Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Not everything is a controversy - change the title

I've seen other examples on Wikipedia before, maybe it's to create drama or push a certain viewpoint, but there is no reason the article title should have the word "controversy" in it, which forces the direction of the article. This is an article about the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, and that should be the article title. We can detail the publication and response to the details and let the reader decide as to how "controversial" this is without telling him outright via the URL. - 92.17.45.6 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Moved. NW (Talk) 02:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the title change. (That said, either one would be descriptive, and not widely accepted as the name of the airstrike by sources. As such, I don't think they should appear bold in the lead, but not long after I removed the bold title, another editor added one again. I'd rather not edit war over style stuff, but I still think it's wrong.) --an odd name 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike incident might be more in line with similar articles.   — C M B J   03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the change was appropriate, but maybe not disambiguous enough ("Baghdad Apache airstrike", "Baghdad Rueters airstrike", etc.) Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) ALSO, this aids in searching for this article. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing "controversy", but "July 12, 2007 Baghdad Airstrike" is a little too ambiguous..."July 12, 2007 Baghdad Airstrike Incident" seems like an appropriate neutral title to me.24.68.52.10 (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another agreement here, on strictly factual grounds: the article does not describe a controversy, or disagreement: all parties cited seem to agree on what happened. The word "incident" seems to be unnecessary; what happened was an airstrike on a group of civilians including journalists, who were mistaken for armed insurgents. --FOo (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with FO. The "controversy" claims are fringe at best, despite the Internet community's sudden (and sure to short-lived) fixation on it. And "incident" is vague and redundant. Good move. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with above comments. The title is too ambiguous - there may have been many airstrikes on that day in Baghdad - and I do not feel that adding the words "controversy" or "incident" to the title would be an exageration. The killing of innocent civilians may have been unintentional, it is still a huge mistake by the US military, which passively tried to cover this "incident" up through various means.--DragonFly31 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What "various means", exactly? They openly addressed all of this years ago, and the release of the footage only supports their position that the reporters were embedded with armed insurgents. There was no cover-up. People who want to see controversy will find it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

At very least, the question of whether there were other airstrikes in Baghdad on that day is irrelevant; many, many articles are titled something which could apply to some other subject that is not notable enough. For example, I do not doubt that there are a thousand people with the common two names Tom and Hanks, yet the article only concerns itself with those two. // "Controversy" describes (and literally means) argument or crossing of words (stories). An event with many controversial implications is not necessarily a controversy, and is necessarily not a controversy when the story of what constitutes the event is not argued at all. // "Incident" is not an exaggeration, but it is redundant. An airstrike is an incident. Similarly, half the articles on Wikipedia could have the word "incident" added to the end; if you try it, while the adding would be analogous to this article, it might be more obvious that the word is unnecessary in "Assassination of Julius Caesar Incident" something similar. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If the desire is for more detail in the article title, then follow the US Military reports and use "... New Baghdad airstrike" (the exact area it took place in). Fluff words such as "incident" add little of value, and make linking hard, requiring pipes. —Sladen (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If we agree that this airstrike could be considered as an "incident", it would then be much more suitable to include this in the title. The reason that it would be inapropriate to title "Assassination of Julius Caesar Incident" is that there was only one Caesar, and only one assassination of Caesar. This is not the case with this airstrike. My opinion is that the title is vague enough that some other wording should be used to clearly identify this strike as different - I trust that reporters are not killed in every US strike in Bahgdad. To answer another user, reference to a "cover-up" in this case is probably exaggerated - and a parallel to 9/11 theories is clearly exaggeration too. Yet, the military personnel which gave that video to Wikileaks clearly does not want to be identified. Why has Wikileaks released this video? If the military truly were "open", should it not have released that video years ago with appropriate explanation? ... How many other similar events have occurred?--DragonFly31 (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title reflect what is unique about this event? To me that is the leaked video showing the deaths of two Reuters camera men under US fire in a combat zone. The length of the leaked video is itself also unusual. I have not seen anything like it. Deaths in conflict, combat video excerpts and air-strikes in Baghdad are commonplace. Perhaps a title along the lines of: "July 12, 2007 Reuters photojournalists killed in Baghdad airstrike: leaked video". Slightly wordy I guess.Galerita (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said before: yes, it's true that the title could refer to any airstrike in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But as an encyclopaedia article title it is not ambiguous. There was only ONE notable airsrike in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. (Notable here means that many newsplaces/people have paid attention to it.) Similarly there was probably more than one Julius Caesar (given people's tendency to steal famous names for their children...), but only one really notable one, so that article title which SHOULD be considered ambiguous is not. ... Though how the unambiguity of a title relates to adding the unnecessary word "incident" is a mystery to me.

To make it clear again: an "airstrike" is an "event", or "incident." Similarly, "Tom Hanks" is a person, and "the World Trade Center" is a building, but it would be the same to call the articles "The human named Tom Hanks" or "The World Trade Center buildings." Flipping Mackerel (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point - and agree with it now.--DragonFly31 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)--194.98.70.12 (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously biased

[... Obviously biased ...]

This article is not biased in any way. The article is simply reporting the facts. American soldiers killed civilians whom they mistook for Iraqi freedom fighters. 63.115.34.34 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Deadman909

This article is extremely biased. Furthermore, the individuals in this video are clearly insurgents and this whole claim of "war crimes" is just people trying to stir up international anger at the US military. At 1:20 you can clearly, obviously see a man with a RPG7 leaning out from around the corner of a building observing the Apache (or possibly responding to the noise of its rotors). At 2:01 before the AH-64 begins to fire you can clearly see one individual with an AKM on his shoulder and another holding to me what looks like a RPG warhead. Another is holding what some think is a camera, but it looks much more like a black case for carrying grenades or mortar rounds to me. When they zoom in at 4:03 after engaging the targets you can clearly see a Kalashnikov lying on the ground next to one of the bodies. Then a van shows up and starts loading the bodies up. Seriously, how much more clear could this be people? Why would news reporters move a van to a location they had just been SHOT AT and start loading up the bodies of insurgents they've never met before as well as two "reporters"?

This whole thing is ridiculous. There are plenty of real gun camera captures where questionable engagements take place, but this is not one of them. You all just want to see something that isn't there. Vayne (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not discuss your opinion, some of which I agree with, but instead contribute constructively to make a better make a better, NPOV encyclopedic article. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to discuss my opinion. I was simply stating it. I provided the honest facts of what I saw in the video with the hope that someone who does care enough about editing this article (frankly, I do not) can do so with some honest information rather than the biased "these are innocent civilians" BS being passed as truth. I've never more clearly seen weapons on a helicopter gun cam before. This whole controversy is absurd and I'm entitled to point that out to spare the gullible people who believe whatever they read to be truth. Wikileaks totally blew it by claiming these were innocents, don't perpetuate the lie! Vayne (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get some good screen grabs of what you're talking about.   — C M B J   05:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You come over rather arrogantly. "I provided the honest facts of what I saw" - it's your opinion, nothing more, nothing less - and you're asking here for people to modify the article accordingly, because you don't care enough to do so! Toby Douglass (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you see it that way, Toby. I wasn't asking anyone to edit the article, I was simply providing what I saw! You can call it my opinion if you want, but I know what I saw and once I know what I've seen it becomes a fact personally *to me*. By saying, "I provided the honest facts" I was simply stating that what I had seen was enough to convince *me*. If you want to interpret that as me saying that it's the "100% honest and complete truth and you are all wrong and not entitled to your opinions" then by all means, go ahead. Personally, I'm out of this conversation. Nothing good can come of it at this point. There's my opinion, like it or leave it. Vayne (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should question what you believe to be a fact in this matter. This is exactly what we all try to do. When you say, "... is holding what some think is a camera, but it looks much more like a black case for carrying grenades or mortar rounds to me...", clearly there is enough doubt in your sentence to say that it is not a definite statement. I agree, it is difficult enough (for those of us who do not have extended military knowledge or an experience in analysing these videos) to see the difference between a camera and other types of equipment. RPG's can be mistaken for cameras. Cameras can be mistaken for RPG's.--DragonFly31 (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course if cameras were mistaken for RPGs, either coincidentally there were also RPGs lying around or being used as well, or the US military is lying about finding them on the site in their original report of the matter. --86.181.123.179 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

..."a fact personally *to me*" is the definition of an opinion, Vayne. It is also a common fallacy to attribute ignorance, incompetence, or apathy to other people, but the idea that you are the first person with the expertise to examine the video (and the will to comment) is ludicrous. You are welcome to raise objections but you are not encouraged to elevate a position which has been dismissed nearly universally by qualified people (yes, most of the commenters here are unqualified, including myself, on military video, but not everyone whose opinions are expressed in the article are. One organisation in particular that disagrees with your assessment is the U.S. Army, which declared there were cameras despite their obvious bias against there being any evidence indicating civilian victims.) Please, therefore, proceed in a civil manner and not an unduly exalted one. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember hearing about this.

