Jump to content

Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

"2010 Coverage" sub-sections

I suggest changing the name of the "2010 coverage" section to "2010 commentary" so we can then divide it into further subsections, such as "The withholding of the video", "Wikileaks' presentation of the video", "The legality and morality of the incident" etc. Someone else can pick the section headings though. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to divide the content in 2010 coverage into subsections within each incident. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike and Collateral Murder should be separate articles

This article is starting to sprawl because it's about two different events: the airstrike (described with an NPOV title) and Wikileaks' released video (with a POV title). Currently, Collateral Murder redirects here. The two events shouldn't be conflated, especially if doing so results in a mish-mash where there might instead be two separate, and (we can hope) eventually excellent, Wikipedia articles. Yakushima (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree. But just thinking about doing it gives me a headache. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You could try asking for a third opinion from NuclearWarfare or Sladen. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The notability of the two events are too intertwined to make a clean cut. The best thing to do is to expand the leak section until such time as the need for a split is obvious. It's not obvious now so at the very least a split there is premature. As for the rest of the article, discussion of the leak and Wikileaks should be handled on a case by case basis. Anything that doesn't contribute to the article, like criticism of Wikileaks, should be moved. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Yakushima (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Coverage Commentary

Last line says: "This clearly demonstrates Ellsberg's misunderstanding of the laws of combat, because anyone forward of the troop's line of advance remains a valid target unless they can unarguably be shown to have surrendered." That sentence sounds very biased, and completely misses the point of the quoted text. Should it not at least be reworded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.92.79 (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually just removed it. Any material without a citation should be removed. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

OCDMonk is making unsourced changes to say that people attacked had AK47s and RPGs. I have warned them for edit warring. Can anyone provide sources to back this assertion, which appears to be based on their own interpretation of what they see in the video? Fences&Windows 13:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not only their personal interpretation of the video. The article used to say "at a group presumed to be insurgents, several of whom were armed," and that was agreed to. I don't know why it was removed. This is the source.
It says:
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.
"It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events."
Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.
Looking at a stopped frame, an RPG and AK-47 are seen clearly in the video. Wikileaks pointed to the camera equipment that were mistaken to be weapons, but they didn't highlight the actual weapons. (That omission surely helped their fundraising scheme.)
There are other sources as well. The military report covers what was actually found at the scene. So, they had the visual evidence, and the actual recovered weapons.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There are two problems with OCDMonk's edit. One, the issue of who was armed and armed with what is controversial and too detailed. It doesn't matter if you can cite sources because it doesn't belong in the lead section. The smart thing to do is to just say that some of them were armed (I too am wondering what happened to that). Two, the number of people who were fired upon and killed requires reliable sources. What's more, reliable sources should agree on the hard numbers before they're introduced into the lead. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that Fox News is not the most reliable of sources, and of course the military are going to claim they had weapons. Is there another less partisan source? Fences&Windows 19:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Fox News's pronounced editorial bias aside, the question you should be asking is: is there a less partisan source that disputes the (generally accepted) idea that some of the people were armed? I know of only one such source. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Fox News is a reliable source. If we were to play that game then we'd have to drop AP, CNN, and the other networks, too, to say nothing of Reuters (which needs to defend its hiring of men who were obviously with armed insurgents). Besides that, most of these sources are either reporting what the military said or what Wikileaks said. Anybody who cares can look at the military reports and the video.
I can understand the feeling that the weapons don't need to be detailed in the lead, but we're already doing that when we say "three AGM-114 Hellfire missiles" were fired at the insurgents. And an RPG is deadly serious business.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that an RPG is deadly serious business, and after the point where (as we now know) Eldeen poked his camera around the corner, probably nothing short of white flags and laying down of what few arms they seemed to have would have prevented some bloodshed. Also, there is some talk on the videos about a U.S. soldier finding an RPG under one of the bodies, not long after they arrived on the scene, and another question not long after that about whether it was live. Conclusive? I don't have enough context or expertise to interpret those exchanges. It's beyond credibility that, at that point, they could have realized how bad all this looked and started salting the scene with supportive evidence. Maybe the battered camera lens housing, in the detritus from cannon fire and blood and gore from Eldeen, still looked then like it could have been an RPG launcher. The "fog of war" can enshroud perceptions even in closeup, if it involves looking at something very unpleasant. Yakushima (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The "salting the scene" scenario isn't realistic in this case, whatever one thinks could go on. It's not likely that the soldiers who came across the site were friends of the aircrew, nor is it believable that they'd have thought it useful. The video shows enough cause was there to ID them as insurgents.
