Jump to content

Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Issue with fox

"Or as Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly (O’Reilly Factor, 11/30/10) put it: “That’s what I would like to see, a little drone here to Assange.”" "FoxNews.com commentator Christian Whiton (10/25/10), a State Department official in the Bush administration, urged Obama to “designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.”" http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4247 I have also seen videos on youtube from prominent commentators discussing this issue. I've seen news reports in the Australian media reporting that this amounts to breaking the law. I'm not proposing Fox News should be removed entirely but I do still object to them being treated as a legitimate media organisation, let alone the most prominent or poignant one on this issue.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you not see the difference between news and commentary?
Maybe things are different where you live, but the U.S. has a free speech tradition that is deeply ingrained into American culture. O'Reilly, and his commentary, are a part of that.
But this isn't just Fox News either. CNN also employs commentators. They also speak from their own personal POV that is not necessarily that of CNN.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is not a middle of the road organization. They were started by a far left activist. It is only to be expected that they would criticize O'Reilly. Many O'Reilly viewers would be properly ashamed if FAIR did not criticize him.
Reading FAIR's piece, however, he's not saying that those pundits and politicians are breaking the law by making their statements, or that Fox News was breaking the law by broadcasting them. He's only saying that they're wrong in thinking Assange doesn't have protections as a "journalist."
As for the charge that Fox News is breaking the law by presenting forums for different POV's to be argued, this is plainly untrue on several levels.
I don't know about Australian laws, but we're talking about U.S. law. Since President Obama is, at this very moment, ordering the CIA to target and kill specific people IAW the laws of war, it is evident that this practice is deemed legal by the U.S. government. (Note that Awlaki's lawyers argue that his U.S. citizenship should prevent it, but they're not having any luck with that.)
I think you may be getting confused by the notable laws against assassination of government leaders. I believe this is an executive order that can be reversed by another executive order. It doesn't matter, though, because Assange is not a government leader.
If we were to limit Fox News in any way, then the same will be understood for Reuters, AP, CNN, al Jazeera, etc., all of whom have had more than their share of controversies. There is no stopping it.
Besides all of that, most of the gripes about Fox News is really where Fox is reporting the government's position. It is not Fox's position to target Assange.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Re, Senor Freebie; Fox news reporting is a reliable source. Their editorial commentary should be labeled as such. (Much like the commentary of a source like "democracy now" shouldn't be considered to be reporting) This actually would be better suited for the reliable sources message board as it's a problem with Fox in general, not as it relates to this article. V7-sport (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please anyone, don't try to exclude reliable sources from the article. If you have an issue with the source, just attribute it in the text, i.e. "Fox News stated...", "Al Jazeera reported...", "Amnesty International said...". Just like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Video/photo differences

Just a reminder, to those that say the photos clearly show weapons. The photos should not be used to judge as to what the video contains. They are many, many known examples of military members planting weapons on combat scenes to justify their own actions. I do believe that the video shows an AK-47 or some such rifle, but claims of an RPG are still speculation. Coolgamer (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Forget the planting idea.
This isn't just about weapons seen in the photos. They were found by the soldiers on the ground who had no clue that this would be made into an issue, and thus, no incentive to make up a story that could get them thrown in prison if caught. One of the soldiers at the scene is now a member of the so-called "anti-war" movement, and he agrees there were weapons and an RPG found there. There is zero chance that weapons were planted.
There are a few people in the sources who cagily want to leave room for doubt, but no notable people who absolutely deny that those are weapons. I do favor naming the names of notable doubters, but their shaky claims of skepticism are pretty lame. They're not certain or notable enough to justify pretending the men might not have been armed.
So, basically, we have sources that were there (McCord, and the military's report), and they say there were these weapons. And we have people who were not there who say they're not sure about what they've seen in the video. And we have no notable sources claiming there were no weapons at all.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing Reference

Why is there no reference to the subject of so many other words? The reference is http://collateralmurder.com/ Are our readers not supposed to judge the film -- and this exposition -- for themselves?

Most of us like to see one person comfort another. We want to protect the innocence of childhood and the life of a child. We want to support, not attack, institutions throughout society that work for us, especially the armed services that work and fight for us. We hope our country will further values we ourselves believe in. We hope our country will act as honorably as we ourselves try to act. We hope foreigners will see our country as one that furthers values shared by many people around the world, so that support, not opposition, are more likely to greet us.

For all these reasons, this article is difficult for everyone who has contributed to it. The community has done a transcendent job, and should finish that job by citing a path to the film itself for its readers to follow.
Jerry-va (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is in the external links section.TMCk (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps it is best so.
The phrase "Collateral Murder" appears 6 or 7 times in the text, and not one of them is a click-thru link to collateralmurder.com. That struck me as odd, incongruous.
Jerry-va (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

POV tags.

Iqinn, despite Wikipedias Policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Has decided that this article needs a POV tag. Anyone else curious as to why?V7-sport (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to Wikilawyer than do it right. That's the relevant section: "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." So stop removing the tag. Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? IQinn (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
..."However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag." Awesome how that wasn't an explanation of why you put the POV tag up. V7-sport (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me another childish reply as the conflict is well described and linked to where i also frequently have suggested dispute resolution that you have rejected and instead you started to remove the tag. That is what we call disruptive behavior. Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here?
V7-sport, the content of this article is clearly disputed, and it is hard to find the good faith in your tone on the talk page and your repeated immediate removal of the tag in the article. Both of you, I strongly suggest you make the choice to address your differences on this and similar articles civilly. VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If I read this correctly he is putting the POV tags up because I dispute that the event itself, not jut the video should be refereed to as "Collateral Murder". It's already in the lead that "The footage was acquired from an undisclosed source in 2009 by the Internet leak website WikiLeaks, which released a shorter, edited version on April 5, 2010, under the name Collateral Murder." I asked for a source for anything above that ("I will acknowledge that you are correct and post the cited material"), all he provided was tags.V7-sport (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The video shows the Baghdad airstrikes and Wikileaks refer to the airstrikes as "Collateral Murder" like it or not that is sourced in the article and your frequent removal of that leaves us with a lede that is not NPOV. Yeah some as Wikileaks and Julian Assange and other refer to these airstrikes as "Collateral Murder". I have frequently suggested you dispute resolution but you rejected what suggest that you are wrong. We do not say it is true but we can not leave out the other site. IQinn (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What the video shows is that wikileaks titled it "collateral murder". The fact that wikileaks called the airstrikes collateral murder is already mentioned in the lead. Here: "The footage was acquired from an undisclosed source in 2009 by the Internet leak website WikiLeaks, which released a shorter, edited version on April 5, 2010, under the name Collateral Murder." See? Already there. In the lead no less. So we can remove the tags now? V7-sport (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that needs to be mentioned as before "an incident also referred to as Collateral Murder" in the first paragraph as they refer to the airstrikes as "Collateral Murder". Secondly the section with the comments made during a comedian show is not solved. To state he admitted "seeking to manipulate" is misleading anything said during a comedian show is only there to entertain and satire with no value to truth. To present this in the article in this way is misleading and manipulating the reader. IQinn (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Who is this "they" in the first paragraph? The entire incident isn't refered to as "collateral murder", EVEN ASSANGE DISAGREES WITH YOU: " kill Saeed when he was wounded. When he is rescued, suddenly that belief changed. You can see in this particular image he is lying on the ground and the people in the van have been separated, but they still deliberately target him. This is why we called it Collateral Murder. In the first example maybe it’s collateral exaggeration or incompetence when they strafe the initial gathering, this is recklessness bordering on murder, but you couldn’t say for sure that was murder. But this particular event — this is clearly murder.".... So see? Even he limits the discription to the killing of Saeed.
Assange did admit that he was seeking to manipulate.
'Assange: “The promise we make to our sources is that… we will attempt to get the maximum political impact for the materials they give to us.”
Colbert: “So ‘Collateral Murder’ is to get it political impact?”
Assange: “Absolutely. Our promise to the public is that we will release the full source material… it’s there for them to analyze and assess.”
Colbert: “Actually I admire that, I admire someone who is willing to put ‘Collateral Murder’ on the first thing people see knowing that they probably won’t look at the rest of it. That way you have manipulated the audience into the emotional state you want before something goes on the air. That is an emotional manipulation. [...]
Assange: “That’s true...”
But of course you knew that already. You just want to continue to censor. Add all the tags you want, Anyone doing research on this will be able to get past those right quick. Once this is resolved we should probably leave it up until we get rid of the world socialist website citation.V7-sport (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouting does not help and i ask you once again to stay civil. The Colbert Report is not RS [1] it is Comedy, Satire and News parody. You once again post transcript out of a comedy show. Anything people says there is made to entertain and to make people laugh with no truth value. Was he telling the truth or was he joking? Come on this is simply ridiculous crap to present this as the truth as you have done in the article. Absolutely misleading and the shame of Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
THE COLBERT REPORT WASN'T CITED, THE LONDON TELEGRAPH [2] WAS. I only cited the Colbert report,via the Nation [3] and the Huffpo, because you disputed what he said on it. I have cited reliable, secondary sources of what the man said on the show. Stop whining that I am shouting if you refuse to get the point.V7-sport (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouting is not helpful and it is obviously that you do not get the point. What Assange says during a comedy show is irrelevant. We are an encyclopedia not a comedy show. It is irrelevant as everything people say there is Comedy, Satire and News parody with no truth or encyclopedic value. IQinn (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"What Assange says during a comedy show is irrelevant" Bull. It's one of the few interviews that he gave where he spoke about the title. It made news here. It was covered by reliable secondary sources and they are what I quoted. The secondary sources mentioned that Colbert was "ostensibly a comedian". I had no direct link to it until you objected that it wasn't what he said. I linked to the show to demonstrate that was just another lame attempt to cleanse the encyclopedia of something you didn't want to see. The interview is impeccably sourced, highly relevant and there has been no attempt to mislead. Your tagging it as such is activism. V7-sport (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Bull" it seems to me that after edit warring and shouting you are now turning to insults what is not helpful. Nobody doubts that he attended the comedy show, that is sourced but it is irrelevant as everything people say there is Comedy, Satire and News parody with no truth or encyclopedic value. I have never said you attempted to mislead. I said the content is misleading and it is and it is irrelevant because it is Comedy, Satire and News parody with no truth or encyclopedic value. I once again suggest mediation Wikipedia:Mediation as you refuses to get the point and you seems not to understand the basic principals of an encyclopedia. IQinn (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Drive by POV tags are against Wiki policy. (WP:DRIVEBY) Either you didn't read the or you don't understand the language well enough to get what it says. Your latest reversion stated: "- stop adding misleading information against community consensus - to present statements that are part of comedy show as thruth[sic] is misleading and makes us the joke of the internet - you can not continue to act against community consensus".... You are reverting reliably sourced, verifiable encyclopedic commentary and you can only lamely point to "making a joke of the internet" as the reasoning behind it. Last I checked, "making a joke of the internet" didn't give you license to censor whatever you object to. Go find a more serious internet. V7-sport (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC) V7-sport (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are showing an continues pattern of uncivil behavior combined with refusal to engage in conflict resolution or to get the point combined with extensive edit warring against community consensus. We call that WP:DISRUPT. V7-sport - stop adding misleading information against community consensus - to present statements that are part of comedy show as thruth is misleading and makes us the joke of the internet - you can not continue to act against community consensus Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here?.