I remember reading about this some time ago. My older brother, who is a US Army Ranger, was talking about this with me. Me and him both agree that this illustrates just how messed up the entire situation in Iraq really is. A "normal" war, there isn't the sort of confusion that results in this. I refuse to believe that the Apache pilots saw a bunch of civilians and thought "hey I wanna kill some dudes!" Which is what the tone of this article implies. To be a chopper pilot requires an education that people with murderous tendencies don't really have the psychological capacity to go through, really, and I really, REALLY doubt that they would have fired if they had known exactly what was really happening. This is little more than an example of the horrors the confusion of war causes, it's not outright murder like what is hinted in this article. Neutrality on Wikipedia? It's becoming difficult to see these days on news articles. Yes, this was a tragedy but this also seems more like something slightly politically motivated than an informational article. Leave the political motivations to blogs, please? 71.191.209.143 (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello .143; Wikipedia has a very strong requirement to maintain WP:NPOV. Could you highlight any of the sentences that you feel convey bias, and suggest how they could be improved. Hopefully the article follows the body of WP:RS used as citations within the article (and this includes the redacted report that Centcom made available). Many appreciations for your feedback. —Sladen (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of cited material

I'll jump in. I'm curious as to why you reversed my removal of an obviously incorrect claim from the article. The vast majority of sources reporting on this (including wikileaks) acknowledge that the individuals being targeted in the video possessed, at the minimum, one AK-47. The fact that one article from one paper says that "it is unclear if some of the men are armed" does not support this article's claim that the video is unclear as to whether anyone was armed. Could you explain why you felt necessary to reinsert that claim? Leuchars (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This revert[1] restores the wording "From the video, it is unclear if any of the men are armed." following up that citation, it includes the assertion "It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone." Since they tie up, meet WP:CITE and WP:RS I'm intrigued on how it adds to the article by removing them. Perhaps you could explain the perceived benefit?

The summary message used to document the deletion "The video makes it exceedingly clear that at least 2 of the men were armed, and the subsequent discovery of AK-47s and RPGs at the site further confirms this" certainly sounds like WP:OR, something that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. When there is a choice between a secondary source and one's own interpretations, then the secondary source needs to be followed. —Sladen (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a choice between a secondary source and my own interpretation, it's a choice between a secondary source and various other secondary sources including the very video at issue. Wikileaks and most other sources explicitly acknowledge that there is an AK-47. Removing that sentence adds to the article by removing incorrect information. If I found an article that said "it is unclear from the video whether the insurgents had been firing on US troops," do you think it would add to the article to include that? From my perspective it would unnecessarily inject bias, much like the text you're defending. Leuchars (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The video footage is a primary source. You must not rely, infer, decree or attempt to interpret what it shows (WP:NOR). If The Guardian (a secondary WP:RS) makes a statement, then that passes WP:V and is appropriate for inclusion.

If you can find a known WP:RS (eg. a respected puplication with a reputation to loose) that states "it is unclear from the video whether the insurgents had been firing on US troops," (your example) then as a neutal editor one should integrate that reliable information and WP:CITE it. To not do is implicitly contributing to WP:BIAS and counter to Wikipedia's objectives (the WP:FIVEPILLARS). —Sladen (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The video itself is a primary source, but wikileaks' commentary and annotations are secondary. They explicitly state that there is an AK-47. Do you consider wikileaks to be unreliable? I'm also not following your logic - anytime that a reliable source says anything about a topic, it must be included whether or not such selective inclusion would appear biased? Leuchars (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks is an organisation that provides source material for journalists whereas The Guardian as mainstream news source historically has more to lose, and would likely be held up as more reliable (WP:RS "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable.") Recall that (WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth).—Sladen (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"permission to engage" was given BEFORE Namir took up his camera.

From Wikileaks twitter NOTE: "permission to engage" (kill) Reuters journalists was given BEFORE Namir took up his camera.

01:33	Hotel Two-Six this is Crazy Horse One-Eight [communication between chopper 1 and chopper 2]. Have individuals with weapons.
01:41	Yup. He's got a weapon too.
01:43	Hotel Two-Six; Crazy Horse One-Eight. Have five to six individuals with AK47s [automatic rifles]. Request permission to engage [shoot].
01:51	Roger that. Uh, we have no personnel east of our position. So, uh, you are free to engage. Over.
02:00	All right, we'll be engaging.
02:02	Roger, go ahead.
...
02:11	All right, we got a guy with an RPG.
02:13	I'm gonna fire.
02:14	Okay.

--mj41 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Which leads me to another inconsistency in the sworn statements, I believe in this case of the pilot, who says:

One AIF was leaning around a corner with an RPG preparing to engage friendly forces so I called Bushmaster 06 to ask for clearance of fire. 1126 who was the commander of the element receiving fire and Bushmaster 06 then gave the team clearance to fire.

I'd like to point out that Hotel Two-Six isn't another AWT, they're ground forces, the other AWT uses the callsign Crazyhorse One-Nine (19). Though I am not sure what Hotel refers to (co-located teams?).

--Bruce (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What does "permission to engage" actually mean? Does it actually imply some actual policy or ethics decision-making process, or is it simply a request to check that no friendly units are in the area? Wnt (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the situation, but in this case the pilot thought he saw a hostile act, and asked if he could open fire. "Permission to engage" when used interrogatively is usually when the inquiring soldier is not automatically granted permission to fire by the rules of engagement, but believes that their target is hostile, and potentially threatening. There is some deliberation as to whether or not it will be granted, and it's as frequently denied as it is allowed. 24.182.101.122 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Permission to engage was requested solely based on the presence of arms within the group (during the moments when the group is not visibly displaying any hostile intent), it is not requested after Namir crouching near the corner (which could be interpreted as hostile action). So your description of the incident is off base. Anyhow, during the second incident (shooting the van) where the pilot requests permission to re-engage I certainly can't think up of anything that could be perceived as a hostile act. --Bruce (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

// not a forum

Whatever the implications of the event, the article, especially its introduction, conveys a conservative and factual story. To those who dislike the implications of the event: please stop turning this talk page into a forum for your opinions. If there are qualified and notable opinions expressed, they can be and have been cited in the article. To those who wish the implications of the event would be made explicit or exaggerated for a good cause: that's never Wikipedia's job, and the commentary of passion that doesn't go on the articles is not meant for Wikipedia talk pages either.

The many sections here expressing a) clearly the people on the ground are insurgents or b) clearly the gunners are murderers, are misplaced and should not be on Wikipedia. An article about an event, regardless of its implications, should not be accompanied by the sentiments those implications arouse.

