leave All in the Family to join the spin-off The Jeffersons. George Jefferson, however, later makes a guest appearance at his former residence when the Stivics start preparing for their move to California and meet with him to give notice that they will no longer be staying in his house. Another of Michael's close friends, Al Bender (played by Billy Crystal), marries Gloria's best friend Trudy Tannen in a 1976 episode.

Mike accepts a faculty position at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and he and Gloria move to California at the end of the 1977–78 season (at which time Reiner and Struthers ceased to be regulars on the show). They appear in a Christmas episode during the 1978–79 season, in which Archie, Edith, and Edith's niece Stephanie visit Michael and Gloria, exposing the fact that the couple have secretly separated due to troubles in their marriage, including Gloria's infidelity with one of Michael's college faculty colleagues. Though they seemingly resolve their differences during this episode, a Thanksgiving visit by Mike and Gloria during the 1979-80 season of Archie Bunker's Place shows that the Stivics' marriage is still troubled, exacerbated by Michael having lost his job after he and Gloria participate in a nude protest at a proposed nuclear power plant site and are arrested. This is the last appearance of the Michael Stivic character.

Michael Stivic does not appear in the 1982 spin-off series Gloria, which starred Sally Struthers. Initially, Reiner had been asked to participate in the series and resurrect his Michael Stivic character, but he declined. It is explained on the show that Michael left his wife and young son Joey (then played by Christian Jacobs) to live in a California commune with one of his students—whom Gloria described as "the homecoming queen, a girl named Muffy"—and is in the process of going through a bitter divorce. At the beginning of the series (September 1982), it has been 63 days since Michael walked out on Gloria; he calls to invite her to the commune, but things deteriorate quickly when he claims Gloria is incapable of holding a job or of supporting herself and Joey. By the end of the series (spring 1983), the divorce is final.

"Meathead"
Beginning with their first meeting, Archie routinely refers to Michael by the derogatory nickname "Meathead", as seen in a flashback in the second-season episode "Mike Meets Archie". In Archie's own words, it means "dead from the neck up. Meat...head."

A later episode of All in the Family reveals that Archie Bunker himself was referred to as "Meathead" in his youth.

Norman Lear said his father used to call him "Meathead".

title: Michael Stivic


text:
Romford railway station

Romford railway station is an interchange station on the Great Eastern Main Line, serving the town of Romford in the London Borough of Havering, east London. It is 12 mi down the line from London Liverpool Street and is situated between Chadwell Heath and Gidea Park. It is also the northern terminus of a branch line to Upminster operated by London Overground. Its three-letter station code is RMF and it is in Travelcard Zone 6.

The station is currently managed by the Elizabeth line. The majority of services that call at Romford are Elizabeth line, but the station is also served by off-peak Greater Anglia trains between Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria and Colchester Town.

East Anglia main line
From its inception, the Eastern Counties Railway (ECR) planned a route linking London and Norwich that would take it via Romford. Two routes were considered, that of the current line, and an alternative going through Ilford at Cranbrook Road, then passing near to Gidea Hall and crossing Romford Common approximately following the route of the current A12 before returning to the current railway alignment at Brentwood.

When the line was constructed, the first Romford station opened on 20 June 1839 as a single island platform located to the west of Waterloo Road, and formed the eastern terminus of the initial part of the Eastern Counties Railway from Mile End. Both stations acted as temporary termini, with the line extending east to Brentwood and west to Shoreditch in 1840.

In 1844, the station was relocated to its current position, some 400 m east of the original. Around this time, the gauge of the ECR was changed from 5 ft and 1520 mm gauge railways to standard gauge of. In 1860, the station was remodelled with platforms on each side of the line with access to the new station by a covered walkway from South Street to the London-bound platform and via an open slope and steps for the country-bound platform. Soon after this, the goods depot, which was situated to the south of the station, was connected to the Ind Coope brewery via a tunnel under the line. Other non-passenger traffic included goods for the Romford Gas Works and for cattle pens accessed from St Andrews Road, which were necessary due to the cattle market held in Romford every Wednesday.

The line became part of the Great Eastern Railway (GER) in 1862. It was grouped into the London and North Eastern Railway (LNER) in 1922.

Upminster branch
The construction of the Tilbury Docks in the 1850s gave expanded opportunities for rail traffic, and three proposals were made for a railway linking Romford to Tilbury. The London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (LT&S) were successful, and on 7 June 1893, the LT&S opened a station in Romford, on their line to, linking to the already existing connection from Upminster to Grays on the LT&S line to Tilbury. The LT&S had hoped to negotiate with the Great Eastern Railway to use their station, but concerns over fast trains led to the GER declining and a completely new station was built with a single platform and an entrance on the opposite side of South Street to the GER station. A footbridge was built to connect the two stations but was often closed during the day.

In 1934, the entrance to the platform of the line to Upminster was closed and the access to the single platform was provided by the footbridge from the main station platforms.

In May 2015, the Upminster branch line transferred from Abellio Greater Anglia to London Overground.