Again, I call you disruptive and you concentrate as hard as you can for a rebuttal and come up with the innovative and imaginative retort of calling me the -exact- -same- -thing-. There is no misleading information and you know it. Even assuming you don't understand the Colbert report, it's on Huffpo, Salon and the telegraph. Stop cutting and pasting the same thing over and over, (even you couldn't screw up the spelling of "truth" twice in a row) that's the very definition of disruptive and is essentially the extent of your debate skills.V7-sport (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems like it is you who is simply repeating his own wrong arguments that have been discussed and rebutted already and you refused to accept an less misleading version that was kindly implemented by User:.Thymefromti Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? instead you keep working agains multiple other editors and it is you who refuses to engage in conflict resolution and it is you who re-added the misleading information in edit war style against community consensus and this all is indeed highly disruptive. IQinn (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And again, It isn't misleading, what he said is posted. I haven't refused to engage in conflict resolution with anyone. I just don't have the stomach for watching you spam the mediation cabal with the same thing, over and over, as in the previous copyright "debate" where you simply parroted the same thing, over and over in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Look at the above. Pages and pages of you just restating the same thing hoping that it will stick.V7-sport (talk)

The current version is highly misleading as discussed and shown here Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here?. "I haven't refused to engage in conflict resolution with anyone." You did this post alone here is evidence enough. Well it is you who is repeating the same wrong arguments again and again that have been already discussed and rebutted by multiple editors Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? and you keep adding the misleading information again and again in an edit warring style against community consensus. IQinn (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it is you who is repeating the same wrong arguments again and again The old I'm rubber you're glue rebuttal... great how you bring this back to the playground. V7-sport (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it is obviously that you refuses conflict resolution and that you are acting against community consensus and multiple editors and i personally think your last reply is a bit childish. Please stop acting against community consensus and stop edit warring the misleading information into the article again and again without consensus. IQinn (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

BBC as source

The BBC has done a considerable documentary on wikileaks with interviews of the relevant people including Ethan McCord who said that 4 of the men of the unit that was on the ground at the time have now left the US military on moral grounds. This is not mentioned in the article but is a fairly significant piece of information.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here?

I removed this earlier as the lengthy quote certainly doesn't belong here. If there is a more neutral way to summarize it rather than using the whole quote, and more especially if other sources can be found, I might support the inclusion. --John (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, what was up on the page, and has been up on the page for a while was:

Regarding the title Toby Harnden in the London Telegraph wrote: Oddly enough, it was Stephen Colbert, ostensibly a comedian, who skewered him.

"The army described this as a group that gave resistance at the time, that doesn’t seem to be happening. But there are armed men in the group, they did find a rocket propelled grenade among the group, the Reuters photographers who were regrettably killed, were not identified…You have edited this tape, and you have given it a title called ‘collateral murder.’ That’s not leaking, that’s a pure editorial."

"Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create maximum political impact."[1]