Thank you. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We are not merely covering an airstrike event here. We are also covering a controversy created by the release of the Wikileaks video. The continual efforts to erase this controversy from the article are inappropriate and a violation of WP:NPOV. We should be presenting the opinions and reactions of the media on both sides of the issue, not simply pretending that there is no controversy. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We can cover a controversy. We do not need to create the controversy, nor furnish one with ammunition. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, sorry, I don't mean to erase the controversy from the article. As I said in my first post, the implications should be neither done away with nor exaggerated, passionate arguments for both of which are what's happening with the talk page... I wish you had not used the word "controversy", which I did not use, because while the controversy that exists exterior to Wikipedia is factual and should be documented, it should not exist on Wikipedia (Wikipedia not being a forum). If your opinion contradicts the one I'm trying to make clear, you see it will justify the turning of any subject whatsoever into one where controversy is generated by the editors expressing their opinions. At very best that constitutes original research... Flipping Mackerel (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's any notability in this article at all, it's the leak, itself. Still, in another month, I don't think anyone will remember it. I'm considering recommending the article for deletion. I think it was put up too soon, before its true value (or lack thereof) was clear. It's not like wikipedia has competition. There's no need to try to scoop. Izuko (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly, although "not a forum" and "notable" share the first four letters, this section is your one called "Notable?". Flipping Mackerel (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

David Finkel's account

David Finkel's account of the day sheds some more light on the context and should be integrated into the article.

Links:

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125630795
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040601368.html

--Bruce (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... do you think we need more than what I added just recently? Wnt (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the bit you added that led me to the NPR interview so thank you very much for adding it. However, while the statement by Finkel is very descriptive of the day it's still just a little snippet. I think after time has passed and the article has gone through a few iterations the article structure will change and the context will become clearer. I'm quite happy I actually managed to find the relevant excerpt of the book (couldn't locate it on the NPR website, though I did find another excerpt from the book there). Thanks again. --Bruce (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this one link should be added. It's a contemporary report published on Friday, July 13, 2007 in the Washington Post about that day's events, and in which Finkel also participated

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html
  

Johannjs (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks unrelated to Wikipedia - should we say it?

I couldn't think of a single non-awkward way to point out that Wikileaks has nothing to do with Wikipedia in the text. But I wish there was some way to make this clear in the article lead, as I think some of the hostile reactions we've seen here might be based on the false but not particularly unforeseeable assumption that Wikileaks would have some relationship to the people behind Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wiktionary/Wikisource/Wikibooks/etcetera. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to cater for the lowest common denominator. If they want to jump to conclusions, let them. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done [2] Any good? —Sladen (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Looks alright to me! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ASR. Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASR is intended to prevent implicit self-references ("nb. Wikileaks is not related to this encyclopedia"), neutrally worded phrases are allowed ("Wikileaks is not related to Wikipedia").

The reasoning behind this is that if eg. Sunshine Press makes their own copy of Wikipedia then the first wording ("This is not X") would not be true and not make sense; whereas the encouraged neutral phrasing ("X is not Y") will always remain true and unambiguous. —Sladen (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow Parrot, you're a bit arrogant. IT's not "catering to the lowest common denominator." It wouldn't be unreasonable for someone with no prior experience with WP or Wikileaks to make the assumption, off the name, that there could be some connection. I personally knew from the start that there is not, however it is not nonsensical for one to make that assumption initially, and certainly not just because YOU say so. Having a disclaimer to make clear that "Wikileaks" is not somehow linked with Wikipedia.org is not a bad idea at all. I get the idea you believe many to be the "lowest common denominator." Jersey John (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice, straight in with the personal attacks. You'll excuse me if I treat your post with the contempt it deserves. Parrot of Doom 07:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles wikileaks, wikipedia, wikimedia and wiki explain what is what. To put disclaimers up is redundant. Also, this is an encyclopedia, and not a political commentary: what we do in an article is to describe its topic, and not to renounce it, express disapproval towards it, or to any sources we use. That applies to Wikileaks just as it applies to Harrys Firearms Wiki, the Insect Cooking Wiki, or the Nudist Spanking Wiki. -- Seelefant (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need disclaimers here. The Wikileaks article explains what the organization is. Also, keep in mind that this article is not specific to Wikipedia, but will also be reproduced on dozens of mirror and reuser sites. Kaldari (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancies

Some of these have been mentioned in passing above.

• In the lead "twelve men were killed" is stated. Apart from the infobox, it appears nowhere else. There is no reference given for it. In the quote in ref №4 (Seattle Times) 12 is mentioned. If the figure is is correct then a cite should be attached to that statement in the lead. An early comment was that the lead was "well cited". Currently there in only two citations in the whole section. Suggest a few more!
  
• The exact jobs the 2 Reuters employees did were also discussed. The sources nytimes, reuters1(2007), blogs.reuters say Namir Noor-Eldeen was a photo-journalist or photographer, and Saeed Chmagh was a driver and 'assistant' reuters2 (2010). Reports right after they died called them both journalists, which is obviously wrong. My 2 cents! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is confusing. Doesn't the Army report say 9 killed, and Noor-Zeldeen and Chmagh? I don't know if a definitive source exists about what happened to the evacuated wounded. I do think both men were considered to be "working in a journalistic capacity" by their employers Reuters and other journalists. If a 3-man ABC camera crew was killed in Chechnya, they would all be considered "journalists" including the sound man. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reuters has consistently used the terms photographer and driver, at least once indicating that Chmagh was also an assistant. I'm fairly comfortable using these terms instead of journalists. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)to Lipsticked Pig(!). I think the US army report would have to be the best authority, unless someone wants to count bodies in the videos, which would be OR and verboten! In any case if the army or whoever say X we need to cite it. I'd do it myself but I can't (protected article).
Don't want to nit pick over people who died 3 years ago. But from my reading of multiple sources (especially from Reuters) Noor-Zeldeen was definitely a photographer/photojournalist, and Chmagh definitely a driver and also mentioned as a camera assistant. Which could just mean carrying the spare gear(camera, tripod etc) and cleaning the lenses (no changing film nowdays). Note I have him as that in his article, which I have had largely to myself for 2 days! (take a look) 'Journalist' might be stretching it a bit! We also need consistency between related articles! Sources also said they were good friends. Times Online seems a good source, mentions that Noor-Zeldeen was single, not mentioned elsewhere + other personal details for both. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you all now. The initial Reuters press release (attached to end of the Army Report) describes them as "An Iraqi photographer and driver working for Reuters in Iraq." Lipsticked Pig (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, similar to the army, people have a way of being promoted when they die in combat. Just to make them look better. (cynical, devil's advocate thinking there). Can't we check up to see what he was prior to this? Annihilatron (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

selectively edited - missing 30 minutes of footage

The 'Full Version' of The Wikileaks Video Is Missing 30 Minutes of Footage, gawker.com, 9.4.2010 --mj41 (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The missing half hour is no secret. The time stamps are not difficult to read and the cut is noted on the time line at the Collateral Murder website. If the sworn statements are to be believed, the missing footage is of no relevance to this article. I also find it difficult to take seriously the idea that this somehow discredits Wikileaks or the video. It's not even known if Wikileaks has the missing footage in question. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The author is clearly biased and makes assumptions and implications that he fails to back up with evidence. In an update he finally mentions that "Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have"." but proceeds to make more baseless accusations, such as referring to Wikileaks military source (if we have to believe Jullian's statements the source is indeed military) as "disgruntled". How does he know? Also what makes him think the cut footage (which is described in the investigation report) can be considered redeeming? The thing is, we don't know. Perhaps if the Pentagon and/or CENTCOM had proper archiving regulations in place for recordings from TADS we'd have seen the entire reel by now (including footage from the TADS of Crazyhorse 19), but alas.

--Bruce (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We should accurately state in the article that the "unedited" version released by WikiLeaks was in fact a composite of two (or three) engagements. This can be done without bias, something simple like "the video obtained by WikiLeaks was a composite of two separate actions occuring x minutes apart". Lipsticked Pig (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Was the 2nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation leaked first or published first?

The 2nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation and other documents have been officially published by CENTCOM at [3]. The last modification date for the documents is the 5th of April. However, the article in its current state claims that "On April 6, 2010, cryptome.org, another whistleblower website, posted the Army report on the incident", the phrasing makes it seem as if the report was leaked.

