Talk:Steven Dale Green

Birth-Place of the Monster?

Can someone confirm this Monster's birth-place? Midland, Texas or Seabrook, Texas?

The first paragraph in Biographical details seems conflicting with his picture caption! Green grew up in Seabrook, Texas and moved to Midland, Texas when he was 14. ...?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coramaroc (talk • contribs) 06:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Too early to label him a killer or rapist

Seeing as his trial has not started, I removed the killer & rapist links because it has yet to be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krustynailz (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Update:

On May 7, 2009, a federal jury convicted Green of rape and murder. He faces the death penalty for his crimes.[11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coramaroc (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge of a section of this article with main article of the Mahmudiyah incident

The Mahmudiyah incident section (only) of this article should be merged with the main Mahmudiyah incident article. Repeating the details of the incident here is redundant, especially considering that new details of the incident are emerging by the day, making it a current news story. Of course it makes sense to briefly mention what the Mahmudiyah incident entailed, but a prompt referral to the main Mahmudiyah article should then follow.

Steven Dale was one of 5 soldiers charged for the rape and murder. He the most well known because he was charged in federal court. The other 4 are in Iraq, away from the public eye. It seems a disproportionate degree of credit is being given to Steven Dale only on account of his greater public notoriety. Were the US military to release details of the other 4, the press would be all over them as well.

This article can well be dominated by details of Green's personal and professional life, however the Mahmudiyah incident should be given it's own space as Steven Dale was one of several players involved in that event.

This is akin to having separate articles for Lee Harvey Oswald, and the Kennedy assasination --User:Drpak 18:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

age of victim : ID card proves age

The ID card was obtained by Reuters. I added it in the main article . Her age was 14. --Drpak 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the birth-date which is in Arabic numerals 28/2/1992. That makes her 14-years and 2 weeks old! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coramaroc (talk • contribs) 06:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

age of victim

While it's almost certainly not 25 as stated by the military, it is not yet clear whether Abeer Hamza was 14, 15 or some other age. There are still conflicting accounts. Stating her age definitively here is unverifiable information and hence not permitted.

• Her uncle appears to describe her as a 15-year old here.

• The hospital apparently believes she is 14, as we see here.

There are also somewhat less credible reports of 20 and 25 floating around. Which is it?

If anyone intends to keep inserting a definitive number, please show uncontroverted evidence of Abeer Hamza's age here. Until then, why not just sidestep the age issue in the beginning by using the equally accurate "villager." --Birdmessenger 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The media reports of her being an adult were part of the initial attempt at a cover-up, which failed miserably. Not that her being an adult would have made it ok, but her being a child makes it that much worse. nut-meg (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The photo of her ID card shown on TV indicated she would have turned 15 in August. That is "verifiable."Edison 04:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mom's age

FWIW, if her mom's age is really 34 that puts an upper limit on her age, and she was almost certainly a teenager. I don't think there is any problem with reporting the ages reported in other sources, so long as the source is properly cited. -- Geo Swan 20:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, (though some sources are still mentioning the possibility of her being 20 years old--not impossible even if the mother was 34) so long as we don't definitively declare her to be a "15-year-old" or "14-year-old". And we have this in there: Military officials give her age as 20, while the affidavit filed in the case describes her as a 25-year-old;[3] however, an Iraqi official has said that she was only 15 years old.[4] An Iraqi doctor at the Mahmoudiya hospital has stated she was just 14.[5], which covers the age issue well, I think. --Birdmessenger 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The affidavit does not describe her as 25. It describes the description of her by the accused as 25.

It is clear she is 14-years-old by US and western definitions. Her birth certificate and death certificate both give date of birth as August 19, 1991. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/09/soldiers.charged/index.html In much of the world this would be called 15 as in 15th year of life, by US standards and those employed on wikipedia this would be 14.

The incorrect attribution of age as 25 or 20 on varous miliary investigative reports is not relevent now that her official birth records have been confirmed.

Her age is relevent in terms of legal issues and in terms of noteworthiness.