  • An editor objected, stating it wasn't true, Assange had never admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create maximum political impact. So I restored it with a partial transcript, sourced from left leaning sources of the interview to show that it was absolutely true that assange "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create maximum political impact." That was this passage:
Assange: “The promise we make to our sources is that… we will attempt to get the maximum political impact for the materials they give to us.”
Colbert: “So ‘Collateral Murder’ is to get it political impact?”
Assange: “Absolutely. Our promise to the public is that we will release the full source material… it’s there for them to analyze and assess.”
Colbert: “Actually I admire that, I admire someone who is willing to put ‘Collateral Murder’ on the first thing people see knowing that they probably won’t look at the rest of it. That way you have manipulated the audience into the emotional state you want before something goes on the air. That is an emotional manipulation. [...]
Assange: “That’s true...” [2][3][4]
  • The Colbert interview with Assange is important, one of the few that assange was speaking on this topic and as far as I know, the one where he spoke about the title so it should stay in the article. The passage also makes it clear that he is a comedian. I don't object to taking out the transcript portion and adding the sources to back the original "Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create maximum political impact." In terms of Neutrality it is sourced by HuffPo/Salon, the Colbert report and the telegraph. 3 left wing sources and one center-right. That's pretty much par for the whole article.
That other crap exist does not justify inclusion and things that are said in a comedian show are obviously part of that comedian show where people try to entertain no matter what they say is true or not. It is a comedian show and nobody takes anything said there for granted. Inclusion of that would make Wikipedia the joke of the internet and would surely lead people to laugh out loud loudly about our work. No Wikipedia was not created to make people laugh. Bottom line: That does not belong in an encyclopedia, what we are. IQinn (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The London Telegraph, the nation and the huffington post are not "comedian shows". V7-sport (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The London Telegraph, the nation and the huffington post are not encyclopaedia's and The Colbert Report is indeed Comedy, Satire and News parody. IQinn (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, the language is properly sourced, it's from the telegraph and huffpo, not just comedy central and it is what he said. I'm going to insert the original, long sanding language and leave off the transcript portion. V7-sport (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that you continue edit warring. There is no consensus for reinclusion. Conflict resolution should be the next step not edit warring. So let's do that. You also just removed "an incident also referred to as Collateral Murder" from the lead what i think is strong POV and i reverted that and it can be also part of the conflict resolution process. IQinn (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely verifiable and notable, indeed I believe it's inclusion predates my editing here. The video is entitled "collateral murder", not the airstrike. I've been through "conflict resolution" with you before. It's been my observation that you are not interested in any "resolution" just endless, embarrassing bickering where you repeat the same thing over and over. If you have a legitimate objection state it here. V7-sport (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You have never been to conflict resolution with me. Instead you are frequently edit warring instead like you did here to implement your favorite version that is troublesome. There is no consensus for the inclusion of the comedian show staff. It makes us the joke of the internet. You also just removed "an incident also referred to as Collateral Murder" what is referenced dozens of times in the article and what leaves us with a strong POV lead what is not acceptable we have to be NPOV. IQinn (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been in an ANI, (brought about by you) and endless, completely unproductive, circular arguments here and elsewhere. That I am "making a joke of the internet" is just more of the same.
In what specific reference does it state that the "July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike is referred to as collateral murder"? Not the tape by wikileaks, but the incident itself? V7-sport (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The one who is spinning endless, completely unproductive, circular arguments here and elsewhere is you as you do not answer questions and you have frequently refused to accept anything that does not please your own POV in combination with aggressive edit warring. I suggest Wikipedia:Mediation as this does not help building the content. IQinn (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What are you going to ask to be mediated? Me making a joke of the internet? Why don't you find a reference that states the "July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike is referred to as collateral murder" before seeking counseling. V7-sport (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So you dispute that there are references in the article that refer to the Air strike as "collateral murder"? That seems to be an interesting position. You dispute that? IQinn (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikileaks titled their tape as such. Do you have a source that refers to the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike as "collateral murder"? If so lets see it. V7-sport (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There enough references in the article that refer to the airstrikes as "collateral murder". You did not answer my question. Do you really dispute that? IQinn (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course I answered your question, which reference, specifically. V7-sport (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
You removed from the lede "an incident also referred to as Collateral Murder" what is obviously the case and what is more than sufficient referenced in the article. Your reluctance to accept that is disruptive and Wikipedia:Mediation seems to be the only solution. As you seems to be confidence in your point i think you would not mind starting the mediation process, right? IQinn (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, so where is it sourced that the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike is commonly referred to as "collateral murder"? Why would I want to involve myself with you any more then is absolutely necessary?V7-sport (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Because you are not alone and other editors disagree with your interpretation? "an incident also referred to as Collateral Murder and is important to mention. Wikipedia:Mediation seems to be the best and fastest solution and necessary as it seems to me that you are not willing to accept anything that does not met your personal POV. IQinn (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"an incident referred to as Collateral Murder is perfectly referenced in the article"... Where? This is the same exact thing you did with the "3 separate events" thing. Just provide the reference and I'll put it back up myself. V7-sport (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the same you did in the "3 separate events" asking for references of the obvious that are already more than sufficient referenced in the article - only to be found out at the end that you were wrong. So we can save a lot of time if you would agree with Wikipedia:Mediation. What would be the right thing to do if two editors can not agree. Your reluctance to agree to mediation suggest that you are wrong. IQinn (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Just post the link and there will be no ned for mediation. I will acknowledge that you are correct and post the cited material. Otherwise, find someone else to pester. V7-sport (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Your reluctance to agree to mediation suggest that you are wrong as you were wrong in the "3 separate events". "an incident also referred to as Collateral Murder is perfectly referenced in the article. Your removal of that leaves us with an POV article that violates NPOV. Your behavior not to engage in conflict resolution is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Awsome.. whelp, glad you agree that it wasn't referenced. Isn't there a Farfour re-run on? V7-sport (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Your reply seems to me childish and disruptive. "an incident also referred to as Collateral Murder is perfectly referenced in the article and it would be helpful if you would agree to conflict resolution. IQinn (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If t were perfectly referenced then you wouldn't have a problem providing a reference. Not going to repeat myself over and over. V7-sport (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to repeat myself Wikipedia and Julian Assange refers to the airstrikes as Collateral Murder. The references are in the article. Your behavior is disruptive and it is obvious that you are wrong as you were wrong in "3 separate events" otherwise you would agree to conflict resolution. IQinn (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Iqinn insists that the sources are being misrepresented I'm going to restore the transcript to make it abundantly obvious that's untrue. V7-sport (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Colbert Report is not RS [4] it is Comedy, Satire and News parody. You once again want to add the transcript out of a comedy show. Anything people says there is made to entertain and to make people laugh with no truth value. Was he telling the truth or was he joking? Come on this is simply ridiculous crap to present this as the truth as you have done in the article. Absolutely misleading and the shame of Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The line “Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and create "maximum political impact."” is under dispute so why is it still there after myself and others have removed it a number of times? Assange never said himself he was trying to “manipulate” and even if he did (which he did not), words like “manipulation” are open to interpretation. Not everyone is going to know Steve Colbert mocks journalists. You really have to watch the video to understand the context of those words. If your going to mix in Harnden’s take (which is where this line comes from) you should also add some other things Harnden wrote in that article to show how blatantly biased Harnden was in that article. Its not the purpose of an Encyclopaedia to keep track of what Harnden, Bill O'reilly and Glenn Beck have to say about Obama, Hillary Clinton and Julian Assange, especially when it’s their interpretation on what was said on a satirical show. Thymefromti (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what Assange said: Assange: “The promise we make to our sources is that… we will attempt to get the maximum political impact for the materials they give to us.” Colbert: “So ‘Collateral Murder’ is to get it political impact?” Assange: “Absolutely. Our promise to the public is that we will release the full source material… it’s there for them to analyze and assess.” Colbert: “Actually I admire that, I admire someone who is willing to put ‘Collateral Murder’ on the first thing people see knowing that they probably won’t look at the rest of it. That way you have manipulated the audience into the emotional state you want before something goes on the air. That is an emotional manipulation. [...] Assange: That’s true...” What Harnden wrote is completely accurate and is a secondary reliable source. The fact that it was said on a "comedy show" is spelled out. Its not the purpose of an Encyclopaedia to protect people from their own words.V7-sport (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not under dispute that Wikileaks tries to get the maximum political impact, you can reference this sort of information from one of Assange’s many interviews where he is not interviewed by a comedian mocking Bill O Reilly. Spin is typically created by what you leave out and so I have added more of the interview to make it more clear what Assange actually said yes to. This makes the quotes lengthy. I still don't see why the satirical interview should be there but it should be there if Harnden’s interpretation of the interview is there. I also think individual lines in that interview should not be removed if it results in further misrepresentation.Thymefromti (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill O'riley has nothing to do with any of this. What you add needs a reference. I was willing to leave out the text of the interview because I too believe it is lengthy, but included it because you kept reverting what was written in the telegraph, (and confirmed in Salon/huffpo) because you objected that Assange didn't say what was being stated. V7-sport (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be happy to add references where it says Steve Colbert mocks Bill O'riley and Glenn Beck which was already referenced in Steve Colbert’s Wikipedia page (so there was a reference to it).You cant go shortening the interview to make it sound more like Harnden’s spin. You said “Its not the purpose of an Encyclopaedia to protect people from their own words.” yet you went ahead and deleted what I added so your not standing by your own principles. As I have already said, you do not have to reference Harnden’s spin to point out Wikileaks tries to get maximum political impact so why are you trying to mix in words like “manipulate” which could be used for any mainstream media organisation but is not precisely because it sounds biased to single one of them out? if your going to pin this on Julian Assange then the same sentiments must also be applied where ever they can be found in prominent publications to all the other journalists who are written about in Wikipedia. Thymefromti (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, Bill O'riley and Glenn Beck getting mocked have nothing to do with the topic at hand so I don't know why you are arguing for their inclusion here. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, not even for itself. The interview was truncated preserving the relevant information with notice to the reader and yes, assange admitted he was out to “manipulate”. If you were to find an interaction where, say, Bill O'Riley and Glenn Beck admit that they were doing something to manipulate and get the maximum political impact I wont stand in the way of you including it on to the relevant wiki page. It really wouldn't fit here though as the subject doesn't have anything to do with them. V7-sport (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You can argue informing people of the truth is a form of “manipulation” because it alters the public’s thinking. You can argue that advertising news is also a form of “manipulation” but using an emotive word like this that is open to interpretation simply because you don't like them is character assignation, something the Wikipedia guidelines warn against doing.Thymefromti (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I could argue that fishes are grapefruit but it wouldn't be sourced and verified and right for inclusion in this encyclopedia. It is reliably sourced, both from primary sources(his own words) and secondary sources that Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate. Now if I were posting something like this here, that might be character assassination.V7-sport (talk)
There is no definition of fishes being grapefruit but the word manipulate can mean to control or change. The police can take control of a situation by informing the public and when an artist manipulates their clay it does not mean they are being devious. Since Assange never used the word “manipulate” and you are wanting to use this word, you must have a precise definition. If your intending the meaning to include being devious (which is how most will interpret the word the way it is presented by you), please explain how it is obvious Assange admitted to being devious in this interview? Thymefromti (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Assange admitted that he was seeking to manipulate and get maximum political impact. On your objection and to be crystal clear Ive included the transcript. It is verifiable from primary and secondary sources. It isn't up to me or anyone else to define words for the reader, indeed it is against wikipedia policy. See here:WP:NOT#DICT V7-sport (talk)
Please try to be reasonable. The promise to their sources that they will attempt to get the maximum political impact does not mean Assange admitted to being devious. Assange never said the word "manipulate" so you can not make it sound like he did. The journalist who claims he did is trying to claim this from when Assange was interviewed by a comedian (in which Assange never used the word). When I tried adding that this journalist refers to Wikileaks supporters as “groupies” you deleted it. I also noticed how you keep deleting lines from that interview to make it sound misleading.Thymefromti (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am being reasonable and I haven't posted that he has admitted to being "devious". What I have posted is fully and reliably sourced. If you want to bring it to the mediation cabal then so be it, until then stop removing sourced information. Assange admitted, irrefutably, that he chose the title to manipulate. We can toss the whole interview up if you like, personally I don't think any of it belongs there but is on the encyclopedia because you kept insisting that he was being misrepresented, which he hasn't been.V7-sport (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He said "That's true. Most people didn't watch the whole video". You edited out the last part. He's saying it's true that most people (such as Colbert) make these judgments without having watched the full video. He is not saying "that's true" to being manipulative. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
What he said was "“That’s true, only one in ten people did actually look at the full footage.” I'll include the rest of the line if you wish. V7-sport (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course I "wish". Cutting that part out completely changes the meaning of what he said. In fact, using only a small part of and selective part of the interview creates bias even when you do include the rest of the sentence. We can't include the whole interview in article and it is you own personal bias that leads you to choose that particular part of the interview to include in the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I am actually against using the interview at all. it's only included to back up the statement that Toby Harden made in the telegraph. I will however add the sentence. Please don't assume "personal bias". V7-sport (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Added it. V7-sport (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
V7-sport have a look at WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:TEDIOUS you are acting against a wide community consensus. That is at least to say troublesome. IQinn (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Let the adults talk Iqinn. The commentary used here is properly sourced and does not push POV. You just want to waive the bloody shirt. V7-sport (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