If this is not the case and the report was simply published and then mirrored by cryptome.org then the article is giving undue weight to this and the references to Cryptome should be removed (and/or if Cryptome's actions were important in more broadly distributing the documents, changed)

Can anybody shed any light on this?

Thanks.

--Bruce (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen nothing (yet) that states the CENTCOM report wasn't available before cryptonome mirrored it. The way that section is right now seems like just a plug for cryptonome rather than explaining how the report was disemminated. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on this CNN article and this NYT article, the US Government published those reports on its own accord. (NYT: "Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case..."). That isn't conclusive, but it suggests to me that cryptome is just mirroring the report. JD Caselaw (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the references to Cryptome because on the basis of the NYT article I feel convinced enough that the documents were officially released by CENTCOM first. --Bruce (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Proximity of individuals to friendly forces

There are a few sources discussing the proximity to friendly forces (obviously an important aspect in the discussion).

Here's what military report says with regards to the proximity of the individuals on the ground to friendly forces:

• Findings and Recommendations Pursuant to AR 15-6 Investigation into Conditions Surrounding the Possible Death of Two Reuters Reporters during an Engagement on 12 July 2007 by Crazyhourse 18 and 19 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq (Zone 30)
  • "At 1021 hours, the AWT engaged approximately 8 military-age males eliminating the immediate threat to friendly ground forces less than 200 meters away"
  • "The Bravo Company 2- 16 soldiers were within 100 meters of the location of a group of armed insurgents and two individuals carrying cameras when Apache helicopters engaged the insurgents with 30mm gunfire."
  • "Photos later recovered from the camera show a US Army HMMWV sitting at an intersection, less than 100 meters away from the camera."
  • "At 1019 hours, Crazyhorse 19 (trail aircraft) identified personnel with weapons (AK-47s and a RPG), both held and slung over the shoulder, in the vicinity of an open area East of the friendly unit’s position and approximately one city block away."
  • "Crazyhorse 18’s copilot/gunner (lead aircraft- front seat) perceived an escalation of the immediate threat to our ground troops after observing an individual peering around a building, preparing to fire an RPG at a friendly HMMWV positioned at the end of the block."

There's also the map that was made by Reuters shows the Humvee at about 150 meters away and looking at Google Maps it seems the distance from the corner is about 125-130 meters. However, because the road the Humvee is sitting at is diagonal the distance decreases at various points.

The article currently only mentions: "A unit from Bravo Company 2-16 was within 100 meters of the individuals".

--Bruce (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate Heading re 3 attacks

The headings have been changed but at leaat the first one is wrong. It says "First: killing of Chmagh and Noor-Eldeen" but Chmagh was initially wounded. He was killed in the "Second: attack on a van" Could a 'confirmed' editor please alter ("First: killing of Chmagh and Noor-Eldeen") or revert the change? Thank You! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you User:Wnt! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumstances

Does anyone know why the helicopter crew were suspicious of people walking around? Had people been told to stay indoors or leave the district, for example? New Thought (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to work out either from the video or from the gap between the gun firing and rounds arriving in the target area how far the helicopter was from the target area? New Thought (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the audio and video are well synched, it's got to be a considerable distance. 33° (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists the muzzle velocity of the M230 chain gun on the Apache as 805 m/s, the delay between seeing the camera shake (gun being fired) and the bullets hitting the ground is ~2.1sec, which gives an approximate distance of 1690 meter or ~1 mile. -- Grumbel (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also two questions that should be answered in the article: Is it allowed to shoot people caring AK-47 in a non-threatening manner? Some people mentioned that owning and carrying a AK-47 is perfectly legal in Iraq (but maybe not at the time and location of the incident?). Also some people mentioned that the video quality inside the helicopter is substantially better then what we see in the recorded video, is that the case? Does anybody have an example for comparison? -- Grumbel (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The range is ~1050m as the helicopter comes around the building, immediately before they open fire. They close to 940m by the time the burst impacts. The range, coupled with their altitude of ~1000ft syncs up pretty well with the gun's muzzle velocityApacheguy (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The range can be read off the video in units of 10 metres. It is displayed just to the top right (outside) of the rectangle at the bottom centre of the screen. The main difficulty is that the video resolution (480p) is probably below the native resolution of the gun camera, so it's hard to read. I make the range 1000m when they start firing and about 850m at the end of the first burst. This range (calculated via laser rangefinder ?) is of course used to calculate a firing solution. Galerita (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the projectile velocity will fall rapidly once it leaves the muzzle due to air resistance. Page 8 of this document (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/28824935/30mm-x113-Spotter-Charge-Prototype) suggests it is only about 340 m/s at 1000m (It's unclear if this is fired at ground level or 500 feet). If this was constant deceleration (with time) we could just take the distance divided by the average velocity (1000m/570m/s) to give time (1.75 sec). (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion) However, the projectile decelerates more rapidly initially, so 2.1 seconds is a reasonable time of flight over 1000m. Galerita (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not to take away from anyone's inside knowledge or math skills based on probably reasonable assumptions, but unless a reliable source discusses the distance of the helicopter to the targets, it's contrary to Wikipedia:No original research to make any claims about this in the article. — Scientizzle 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding this edit claiming that the "no original research" policy was never intended to apply to straightforward arithmetic...it's not just straightforward arithmetic. There are a number of assumptions that are necessary for the arithmetic to be correct, including knowing the exact models of the equipment onboard or that the camera shake accurately represents the time of gun firing. Also, it's clear that the engagement range varied over the attack as well. We can wait for a secondary source to discuss this issue. — Scientizzle 16:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry - I didn't see these new comments in this section. However, the approximate range should be in the article to counter the impression that the video gives that the helicopter was close to the target area. New Thought (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point regarding the zoom lens being possibly confusing. Leaving a {{cn}} on a likely correct claim that the range was about a km isn't unreasonable. It's likely that more specific data will surface regarding this point. Perhaps there's something in the official report--the cryptome.org link--that indicates the range of engagement? It wouldn't surprise me. — Scientizzle 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In the sworn statements the pilot of Crazyhorse 18 states:

We were probably I don't remember, 800 meters away, orbiting in a circular pattern.

So that should be a good enough reliable source to start including the information in the article. --Bruce (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I pulled the range & altitude sources from the Technical Manual for the Apache, TM 1-1520-251-10 Technical Manual for Helicopter, Attack, AH-64D Longbow Apache, U.S. Army. Since this cannot be considered a reliable source due to its proprietary nature, I will continue to search for a more easily verifiable way to back my claim.Apacheguy (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article states that 'Both children were evacuated to forward operating base Loyalty'. However, both the chatter (transcript) and Wikileaks claim the children were simply dumped at a local facility, suggesting a different standard of care. I do not consider the source is credible as it has been established that the official statements were inaccurate. As the video is deemed genuine by all parties involved it should be assumed that it was a local hospital and not military care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rernst2 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Major issues with this "article"

There are many instances of POV-trailing on this article. Right from the start, editors are mixing hindsight with the attack. The incidents should be described dispassionately, without hindsight. That hindsight should be left until later in the article, otherwise you have readers assuming that the pilots purposely misidentified weapons, and behaved in a gung-ho fashion.

While editors are busily inserting text like "the crews then misidentified x, and shot y (who showed no signs of hostile behaviour)", you'll never have a neutral and informative article. What you will have, is an article that seeks to establish blame, before the reader even has a chance to study the mission reports and subsequent media analysis.