The age of 25 derives from the original investigators combat strees debriefing of the accused http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iraq/usgreen63006cmp4.html. It is what they asserted they believed her age to be. Without prejudice to wehter the acused were lying about what they thought her age was, it is the only basis for that number. The age of 21 derives from initial visual examination of a burned and mutilated body which included a crushed skull. (I will stick to objective facts here with one exception that I think it is possible the early investigaotrs took the number 25, looked at the body, were certain she was younger and split the difference between what the body age looked like and the number 25 they had been given by the debriefers, and split the difference).

There is no other basis for these numbers. The actual age of 14 by US and wikipedia standards (15 by Iraqi standards and ) derives from official birth records.

The initial mistake of the age is due to statmeents by the accused murderers. the second is due to a preliminary examination. Whatever reasons lie behind that there is no reason on Wikipeida to keep repeating these incorrect inflated ages, since raping and murdering a 14 year old is an aggravating factor in the UCMJ, in civilian criminal law and in public opinion (which is relevent in a newsworthy case) as to the heinousness of a crime. 72.75.63.86 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's more than enough for me.--Birdmessenger 01:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Greene's discharge from the Army for 'anti-social personality disorder' (prior to the discovery of his alleged part in the crime) may be an indication that Greene is a Sociopath.

He deserves a fair trial-- but that discharge may tell us something very important about Greene. Sociopaths have no empathy for others-- and they lack any conscience. They often look like the rest of us-- but they are very different creatures and are capable of ruthless behavior.

Sean7phil 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Where is his mug shot picture? Are mug shots copyrigted? 24.166.188.29 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think mugs are public domain, since they are paid for by taxpayer dollars. Isn't this picture of him a mug? There is probably also a military id pic out there somewhere. nut-meg (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea the main picture is his mug shot, this post was just made before that pic was added. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"I came over here because I wanted to kill people."

The Washington Post article referenced in in this article quotes him as having said this; would this be something important to add to the article? It would reveal rather a lot about his state of mind and is, well, right there in front of us. I'd add it in but I'd rather wait for someone more familiar with the article (I only scanned through it once or so) to find an appropriate place to include it.  Aar  ►  15:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The "I came here to kill people" quote is a large part of the defence teams case. I assumed it was already mentioned in this article, sure add it in. Really, this whole thing needs a rewrite. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

War Criminal

The article says he is a convicted war criminal. I thought he was convicted in a civilian court rather than military or international court. Was he even charged specifically with "war crimes"? Doesn't that have a definite legal meaning? Not that I don't agree that he's morally a war criminal, but we should really try to be as accurate as possible. nut-meg (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically I agree with you, however Wikipedia is not defined by international law or U.S. law, but by our own consensus. I think we can all agree that this act was a crime of war, so for the sake of clarity to our readers, I think it's easiest to define him as a war criminal. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does still have to follow laws, libel being an important one. It's unlikely that Green is going to sue Wiki for calling him a convicted war criminal, but rules should be followed anyway. I don't know if this is really a violation. The way it is might be just fine, but saying he is a "convicted war criminal" as opposed to he is "convicted of war crimes" are close to being the same thing. I'd rather err on the side of accuracy. Try reading it from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the incident and see what it looks like. I know this is sort of a picky thing, but I'd like to see Wikipedia be as accurate and credible as possible (tough task, I know)nut-meg (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "convicted war criminal" is fine, perhaps it might be best to look up about the legal definitions of what makes a "war criminal", otherwise we're just speculating. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Was Green a "war criminal"? Many observers, including reliable, authoritative sources, think so. Personally, I agree. But I changed the one instance where the article called Green's crimes a war crime, in the wikipedia's voice. We don't say "Hitler was evil", in the wikipedia's voice. We quote RS who say "Hitler was evil".

  I think it is a mistake to call Green a "convicted war criminal", when he was convicted of simple murder, not a war crime. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Good stopped merge

Hi, good that someone stopped the merge. The person whom decided to close the Afd said that he didnt "take into account" some peoples opinions. This isnt a merge article. end of story.--Judo112 (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He also didnt at all mention other Keep sayers who actually told why BLP didnt apply on this article. something smells very bad..--Judo112 (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody stopped the merger. An editor just removed the template. Vandalism doesn't stop it. The way to stop the merger is to take it to DRV and appeal the AfD, not vandalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An updated version

I have provided an updated article, one incorporating considerable new material, so, as per the discussion at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March#7_March_2014, {{db-g8}} {{db-g4}} should not apply. Anyone who thinks the updated article merits deletion should initiate a second AFD. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• That DRV discussion doesn't prohibit G4 from applying. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but doesn't the second sentence of G4 say: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies."