The Army's report has pictures from the ground. The RPG is identified, but blacked out in the report because a body was near it. The military investigators got the unblacked version. The President and Congress can also see it if they'd like.
This isn't like when a cop could be charged for killing someone who merely appeared to be armed. In a war, civilians have a responsibility to make their status clear.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned that some of the men were armed. I also believe it should be mentioned that some (if not most) were not. Unfortunately, the reliable sources tend to avoid saying the latter. The Fox News point about the RPG (along with all disputes among reliable sources) are included later in the article in the "2010 coverage" section. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added "some of whom were armed, some of whom were not". Is everyone OK with this? Gregcaletta (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a credible source that's more precise in one way, more circumspect in another: Air Force Times. (No, it's not an official U.S. military publication). They wrote: [1]
As the helicopter hovers, rotating counterclockwise over the courtyard, Eldeen peers around the edge of a building with his camera. The soldiers in the helicopter mistake the camera, pointed at a ground unit, for an RPG. / At the same time, however, though it’s blurry, a close viewing of the video shows two individuals carrying what could be weapons.
Which is how I saw it: two guys with rifle-sized guns (no crime in itself, in Baghdad), but I also wondered how anybody could be 100% sure. I don't like this passage otherwise, because the implied chronology is confused: Crazy Horse crew had asked for, and gotten, permission to engage before Eldeen poked his camera around the corner. Yakushima (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If some of you could give your two cents on the above proposal to split this article into two, that would be great. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I proposed that, but I've changed my mind. Comments since then have persuaded me that later is better. Yakushima (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was permissible to have an AK-47 in your home but I'm not aware of it being okay in the streets.
Regardless, everyone knew there was a battle going on just blocks away. There is no law-of-war circumstance that allows civilians to carry weapons at such a time unless they want to be considered combatants.
As for the unarmed men, I can accept that people will want to know. Besides that, an RPG-7 crew has two men in it. The rest could be spotters. That's one reason it doesn't matter. It was only a few years ago that everyone was claiming to support the Geneva Conventions. It's amazing how fast that went down the memory hole.
I don't see the point to a second article. This one's not that long yet. But I'm not particularly opposed to it.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. There is a consensus to remove the second comma. There is no consensus about any of the other suggestions. When multiple options are made available it is difficult to reach a consensus, too many options leads to no consensus. If anyone strongly believes that one of the other proposals should be the title, they can nominate it if they believe that they would obtain consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike → July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike — There is a superfluous comma in the title after the date. Badmachine (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support move to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, the comma after 2007 seems out of place. i don't know the intricacies of punctuation usage, but to my untrained eye, it seems wrong. the rationale for moving the article to the current title is given here as "(moved July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike to July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike: Comma after a year, according to the 7th bullet point of WP:COPYEDIT#Common edits)", which i read, and it seems ambiguous. i guess i am neutral on the alternate titles suggested above. although there is a "strong tie" to the USA, the incident is international. Badmachine (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:COPYEDIT#Common edits is not ambiguous: "Similarly, a comma is often written after the year in month-day-year date format, unless the date falls at the end of the sentence. (Example: On January 15, 1947, she began tertiary study.)" See also Comma#In_dates: "Additionally, most style manuals, including The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook, recommend that the year be treated as a parenthetical, requiring a second comma after it: 'Feb. 14, 1987, was the target date.'" Both examples call for a comma after the year, i.e., 12 July, 2007, Baghdad airstrike. Just because it "seems" wrong to some is no reason to ignore proper grammar. —sroc (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
ok, if it is proper, then i don't see anything wrong with the current title. Badmachine (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
im going to wait and see on this. there are other articles titled like this, and the ones i've seen don't have the questioned punctuation. Badmachine (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comma#In_dates refers to dates used as nouns/adverbs. The date here is attributive. Since the grammar is different, the punctuation may be different too. That's something we can investigate, but Comma#In_dates may not be relevant and IMO should not be relied on. (To me, you clearly need two commas in "on July 12, 2007, the US struck Baghdad", but I would use only one in "the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike".) — kwami (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't move this article. Maybe it's been moved blocked, though I don't know why it would have been. Anyone here an admin? Gregcaletta (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First sentence of third paragraph makes no sense