:)The adults talked already and you better listen kid. The only one who is POV pushing is you and you are doing it against a wide community consensus. That is highly troublesome and disruptive. IQinn (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::What you trying to do us strip the article of any criticism of Assange and the way he went about releasing and titling the article and suppress the irrefutable fact that these men were walking down the street with an RPG. And you are in no position to be telling anyone they "had better" do anything. V7-sport (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not addressing the issue of this thread. The issue has been discussed ad nauseum and there is a very large Wikipedia:Consensus for removal. IQinn (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Ive addressed the issues of editors who have dealt with me in good faith. There was a consensus for removal of the interview transcript which was up because you kept claiming, without basis, that the Harden article stated something that it didn't. Not the rest of the information. V7-sport (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Three independent editors have explained the issue to you and three independent editors removed the information for the given reasons. Read it again WP:ICANTHEARYOU, Wikipedia:Consensus and move on. IQinn (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL, Your objections, "making a joke of the internet" have been noted. Again, I've endeavored to collaborate with editors of good faith, and tolerated disruption artists who think getting the last word is a substitute for having something to say. V7-sport (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Read it again WP:ICANTHEARYOU, Wikipedia:Consensus and move on. IQinn (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport re-inserted the information the 10th time against the consensus of 3-4 other editors. That is highly troublesome and i leave it up to you guys. How to deal with this disruptive editor who can not hear WP:ICANTHEARYOU and who can not accept Wikipedia:Consensus. :) IQinn (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And again, you have confused "getting the last word" with "having something to say".V7-sport (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite something i said: V7-sport is re-inserted the same misleading information the 10th time against the consensus of 3-4 other editors. But i guess you can not hear that as well WP:ICANTHEARYOU so i bold it for you (this is not shouting). IQinn (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"Quite something i said" isn't English and saying that I am posting misleading information is a lie. What i have posted is properly sourced and accurate. V7-sport (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussed ad nauseum 3-4 editors disagree with you for the stated reasons. Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:ICANTHEARYOU. IQinn (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest Misleading/Pov tags

Re this latest edit: [5]

  • 1)information that there was an RPG and Kalashnikov assault rifle that had 5 sources has been stripped from the lead.
  • 2)Original research and editorial have been added.
  • 3) An entire, long standing section as to why wikileaks titled the footage has been removed.
  • 4) Commentary from the World Socialist website remains, while mention of the rocket propelled grenades have been removed.V7-sport (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Dscussed ad nauseum and agreed on by multiple editors have a look at Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT IQinn (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The transcript portion has been discussed, not the rest of the citation and there are other issues stated that have not been discussed. Don't remove the tags until the issues have been resolved. V7-sport (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport re-inserted the information the 10th time against the consensus of 3-4 other editors. That is highly troublesome and disruptive and i leave it up to you guys. How to deal with this disruptive editor who can not hear WP:ICANTHEARYOU and who can not accept Wikipedia:Consensus. :) IQinn (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And thanks again for the spam. You didn't address anything I wrote. V7-sport (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
("And thanks again for the spam." sounds a bit rude and uncivil. :) That is not necessary because that has been discussed ad nauseum Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? and agreed on by multiple editors. You keep edit warring your favorite version into the article against Wikipedia:Consensus and your behavior is perfectly described here WP:ICANTHEARYOU. IQinn (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"Uncivil"? Poor thing. (as you just called me a troll in your edit summary) Posting the same thing over and over again is spam. Posting links to [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU] is both unoriginal (I sent you that ages ago) and laughable considering your history here. And again, you have confused "getting the last word" with "having something to say", and again, you didn't address anything that was put forth. V7-sport (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Quite something i said: That is not necessary because that has been discussed ad nauseum Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? and agreed on by multiple editors. You keep edit warring your favorite version into the article against Wikipedia:Consensus and your behavior is perfectly described here WP:ICANTHEARYOU. But i guess you can not hear that as well so i bold it for you (this is not shouting). IQinn (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Awesome how you keep posting that link as if it signified something other then a previous circular argument where by your most clever rebuttal was that I was "making a fool of the internet". There are a series of points there by the way. V7-sport (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You mean that link Wikipedia:Consensus or this one WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Discussed ad nauseum with 4 editors Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? were 3-4 editors disagree with you for the stated reasons. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Awesome how you keep posting that link as if it signified something other then a previous circular argument where by your most clever rebuttal was that I was "making a fool of the internet". And no, there is no consensus for the changes, stop pushing your pov. V7-sport (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If someone is pushing POV than that must be you. There is clear consensus, discussed ad nauseum Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? were 3-4 editors disagree with you for the stated reasons. IQinn (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not going to repeat the same thing over and over as you just never get it. There is no consensus for the changes made. Period. V7-sport (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is clear consensus. Period. discussed ad nauseum Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#A journalist's commentary on a comedian's commentary is NPOV here? were 3-4 editors disagree with you for the stated reasons. Have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re citation on Micaelmoore.com.

The citation states: "Ethan McCord, a member of the infantry company at the time, wrote that there was no action all day until some of the platoon came under small arms fire shortly before the first airstrike occurred in a separate but nearby area"

And the source states: “It was now about 0400 hours when we heard the sirens for incoming. BOOM first one not very far from where we were gathered. BOOM this one a little closer.” “We started funneling into an alleyway to leave the area, when some locals on the roofs above us started firing their AK-47s at us. We took cover along a wall and were returning fire”

So I struck the "Ethan McCord, a member of the infantry company at the time, wrote that there was no action all day” portion. V7-sport (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

RE. Gregcaletta

  • Re. "one had an AK 47 and another an RPG" This is sourced to 5 different sources. The citation has been debated extensively. It is obviously important to the article, indeed vital and should remain in the lead. It's not just according to the army report that there was an RPG. The statement "some of whom were armed, some of whom were not" is not sourced by the citations.
  • RE. Some possibly armed and some unarmed, enter the building. It is unknown how many were killed in this attack; according to some reports, the casualties included women and children." Needs to be sourced to something.
  • RE. Ethan McCord, a member of the infantry company at the time, wrote that there was no action all day until some of the platoon came under small arms fire shortly before the first airstrike occurred in a separate but nearby area is not backed by the source. Indeed, the source (dubious as it is) states otherwise, see above. "Re citation on Micaelmoore.com."
  • The WikiLeaks' rationale for their title of the footage section is notable and has been on this article for years. The reactions from Keller and Harden are notable as well and add some balance to the article. V7-sport (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"one had an AK 47 and another an RPG": actually this is not exactly what the sources and is actually disputed in other sources, "some of whom were armed, some of whom were not" in supported by reliable sources in the article and is also clear from the video itself but most importantly it is neutral language.
"Some possibly armed and some unarmed, enter the building. It is unknown how many were killed in this attack; according to some reports, the casualties included women and children." This is in Raffi Khatchadourian's article for the New Yorker and is already cited with sources in the body.
Ethan McCord, a member of the infantry company at the time, wrote that there was no action all day until some of the platoon came under small arms fire shortly before the first airstrike occurred is supported by the source and I don't doubt it's reliability but you can remove this entirely if you like because it s a primary source.
The debate on the "collateral murder" title can be included, but you reverted me when I moved it to the appropriate section. It goes in the commentary to the footage not the commentary to the incident. You also reverted an entire series of unrelated edits without justification. You need to give a prper edit summary for each individual change. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • RE;"actually this is not exactly what the sources and is actually disputed in other sources"
Source 1:"The abridged version drew criticism for failing to make clear that the attacks happened during clashes in a Baghdad neighborhood and that one of the men fired on by the helicopter was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade.
Source 2"the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.
WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG."
Source 3"not included are images showing that one of the men fired upon from the helicopter was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher."
Source 4"WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade"
Source 5" "Still from Apache Gun Camera Film showing insurgents with RPG and AKM".
So yes, it is what the sources state and no, they don't state "some of whom were armed, some of whom were not." You have stated that I should be banned, misrepresenting sources will get you banned here faster then anything else.
  • RE:"This is in Raffi Khatchadourian's article for the New Yorker and is already cited with sources in the body."
Where specifically?
  • RE:"is supported by the source and I don't doubt it's reliability but you can remove this entirely if you like because it s a primary source."
OK.
  • RE."The debate on the "collateral murder" title can be included"
Very good, agreement at last.
  • Re.It goes in the commentary to the footage not the commentary to the incident.
I don't think it should be pushed so far down into the text. It shows the motivation behind the way this video was released. As a compromise why don't we give it it's own section before the commentary. V7-sport (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted a whole series of edits, not simply the ones that you are discussing here. I will only discuss these edits once you stop reverting other unrelated edits. Make ONE of the changes that you propose above and we will discuss that. Then we can move onto the next change. This is how consensus building works. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Ive reverted the edits discussed here, if there are more I have missed let me know.I have also given you the courtesy of addressing your arguments in a coherent fashion. Please do the same rather then simply reverting. You are posting unsourced material and are mischaracterizing what is stated in the sources. V7-sport (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't have wasted my time with this. I had better things that I should have been doing today. I'm too busy and too tired to keep reverting your changes and attempt to point out to you what to me is blindingly obvious when you have shown that you will not be reasoned with. Go ahead and ruin the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for assuming good faith and using civility.V7-sport (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been gone too long but it looks much cleaner. Very good work.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