Did you compare the first version, from 2018-02-14 to the last version from 2018-02-14? Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Adding non-notable content for the sake of filling space doesn't change that it's substantially identical, substance coming from the word substance and that's what's lacking. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Green is a text-book case

Green is a WP:TEXTBOOKCASE. His life inspired a well-received play, and multiple scholars felt that aspects of his life merited discussion in their scholarly books and articles.

I think it is important to note that the scholars who have used him as an example have chosen different aspects of his story as worthy of discussion. There are topics that are genuine subtopics of broader topics. If a topic is genuinely linked to only a single other topic, the main reason to establish a separate topic would be length. If the article on the broader topic was already long, a second article, on the subtopic is defensible.

But it is more common for topics to be interlinked with multiple other topics. In my opinion short standalone articles are defensible, when multiple other articles ought to link to them.

In Green's case:

1. Green's story inspired a play. A reader who was interested in plays based on real people is best served when Steven Dale Green is in a standalone article.
2. Steve Glauser argued, in "The End of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'”, that it didn't make sense for the openly gay to be barred from military service, when petty criminals, with impulse control issues, like Green, were given "Moral waivers". Making those interested in gays in the military to plough through Mahmudiyah killings isn't considerate to our readers.
3. Prosecution of former soldiers under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act is rare. Some sources say that Green was the very first individual to whom this act applied.
4. Anthony E. Giardino asked, in "Using Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to Prosecute War Crimes: Looking beyond the War Crimes Act", why Green wasn't charged with a war crime.
5. Leading experts in brain imaging disputed whether brain scans established Green had enlisted with pre-existing brain damage that reduced his impulse control.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• So let me make sure I have this right: 1) His life inspired a non-notable play 2) Some guy made a minor reference to him in an article in an obscure journal 3) A nedulous claim from "some sources" 4) A guy asked a question in the Boston College Law Review and 5) something about brain scans that do nothing to establish notability. Honestly, most of that section of his so-called "cultural impact" is trivial and probably doesn't belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, you don't have that right. Not even close.
• The stories of Green's comrades are not as complex as Green's.

  While Green is of interest to those coming to the wikipedia to learn more about the Mahmudiyah rape and killings, his story is also of interest to those who want to know about killers who are reported to have impulse control due to a brain injury or brain disease (Charles Whitman, the 1966 Texas Tower shooter, suspected there was something wrong with his brain, triggering violent urges, tried and failed to get medical attention, and his autopsy found he had an undiagnosed brain tumor.)

  The "moral waiver" Green was given was controversial. The Pentagon couldn't get enough recruits, dring the Iraq war, and started to enlist individuals who would normally have been rejected, because they failed to get a high school diploma, or they had a criminal record. Readers may come to the wikipedia looking for information on individuals given these moral waivers, for whom the Mahmudiyah incident is of zero interest.

  You called the play "non-notable". And why would you disagree with the American Association of Theatre Critics, who awarded the playwright an award which came with $25,000 cash?

• We have some special purpose notability guidelines, under which a select individuals have their notability established through just one criteria -- like winning a Victoria Cross, a Nobel Prize, or holding an office at the State or Federal level. But almost all articles have their notability established by adding up the notability of cumulative notability factors. Green's comrades may have limited notability factors, but Green has multiple notability factors, that are not connected to Mahmudiyah, or are only tenuously connected to Mahmudiyah. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Some critics group giving a token prize doesn't sound convincing. So yes, I stick with non-notable play. The ominous "moral waiver" (which wasn't as uncommon as it may sound at that time) may or may not be controversial, but that doesn't make him notable. Again, brain scans etc may be an intersting topic, but they don't make this individual notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • For the record the award comes with $25,000 in cash. While $25,000 is an order of magnitude less than a Nobel, it is $25,000 more than an Oscar. So calling a "token prize" strikes me as a feeble clutching at straws. It is a significant, prestigious award. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
      • It's token. Nobody is vying for an Oscar hoping for a cash prize. When your big cash prize won't buy most new cars, it's token. Is the "American Association of Theatre Critics" the same as the American Theatre Critics Association? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)