Pronoun abuse occurs in the first sentence of the third paragraph in the current version of the article. Who is "him"?

Will someone who knows the details of the July 12, 2007 airstrike please rewrite the referenced sentence so the antecedent to "him" is clear?

Phaeolus (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Chmagh". Done. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The warning lozenge at page top re not discussing the subject etc. is messed around

see title --— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading

"In the first strike "Crazyhorse 1/8" directed 30 mm calibre cannon fire at a group of ten men alleged by the US Army to be Iraqi insurgents. One was claimed to have had an AK 47 in his right hand, while others appeared to the soldiers to be carrying other weapons."


This is somewhat misleading:

"directed"

-> Crazyhorse fired the cannon


"alleged by the US Army"

-> Crazyhorse identified the men as armed insurgents


"claimed to have had an AK 47 in his right hand"

-> the video shows the possible AK47 shoulderd; the transcript says nothing about "right hand"


"while others appeared to the soldiers to be carrying other weapons"

-> the crew identified 2 guys with AK47 and one with an RPG


I don't want to start an edit war, but the article should be as precise as possible. In the current form it leads to more or less misconception. 95.89.141.160 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right that this section is misleading, and you're right to ask first. This was a delicately balanced mess.
The main problem is that there are competing sensibilities. Some people would like to think that the rules of armed warfare take a back seat, and that insurgents should be treated as innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. That's why the insurgents were only "alleged by the US Army". In that view, there's always a chance that the weapons the insurgents were carrying could have been camera tripods, and we're to either ignore the ones that the ground troops had recovered, or imagine there was a grand conspiracy.
This is why it's important to get the names of prominent critics so that they're not forgotten the next time they claim to support the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
As we agree it's misleading let's just stick to the facts in the first section of the article and put all controversial stuff in the following sections.
So let's write "...men alleged by the chopper crew to be Iraqi insurgents". 95.89.141.160 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really work that way. The chopper crew did not "allege" them to be insurgents. They determined that they were legal targets under the laws of war.
It's no worse than what we have now, but it's not better either.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is better, because it makes clear that there were not some other US-Army-Guys somewhere that identified the target and informed the chopper crew somehow.
Currently it's misleading like the other things I wrote above. (If one of the guys held his AK47 in his right hand he'd probably opend fire at the chopper any second, right?)
If you don't agree with that, further discussion is futile. 95.89.141.160 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think there was any confusion over who did the shooting.
The guys with the AK-47s couldn't have opened fire on the helicopter. It may not seem like it from the picture, but they were about half a mile away. The insurgents probably never saw it coming.
The distance was mentioned in one of the news conferences. But you could also check this independently by watching when the shooting starts. It takes a number of seconds from when you hear the chain gun begin firing until the insurgents start getting hit.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There are no guys with an AK-47. These are cameras and they were innocent civilians what is clearly visible in the video. I support 95.89.141.160 in changing it to something like "...men alleged by the chopper crew to be Iraqi insurgents" They are the once that claimed they were insurgent over the radio. For the rest of the world it is now clear after the video was released that they where wrong. IQinn (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No, there were only two guys with cameras, and we can see them on the video. Reuters did not say the others were with them.
The AK-47 and RPG-7 launcher (which was thought by the Apache crew to be another AK-47) are clearly visible on the video. I think the rest of the world knows where the critics of U.S. side of the war choose to stand.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There here is no AK-47 and there is no RPG-7 launcher visible in the video. Not at all. They killed innocent civilians and it took the heroic action of Bradley Manning to let the world know that the US military lied to us for years. IQinn (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
They're in the official report: July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#Incident according to the report. They're clearly visible in the replay loop available on the internet. And we can see the camera equipment separately. Nobody from Reuters ever tried to claim that those items also belonged to their two reporters, or that those other men were even affiliated with them.
The Army has photos of what the ground troops found that correspond to what was seen on the videos. We also have the observations of the ground troops, which includes that one soldier who's now with the so-called "peace" movement. He's says he saw an RPG, and he's on your side.
But I do agree that the notable people who'd like to claim that there were no weapons should never be forgotten.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Propaganda lies. There were no AK-47 and there where no rocket launcher. Innocent people have been murdered. The video clearly shows that. Your claims are false. IQinn (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You're allowed to claim to believe that if you like. You're even allowed to call the witnesses liars. As I said, a member of the so-called "peace" movement who was there says they had weapons. You can claim to believe whatever you like.
But it's only your personal claim that you believe that. It doesn't make it true. I believe the video, and the pictures, and the testimony.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you allowed to continue to spread your false believes? The video, the picture and witnesses say that there were no weapons and that innocent people have been killed. IQinn (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This soldier was at the scene with the first Americans there, and he saw weapons on the ground. He is a critic of the war, and is a member of the so-called "peace" movement. That doesn't change the fact that he acknowledges seeing an RPG and AK-47s.
The video, when looped, shows there were clearly weapons there. You can claim to believe otherwise if you wish. It doesn't matter if any other people may want to claim the same thing. History will remember.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Old news partly quoted that says that he had saw some weapon somewhere. Here you can see him talking after he saw the movie. The video clearly does not show weapons and it shows that the brutal attack unnecessarily killed innocent lives and he says that this killing of innocent lives by US troops happened on a daily bases in the Iraq war. History has shown through the heroic action of Bradley Manning and the release of the video that innocent people have been killed. History will remember that very well and this is just the beginning of the release of classified documents. IQinn (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you even watch that movie? It is as I said.
At 7:39 into it, just as he describes the point where he's approaching the children, McCord says this: "I saw an RPG next to the men and an AK-47."
His comments given in that video are here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/feces-urine-blood-smoke-and-something-indescribable
-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself. Surely i have watched the video. No weapons to see and no reason to slaughter innocent people. As said it does not matter if he saw some weapons somewhere. The brutal attack on civilians was unjustified and a war crime. The truth is out thanks to Bradley Manning's and ready to watch for anyone. As well as the witness video of this soldier too who says that brutal attacks on innocent civilians like this one here happened on an almost daily basis in this war. IQinn (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course there are weapons to see. You simply choose not to see them. But that's okay, you don't have to if you don't want to.
McCord did not say he saw some weapons somewhere. He said they were recovered right there.
He says in the Wired interview that he agrees that the first attack was appropriate:
McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary.
So, he didn't "feel" the van needed to be attacked (although he acknowledges they were a legal target), but he agrees with the first attack. And this is somebody on your side of the fence.
Whoever told you this is a "war crime" doesn't know what he's talking about.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Propaganda, Propaganda. I believe you see only what you want to see and you only bold and quote what you want to sent out as Propaganda. "McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight." There you have it. The video is there for the world to see. A testimony of these crimes against humanity. No weapon to see in the video and no reason to blow up people in that situation with bullets that are made to blow up tanks. Still a war crime to blow up the people the van and the children as the video clearly shows. A testimony that is there after a brave man has leaked it to the world to show us one crimes against humanity that has been committed by US troops. You may want to highlight other quotes of this witness? That he testifies that such cruel incidents against innocent people happened on a daily basis. The information is out. You can not put the watch back and people can not hide all evidences from our eyes forever. Wait and watch more crimes be proven when more classified information gets available. IQinn (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a post before that, you were just saying there were no weapons at all. Now, you're saying that they weren't "part of that firefight," meaning that they weren't a part of the specific firefight that the troops had been engaged in.
So? They were heavily armed, and have at least one RPG launcher as well as some AK-47s. That makes them legal targets under the laws of war. It doesn't matter if they were part of a different firefight, or even if they had woke up late and that morning, and hadn't yet started fighting at all. The AK-47s are enough. An RPG is just icing on the cake. That some critics don't care at all about the laws of war is something they'll have to live with. It will be remembered for a long time to come.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Propaganda, Propaganda. No that is wrong they were not heavily armed (unless you think cameras are weapons). "Your witness" said the weapon he saw are NOT "part of that firefight,". Legal target. :)) No, journalists and children are not legal targets. Does someone pay you for repeating your war propaganda over and over again? The video shows a horrible war crime - the illegal slaughter of innocent people:

It would be interesting to have someone speculate or tell us exactly what context would lead to justifying the killing that we see on the screen. As the killing goes on, you obviously would see the killing of men who are lying on the ground in an operation where ground troops are approaching and perfectly capable of taking those people captive, but meanwhile you’re murdering before the troops arrive. That’s a violation of the laws of war and of course what the mainstream media have omitted from their stories is this context.[1]