I have added a POV tag. Other editors have supported such a tag on this discussion page. There are problems particularly in the lead, but also in the body:

  1. The article focuses on the few men who were armed and avoids mentioning those who were not.
  2. It avoids mentioning the reports that women and children were killed in the third attack.
  3. It also states that there were a maximum of 18 people killed in all of the attacks and perhaps as few as 12. Reliable sources have reported the confirmed deaths. This means that we cannot possible know the maximum, only the minimum. Also, 18 is the minimum, not 12, if we include all reliable reports. 12 in the minimum only for the first two attacks. No reliable source has given 12 as a minimum for all three attacks.
  4. Commentary on the title of the WikiLeaks released has been placed in the inappropriate section. The editor tried to justify this by saying that he didn't think it should be "tucked away", but it's current placement is completely random.
  5. These are just a few of the issues; there are many more. Many of the problems have been added by a single editor who ignored the protests of several other editors it is that same editor who removed the POV tag. But there are other problems in this article which have been around for much longer. It has always been a problematic article, but it has been particularly problematic recently. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
1) RE. the article focuses on the few men who were armed and avoids mentioning those who were not. In the lead the article states that "a group of ten men, one had an AK 47 and another an RPG-7." which is true. It also states that "Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen, whose cameras were mistaken for weapons..." The article states: "The report states that the helicopter crew did not know how many people were in the building when they destroyed it with missiles, and that "there is evidence that unarmed people have both entered and are nearby"" Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com said that “the vast majority of the men were clearly unarmed”. Greenwald called the second airstrike a "plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety" "The gunner then takes a few moments to ready a Hellfire missile, during which two more unarmed men are seen entering the building" Unarmed[18] men attempted to get him to the van.". She writes that the co-pilot urged a dying, unarmed journalist..." The article makes it clear who was armed and who was unarmed.
2)RE.It avoids mentioning the reports that women and children were killed in the third attack. "Result: [...]2 children wounded" "Two children inside the van were wounded," "Two children sitting in the front seat were wounded but survived." "Assange stated that initial attempts to evacuate the wounded children to a nearby US military hospital were blocked by US military command.[37] The legal review carried out by the US Army states that the two children were evacuated" "when the two seriously injured children" "After attending the girl's wounds and handing her to a medic, he was ordered to take position on roof but he returned to the van to find the boy moved his hand" "Two children were found in the van, a four year old girl with gunshot wounds and embedded windscreen glass wounds and an eight year old boy with multiple wounds," "Both children were evacuated " "This account of first bringing the wounded children to the Combat Support Hospital appears to be contradicted by orders by radio that form part of the video record, which forbids it and orders that the children be handed over to local police." "Assange also stated that the building attacked by missiles was not abandoned, and that WikiLeaks had evidence that "there were three families living in that apartment complex, many of whom were killed, including women". "The owner of the building says that three families had been living in the building and seven residents had died, including his wife and daughter." are all in the article.
3)RE.No reliable source has given 12 as a minimum for all three attacks. " helicopter attack in Baghdad in 2007 that killed 12 people," Here. The full range is given. I haven't found a reliable source that speculates between "confirmed and unconfirmed" but the range of deaths is posted as is the wounded and mention that they were children, which usually isn't in info-boxes..
4)Re."Commentary on the title of the WikiLeaks released has been placed in the inappropriate section." the WikiLeaks' rationale for their title of the footage" has been moved down in the article and is in the leaked video footage section of 2010 coverage. It's completely congruent with the chronological order of what happened.
5)Re.You have just had another editor comment that this article finally looks better. I haven't ignored your protests, I have endeavored to answer them and that is proven here and on your talk page. V7-sport (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Why did you remove the tag? The dispute has not been resolved. Merely offering comments on the talk age page without making any concessions or attempts to compromise and while simply reverting the edits counts as ignoring our protests. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I boldly removed it per Wikipedia:DRIVEBY. I also addressed what you wrote here. Do you have some kind of constructive response or rebuttal to what I wrote? Tagging isn't a valid substitute for engaging in the process.V7-sport (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Drive-by tagging means tagging when there is no dispute on the talk page. There is a dispute on the talk page because two at least two editors have expressed concerns here and have not had those concerns adequately addresses. The fact that you will not even acknowledge that there is a dispute makes me unhopeful that you will engage in rational discussion, and I am very tired of repeating myself to you, but I will reiterate anyway. The points you wrote were mainly a distraction from rather than a response to what I wrote, but so I will try rephrasing if you will agree to stop removing the tag from the article until NPOV is no longer disputed. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It means that there isn't an ongoing effort to resolve that dispute. What I wrote was not a "distraction", thank you very much. I addressed what you wrote point by point and have tried to do it politely. I've addressed what you have written on this talk page and here and here and here. There is a pattern here that isn't constructive. So, do you have some kind of constructive response or rebuttal to what I wrote?V7-sport (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You are not engaging in discussion on the talk page, therefore this IS drive by tagging and subject to removal.V7-sport (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Gregcaletta. There is no "drive-by" tagging just because you disagree with him, calling him a vandal is also not helpful at all. I highly suggest you stop deleting the tags and engages in another form of dispute resolution. IQinn (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