In short, its an utter mess, and I can see myself becoming very quickly frustrated by the efforts of editors who clearly have an axe to grind against the US military. Let the readers arrive at their own conclusions—don't try to force those conclusions upon them. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, really. The horror of the event is so self-evident there is no need to slant it. Please stop inserting statement like "From the video, it is unclear if any of the men are armed" just because some reporter for The Guardian had that opinion, you agree with it, and you can, technically, "source" it. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can one of you please provide an actual example (not a paraphrase) of a specific edit that has been made which you disagree with. To give an example myself of a specific edit, the statement that "most of the men appeared unarmed" was removed, although, is both backed up by reliable source and clearly evident from the video, so it is neutral point of view. The implication that hindsight makes an an article biased seems absurd to me; hindsight is clearly something which gives us a more neutral point of view on the event. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to provide specific examples. What I'm going to do is remove anything that isn't necessary, and you can determine from those edits exactly what my problems are. "Most of the men appeared unarmed" - why is that important? Because mentioning it where it was, implies that the US was engaged in gung-ho military activity. It is irrelevant ath that point whether they were armed or not, because we do not have access to the intelligence that the forces involved in the incidents did. For all we know, those men might have had a stash of RPGs around the corner. It is not Wikipedia's place to make these determinations, we must report on the known facts only, and any inferences must be drawn by the reader from an entirely neutral and informative article. Leave the judgement to others, and if you want to include the opinions of reporters and what can and cannot be seen in the video, do so in a separate section - don't allow journalistic opinion to cloud the known facts of the incident. Parrot of Doom 12:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement that "most of them appeared" unarmed is a fact, clearly evident from the video and backed up by a reliable newspaper. What you think that implies about whether they are "gung-ho" is irrelevant. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the statement is an opinion, and your interpretation of aspects of the video is utterly irrelevant. Parrot of Doom 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg, I think it really seems heavy-handed. The facts stated as now show there were a group of men, and two were carrying weapons. Why does it need to be stated that the others were not, is that not clear from what has already been said? It's better this way because you have not inserted the opinion of some guy, who happens to write for a newspaper, after he viewed the Wikileaks version. Yes, we often source from some guy who happens to write for a newspaper, but saying "backed up by a reliable newspaper" is giving far too much undue weight. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The only bias I see here is from Lipstick Pig and Parrot GovernmentWalls (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, agreed. They probably work for the Pentagon. Haha. Just kidding guys. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Third attack

The third attack is definitely the same helicopter and crew. It's shown at the end of the unedited version of the video and the crew use the same call-sign througout. The New Yorker explicitly links the the third attack with the earlier ones: "...earlier portions of the video suggest that Crazy Horse One-Eight is not an entirely reliable narrator.".--MoreThings (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The following statements by the pilots estimate the number of KIA in the 3rd engagement:

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/2--Sworn%20Statements%20.pdf

page 4 [handwritten] "...from building was 8-11 AIF KIA."

page 5 [typed]"..approximately 10 AIF KIA..."

page 7 gives an overall total from the 3 engagements, [typed]"...estimated 21 AIF KIA. 3 WIA."Galerita (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

I've changed this back to say that it was the same crew. To allow the possibility that it was a different crew is to introduce doubt into the article that doesn't exist in the source. The New Yorker is clear that it's the same crew. I don't think anyone has suggested that the video contains footage from two different helicopters.--MoreThings (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

can I ask for someone to create al-Amin al-Thaniyah

I find it distressing that the neighborhood where the attacks occurred isn't documented at all in our List of neighborhoods and districts in Baghdad or in our Administrative districts in Baghdad.

I have gathered material to make a stub article, but I would prefer if someone else would make the article.

Variant spellings and namings:

• In this map, on the East side of Baghdad there is a neighborhood "al-Amin"
• In this map is simply called "Amin".
• In this map by the humanitarian info center for iraq, it is as "Ameen" (see sector 34, "Mashtal, Ameen, Nafit, Rustomiya", in the District "7 Nissan".)
• This article states that in 2003, some Shiite leaders renamed "Al-Ameen District" to "Al-Murthadha District, after Ali Murthadha, the first Shiite imam." (I believe that "al-Amin" refers to this religious figure).
• PS it looks like "Thanniyah" can also be spelled "Thania" or "Thanya".

Google searches: I find it helpful to include the word "district," e.g. baghdad "al-amin district".

Thanks and best wishes, JD Caselaw (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just be WP:BOLD and do it yourself. Start it at User:JD Caselaw/al-Amin al-Thaniyah, and when you're done move it to al-Amin al-Thaniyah. Parrot of Doom 15:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have enough mastery of the subject to create this article. JD Caselaw (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I created the article. It will survive speedy deletion, that's about it. JD Caselaw (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate time

Inaccurate original research by me — sorry! Wnt (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article says that the time of the shooting in the tape was after 10 a.m. Some other sources have listed it as 9 a.m. But the shadows of the lightpoles point nearly due west. Using a frame from the tape (long version, part 1) at 5:00, I measured the ratio of pixels and worked out that the time (non daylight savings, as modified for the equation of time on July 12 and that Baghdad is a little over half a degree west of 45°) should be 6:26 a.m., which is very close to the tape which says 6:33:22. (Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, I know that's original research and I can't put it in the article, but it does suggest a closer look) There should be another way to calculate this, by comparing the height of the poles to the lengths of the shadows... but I haven't as of the moment figured how to calculate that way; besides, it's hard to know whether some parts of the pole that leave a shadow aren't visible on the video or vice versa. I think it should roughly agree, at least. My guess is that somewhere along the line 9 or 10 a.m. GMT (with or without daylight savings) must have been misattributed to local time? Wnt (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) The official military report titled Investigation into Civilian Causalities Resulting form an Engagement on 12 July 2007 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq (6--2nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation.pdf) states: The digits appearing before the exhibit are the time derived from the Apache video footage. 0619:37 is 0600 hours, 19 minutes, and 37 seconds, Greenwich Mean or ZULU ‘rime. Baghdad local time is 4 hours later. The report (or the earlier one) also states that the engagement began at 1019 hours and concluded with the evacuation of casualties at 1041 hours. --Bruce (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC) That's odd... one of us must have gotten the time wrong, and it'd be worrisome if they did... I've shown my work at File:2007-07-12 sun measurement.png. Wnt (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC) How do you know the red line marked on the image runs due east to due west? The elevation of the Sun appears to be about 45 degrees (by looking at post and other items in video). [4] tells me sunrise was at 05:02. At local noon the Sun is at 78.7 degrees elevation, so very roughly at least after 09:00 local time by my reckoning. That also roughly agrees with when the Apache camera system shows due South (2 minutes 27 seconds of full video). -84user (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC) The road runs slightly South of East - perhaps 10 degrees - if Google Maps is oriented to true North. http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.3137,44.512&spn=0.002,0.002&t=h&q=33.3137,44.512 It is close to mid summer and close to the equator (33.3 degrees north), so your calculation will be very sensitive to small errors in azimuth - the sun is almost overhead. It would be better to use angle of elevation as Wnt has done.Galerita (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It's clear I was mistaken to think that the road was straight east-west - counting pixels again, I get that it's off by about 4 degrees. But that should only be about 16 minutes... and what's more, because the road veers to the south as you go west, it sets the time back by 16 minutes, I think. (Which is almost countered by a separate foul-up: that -6 minute adjustment for the equation of time should be added to the standard time to get to the solar time, not the other way around. Sigh, I think I flunked the navigator exam) But the time of sunrise is the real problem. The time (5:02 a.m.) is definitely not daylight savings time (the site says there's no DST for Iraq). The average of sunrise+sunset is 7 minutes after noon. Counting pixels on the people about to be killed with their shadows horizontal from the camera's perspective, I worked out approximately 1.2 pixels of height per pixel of shadow - putting the sun even higher than I'd thought, about 48°. With the sun passing nearly overhead (78°), I'd expect that to take roughly 3.5 hours, which does seem to support a much later time. I guess what we learn here is that Wikipedia has this WP:NOR thing for a reason. ;) Wnt (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Ok, a rough calculation. From here. Sunrise 5:02 am; noon 12:08. That's 7h 6m or 7.1h. 48° is 61.54% of 78°. 61.54% of 7.1h is 4.38 h or 4h 22m. Now add 5:02 am gives 9:24 am. This calculation is sensitive to the estimated angle.Galerita (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I should close this out: unfortunately, my calculation was completely bogus, based on a false assumption from higher latitudes. I think I would have spotted this if it weren't such a bizarre coincidence in times. Consider that if one stands at the equator at the equinox, the sun should come straight up in the east, pass directly overhead, go straight down to the west, without ever passing south at all. Your calculation isn't entirely accurate either, because the sun isn't moving up/down at all when it approaches 78°. We could research the right way to calculate this but by now it's something we should be working out for celestial navigation or the like, if at all. Wnt (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the other survivors?