Daniel Ellsberg

NOTE: My previous post was just reverted by Iquinn for what he calls a WP:SOAPBOX violation. He did this even though everything I wrote was a direct response to his wildly inflammatory series of posts.
I'm not reverting it. I think it's obvious that he's using this article to promote an extremist POV, and his action merely caps it off.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
NOTE:Still WP:SOAPBOX and when i look back i think it was started by you. :) I suggest we leave it here.
WRT "he's using this article to promote an extremist POV" I call such statements highl inflammatory and it is absolutely wrong. :) I have never done so. I suggest to leave it like that. IQinn (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with User Iqinn on this. User Randy2063 is calling people 'defenders of fascism' for having views on this subject. Although it is against WP policy to delete other peoples comments from a discussion page, I don't believe the comments deleted added anything to the discussion of how to improve the article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Not quite. I wasn't calling anyone "defenders of fascism" simply for having views on the subject. I was referring to to Ellsberg, who is clearly defending the other side while ignoring the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war, in favor of the other side. It is Iquinn who uses the unwarranted claim of "propaganda".
Even we take Ellsberg's view seriously, he's still a highly charged agitator. I don't see why Iquinn should have cited his POV here.
Keep in mind that I'm only asking that both sides be included. If some notable person wants to say there were no weapons, let's put them on the record. As I said, they should never be forgotten. Iquinn wants the default position to be that there were no weapons at all even though, as I explained, Iquinn's own source has a witness that says these weapons were found.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Randy, you're still dropping your POV in there ... making claims about Ellsberg. In reality he is just a former whistle-blower who after serious consideration went from supporting the USA's bloodiest war to objecting to it. His subsequent political views are not for us to decide on WP ... that is POV. Meanwhile FOX News has hundreds of sources labelling it POV on this subject. I don't know what context Ellsberg was supposed to be included in this article, but I would object to both personally. Neither FOX News nor Ellsberg would really add much commentary to this actual event (that is truthful or useful). Fox News is more likely to be breaking the law by inciting violence and Ellsberg is most likely to be supporting the rights of whistle blowers. Neither of those types of comments have direct bearing on this air strike.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I was commenting about Iquinn using Ellsberg's quote in the talk page. I don't mind it being used in the article if it's clear that it's his opinion. He's not an ordinary "whistleblower," though. The government fouled up their case against him, and that's the only reason he didn't do serious jail time.
You're mistaken about Fox News breaking the law. First, it wasn't "Fox News" itself that was calling for Assange to be assassinated. The views of commentators are their own. And since they're paid to argue from different POVs, it's a bit silly to think that Fox itself could hold all of those different opinions at the same time.
It's similar to what I said with the Süddeutsche Zeitung. As far as I know, that is the writer expressing his personal opinion. It might also be the editorial position of the newspaper itself, but not necessarily. It may well be that they also wish to offer different views to their readers.
You're also mistaken in saying that it would be breaking the law. Assange is out of the country, not a U.S. citizen, and the Supreme Court recognizes this is time of war. It would be perfectly legal for President Obama to order the CIA to kill him. He's already done that for others, including Anwar al-Awlaki. That's all the commentator was asking for.
This isn't to say I think it could happen. I'm only saying it's legal. FDR would do it in a heartbeat.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Two points after acknowledging that I do agree with most of what you've said. First off, assassinations by the CIA are illegal since that decision I think in the 1970's. I'm not naieve, I know they probably continued, but Fox News also acknowledged that and called for his "illegal assassination" ... that is a quote and its been picked up by a number of commentators. Secondly, I wasn't talking about US law. It is illegal under Australian law to incite violence against an Australian. Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News is Australian born, though a US citizen. Furthermore, under US law and indeed under certain understandings of Australian law organisations that allow their representatives to incite violence, due to the seriousness of the charge are culpable. But my major point is about the credibility of the sources. Ellsberg has credibility on the act of leaking information from government sources. He is in fact an expert on that and whistle-blowing even if he was a bit late coming to the table with the Pentagon Papers. Fox News is merely an organisation breaking the law during commentary about this and hugging the government fence-line as close as possible on the issue. In that sense they're virtually the modern equivalent of the USSR's Pravda and this has been pointed out by a broad range of credible journalists and is especially true on the issue of Wikileaks and the Republican Party so to use them as the most prominent critic of WL is absurd.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to limit my response to the new section. As I'll say there, assassinations are not illegal, except perhaps for political leaders of recognized governments.
The CIA can do things against military law because they're not part of the the military, and not accountable to the UCMJ. But they cannot do anything against U.S. federal law. For example, there was once a proposed plot that could have eliminated IED key makers, and thereby saved the lives of many troops, but it was rejected by the CIA's own lawyers.
Ellsberg may have expertise on leaking but, to say the least, he's not impartial.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
But the 'easy' part of the article which should just describe what happened still is misleading. If you can't get even the first and simplest part of the article clear and precise, discussion of further aspects is a waste of time. 95.89.141.160 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

FOX News NPOV

It seems like a bit of an abuse of NPOV to mention the Fox News commentary on this so early without a disclaimer pointing out how much they contradicted the facts. To an outside observer it might appear like they were the most authoratative source.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to that. Let's put all the media stuff in one section mainstream media coverage.
Wikileaks: we leak - you decide 95.89.141.160 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Not so fast. Are you talking about Fox News commentary by a commentator or their news by a reporter?
Which "fact" is being contradicted here?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
“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” which is used twice in the article, in both places first out of the media commentary. "the problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing" Also a false claim. "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" When in fact they did ... a point clarified in the article fortunately. 2/3 of the commentary section deals with just FOX News. These 'facts' are at least disputed by other sources. But most importantly, FOX News is the news source that has broken the law the most, regarding Wikileaks. They have called for illegal kidnapping and attacks by the US government. This makes it less then credible and indeed a criminal organisation.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
By saying "according to many who have viewed the video," they are saying exactly that. They are letting the readers know that this perspective exists. That's what they're supposed to do. It's also what we're supposed to do if we want to let the readers know all sides of the story.
The next paragraph, where they say, "However, 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." I take that "However" to mean that they're continuing the same arguments from the same perspective of those "any who have viewed the video."
Regardless, my guess is that the reporters examined the video closely, and they probably agree that there's no chance those things weren't weapons. The weapons are clearly visible when you slow it down and loop it.
I'm still not sure where you going. If some reporters don't say they see weapons, and others do say they see the weapons, are you saying we should only take the side that says they don't see them?
Or is it your opinion that this perspective should be ignored? It's understood that some might think otherwise, but that's their opinion, too.
BTW: This is a different argument from the one that having those weapons make them legal targets. The laws state that its appearance alone is enough. Even if those weapons were all really camera equipment, an error on those would still have been understandable and quite legal in the misfortunes of war. It has always been accepted that can mistakes happen in combat. (This is why insurgents should have been asked to wear uniforms.)
What about those readers of this article who've viewed it closely, and know that those men beside the reporters did have weapons? Do you really want them to laugh at this article?
Fox has not called for illegal kidnapping. Some of its commentators may have called for Assange's arrest or rendition but commentators are supposed to have opinions. Their news reporters have not made such statements. Or, are you suggesting that we should attribute to CNN itself every wild thing that some of its commentators may say?
While I'm at it, I might as well point out that Reuters has displayed more than its share of bias in this war. It's not the first time that its reporters had been so closely aligned with the insurgents. It's one of the hazards in hiring local stringers. Picking on Fox only opens up the door to picking on the rest of them.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW: This is all I can find on "Fox News" supposedly calling on Assange's assassination. It's a flippant comment by a commentator, and a Democrat, no less.
A commentator is like a columnist. His job is to offer his opinion and analysis, in this case, from a Democrat's POV. It is not "Fox News" itself.
Don't TV networks in Europe have commentators?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
@randy2063 This issue has nothing to do with your right wing POV. Let's just put all biased and unbiased media stuff in one section mainstream media coverage. 95.89.141.160 (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Everyone has a POV. It's up to us to limit it. I'm not the one who called the pilots "war criminals" without a basic recognition of what is required to make such a statement.
But this isn't merely another POV. It's the position of the U.S. military after a careful reexamination and legal review. In fact, one can't even say it's merely the public face. It is the internal position from its own classified documents. In that way, it is the more frank assessment of what went on.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV by removing valid information

User V7-sport keeps deleting this information. "The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung said "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents".[19]"

Please explain why you want to delete this information?