When someone refuses to engage in the process or explain why they have posted tags it's drive by tagging. Thanks for misrepresenting what I wrote...again. I'm going to ask you directly, is Gregcaletta a sock account of yours? You work on the same articles at the same time of day. V7-sport (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
He did explain very well and he engaged with you in a civil manner in various discussions. Ever thought that there might be something wrong with your own style. I think it is undisputed that you had a large number of disputes on various talk pages with multiple editor just in the last few months.
:)) No i am not a Sock account of Gregcaletta. Ridiculous. Please do stop attacking other editors just because you disagree with them. IQinn (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
He has not engaged in a civil manner, that's demonstrated above and in the links provided. You were recently blocked [6] (again) for your constant bickering and disruption so please don't talk to me about style. V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. GregCalcutta needs to answer your response to these points. In fact, IQinn hasn't responded either.
That said, I'd be shocked if IQuinn was a sock of GregCalcutta. Completely different temperment and writing styles.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks RandyV7-sport (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I and Gregcaletta have engaged with you in a civil manner for almost to long see also his talk page and other articles talk pages as well as many other editors tried that. I was blocked because i tried to engage in a civil discussion with you what seems to be impossible as many other editors had the same experience with you on multiple other talk pages just in the last month. You are entitled to voice your opinion but there seems to be a disconnect with the facts. There are many forms of dispute resolution processes here on Wikipedia. I can only repeat stop removing the tags and use one of them. IQinn (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol. you don't get blocked for engaging in "civil conversation" Iqinn. V7-sport (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what Iqinn was doing to get blocked, but from my own arguments with boht of them I can vouch that he is much more rational and reasonable than V7-sport. V7-sport has simply reverted every edit I have made to this article in the last month or so, while making many edits of his oen which have actually increased the factual inaccuracy and POV. There is not much point in continuing to talk with him or make changes to the article because I know from experience that he will ignore what I say and revert all of my edits to the article, not just the one's he has a disagreement with, but all of them, even those that are uncontroversial. Despite this, I will attempt to reiterate my problems with the article by making some edits which I fully expect to be immediately reverted. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Here I fixed one of many factual errors introduced to the article by V7 sport. 18 was written as a maximum number of casualties. We cannot possibly know for certain the exact casualties particularly for the the 3rd airstrike, so to put a maximum is absurd, and in any case, them most reliable report we have says 7 which would make 19 in total. Remember, this is just one of many examples. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
V7-sport did not even attempt to justify leaving this fact out of the lead]. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I also fixed this paragraph, which was factually inaccurate, saying that the attack was directed at a single man, rather than at the whole group including Chmagh and the van itself, which was the case. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
V7-sport also removed these facts from the lead, so I have restored. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
V7-sport and others have also removed undisputed factual material from the "incident" section and placed it in the commentary section as if it were disputed by someone. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
From my experience I would expect V7-sport to simply revert all of them, without even attempting to achieve consensus. If accepts the changes, the factual accuracy tag can go, but the tag neutrality tag should stay because there are various other problems with the POV of this article. If he simply reverts the changes, without even attempting to achieve consensus through compromise, which is all he has done in the past, then both tags definitely must stay. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Randy, have a look at the way V7-sport's "discussion" is just an attempt to distract from our complaints, and the complaints of others, rather than respond. Even if we exclude his raving sock-puppet conspiracy theories, his behaviour is embarrassing, and you would be embarrassing yourself to continue supporting it. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You could think that if you like but you still needed to address those points.
You evidently want special emphasis on the fact that some were not carrying obvious weapons even though it already says how many are known to have been carrying, and that two of the men were only carrying camera equipment. If anything, I wish it could be more clear that the other men should be presumed to be valid targets by anyone who supports the laws of war.
Why a special emphasis? An RPG-7 requires at least a two-man crew. Do you want the lede to incorrectly suggest that it was wrong under wartime rules to kill the second man and any spotters?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Re edit 1. The source sited in the Seattle times and the first NY times article states that the total dead were 12. It doesn’t say “1st attack.” It says in total. The NY times article says “at least 18” Those were the highest and lowest amounts I could find. If you can find an article that has more we should include it, but what you have put up is un-sourced and original research. As a compromise we can go with “12- at least 18” pending research on a higher figure as that is what’s sourced.
Re the sources do not say “most were unarmed”. The NY times article doesn’t have the word “unarmed” in it. The Week article doesn’t have the word “unarmed” in it. Neither does the second times article or the combat team investigation. None of them use the word “unarmed or any variant of it. They all state that the journalists were in the company of men with an RPG and an AK 47. Claiming; “most were unarmed” is a misrepresentation of what the sources state and original research. The sources you cite flat out do not say what you are claiming they say.
Re “several unarmed men including the wounded Chmagh and men who were attempting to help Chamgh into the van.” Aside from being a redundant sentence, it’s mentioned in the body of the text. However the sentence in the lead should be change to reflect that there was more then 1 man in the van.
Re. “some armed and some unarmed, enter”, What the source (THE BLOG portion of the New Yorker which has a different standard of reliability) states is “appears to be armed” and “two seemingly unarmed”. This is Raffi Khatchadourian personal observations from watching the video and if included at all it should be attributed to him. It's not suitable for the lead.
Re the tags you seem to be stating that the only way for you to stop disputing the accuracy is to add original research. V7-sport (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
1) The source says "an attack", so it's clearly not referring to both attacks; this is also clear from context. "At least 18" is for probably referring the total for both attacks, so to put 18 as a maximum was a factual error: 18 is the minimum.
2) There is at least one secondary source for this in the article, Greenwald's, and then there is the video itself. I'm sure there are more sources available, but even the Greenwald article shouldn't even be necessary given that WP:VERIFIABILITY explains that sources are not needed for statements that are self-evidently true eg. the sky is blue, Paris is the capital of France etc. But we have both secondary and primary sources anyway. Are you seriously disputing that most were unarmed?
3) It's not redundant because the way you had phrased it was factually inaccurate; you implied that they were only firing on one man. It's so tiring to have to repeat myself like this Are you actually reading my points?
4) I'm fine with "some who appeared to be armed some who appeared to be unarmed”. Thanks for being willing to compromise, finally.
5) Sorry, I don't know how to respond to this last point of yours. It is embarrassingly incoherent. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Re #1, the threshold for inclusion here is verifiability. I did not see anything in the context that stated that this was for only a portion of the days events. Regardless, that is why I included the range.
Re #2 Glenn Greanwald is an op ed columnist. He was looking at the video and giving an opinion about what he saw. Anything that is sourced to him has to state "according to Glenn Greanwald". It doesn't belong in the lead. "not needed for statements that are self-evidently true"? It's not self evidentally true that they were unarmed, indeed, several were carrying weapons, others could have been concealing them.
Re #3 Redundant as in "“several unarmed men including the wounded Chmagh and men who were attempting to help Chamgh into the van.”" Yeah, from the department of redundancy department. RE. "It's so tiring to have to repeat myself like this Are you actually reading my points?" One would have thought you would have gotten that by the fact that I have addressed them one by one.
Re #4 This would have to be "according to Raffi Khatchadourian some appeared to be armed some who appeared to be unarmed”. This is from the New Yorker blog, an op-ed piece and as such it doesn't belong in the lead.
Re.5 " Sorry, I don't know how to respond to this last point of yours. It is embarrassingly incoherent." I'm really sick of the sanctimony. I have tried for days to get you to contribute with out disruption and maintained a respectful tone throughout. There was nothing incoherent about what I wrote. If you can't understand English then you lack the competency to edit here. V7-sport (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
1) You are not reading the source properly. It clearly says "an attack", as in one attack, not several.
2) It's only an "opinion" if it is disputed or likely to be disputed, otherwise it is just a fact. No one has disputed that most of the men were unarmed. In any case, I have added another source from The Australian, a reliable source, which was previously removed from the article by some POV pusher.
3) Each time you "address" one of my points you make it obvious that you have not read the point carefully. You can change the language if you like if you can find a way to make the language less redundant without making it factually inaccurate as it was before.
4) That article is as reliable as any other, and would be reliable even if we didn't have the primary source to verify it with our own eyes; you can't just pick and choose the sources based on the facts you like best. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
1)And of course I think you are not reading the source properly. That's why we go with verifiability from reliable sources. I can point to a direct quote from the source, you can't.
2) It's only an "opinion" if it is disputed or likely to be disputed. Indeed, what WP:V says is that "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material". You provided 2 citations from AFP.
3) I have quoted you and provided rebuttals. Obviously I have read it carefully.
4)The article in question was an opinion piece on the blog portion of the New Yorker and needs to be attributed as such. Ie, "According to Raffi Khatchadourian" etc.. V7-sport (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Continuing on... RE the info box. What is posted is sourced. (Indeed, I just found a source that claims only 11 were killed during that day.) I added citations for the info box and expanded the range of deaths per previous objection. In order to post some kind of delineation between airstrikes someone needs to source it. I haven't been able to find a source that does so. Re "Re. some armed and some unarmed, enter" in the lead, we are going to have to find a way of sourcing that without the "According to Raffi Khatchadourian, who writes in the New Yorker blog..." preamble. The Kristinn Hrafnsson part is taken almost directly from the source. "Claims to have found the owner of the building" is a direct quote, not POV. V7-sport (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Kristinn Hrafnsson can't be called objective in any sense, nor can the owner of the building. They both have financial interests at stake in pushing the story.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I think the way the information is presented with his link to wikileaks gives the reader an accurate idea of where he is coming from. V7-sport (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This stuff

This is the stuff I'm talking about. He reverts everything. Not just the stuff he has voiced a disagreement on, but everything: more than 20 unrelated changes by more than one editor, and it included the removal of citation needed tags, the removal of SOURCES, the reversion of factual addictions and corrections, and the removal of the dispute tags. It is certainly Wikipedia policy that one must give an adequate edit summary for each reversion, so it must be against policy to revert so many unrelated edits in one go. Is there anyway we can get him blocked for this stuff? Gregcaletta (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Had you bothered to wait a minute you would see that I re-added what was not in dispute or properly sourced and was coming to the talk page to outline a way to move forward. I had also sourced what you had tagged and provided a summery for each edit I've made.
  • If someone is going to get "blocked" it's going to be for treating other editors with contempt as you have done from the very onset.
“The kind of edits you have been making including series of agenda driven edits in one go borders on vandalism and if it continues I will request to have you blocked from the article.”
“you appear to be blinded by an agenda.”
“it is you own personal bias that leads you to choose that particular part of the interview to include in the article.”
“I'm too busy and too tired to keep reverting your changes and attempt to point out to you what to me is blindingly obvious when you have shown that you will not be reasoned with. Go ahead and ruin the article.”
“I am very tired of repeating myself to you, but I will reiterate anyway. The points you wrote were mainly a distraction from rather than a response to what I wrote”
“have a look at the way V7-sport's "discussion" is just an attempt to distract from our complaints, and the complaints of others, rather than respond.”
“It's so tiring to have to repeat myself like this Are you actually reading my points?"
“I don't know how to respond to this last point of yours. It is embarrassingly incoherent.”