Elizabeth line
In the 1930s increasing traffic on the line led to two additional tracks and platforms being added by the LNER on the north side, the line having been quadrupled to a point west of Romford previously in 1901.

Electric trains started on the line from Liverpool Street to Shenfield in 1949, giving Romford 15 trains per hour to London during peak hours, and 6 trains per hour off-peak, a pattern that continued for over half a century.

In May 2015, the regular Shenfield stopping service transferred to TfL Rail.

In 2017 new trains began entering service as Crossrail partially opened under the TfL Rail brand. Platforms 2 to 5 were extended from their length of between 179 m and 182 m to accommodate the Crossrail trains, which are over 200 m long. New lifts, signage, help points, customer information screens and CCTV were installed. The upgrade works were completed in August 2022, after delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

TfL Rail services were rebranded as the Elizabeth line on 24 May 2022.

Accidents and incidents

 * On 29 December 1944, one person was killed and three were injured when, in darkness and heavy fog, a Chelmsford–London service passed two signals at danger on the approach to Romford and ran into the rear of a stationary freight train. The passenger train's speed at the moment of impact was about 15 mph. One crew member on the goods train was killed instantly. The Chelmsford train driver was held responsible for the collision in a Ministry of War Transport report.
 * On 4 February 2010, two people standing on the platforms at Romford were injured when stone ballast was shed from a freight train passing through the station. Subsequent examination found that the train wagon's doors had not been properly closed when it departed from the goods yard at Acton, bound for Ipswich.

Services
As of the December 2023 timetable, the typical Monday to Friday off-peak service is:

Elizabeth line

 * 8 tph (trains per hour) westbound to Paddington of which 2 continue to Heathrow Terminal 5
 * 8 tph eastbound to Shenfield

Greater Anglia

 * 2 tph westbound to London Liverpool Street
 * 1 tph eastbound to Southend Victoria
 * 1 tph eastbound to Colchester Town

London Overground

 * 2 tph eastbound to Upminster

Connections
London Buses routes 5, 66, 86, 103, 128, 165, 174, 175, 193, 247, 248, 252, 294, 296, 347, 365, 370, 375, 496, 498, 499, school routes 647, 648, 651, 674, 686, and night routes N15 and N86 serve the station.

title: Romford railway station


text:
Gloria Stivic

Gloria Stivic is a fictional character played by Sally Struthers on the American situation comedy All in the Family (which aired on the CBS television network from 1971 until 1979) and the spin-off series Gloria (CBS, 1982–83). The only child of Archie and Edith Bunker, Gloria is married to—and eventually divorced from—Michael Stivic. She was born 11 months after Archie and Edith were married, according to the fifth season episode “The Longest Kiss”.

Character overview
Gloria is often caught in the middle of arguments between her liberal husband Michael and her conservative father, Archie. As her relationship with Michael progresses, Gloria concludes that her father is wrong about a lot of things and sides with her husband's liberal beliefs. Despite his affection for her, Michael is also using his marriage to persuade long-sheltered Gloria to share his own beliefs as well.

Edith mentions (in the pilot) that Gloria was overprotected as a child due to being anemic. Archie often refers to her as his "little goil" [girl].

In season 7's "Mike and Gloria Meet", it is explained that Mike and Gloria met in 1969, the evening of President Nixon's inauguration (Michael had been planning to protest the event, but opted to go on a blind date with Gloria instead). They did not initially like each other, until they discovered that they share a mutual love of ballroom dancing. They married in 1970 in Archie and Edith's home in a civil ceremony (as a means of compromise between Archie's wish that they are wed by a Protestant minister and Michael's Uncle Cass' preference for a Catholic priest).

Gloria is the main breadwinner for the couple while they live in her parents' home during their first five years of marriage. With Michael attending college, initially for a bachelor's degree and then continuing for his master's, Gloria works full-time at a department store. She is sensitive about having only a high school education and sometimes feels that Michael condescends to her, particularly during arguments.

Upon Michael's graduation, he and Gloria move to the neighboring rental property owned by former neighbor George Jefferson, where the Jeffersons reside between seasons 1 and 5. At that time Gloria becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a boy, Joey Stivic, and becomes a stay-at-home mother, while Michael begins his teaching career. The Stivics later move to Santa Barbara, California after Michael is offered a better paying associate professor's position at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).

The Stivic marriage is tested after Gloria engages in an affair with Bud Kreeger, a college faculty colleague of her husband. Gloria confesses this affair to her parents, while remaining silent about sleeping with him, during Archie and Edith's Christmas visit to California.

Michael and Gloria are later arrested for engaging in a nude protest at a proposed nuclear power plant site. This costs Michael his well-paid job at UCSB and leaves the Stivics cash-strapped. Eventually, Michael abandons his wife and son to join a commune with one of his students, betraying a promise he makes to Archie before leaving for California that he will always take care of Gloria and Joey.