Thank you. IQinn (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly you have violated the WP:3RR rule, Secondly I have explained the edit to you on your talk page which you proceeded to delete. The source does not back the statement that "The helicopter crews mistook the cameras carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons.", that was an allegation by wikileaks. It does however back the statement that "At least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and another was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle." Indeed that was almost a direct quote..
The statement "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents" is POV and ridicules since the men were walking away from a firefight with rocket propelled grenade and Kalashnikov assault rifles. It comes from a leftist german newspaper. V7-sport (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, i did not violate the WP:3RR rule. If you want to go there. You did. Secondly the statement you keep deleting is a valid view as Fox news right wing position is a valid view. (by the way the Süddeutsche Zeitung is less left than Fox is right if you want to put it that way.} Anyway it does not matter these are valid views and the continues removal of one side is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. When here is anything POV than it is your deletion of this information. "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents". IQinn (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You absolutely have violated the 3 revert rule. The Diffs are already on the 3RR noticeboard. I don't have 3 reversions on the page, just 2 so you are clearly wrong. Any attempt to contact you over it was met with the dismissive attitude you are showing now. The statement that I deleted is an allegation by wikileaks, not a "view by fox". Reread the source you are defending/mischaracterizing. ". "Their (wikileaks) representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons..." And "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." those are direct quotes. Your reversion to: "The helicopter crews mistook the cameras carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons." Is not backed by the source.V7-sport (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No i did not violate the rule at all. If someone did than it was you. I suggest we leave this up for the other forum to discuss.
This is backed by the source and it should be included. Surely we can work on the presentation but you large scale deletion of multiple information that said there were no weapons strongly violates WP:NPOV.
It seems to me you did not address my remarks concerning the Süddeutsche Zeitung source "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents". Do you still want to argue that we should delete this view from the article? Then please address the arguments that i have given. IQinn (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
NPOV does not take into account how left or right an opinion is. It simply calls for more accurate accounts to be prioritised over opinions and for all accounts to be attributed. In the case of organisations (such as FOX News) who have taken a radical view, such as calling for the illegal assassination of Julian Assange, either this information should be added as a disclaimer for their views or they should be ommitted.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well anyone can see that you have reverted my comments 3 times and I have 2 reversions. You wrote "This is backed by the source and it should be included." Once again, what you are posting, "The helicopter crews mistook the cameras carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons." is NOT backed by the source. What the source states is "Their (wikileaks) representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons."... That is an allegation, not a fact. There haven't been "large scale deletion of multiple information" except for you deleting the inclusion of the fact that there was a RPG and AK-47 visible.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung quote is an Editorial in a leftist newspaper following editorializing from Salon, the Guardian and The Australian. That's piling on the POV and the quote itself is obviously highly disputable. "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents" ignores the fact that they were people carrying heavy weapons away from the direction of a firefight. That was of secondary interest though, what I was most concerned with is that the edit you keep reverting is backed by the source and the verbiage that you keep restoring isn't. V7-sport (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not break the 3RR rule, you did and i started the post here to discuss the content issue. I told you already to leave this up to the other forums. Not the place here.
As is said i have no problem to work on he representation.
WRT: "the fact that there was a RPG and AK-47 visible" please do not make your own POV a fact. It is not. Cheap propaganda nonsense. As you know their are different views on that issue and we are obligate to include both of them to bring it in line with WP:NPOV. Simply to cut them out is not the solution. As i said i have no problem to work on the presentation. IQinn (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"I did not break the 3RR rule, you did" OK, here's your Revert 1 [2] Revert 2 [3] Revert 3 [4] and [5], I have 2 reversions.
" please do not make your own POV a fact." So piling that POV onto the previous POV is important enough to engage in an edit war...Please do not characterize what I have written as "Cheap propaganda nonsense". There points of views expressed in the section at hand were from: Süddeutsche Zeitung, Salon, the Guardian and The Australian versus Fox. By weight the Süddeutsche Zeitung should be eliminated (and if we are giving equal weight, so should a couple of the others, however I wasn't going to go there) and by POV it was editorializing on something that, as you point out, is in despite. It's unnecessary and redundant. V7-sport (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
User:V7-sport just reverts again. With the edit summary: "If that's the case, here's my 3rd." To do this at this point shows that he is more interested in edit warring than then solving the content issue and to improve the article. Anybody thinks his revert was a good idea? Anybody has the guts to revert him and to tell him he should solve content disputes through discussions not edit warring? IQinn (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuing to speak about the content issue. Did you read the Süddeutsche Zeitung article? IQinn (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You are pretty selective in reading what I wrote. "If that's the case, here's my 3rd" is understood but "The helicopter crews mistook the cameras carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons is NOT backed by the source" gets ignored. V7-sport (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Step by step. Did you read the Süddeutsche Zeitung article? IQinn (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, step by step, in that chronology, the source that for the content you keep reverting does not say what you are claiming it says. What I have posted is almost a direct quote. Are you going to revert it again? V7-sport (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the Süddeutsche Zeitung article? IQinn (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
yes, now answer my question. V7-sport (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wonder. Are you a German or did you use Google translate? IQinn (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
So you don't have a rebuttal for the fact that your source doesn't back what you have claimed and we can agree that the edit should stand as is. Then we can move on as to whether or not I speak german... Right? V7-sport (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Depend on your answer? So you speak German or not? IQinn (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"The helicopter crews mistook the cameras carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons." is not backed by the source. Are you unsure of that because you used Google translate?V7-sport (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
We are speaking about commentary by the Süddeutsche Zeitung article. That is in German and that you have deleted. Your personal description what this commentary is and what the Süddeutsche Zeitung is, is quite a bit far away from how i see it. So you speak German or did you use Google translate? ~~

