h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Graner and Abu Ghraib - A3531188
Author: MrRollyPollyCat - U887838

I normally post in the Alternative Writing Workshop, so I'd appreciate it if people would tell me if there's something else I'm supposed to do to make this more in the normal Guide Style.

Without having the time to check the factual ins and outs of this entry, there are a few things that need addressing. I must stress that I am not suggesting a right or wrongness of this entry, merely suggesting the style is not correct.

For instance: "an abusive, mentally deranged son of a bitch"
I believe you can report the facts as generally accepted, but for me there is too much personal emotion in this for it to make the EG. Entries should be balanced; a sentence such as this presumes you are not. Also much of this entry is written in the first person, which again is inappropriate for an 'encyclopaedia-type' entry such as the EG.

I suggest you check out the Writing-Guidelines and perhaps try to write a less emotional, objective entry on the issue. You have an intelligent style, but more balance is required.

I agree with SR. Although I agree with what you've said some of it is opinion and won't be allowed in an edited guide entry. There are ways around it. To use SR's example you can say 'abusive' or 'mentally deranged' if you can provide supporting evidence for it, which I'd say you certainly have for abusive but you'll have to let people draw their own conclusions as to his being a 'son of a bitch'.

It's not necessary for you to use parenthetical citations in an EG entry. Trust me, they'll know if you've plagiarised something; you don't need to prove you haven't! If you're using a quote from somewhere, you could say 'the New York Times reports that...' or something like that, or refer to the source in a footnote. That way it's much less clunky and reads more fluidly. Much nicer, don't you think?

I'm wading through PR in search of entries to recommend. This one caught my eye, however there are a couple of things that I think exclude it from inclusion in the EG, as written.

Entries in the EG are supposed to be balanced. Unfortunately, the phrase "Graner deserves his punishment and more" is quite judgemental and not a factual statement.

There are also some factual discrepancies. You say he was accused of doing various things during the time he worked at the prison in Greene County, however the Wikipedia page you referenced says "A prison spokesman said none of the allegations involved Graner." The Wikipedia descripion says he was a guard when there were numerous allegations of abuse, as were at least two dozen other guards. He was not dismissed at the time which implies the allegations which may have been levelled against him were not found to be true.

Ultimately, I think the question in the last paragraph: "When is the trial for the man who hired Specialist Charles A. Graner?" precludes a Scout from picking the entry for inclusion in the EG.

If this entry was written more objectively, it would probably be a candidate for inclusion in the EG.

I appreciate the words... but the truth of the matter is, I don't think I'm really cut out for the edited guide. I mean, the reason I wanted to write the article was to indite the US government for the placement of Charles Graner and show that he was being used as a scapegoat for something much bigger than what the American people were told was happening. Taking out lines like, "When's the trial for the man who hired Charles A. Graner" kinda screws with my point. I dunno... maybe I should stick this into the Alternative Writing Workshop with the rest of my stuff and hope some underguide scout finds it.

I'll take another crack at it before I send it out of Peer Review. Tell me what you think? Am I going to be able to stay with my key messege (described in the previous post) for the Edited Guide? Anyway, I've looked at the areas you mentioned and found new ways to write them. I've cut out some of the more opinionated sections and rewritten the questions at the end.

To me this looks *much* better, and the tone to me is now suitable for the EG. Glad you didn't give up on it

Just a few corrections for you:

Sadam > Saddam
threatening prisoner's > prisoners
kind of scape goat > scapegoat
"Iraqi Government" > 'Iraqi Government' (single, not double quotes)
just to destabalize > destabilise (British English spellings for the EG)

Take out the Wikipedia references too; you don't need to quote sources like this.

I'm really happy that you changed this around like you did. It's difficult to do, especially when you have strong opinions on an emotive subject, and you've handled it very well. Great work, and thanks for listening to the suggestions.

I agree with Skankyrich. This looks much better and is now more appropriate for the EG. It takes dedication to get something ready for the EG and I'm glad you've been hanging in there.