We all know the two children survived, but were there any others? Here's several interesting statements from a medic with the Bushmaster element:

Question 3: When you arrived at the scene of the Apache/van engagement, what did you observe?

What appeared to be three bodies in the street, 3-4 bodies that were piled near the east wall, 1 body inside, and 1 WIA still alive inside the courtyard. I did no inspect the van, or see if there were any bodies near the van.

Question 4: What actions did you take while at this location?

Initially I started treatment of the military age male in the courtyard. He had shrapnel damage to both lower extremities, and his right arm. I applied a tourniquet to the three main affected limbs and proceeded to cut his clothes off to check for further injury. I found 2 superficial wounds along the lateral portion of his right chest, with one deep penetrating wound to his abdomen.

He continuously made the sign for friend and asked for water (which made me suspect abdominal injuries possible internal bleeding). I denied him water based on medical findings. I also found what appeared to be scars on his back that looked recent. I can not ascertain what they were from. I bandaged this male as much as possible before I was alerted to a second survivor.

This male was in the street and had been pulled off the RPG that EOD later destroyed in place. He was breathing but [...] with a large amount of shrapnel damage to lower extremities. I applied 1 CAT to his right leg and [...] bandage to his left calf. I did not notice any other injuries and the priority became transport. We transported them to [...] checkpoint on RTE[/RTE] Pluto where there we transferred them to Iraqi EMS.

Question 5: What significant events (if any) occured at this location while you were present?

The military age male that was pulled off the RPG and initially believed to be dead was found to be breathing. Both wounded males were evacuated.

This reminded me of David Finkel's accounts of the incident, specifically:

Since then, March had learned how prophetic he was, especially on June 25, when an EFP killed his friend Andre Craig, Jr. Craig's memorial service had been on July 7, and now, five days later, as March saw all of the bodies scattered around, blown open, insides exposed, so gruesome, so grotesque, he felt--as he would later explain--"happy. It was weird. I was just really very happy. I remember feeling so happy. When I heard they were engaging, when I heard there's thirteen KIA, I was just so happy, because Craig had just died, and it felt like, you know, we got 'em."

As the Apaches peeled off, he and another soldier went through a gate in the wall that the van had crashed into and against which Chmagh had tried to take cover.

There, in the courtyard of a house, hidden from street view, they found two more injured Iraqis, one on top of the other. As March looked closer at the two, who might have been the two who had been lifting Chmagh into the van, who as far as March knew had spent the morning trying to kill American soldiers, he realized that the one on the bottom was dead. But the one on top was still alive, and as March locked eyes with him, the man raised his hands and rubbed his two forefingers together, which March had learned was what Iraqis did when they wanted to signal the word friends.

So March looked at the man and rubbed his two forefingers together, too.

And then dropped his left hand and extended the middle finger of his right hand.

And then said to the other soldier, "Craig's probably just sitting up there drinking beer, going, 'Hah! That's all I needed.'"

--Bruce (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we know the two children survived, they were evacuted to several medical facilities but were both severely injured. One of the tasks assigned to the Army investigators was to determined if any compesation payments to their families should be made, but I did not see any information about that in the reports. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, they survived. Here's an interview with them by Al Jazeera, here's a photo and here are their medical records: Doaha and Syad. See bottom of 'Collateral Murders Resources section. --Bruce (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad that they did. I don't think we should use their names or pictures in the article in case that comes up later. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Focus of article

I just wanted to point out that the focus of parts of the article, such as the discussion of the leaked footage and the discussion of the second military investigation, is still on the first engagement involving the journalists and the children. However, several editors (including myself) have broadened the scope of this article to discuss all engagements this specific Air Weapons Team undertook that day (mostly coinciding with the available footage). This means the rest of the article will eventually need to be brought in line.

--Bruce (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

After reading the entry, I have to question if the incident, as it stands, should be in Wikipedia. Basically, it comes down to a military operation, among thousands, that killed some civilians. There's no credible evidence of misbehavior. There's no evidence of any more coverup than routine OPSEC. So far, there's no real backlash. I think we jumped the gun by posting it before seeing if there was even another shoe to fall. I won't tag the entry just yet, since I want to see what y'all think. But, as of now, I don't think it's sufficiently encyclopedic. Izuko (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

At least a dozen major news agencies have covered the video release already, whether in some cases they are covering the behaviour in the video, others are about the implications of the release of confidential information at WikiLeaks, there is plenty of coverage to justify an entry here. --86.181.123.179 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, in much the same way, Barack Obama, John Lennon, and the Neanderthal species are each merely a mass of carbon and other common elements of which there are uncountably many atoms in the universe, and yet for some reason the news pays attention to those masses, so we have to document it. :P Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the news covers something does not mean it's encyclopedic. Not every military operation, death, or lost dog needs to be in Wikipedia. So the mere fact that there's news coverage is not sufficient to justify its being here. What makes this significant enough to merit an entry before all the facts are out? Izuko (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The killing of journalists caught on feed by a helicopter gunship. Also the fact that it became a big news thing on a multitude of stations once wikileaks released it. It does fall under Wikipedia:Notability, it has multiple reliable sources reporting on it, and several editors have presumed it to be important. Additionally there are several sources confirming it - not everything is based off the single video. 129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not everything that the news covers is encyclopaedic. But everything that a significant amount of the media pays a significant amount of attention to is notable, and Wikipedia's idea of encyclopaedic is merely notable. Wikipedia's goal, as I remember it, is making the sum of human knowledge accessible. What makes it significant enough is not for us to decide at all, but is up to the humans who identify it as an important point of knowledge. 74.12.22.96 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But does it violate [[5]]? I think it was shooting the gun to run out and start an article immediately after the news release. It is clear that the intention is to cover things that are more than just blips on the radar. Big news that doesn't catch on is not encyclopedic. Izuko (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Izuko has a point here. This should probably be on Wikinews, not here yet. The notability criteria for events states that A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance... I'm not so sure this will meet that requirement—this certainly isn't My Lai. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding me? "Temp" applies to trivial things that nonetheless make the news, like gossip items - "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism". There is overwhelming international news coverage. The only reason it isn't for a long period is because this only appeared a few days ago - but there is zero evidence to think that this is temporary. In years to come, this will still be notable - both the event itself, and the leak on Wikileaks. This is far more notable than many events that have their own Wikipedia article.

By the reasoning expressed here, a nuclear war could break out, and there'd be some people claiming it should be on Wikipedia because the coverage was only temporary... Mdwh (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear wars have long-reaching effects. There's no evidence that this will. Izuko (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Was anyone armed?

The description of the video, in one Guardian, article, includes the throw-away phrase "it is unclear if anyone was armed". However, a casual review of other articles shows more expert and convincing commentary that, yes, in fact, there were light arms and at least one RPG being deployed. My preference would be to ditch the phrase entirely and let viewers make up their own mind about what the video shows. However, if necessary, we should rely on expert commentary about what the the video shows rather than the view of one journalist. Ronnotel (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, here is a reference to said expert commentary confirming the presence of weaponry: "At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache." Ronnotel (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Its perfectly clear that The Guardian reports the "unclear" aspect as an opinion, and it should therefore be disregarded unless mentioned in a separate commentary regarding public and media reaction to the release of the video. Parrot of Doom 15:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - and from above, there is more substantial evidence that weapons *are* apparent on the video. I like the text as is, without the speculation. However, if forced to comment, it would be preferable to reference the opinion that weapons are identified before the less informed speculation that it is unclear. Ronnotel (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a military blog can be considered a more reliable source than the Guardian. WP:RS would favor the Guardian. I've looked around at some other newspaper articles, however, and it does seem that some disagree about the "unclear" assessment of the Guardian, particularly Fox News. Perhaps we could state that "sources disagree about whether or not weapons can be clearly seen in the video footage" and source it to the Guardian and Fox News. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ed)It is reliable because it is being published in the New York Times, where pains are taken to provide the authors bonafides as an expert. Compared to a throw-away comment by some random journalist, this would seem to take precedence, no? Ronnotel (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it's the New York Times blog, not the newspaper. Secondly it's a story about coverage of the event by military blogs, not an assessment of the event informed by experts who just happen to be posting in blogs. The editorial vetting of the "experts" would be very different in those two situations. Kaldari (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But there is absolutely no claim to expertise (or support, for that matter) regarding the throw-away comment in the Guardian. As I said, best is to ditch *all* of the speculation and leave it up to the viewer.