No, we were speaking about the characterization that the pilots thought that the camera equipment was weaponry. I am prepared to move on to your Hubert Wetzel editorial if we can call that dispute over. V7-sport (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then, consensus at last. V7-sport (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You agree to re-add this information?
1)Your answer suggest that you do not understand German and that you do not have fully understand this commentary and that your removal of this commentary was unjustified
2)"The helicopter crews mistook the cameras carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons."is backed by tons of sources. What shows that this removal was also unjustified. IQinn (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"Your answer suggest that you do not understand German and that you do not have fully understand this commentary and that your removal of this commentary was unjustified" In proper English that would read "Your answer suggests that you do not understand German, that you do not fully understand his editorial and that you shouldn't have removed it." To which I reply that it's an editorial, a screed actually that calls US soldiers "murderers" says they acted arbitrarily, that this was a " massacre." that they were "trigger-happy" and pronounces them guilty of "murder". It is over the top POV. The cited portion, "nothing in the images indicates that the victims were insurgents or terrorists" is also POV, as you have acknowledged it's in dispute. Your answers here tell me you would be better suited to editing elsewhere.
The CNN article that you post wasn't the one referenced in my edit. Add that if you wish, but the edit's I made shouldn't be effected. V7-sport (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I added your CNN referenced material in the area that the unreferenced material was removed. I hope this does it for you. V7-sport (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks you admit that "The helicopter crews mistook the cameras carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons." is valid information. I suggest to revert this part of your edit. You replaced it with "At least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and another was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle." what is POV and more troublesome you present your version as a fact but it is not. So it should be removed or changed anyway.
How do you define "proper English"? Seems to me that you start to use ad hominum arguments. And i do not see how the Süddeutsche Zeitung could be described as unreliable left wing paper. Please understand that these views are under "Commentary" They are valid views and should therefore be included. The removal is POV. WP:NPOV demands that we include both sides and the included part is already carefully chosen. Yes there are many they see this killings as murder. No matter what we personally think we can not simply cut these views out. IQinn (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suggest to remove:"At least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and another was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle." as it is not a fact and redundant with the next sentence: "A crew member reported seeing "five to six individuals with AK-47s" IQinn (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
My edits are properly sourced. Indeed, this was just my the first look at this article. Proper English is, among other things not pluralizing the word "information". Ad hominum? No, that would be implying that an over the top screed which is factually incorrect wold become more acceptable had I been able to read it without a translator. If you want to include both sides find some editorials that state that tis was a justified act of war to counteract the every utterance of Glenn Greanwald on the subject. V7-sport (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No need to search. The views are already there the problem is just that you have cut out an important view. I just get the impression that you just do not like this view. You might be male white and right wing. No matter what the view you have cut out is as value as Fox news on the other side.
This information: "At least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and another was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle." Is not a fact but you present is as a fact. Please do not do this. Still needs to be removed or attributed to who it says. IQinn (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I searched anyway and came up with additional sources to back the statement. I hope NPR, The New York times are neutral enough for you, at any rate, the statement is sourced. It's irrelevant to the proceedings, as is my race, gender and political affiliation. I could speculate that you may be perusing some misguided online jihad, that too is irrelevant. V7-sport (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your additional sources do not verify this. Just cluttering references at the end of the statement that do not even mention that is extremely disturbing because you are a long time user and it becomes quite difficult to see a good faith in that. I am going through them now one by one to clean up the mess. It is the misleading. This information is not a fact and your sources do NOT verify that it is.IQinn (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Amazing, do I need to get the specific quotes for you? I do don't I? As a "long term user" you should realize that you are supposed to assume good faith. WP:GOODFAITH Something you haven't done from the onset. V7-sport (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume always good faith and i have done it from the beginning in contrast to you who preferred to battle me in other forums - a battle that you lost and you preferred to continue to solve content issues through edit warring. Regarding the references that could make people wonder i have just started a new section where i will list the problems in detail. IQinn (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Your initial reaction to my contact was to delete it. [6] Bad faith. Your second reaction to my contact was to delete it. [7] bad faith. As for edit wars? [8] V7-sport (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTE User:V7-sport is presenting these diffs in absolute misleading way. Firstly: i did reply to his post on my talk page. I often prefer to reply on the other editors talk page and i have done so here. His claim are absolutely false in that post i suggest to him to discuss the topic on the articles talk page and i started a post there while he kept edit warring. Secondly I was not edit warring. While User:V7-sport kept reverting even after that had been solved, what is simply against core values of this community... IQinn (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, your edits speak for themselves and are perfectly congruent with your actions here. You are asking any interested bystander to ignore what they can see with their own eyes. V7-sport (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The diffs that i have provided speak for themselves and show that your representation was incorrect. IQinn (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Soldiers as murderers"

The following is my translation of the Süddeutsche Zeitung source. --NSH001 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

full translation of Süddeutsche Zeitung source
Emphasis as in the original

Iraq: Video shows the US Army in a bloodbath 06.04.2010, 18:13

Soldiers as murderers

Comment by Hubert Wetzel

War pictures are always terrible. But the video which has now emerged shows the completely arbitrary use of force by American soldiers, and the casual way in which they are overwhelming the Iraqi people with violence.

The video lasts just under twenty minutes, and what it shows is butchery. Taken by an American attack helicopter's on-board camera in the Summer of 2007, it shows an intersection in Baghdad; in the camera's cross-hairs a group of men are standing, including a photographer from the Reuters newsagency.

After a few minutes the picture shakes, a machine gun rattles, and clouds of dust explode between the men, leaving dead and wounded lying on the street, and the pilots congratulate themselves over the radio. Shortly afterwards, they also even shoot up the minibus of a family who want to come to the aid of the wounded.

Images of war, of suffering and dying people, are always terrible. But this video, which Wikileaks published on the internet, is a particularly shocking document. It shows the completely arbitrary use of force by American soldiers, and the casual way in which they are overwhelming the Iraqi people with violence.

For nothing in the pictures indicates that there was any question of the victims being insurgents or terrorists. The pilots were not shot at, they weren't supporting comrades fighting on the ground, it was broad daylight and visibility was good. The video refutes all the excuses which soldiers would usually use to justify the death of civilians.

Instead, it shows trigger-happy American soldiers who convinced themselves that the camera being carried by a press photographer has to be a weapon, who then calmly kill a dozen people and slap each other on the shoulder. For that, in any time and any place, there is only one word. Murder.

In my opinion, the quote above "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents", while not exactly the same as my version, is also a valid translation of the source.