I think the style and quality of the writing is fine

I'm not sure how controversial and current you can be in an Edited Guide Entry but I'd like to see this get in.

couple of minor points

Since the patriot act was inacted > Since the Patriot Act was enacted

car theives > car thieves

with this

This is pretty good, and certainly much more balanced than when first written.
It's difficult to write an EG-fit piece that asks a challenging question, but this might now do it.

We Brits have just had our Graner-equivalents sentenced, btw. Hung a guy up from a fork-lift, among other bad things.

I don't personally think it needs orders from the shadows to make these kind of things happen. I reckon that when you train none-too-bright guys to kill, and then put them in alien and frightening places where nearly everyone could be out to kill them, then you shouldn't be surprised when they take it out on the few people they don't actually have reason to fear.

Anyone here? Anyone got anything to say about this entry? I haven't because I'm not up on these sorts of things...but *bounce*

I don't know if I'm really familiar enough with the subject to have anything to say about it... but I'm here anyway.

Speaking as someone from a military family, I don't agree with the conspiracy theory implied in this article at all. You're TRAINED to think of the enemy as "non-human" in order to kill them, then be able to go home from the war and not kill anyone else.

Unfortunately, this leads to war atrocities such as expereinced in Viet Nam. Men fighting Noreiga in Panama were convicted of collecting ears of their kills as souveniers. Some of these men were in charge, some weren't.

The reason Abu Ghraib was such a big story is that it happened in a prison, in a controlled environment, and not in the field.

And yes, sometimes violent men are given a second chance when they really shouldn't. I my opinion, this means "Shit Happens", not "It Happens on Purpose"

My

I'd like to be able to believe that the government and the military weren't interested in using fear and torture in order to control people, but unfortunately, that doesn't really fit with the history of the United States, or any other country for that matter. A "war on terror" that will never change, telling people just how frightened they should be on a daily basis... it's an attempt to control the populace through fear. And from the look of the last election, it worked. This doesn't make me happy. I mean, I'd love it if I thought I could trust my government, but frankly I haven't seen any reason to in the last few years. Abu Ghraib just fits a bit too well this profile. This is just trying to control a foreign populace instead of a domestic one. It goes to show that the methods for controlling a foreign populace would be more extreme. They don't vote for our leaders. Also, I'd much prefer to believe that the evil we are commiting is due to those ambitious enough to get themselves into power than your average military joe. And let's not forget how much the government's been trying to hide what information's out there. The media's word choice alone has been proof enough of that. When a government works this hard to create ignorance amongst its citizens, that goverenment's got to be trying to hide something.

Hi MRPC,

If I may try to rephrase what has already been offered: If the case against CG is so very cut and dried, a simple statement of the verified facts would be enough to place plenty of blame on both CG and the USA in the minds of any rational person who believed them. The other stuff just weakens your case. For example, 'It had been Graner who put the razor blades in the prisoner's dinner,' seems to be a statement of fact, but then you go and say that it was not proven. Do you truly know differently? Were you, perhaps, present?

I don't think that there has been any government that is above indictment, from merry old England to Zanzibar. All have been known to fall down in respect to their own high sentiments. This would not excuse an intentional placement of this person in a position to do harm, but I cannot say that I'd be shocked to find it was all true.

Trouble is, just now, I don't believe that the facts are sufficiently clear to justify posting this just yet.

I will be interested in reading other entries, keep writing. The style may be emotionally charged, but I have no doubt that you can conquer that.

Hi, any progress ?

At the moment with this entry there's still, I'm afraid, too much personal opinion and viewpoints rather than hard factual data.

What might be of more use to the Guide is a factual retelling of what the prison is, what it had been before, who was in charge, how did the story of the abuses that took place there leak out... that kind of thing. Unfortunately, at the moment, this is a personal opinion piece and as such isn't really suitable for the Edited Guide.

Great work, though! I'm sure the Alternative Writing Workshop will be eager to lap it up.

Paully

the resercher hasn't posted for over 2 months, can we say back to entry ?

Added to my list.