I have tried in good faith to address your issues, in detailed, often numbered responses. I’ve pointed out as politely as possible that you are attributing things to sources that they do not say, that you shouldn’t cite opinion pieces in the lead as if they were fact. What I've gotten in return is sanctimony and disruption. V7-sport (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with all what Gregcaletta said. V7-sport your editing is disruptive e.g. using no or misleading edit summaries and multiple reverts against consensus you are also violating WP:BRD. Stop this and engage in conflict resolution with him. Attacking him just because you disagree is not an option. IQinn (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
REPOSTING WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN is not an "attack". To say that I haven't used edit edit summaries is a lie and I challenge you to find something misleading in them. V7-sport (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid shouting what is extremely uncivil. Your last comment extended reposting and in is entirety i do not think that these kinds of comments help to solve any content issues or dispute. Also not helpful to call other editors liars.
No edit summary at all for this one. Do not call me a liar. Many of the your other edit summaries are either useless or misleading and there are to many reverts. IQinn (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I self reverted that edit... in part because I forgot the summary. I have seen you in action Iqinn, and I stand by what I wrote. V7-sport (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I also stand by what i wrote. IQinn (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Whelp, since what you wrote; "Your last comment extended reposting[sic] and in is entirety" was basically gibberish it's perfectly appropriate that you stand by it. V7-sport (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You seems to getting tired. Take a nap. IQinn (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing getting the last word with having something to say.V7-sport (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A request for those adding sources

A contributor has added this bare reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html?_r=1

As you may or may not know, the NY Times is limiting access to 20 articles per month for free users. I don't want to have to click to view a NYT reference if I've already seen it before. It would help a lot to include the article title.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed a copyright violation.--Rockfang (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, when they say an attack that "killed 12 people" they are referring to the first attack which involved two airstrikes. They are not referring to all three airstrikes including the missile strike on the building, which was a separate attack which occurred later in the day in a completely separate area. This article covers both attacks: all three strikes. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There are several sources that say 12. There is one that says "at least 18". That is what is WP:V If you can find a reliable source that says more then fine, but please don't add original research or synthesis to the article. V7-sport (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I was mostly just pointing out that I want to know whether or not I've already seen that link. I save them in some cases, and I'd hate to download it again if it counts against me.
Of course, I'd hate sending the NYT money more than that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I don't send them a dime by the way, registration is free and don't think they put a limit on what I can access. V7-sport (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
They do now. It's new: "Access to the newspaper’s online content is through a metered paywall. Heavy users (over 20 articles per month) have to purchase digital subscriptions, but access remains free for light users." NYT
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I just had an additional thought. The NYT is assigning new links for Wikipedia references. It's possible that they're not going to include them in the quota. I suspect I'll know in a few days.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL, That will be awesome to have to track down all new links to the old references... That might be the explanation though. V7-sport (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
FWIW: I ran into the 20 article limit but it's easy to beat (so far).
After you max out, it puts a large square message over the article that tells you how to subscribe. All you need do is copy the URL, paste that into a new browser window, and go there.
Another method is to use a different browser until you max out on 20 articles again.
I never thought I'd ever feel sorry for the NYT but I do.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone, also note that if you can feed into the article via a search engine it won't count against your limit. If any of you need NYT links feel free to hit me up on my talk page, I have a subscription and can either c/p the article or get you the info needed to link in via an engine. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest edits

  • 1)The info box now states that "At least 18 killed in total. In the 1st attack (1st and 2nd strikes): 12 fatalities confirmed and two children wounded. When the source doesn't state that. What one source states is simply "killed 12 people" and none make any delineation between 1st or second attacks. etc. When an articls says "12 dead in total" you can't use it to claim things like it was the "1st air strike" wounded children, etc. I had a range of sources in the info box, some said 11 dead in total, some stated 12 dead in total and I included the 18 dead in total as well. Those should be restored because they are not attributing things to the sources that are not there.
  • 2)The info box now states "In the 2nd attack (3rd strike)" which is nowhere in the source given. Further the source cited "THE USE OF FORCE" is the "blog" section of the New yorker. Anything in that section has to be attributed to it's author, Raffi Khatchadourian as it was basically him watching the video tape and writing about what he saw. It's not an appropriate source for the info box as it would need to contain that wording.
  • 3)A source was also removed from the info box.
  • 4)That Kristinn Hrafnsson "claims to have found the owner of the building" is a direct quote from the source. There is no "WP:WORDTOWATCH" and he did work for wikileaks when he made that claim. Further, he worked on the video.
  • 5)"In a separate attack that day, the "Bush" helicopter team made a third airstrike" is unsourced and redundant.

Lots of these issues look similar to issues that have been raised repeatedly. V7-sport (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have Skype? It might be easier to have this conversation in person because for a long time I have felt like I've been repeating myself. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope. We both feel like we are repeating ourselves at this point, but I think we should do this in public.V7-sport (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. Well I will respond to your first, third and fifth points first. All of these facts are supported by sources in the article. WP:LEAD explains that citations do not need to be provided in the lead or infobox because these should only contain information that it cited in the body of the article anyway. Do you seriously doubt that two children were wounded? Gregcaletta (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Which sources in the article? If it is supported by sources in the article then it shouldn't be a problem posting them. WP:LEAD says that citations do need to be provided in the WP:LEADCITE section. ("The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited")V7-sport (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
OK then I will provide the sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate that. V7-sport (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, that doesn't do it. The source you listed doesn't say "M230 Chain Gun attack (1st and 2nd strikes): 12 fatalities confirmed and two children wounded". It just says "killed 12 people" There is no mention of any of the rest and the use of force article is still an editorial from a blog. V7-sport (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to "street attack" and "building attack". The source says "The attack killed 12" "wounding two children" "on a street". The "Use of Force" article was published under the "News Desk" section of the New Yorker, which is as reliable as any newspaper, but as a compromise I have written "by some reports" and "unconfirmed". Gregcaletta (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Well ...no the first source says "U.S. helicopters involved in firing down on a crowd and a building in Baghdad in 2007, killing at least 18 " That would encompass all of the days events. You are also disregarding the sources that ::state 11 total, 12 total etc.
Re the use of force article, it clearly states blog and it clearly is an editorial. Look under the "New" in "The New Yorker" and you will see that it is a blog that you are linking to. It even says it in the link
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/04/wikileaks-video-army.html V7-sport (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
As a compromise why not go with "11-"at least18" 2 children wounded representing the lowest and highest reliable sourced numbers I have been able to find and call that one resolved? V7-sport (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
So that it? V7-sport (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The NYTimes source I have given for "12 killed" in the first attack says the attack was "on a street" which would exclude the building attack. The one that says "at least 18" is including the building. You haven't pointed to a single source that says "11" or "12" total and includes a mention of the building. It is a misreading of the source to assume that they are including the attack on the building when the building is not mentioned. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is under a section of the website called "blog", which just means that it has been reported online but not printed in the magazine; it doesn't mean it is an opinion piece; it's in a section called "News Desk". In any case, none of this matters because I have agreed on saying "by some reports" and we have said "unconfirmed" is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The citations for 11 dead were in in what you reverted. They were the US military report and Fox. There were several that said 12 dead, including the BBC and seattle times. the highest RS was "over 18". I thought the fairest way of doing this was to report the range and the sources they were attributable to. What do you say to the compromise offer?
The Blog section of the New Yorker is an editorial section ("Notes on the day by the staff of The New Yorker") they are not reports. It has a different threshold for inclusion here. Whatever cited needs to be attributed to the writer/source. V7-sport (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, please provide me with a source that says "11" or "12" AND mentions the building and if you can provide such a source then we can write "at least 11" instead ("11-at least 18" doesn't really make sense). Gregcaletta (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The statement that at least 7 were killed is clearly a report, though you are free to doubt its accuracy. I don't even doubt it is an accurate report but I have agreed on "unconfirmed" "by some reports" as a compromise instead of stating it as fact. I think that is a fair compromise. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll go through the citations and get a range of attacks.
If we go with the "over 18" there is no reason to include the editorial because that is sourced with 2 (I believe) reliable sources that mention the building and there will be no need of breaking it up into arbatrary "1st attacks-3rd attacks" in the info box.
While i'm looking want to address the Kristinn Hrafnsson dispute?V7-sport (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If the source mentions the long version of the tape it means that they are aware of what you are calling the "Building attack (3rd strike)"

This source says 9 were killed, 2 children wounded (doesn’t mention the building)
11 killed was from the legal review by centcom, Which is a primary source, it's Backed by:
"The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people had been killed"
Altogether, around 12 people die.
12 people in total was sourced here.
“By mid morning of July 12 a dozen Iraqis were dead”
“Army assault in Iraq in 2007 that left 12 people dead” (Talks about the longer tape.)
The attack killed 12, (talks about the longer tape with the building.)
12 people dead. (talks about the long version of the tape which includes the building.)
“killed about a dozen people.” (Talks about the longer tape.)
The shooting left 12 people dead
"15 people killed"
"were among 15 people killed"
“at least 16 people dead,”
“At least 18” people is sourced by the other New Yorker article. That one includes mention of the building.
"At least 18" Mentions the building

See why I included a range? I'm willing to concede that the "9 dead" is way off and I doubt that the 11 was including the hellfire strike. However there are RS that say 12 and mention the long version of the tape which includes the hellfire strike. So if we are going to have a range, if we are going to keep original research out of the info box it should read something like: 12-"over 18"(estimated)Killed, 2 children wounded" and leave it at that.