On the substantive question under discussion, SZ is a respectable broadsheet, Germany's largest circulation daily newspaper, and is hardly "leftist". The article is an opinion piece, and so it should be attributed to its author. The idea that a press photographer should be carrying an AK-47 is so preposterous that Wikipedia absolutely cannot state it as fact, although if someone notable makes this claim, we could report it with attribution, but for such a wild claim, the source would need to be very strong.

--NSH001 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be a respectable newspaper, and the commentary may be from a respectable person, but there are two problems with it.
This is his position, and not that of the newspaper. He's not sufficiently notable for his opinion to be included. That would be like saying "Fox News" called for Assange's elimination simply because one of its opinion commentators said it. But more than that, a quick check on the German Wikipedia shows nothing about him.
Another problem is the date. It's the day after the video was released. Wetzel probably wrote this that very day. It's an initial reaction. He probably had little idea of the context.
I'm all for keeping and remembering initial reactions from around the world but, surely, we can find one from a more notable person we can assume to be better informed.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The editorial doesn't make a nod to restraint. In the context of the rest of the article it's just adding to the pile-on. One of the problems this article has is the "commentary" sections are split up and dispersed throughout the incident section. This makes a coatrack for redundant POV. It should be consolidated into a "reactions" section, which is the format of most other articles of this nature. V7-sport (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading information

"At least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and another was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle."

This information has been added to the article recently. It is disturbing that this has been presented as a fact because it is not and the added citation do NOT verify that it is a fact. This is extremely disturbing and i am going in detail through the added references one by one. IQinn (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Here you go:

"At least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and another was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle"

  • Is backed by
"not included are images showing that one of the men fired upon from the helicopter was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. " http://theweek.com/article/index/205972/the-wikileaks-way
"Critics contend that the shorter video was misleading because it did not make clear that the attacks took place amid clashes in the neighborhood and that one of the men was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/07wikileaks.html
"Third, several of the men are clearly armed with assault rifles; one appears to have an RPG." http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything
"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." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/
  • And here, for the upcoming "reactions" section
"Investigators said there was an assault rifle, rocket propelled grenades and an RPG launcher, Tom says" - NPR's Tom Bowman http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/video_of_errant_us_shootings_o.html?ft=1&f=1003
"But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.” " http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?_r=1V7-sport (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTE It does not make any sense to post here refs from the other section that are opinions of some people it does not makes it a fact as there are tons of other opinions that claim the opposite. Let's do it step by step. 1) NYT's Comment you are presenting here in your post only a partly quote that is misleading.

1) In this edit a NYT's source has been added as a ref with the claim in the edit history: "Says the new york times."

That is false. The article says in context of comparing two versions of the video:

"Critics contend that the shorter video was misleading because it did not make clear that the attacks took place amid clashes in the neighborhood and that one of the men was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade."

The NYT's does not say so and that some unknown "critics" say so does NOT make it a fact. IQinn (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As you wish, I will move that to the future "reactions" section. Mind If I replace it with the other times source that states: "WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade"? That's one times article for the other... V7-sport (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and took care of that. V7-sport (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting that this ref that you added was misleading and i have removed it from that statement. I will continue to clean up the other false refs as well. IQinn (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Not misleading, however I can see your point. V7-sport (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Quite misleading to have a ref that suggest to verify important information but actually does not do so. IQinn (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

2) This source is from the blog section of the Weekly standard and it does not make the statement a fact. IQinn (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed from this statement and added to the "Commentary" section. IQinn (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

3) Nothing in this article verifies that this could be a fact. Reference needs to be removed from this statement as this is misleading. IQinn (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Content moved

    • OK, you moved the following;

So why have you reverted my latest edit? it is not sourced information to call this 3 incidents and I don't need to discuss every edit I make on talk. V7-sport (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC) [9] I have asked you before not to arbitrarily move or delete my comments on talk pages or notice boards. Please do not do it again. WP:Wikiquette alerts take time away from editing. V7-sport (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous i did not move or delete anything. Is that the way you assume good faith? I did two edits in one that was written at the same time as yours i added a header for a new section as this has nothing to do with this section. In the second one i replied to your comment. Get your self a cup of tea. IQinn (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN. And you deleted them on the 3:RR notice board. Cut it out. And are you done yet? Can I remove the misleading tag?Slow day for babble fish or what?V7-sport (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not shout, that is uncivil and against our rules. I remove one comment of yours from 3:RR as you misplaced them into the middle of mine and that is perfectly fine and an administrator there said that is perfectly fine. You may take a break. Concerning the misleading tag i guess you mean the one concerning the post above here. No, please leave it, that has not been fully worked out yet. It would be also better to speak about that in the section above. Thank you IQinn (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Where did the administrator say it was "perfectly fine"... It is not "perfectly fine" to remove other peoples comments or move them all over the place so it's a pain in the ass to find them. I have asked you repeatedly not to do either.
"No, please leave it, that has not been fully worked out yet." It's all laid out for you....V7-sport (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That deleting and moving of your comments was perfectly fine please do not add comments into the middle of other peoples comments. Yes he said that is fine and i did not delete your comment here. I added a header to it as it did not concerned the section where you added it. IQinn (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As i told you i am still working on that and the tag should stay until it has been worked out. IQinn (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"deleting and moving of your comments was perfectly fine "No, it is against Wiki Etiquette. If you think it's fine perhaps I could just arbitrarily delete yours or move them around to amuse myself.
"As i told you i am still working on that and the tag should stay until it has been worked out." How long does it take you to read 5 sentences that have been provided for you? V7-sport (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with Etiquette here not at all. I have explained to you but you are not listening.
Depend on how busy i am so far i checked 2 references and both did not verify that this is not fact what is misleading and both were removed and i am going write about the remaining part in the section above. IQinn (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You have a habit of "explaining" things that are just flat out wrong. V7-sport (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that this "comment" here has absolute nothing to do with improving the article. Could you please explain why you posted it here? Or you might even consider to remove it as it is problematic in terms of Etiquette. Thank you IQinn (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See the WP:NOR comment below for an example. Regardless, Ie repeatedly asked you to cut it out. V7-sport (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not an example at all and instead of comments like this one above you might just stay calm and tries to engage in consensus building. Thank you IQinn (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It is an example. How can you not be understanding this? V7-sport (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
My diffs are examples and i suggest you stop making insulting comments like the one you made because you might find yourself blocked for incivility. Thank you IQinn (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It isn't uncivil to wonder if you are deliberately being obstructive at this point. The thread at the no original research noticeboard is of you making the same non sequitur circular argument over and over again without you addressing the point being made. V7-sport (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This statement was very uncivil and the noticeboard discussion shows that you are making the same non sequitur circular argument over and over again without you addressing the point being made. IQinn (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
What is "uncivil" is deleting peoples posts on talk pages if you can't come up with a counterargument as you have done here- [10]
What is "uncivil" is deleting peoples posts on project pages as you have done here- [11]
What is "uncivil" is writing "Propaganda, Propaganda. I believe you see only what you want to see and you only bold and quote what you want to sent out as Propaganda. " Or "Are you allowed to continue to spread your false believes? "or speculating " You might be male white and right wing" or calling my edits "misleading" or simply dismissing attempts to contact you that you were posting original research on Wikipedia. [12] and [13] and [14] and on and on and on. I have been patient because I was concerned that there may be a language barrier that was holding you up from fully understanding what "original research" or "reliable sources" were. But it's becoming more and more clear that this is an effort by you to disrupt progress and keep your POV on the article. At any rate, your incivility has exhausted my capacity to treat you as if you were operating in good faith. V7-sport (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that after you could not make your point in content related discussions though laying out compelling arguments you try to use ad hominum arguments and personal attacks.
Please do not do this. This is strictly against our policies , it leads to nothing and you could be easily blocked for that. You may take a cup of tea or go out for a walk instead. Regards. IQinn (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive editing is against "our" policies and you could be easily blocked for that as well.
I don't drink tea. V7-sport (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise. :) IQinn (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Major changes