Reliable sources have nothing to do with it. The comment in The Guardian is clearly the opinion of a journalist, and not necessarily the opinion of those in the helicopter, or those in the military who might be more qualified to make such a judgement. Just because something is written by a journalist in a reliable source does not make what he writes reliable information. Parrot of Doom 16:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not our place to assess who is most qualified to say whether weapons are "clearly" visible in the video or not. That, if anything, is original research. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is precisely our place. Parrot of Doom 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaldari, we obviously exercise judgment on this every day. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. As stated above, it would be inappropriate to include a line saying "it is unclear if the individuals were firing on US troops" even if a paper reported that, because it injects unwarranted bias. I removed the line once, but it was reverted. Leuchars (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was adding a line saying "sources disagree about whether or not weapons can be clearly seen in the video footage", which no one has commented on. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to see how this improves the article: "Source A thinks he sees weapons being trotted about but Source B isn't quite sure what he sees, etc" Ick. Let's please stick to the facts. Ronnotel (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how that adds value. "Sources disagree" about lots of things, but that doesn't always make it a relevant addition. Leuchars (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean it doesn't add anything to article? It's central to the whole controversy surrounding the video. If it were obvious to everyone that the group was heavily armed, I doubt Wikileaks would have even bothered to release the video. Right now, someone reading this article without watching the video wouldn't even understand what all the hoopla is about (or what the Fox News article is complaining about). The ambiguity is central to the controversy and should be reflected in the article. If people disagree about the ambiguity, we should mention that as well. Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If its so central then it should be very easy indeed to find a source qualified enough to comment on the matter; that obviously doesn't include your average journalist. Parrot of Doom 20:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who has seen the video and knows what machine guns and RPGs look like is qualified to comment on whether or not weapons are visible in the video. What other qualifications are needed? Being in the military doesn't give you better eyesight than a journalist. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they're qualified to offer their non-expert opinion. Nothing more, and such opinion should not be treated as fact. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Kaldari, your comment above suggests that you are attempting to use a (deliberate?) ambiguity in the Guardian article as a coatrack upon which to hang a particular POV. I agree with Parrot - if you think some sort of "controversy" hinges on the split-second identification of weaponry in the heat of battle, then you need to supply sourcing that addresses that topic much more directly. As far as I can tell, the controversy, such as it is, has to do with whether the Rules of Engagement allowed an attack on the unidentified "rescue" vehicle as it entered the hostilities. I don't see much support for your apparent view that the victims where innocent bystanders. Ronnotel (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's one example: "The US military has confirmed the authenticity of newly released video showing US forces indiscriminately firing on Iraqi civilians... The voices on the tape appear to believe their targets are carrying weapons, but the footage unmistakably shows some of the victims holding camera equipment."[6] I can list others if you're interested. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or here's an even less ambiguous quote: "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents," - Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Still don't think there's controversy about the ambiguity? Kaldari (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any expert and objective analysis of the footage in that interview. And furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that the Army investigators who found the weapons shown on the tape somehow conspired to file a false after action report. Ronnotel (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So we can never mention what newspapers say about the news because they are not objective experts? That's absurd. We have a section devoted to "2010 coverage", so why can't we discuss the coverage? And I'm not suggesting anything about the military. The Guardian, Democracy Now, and other sources are suggesting that. Kaldari (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If there really were a controversy, then a reliable source would find experts to weigh in. Oh wait, that's already happened. Ronnotel (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So yes, there is a controversy. I'm glad we agree. Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"So we can never mention what newspapers say about the news because they are not objective experts?" - of course we can, but we must take care to remind the reader that any opinion offered by a journalist is just that - an opinion. For instance, many journalists might have an opinion as to what exactly happened to Lord Lucan, but their opinions are nothing more than speculation. Opinions must not be interpreted by the reader as fact, or else we do the public a disservice. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've added statements reflecting all 3 opinions to the 2010 coverage section and attributed them explicitly to their sources. Fox News = the weapons are clearly visible; The Guardian = it is unclear if weapons are visible; Süddeutsche Zeitung (the main newspaper in Germany) = there are no weapons visible. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work, that's exactly how it should be treated. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

YES, good work Kaldari, this is how its should be done. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but theres nothing I saw in the article that spells out that american soldiers in helicopter were flying around a battle zone, and they see guys they think have RPGs and guns, which the RPGs are a threat to them, and they request permission to fire and carry out an attack. There at a distance, so yes its hard to see things clearly, and stuff is happening quickly. Do they wait for a potential attacker to shot an RPG at them and take them out of sky, or do they fire first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are Rules of Engagement, which do limit what they can do. As the article expands, we might want to discuss them. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that your implication that the chopper crew felt threatened for themselves is not supported by anything I've read so far (referring to the reports released by CENTCOM). I highly doubt it, though I would have to go through the sworn statements to be 100% sure. However it is obvious that the chopper crew felt that the group posed a threat to the friendly forces a block away (especially when they mistake Namir's camera for an RPG launcher and believe he is getting ready to fire at the friendly forces down the block). --Bruce (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of them do have guns. Wikileaks themselves pointed this out from the start. But I think what needs to be made clear, which is not currently clear in the article, is that no-one has claimed that most of the men had guns. Also, no-one has claimed that they were acting in a manner that would classify them as an imminent danger to the helicopter or to anyone else. i think this needs to be made more clear in the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikileaks decided NOT to highlight guns or RPGs in their video while conversely highlighting those carrying camera equipment, leaving the impression that there were no weapons present. That is why in the 2010 Coverage section you see quotes like "it is unclear if the men are armed", etc. Assange going on FOX News later and admitting that he believes some were armed is not "pointing this out from the start".

I don't think proving a negative in the article (no-one has claimed that most of the men had guns) is appropriate.

I'm not sure who you mean by "no-one" claiming that they were acting in a manner that would classify them as an immediate threat, that is precisely the justification used by the Army: "At this point the individual was in a crouched, firing position with his weapon pointed to friendly troops. Having observed a hostile act, the team continued the transition to attack." (Air Cav report, pg. 9). That may not be true, open to subjective interpretation or 20-20 hindsight, but it is the stated conclusions of the forces involved. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WIkileaks did point out that "some of the men appeared to be armed" from the start. Check the original 17 minute video they released at the 20 second mark. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

article on democracynow

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/exclusive_witnesses_describe_deadly_2007_us

Especially:

"RICK ROWLEY: Yeah, now, I mean, I’m a journalist, and I go and talk to people and report what they said. And these residents came and told me that the man who they drove over was alive, that he had crawled out of the van that had been shot to pieces and that he was still alive when the Americans drove over him and cut him in half, basically, with a Bradley or tank or whatever armored vehicle they were driving in." 206.248.159.113 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And people believe that? 71.230.152.65 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to pretend it's totally implausible. You don't have to be stupid or naive to believe stories about cruelties committed by (even rightful?) invading forces. It is dubious given the rest of the evidence on this case, but that's a reasoned and well-informed decision, not an obvious one. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In the long version of the video at 18:37 a Bradley passes the body of the journalist. Shortly after a Humvee does the same. The body is visible in close up soon after with no evidence of dismemberment. A truck moves up and parks to the left of the road next to a large flat bed trailer. At 27:00 a 2nd Bradley attempts to move between the body of the journalist and the van. It appears to impact the van and the journalists legs are just under the front of the left track of the Bradley. The Bradley remains in that position until 31:07 when the Apache moves to the next target.Galerita (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to extract a video still from the YouTube video? At precisely 27:00/39:14 in the long version (viewed at 480p from http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/index.html) a Bradley is parked with its right side in contact with the Kia van (which it has just impacted, removing much of the front), and its left track on top off - or almost on top of - the legs of Saeed Chmagh the Reuters photographer. This would appear to partly corroborate the claim that "the Americans drove over him and cut him in half", although I can't tell if he is still alive. Given the soldiers identified and treated two severely wounded men at the scene it stands to reason they believe he is dead.Galerita (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the point is whether the guy was actually cut in half (I doubt he was, it was probably a figure of speech). The residents said one of them was still alive and got killed by being driven over. Whether this is true or not is unclear, I couldn't see anything that moved either when a tank went up the hill where Noor-Eldeen was or when the second tank impacted the van.