What about Kristinn Hrafnsson?V7-sport (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I boldly added that language with a couple of sources that mention the longer version of the tape and non editorial sources that say at least 18 as I have to split soon. V7-sport (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I also put back the sourced language about Kristinn Hrafnsson but left that he became the spokesman and left out the quotation marks.V7-sport (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to have range for the numbers, but why not use something more clear and gramatically correct. Something like what there was in an earlier version:

"Varies according to source. 11 killed according to the US military investigations[5][6], 12[7][8][9][10] to "over 18"[11][12][13] according to press accounts, with 2 children wounded[14]."

...and then add the other citations if possible. Frankly speaking, the present sentence "12[15][16] -At least 18(estimated) [12][17]killed 2 children wounded" does not make any sense. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 23:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You could say "reports of confirmed fatalities range from "12" to "at least 18"". I still think it's pretty clear that the newspapers that report less than 13 deaths have not looked into the attack on the building at all. There was no military legal review into the attack on the building as far as I can tell; they certainly they did not look into casualties. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Subh83 for doing that and cleaning up the references. The issue is that there was another attack and the figures with 11 dead probably didn't examine that. There are some sources that mention the longer version of the tape which has that attack that mention the figure of 12.
Re. Greg, would posting the confirmed fatalities range that you proposed do it for you in terms of the tags?V7-sport (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I no longer dispute the factual accuracy of the article, so you can remove that one if no one else objects. I still dispute the neutrality of the article so that tag needs to remain: the article still focuses more on those who were armed than those who were not, and it hides reports of women and children dying in the building to the "Commentary" section. Reports of women and children dying is not "commentary" but reporting, and Kristinn Hrafnsson is a highly respected investigative journalist, much more respected than the the Fox News and CNN reporters that we cite in the factual sections, not to mention the obviously partial military review upon which the US media reporting has mainly been based. The fact that this article gives the claims of an internal military view much more credit than the reporting of a profesional investigative journalist like Hrafnsson is the most obvious example of hugh POV issues still present in the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Re focusing on "those who were armed rather then those who were not I think the article makes it abundantly clear who was armed. Re the "1st attack" it says "most were unarmed"" even though that is debatable. (RPG's are usually 2 men crews (1 to hump the launcher, 1 to hump the grenades) and there was at least 1 Kalashnikov assault rifle, which would mean that 5 out of 9 were armed. The "2nd attack" makes it clear that everyone was unarmed and the 3rd attack says some were and some weren't. The reports of "women and children dying in the building" are from an editorial and go directly back to wikileaks, indeed one of the people who worked on the "collateral murder" tape. An "investigative journalist" loses credibility when he is reporting on behalf of an organization that admittedly seeks to get "maximum political impact" and who's leader agrees that he was seeking to manipulate. Kristinn Hrafnsson is a spokesman for wikileaks. Bit of a conflict of interest there. The idea that Hrafnsson can be a wikileaks spokesman, someone who worked on the tape and still remain impartial isn't credible IMHO. V7-sport (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Greg on most of his points. Especially V7's WP:OR regarding how many people were armed is not useful. IQinn (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Re Greg. Please take a look at this photo. That is supposedly the photo that was being taken here. That's how close they were to the US troops and had that been an RPG they would have had a clear shot. Knowing that there were RPG's there and knowing that it was the helicopters mission to protect those troops that were within RPG range the pilots choice would have been to either shoot or allow what was was giving every impression of being a very well executed ambush on the Soldiers he was charged with protecting. Personally I think the article will have a POV issue toward your end of the scale until that can be adequately communicated, however there comes a point where you have to leave things up to the reader. Regardless, I removed the factual accuracy tag. I appreciate that we can get past that dispute. V7-sport (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The article currently treats Hrafnsson (investigative repporter) as less reliable than the internal military review. This is absurdly POV. We are not "leaving it up to the reader" if the reports of women and children being killed by Hraffsson are hidden in the "Commentary" section while the military report of two RPG launchers is placed as part of the description of the incident itself. What do you mean POV towards "my end of the scale"? I am interested in including all reports, which is NPOV, and you have excluded some reports, in favour of the reports from the military itself. You have implied that Kristinn Hrafnsson might just be making stuff up, while treating the military testimony as gospel. I'm not asking that we do the opposite; I'm just asking that we treat both of them as unconfirmed reports and don't hide one side away. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, Moved the2 RPG launcher stuff to the commentary section. Hrafnsson, again, works for wikileaks, he worked on the collateral murder tape and his stuff is still in there, not hidden. So no, I haven't "excluded" anything, (thanks again). Indeed, it is reported in the commentary section, not the 2010 reporting section. V7-sport (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he works for Wikileaks, but is he going to just make up the deaths of 7 people? No. He would easily be caught lying if anyone else bothered to do the reporting themselves and found that the claims were false and this would damage his reputation as a reporter as well as the reputation of WikiLeaks. He is a journalist and he works for a journalistic organisation. By your logic, we should also exclude the reporting Tom Cohen, Eric Schmitt and Justin Fishel because they work for CNN, The New York Times and Fox News, which also have their own ideological viewpoints (understandably they are all pro-US) and who all based their information mainly on the internal military reviewer, who is clearly just as unreliable as Hrafnsson if not much more so. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The legal review is still being used as a source in the lead, infobox and incident description. An internal military review is clearly much less reliable than the work of an investigative reporter, no matter which journalistic organisation he works for. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The report was dubious even for the new yorker to put "claimed" on it and Tom Cohen, Eric Schmitt and Justin Fishel haven't been fired from their respective news outlets as Hrafnsson was from RÚV. And again, Wikileaks has admitted that they were out to get "maximum political impact", on this. That's not something a journalistic organization does. V7-sport (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The legal review is currently being used as a second source for "9" men as a backup source and for "Eight[1] men were killed" as the only source. If you dispute that we can remove it. V7-sport (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It is still being used to support the claim that "the helicopters engaged a group of armed insurgents, and that some were seen entering a nearby building" but I don't think this should be removed. Hrafnsson's reporting should be included along side to provide balance.
Hrafnsson was fired for refusing to compromise on his journalistic values. There are two motivations for journalistic organisations: one is political impact (via providing making new information accessible to the public); the other is profit. The fact that WikiLeaks is funded by public donations and CNN is funded by corporations and has a close relationship with the Pentagon does not make CNN reporters more reliable than WikiLeaks reporters. The main difference between Hrafnsson and Cohen is that Hrafnsson travelled to Iraq to interview the victims as research for this story, while Cohen did no such research and instead based his article mainly on the internal review, which makes Hrafnsson more reliable. But I am not even asking that we treat him as more reliable. I am simply asking that we don't hide his reporting in the commentary section, when it is clearly not commentary but reporting, and I have even shown a willingness to compromise by prefacing his reporting with "According to some reports" or even "According to Kristin Hrafnsson" Gregcaletta (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That he was fired for refusing to compromise on his journalistic values is of course a matter of opinion, as are the motivations of other journalists. Luckily it's not up to us. At any rate his report is in there and the after action reports have been moved to the commentary section.V7-sport (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
His report is in the commentary section despite the fact that it is not commentary, and the decision to place it there is based on your POV and your opinion that his reporting is less valuable than the reporting of others closer to the military. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
His report was in an editorial, it's also from wikileaks that admitted that they were seeking to manipulate for political impact, (editorialize) it's also in the commentary section instead of the additional reporting where it belongs and to say "the others", meaning CNN, AP, Reuters, etc are closer to the military is ridicules.V7-sport (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well if you are going to insist on that then the POV tag needs to stay. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Or we could take it to the mediation cabal. Wonder how well the idea that CNN, AP, Reuters, etc are closer to the military and therefore should be given as much credence as an editorial from the spokesman of an organization that conceded that it was trying to get maximum political impact will fly there. V7-sport (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably not very well but those are your words not mine. The fact that you have shown yourself unwilling to compromise certainly won't fly well. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your statements are hear for anyone to read. As is the fact that I have bent over backwards to compromise. V7-sport (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7959227/Julian-Assanges-arrest-warrant-a-diversion-from-the-truth.html
  2. ^ http://www.thenation.com/blog/158852/stephen-colbert-vs-glenn-greenwald-and-julian-assange
  3. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/stehen-colbert-vs-glenn-g_b_828079.html
  4. ^ http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange
  5. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video
  6. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012449135_afghandocwiki26.html
  7. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8603938.stm
  8. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html?_r=1
  9. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html
  10. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian
  11. ^ a b http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html
  12. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference NewYorker-Useofforce was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html
  15. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html?_r=1
  16. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike/Archive_6&oldid=834269031"