Struthers continued playing the character of Gloria Bunker in guest appearances on Archie Bunker's Place and on the 1982–1983 related series Gloria, in which she is divorced from Michael and finds employment in an upstate New York veterinarian's office. In this series, she is working towards becoming a fully qualified veterinarian's assistant while raising Joey as a single mother. Over the course of the show, she becomes romantically involved with Clark V. Uhley, Jr., another assistant in the same practice.

title: Gloria Stivic


text:
Talk:Jim Thorpe - All-American

''This page was listed on Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:Jim Thorpe - All-American/Delete.''

title: Talk:Jim Thorpe - All-American


text:
Talk:WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act

Untitled
I've moved this back to it's actual title. Jamesday 22:17, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

And now I've completed the edits which explain why using just one part of this act for the whole act didn't make sense. Jamesday 01:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this thing states 'effective technological measure', yet the word "effective" means 'able to accomplish a purpose', so that the very fact that something can be circumvented means it isn't effective...? [IANAL]

 * An alternative interpretation of the term 'effective', and one that seems to have been followed by the courts, is more like 'having the effect of'. Thus the word has been interpreted as expanding, rather than limiting applicability.  (Measures that weren't even designed for copy protection might have the effect of making copying more difficult.)  But it is certainly ambiguous on its face. --Speight (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please make a revision noting that while the WIPO act was part of the DMCA, the WIPO treaty came 2 years earlier and was actually the cause of the DMCA. This article's opening appears to insinuate that WIPO is child of the DMCA.

-Emerson (I don't have a wikipedia account) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.40.159 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060215220604/http://www.eff.org:80/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php to http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


text:
Lincoln Child

Lincoln Child (born October 13, 1957) is an American author of techno-thriller and horror novels. Though he is most well known for his collaborations with Douglas Preston (including the Agent Pendergast series and the Gideon Crew series, among others), he has also written eight solo novels, including the Jeremy Logan series. Over twenty of the collaborative novels and most of his solo novels have become New York Times bestsellers, some reaching the #1 position. Child and Preston's first novel together, Relic, was adapted into a feature film. Their books are notable for their thorough research and scientific accuracy.

Life and career
Born in Westport, Connecticut, but now a Florida resident, Child graduated from Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, with a major in English.

Soon afterward, in 1979, he secured a job as an editorial assistant at St. Martin's Press. By 1984, Child had become full editor. While in this position, he edited hundreds of books, most titles being American and English fiction.

In 1987, after founding the company's mass-market horror division, Child left the St. Martin's Press to become a systems analyst at MetLife. Child's first novel (co-written with Preston), Relic, was published in 1995. He left the company a few years later to write full-time.

In 2002, Child began his solo career with the debut novel Utopia, then wrote Death Match in 2004. These two novels were stand-alone works that introduced a new set of characters each time. However, with Deep Storm in 2007, Child introduced the character of Dr. Jeremy Logan, a Yale professor of medieval history and enigmalogist, whose role over the course of the series gradually increases with each book. He appeared in only one chapter in Deep Storm, then became a supporting character in Terminal Freeze (2009), before finally becoming the main protagonist in The Third Gate (2012). Utopia, Deep Storm, and Terminal Freeze all went on to become New York Times best sellers.

Child is now a resident of Sarasota, Florida.

Stand-alone novels

 * Utopia (2002)
 * Death Match (2004)

Jeremy Logan series

 * Deep Storm (2007)
 * Terminal Freeze (2009)
 * The Third Gate (2012)
 * The Forgotten Room (2015)
 * Full Wolf Moon (2017)
 * Chrysalis (2022)

Agent Pendergast series

 * Relic (1995)
 * Reliquary (1997)
 * The Cabinet of Curiosities (2002)
 * Still Life with Crows (2003)
 * Diogenes Trilogy
 * Brimstone (2004)
 * Dance of Death (2005)
 * The Book of the Dead (2006)
 * The Wheel of Darkness (2007)
 * Cemetery Dance (2009)
 * Helen Trilogy
 * Fever Dream (2010)
 * Cold Vengeance (2011)
 * Two Graves (2012)
 * White Fire (2013)
 * Blue Labyrinth (2014)
 * Crimson Shore (2015)
 * The Obsidian Chamber (2016)
 * City of Endless Night (2018)
 * Verses for the Dead (2018)
 * Crooked River (2020)
 * Bloodless (2021)
 * The Cabinet of Dr. Leng (2023)
 * Angel of Vengeance (2024)

Gideon Crew series

 * Gideon's Sword (2011)
 * Gideon's Corpse (2012)
 * The Lost Island (2014)
 * Beyond the Ice Limit (2016)
 * The Pharaoh Key (2018)

Nora Kelly series

 * Old Bones (2019)
 * " Storm" (2020)
 * The Scorpion's Tail (2021)
 * Diablo Mesa (2022)
 * Dead Mountain (2023)

Other

 * Mount Dragon (1996)
 * Riptide (1998)
 * Thunderhead (1999)
 * The Ice Limit (2000)

Short stories

 * "Gone Fishing" from Thriller: Stories to Keep You Up All Night (2006)
 * "Extraction" [eBook] (2012)
 * "Gaslighted: Slappy the Ventriloquist Dummy vs. Aloysius Pendergast" [eBook] (2014)

title: Lincoln Child