Concerning stills, you probably want to download the full version from http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder_full.mp4.torrent. 206.248.159.113 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, "I couldn't see anything that moved...". I agree I looked carefully at Saeed Chmagh's body from just after the van attack until the end of the footage. There was no obvious movement or change in the position of his body. Galerita (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For general video editing see Commons:Help:Converting video#Editing tasks, scroll to "Convert video to a selected sequence of images" for extracting frames. See page description of File:Frame 48551 Baghdad 20070712 airstrike.png for an actual example. -84user (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Now I'm struggling to convince myself it's worth using. Unless there is evidence that Saeed was alive at the time (doubtful in my view) it doesn't add to the article.Galerita (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does this have an article?

A car bomb a week vs. this? How is this really notable other than it made it to Wikipedia thereby building its own notoriety? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.1.2 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:N Parrot of Doom 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's more to WP:N. Specifically, in this case, it violates the portion that says "Wikipedia is not Temporary." Izuko (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That section specifically defines notability as:

a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

If I had to take a wager I would say that this topic already had sufficient coverage in the years before and with the leaked video, as this article currently states, the coverage ballooned.

--Bruce (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't care much for WP:N, if somebody is motivated enough to write an article that's fine by me (whatever the subject matter) and in this case people clearly are. However, there's no question considering the attention this incident has been given that it is notable, even according to the before-mentioned guidelines. I'd also like to point out there's quite a few articles on suicide car and truck bombings in Iraq as well.

Of course, the real reason you're objecting to this article's existence is because you feel the U.S. military is being put in a bad spot. To that I say: research the facts and feel free to improve the article where you feel improvement is needed. I'd start your research by reading the sworn statements and various other documents released by CENTCOM. As the article is currently locked down, feel free to discuss anything you want on this talk page. However, please stick to the facts and take other viewpoints into consideration. --Bruce (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Of course, the real reason you're objecting to this article's existence is because you feel the U.S. military is being put in a bad spot." A completely untrue accusation that adds nothing to this discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.150.103 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, isn't there something about assuming good faith? Of course, even if that wasn't Wikipedia policy, your comment would still be way out of line and quite unsubstantiated. Izuko (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I hit a nerve, which only strengthens my believe that the assumption I made has merit. --Bruce (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is only strengthened if you want it to be. The "looks like I hit a nerve" line is generally code for "gee, I said something offensive and people were rightfully offended by it." The fact that people don't take well to unjust and offensive accusations don't mean a nerve was hit. Nor are you in any way warranted in assuming that. If I were to take your line of "reasoning," I would say that one of your own nerves was struck by the suggestion that this article was just an attempt to build notoriety, and add in that the only reason you're defending it so vigorously is that you hate the U.S. military and want to see it smeared. Would I be accurate in those assumptions? Or would we just do better to dispense with attacking eachothers' motivations, in direct opposition to the rules governing wikipedia, and deal with the facts, instead? Izuko (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be rather clear from my actions in regards to editing this article and discussing it that I have conducted myself appropriately (neutral and well-reasoned).

To answer your question, no, you would not be accurate in the assumption that I "hate the U.S. military and want to see it smeared" (this couldn't be further from the truth). However, I'll admit that I did take (minor) offense in 24.75.1.2's objection to the mere existence of this article, the foremost reason being: who is he to tell me what I can and cannot discuss? I also fail to see how, at the time he made his comments, this could possibly be regarded as non-notable even according to WP:N as there was significant world wide coverage by various credible sources (even if the guidelines themselves are open for interpretation).

But don't worry, I have a thick skin ;-)

--Bruce (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim to have conducted yourself appropriately, but that doesn't stand up with your failure to assume good faith with "Of course, the real reason you're objecting to this article's existence is because you feel the U.S. military is being put in a bad spot." That is not appropriate conduct. You cannot honestly claim to have behaved appropriately.

As for who anyone is to tell you what you can and cannot discuss, that's of no meaning here. You can discuss anything you wish. However, Wikipedia articles must be in accordance with the corporate policy. This is their property, not your own personal blog. You can argue that it's notable if you wish, but "because I wanna" doesn't justify the article. Additionally, your words include a double standard. You think you can post whatever you want, but nobody has a right to tell you it doesn't belong here. Well, to borrow your own words, who the hell are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot discuss? Whether an article merits inclusion by the standards of the company that owns the site is a perfectly valid issue.

And finally, there's more to WP:N than the first paragraph. If you would read the whole thing, you would see that simply trying to wave around WP:N and say that settles it is absurd. You may argue that the article is notable. You may argue that the issue has sufficient staying power to avoid the TEMP clause. What you may not do, with any sort of credibility, is just point at WP:N and pretend that's enough. Izuko (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're quite a dick aren't you? Double standard, smandard. Also I see now the reason you're taking this so personally is because you yourself questioned this article's notability earlier. Well tough luck, it's here to stay. If this article doesn't qualify as notable most of the content on Wikipedia would be up for deletion, starting with a similar event (in terms of media exposure), namely Balloon boy hoax. I'd like to see you try, tough guy.

...Now that I have that of my chest let's see if I can come up with a more reasonable response.

You may actually have a point with regard to this article not being considered appropriate for Wikipedia but only because at this time it is hard to prove the event will have any lasting effects (it may, it may not). Regretfully there's also a practical objection to deleting this article in this stage, as is described in the guidelines: "Moving a page to Wikinews is not possible as this would re-license it under the CC-BY license". A lot of hard work that has already been done so far would be lost.

--Bruce (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you're still going to try to tell people you act appropriately. Throwing a hissy fit on wikipedia because someone disagrees with you is hardly appropriate behavior. Nor is calling them a dick just because they throw your own words back at them while all you can do is make weak claims to have "hit a nerve." I guess if you want to use that idea, I could say I hit a nerve with you, didn't I? As for the fact that I questioned this article's notability... yeah, and? Maybe I questioned this article's notability for a reason. And I could certainly argue, using your own "reasoning" that the reason you're taking this personally enough to throw around insults is because you defended this article's notability. For every bit of ill-will that you accuse us of, it works just as well against you. In fact, even more so, since by making the accusation, you've already endorsed the concept, so it would be impossible for you to then just dismiss it as fallacy when it's turned against you. In addition, there's also the possibility that you're projecting your own views and style onto us. Would that make you the "quite a dick," then, "tough guy?"

Maybe you need to take a break until you can deal with others in a reasonable manner? After all, if my words upset you, and they're really just your own words turned back at you, then you seem to be spinning yourself up something awful.

The fact that a lot of hard work has been lost is not reason to retain what is not appropriate to be here. Either wikipedia has standards or it doesn't. Do we want to see every last offensive, every casualty of war, every time the Marines take a city, every time the Seabees build a school? Should there really be an article for each and every one of those? The fact that's something is newsworthy doesn't mean it's wikipedia-worthy. Izuko (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)