V7-sport makes major changes without explanation, refuses to discuss and to explain and reverts instead. IQinn (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The article concerns 3 incidents that are not covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. These are 3 incidents and all of them are sourced. It seems to me that you want to split the article? You just deleted parts of the article and you reduced it just to one incident this is a MAJOR change and you should explain why that should be a good idea. IQinn (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Where is your source that says they are 3 separate incidents? There isn't one posted and to declare them so is WP:NOR and misleading. V7-sport (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC).
No it is not Wikipedia does decides what to cover in an Wikipedia article. We do not need a source that verifies what an Wikipedia article contains and what not. There where 3 separate incidents and all 3 incidents are verified by sources and we cover all these 3 incidents in this article here. Nothing at all is OR and nothing at all is misleading in doing so. You want to split the article and covering parts of it in different articles? IQinn (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This sentence makes no sense; "No it is not Wikipedia does decides what to cover in an and article."
"We do not need a source that verifies what an Wikipedia article contains and what not" You absolutely do if it's in question. So where is your source that claims that it was 3 separate incidents?
'"There where 3 separate incidents and all 3 incidents are verified by sources and we cover all these 3 incidents " Show me where these sources they call them 3 separate incidents. Otherwise it's WP:NOR Otherwise you are adding "Misleading information". V7-sport (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As i have explained to you it is not OR and it is not misleading at all. There are 3 different incidents covered in the article all 3 incidents are verified by sources and all of them have different sections. We do not need a source for that and that is perfectly fine and is not OR at all. IQinn (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Your "explanation" is wrong. You need to provide a source that says that it was " 3 different incidents" as is stated. It is not "perfectly fine", it is original research and needs to be removed if you can't show me the source. V7-sport (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong? No it is not as i have explained to you. My explanation and arguments are right. You have to show that it is wrong, simply stating that my explanation is wrong is not enough, you have to prove. You could also bring it to the message board for OR. There is no OR here at all as i have explained. IQinn (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation is wrong. Either provide a source or it's original research. There is your explanation. Here, I'll explain again; Either provide a source or it's original research. You have written that it being "3 incidents are verified by sources" Which sources? V7-sport (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. V7-sport (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Creating huge links as this could be interpreted as shouting. As explained all 3 incidents are well sourced and we cover all three instances in one article all three instances have there own sections and we do not need a source that verifies how many instances we have to cover in one article. I have refereed you to the OR noticeboard if you really want to further dispute this. In that case you might also explain than why you simply deleted one of these instances from the article. . Please do not simply delete large chunks of the article. Your claim of OR is wrong as i have explained to you. 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I hope you will be OK after that link. If they are sourced as 3 instances all you have to do is provide a source that says they are 3 incidents. As of now you have none. And no, If you were to actually read what I posted you would see that I didn't delete any part of the incident. V7-sport (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No that could not be more far away from ok. This is not OR and there is no consensus for this major change and removal of important informations.Bring it to the OR noticeboard as i have suggested. IQinn (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The inadequate lead tag is a bit much, no? All I did was take the existing lead and singularize it instead of leaving it pluralized. You didn't have a problem with it before. V7-sport (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I self reverted pending outcome of the original research noticeboard. V7-sport (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You are edit warring again please stop this. - The content issue has not been resolved --Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes. IQinn (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the specific problem now? V7-sport (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The specifics are here as you know so do not just start edit warring again. I can not simply believe that Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes. IQinn (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That was about whether or not there was 3 attacks, I'm backing off that argument for the moment, what is the specific problem with what I am doing now? V7-sport (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You are performing changes that are part of this content dispute. I have suggest how to fully solve that so please declare if you agree to to implement the changes in the suggested form or point out what is wrong with it Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes.IQinn (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The changes I am performing at the moment are ancillary to the previous dispute. Maybe if you should look at them before reverting them. V7-sport (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Be assured i have looked very closely and the merging of the commentary section and the infobox information are doubtless part of that dispute and suggested solutions. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes. IQinn (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. What suggested solution are you referring to? V7-sport (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I refer to this one here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes. IQinn (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That issue, whether or not it was 3 attacks has been dropped for the moment. Would you like to restart it? You still haven't come up with a source that says they are 3 separate attacks. V7-sport (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes i want to solve the content dispute. So please declare if you agree to the from me suggested solution or state what is wrong with it. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes Thank you. IQinn (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That was about the statement that there were 3 separate attacks. I haven't declared that I agree with anything, I said I would no longer dispute the reason for the trip to the OR message board. V7-sport (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The content issue discussed there is not limited to that and the rest you say is pretty clear and does not solve the content issue and does not justify that you are here performing edits that are part of this content issue. So if you do not agree with my suggestion that go back and continue to solve the content issue by giving us arguments what is wrong with this suggested solution. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes Thank you.
That is a no original research notice board, not a whatever the hell you want to talk about notice board. If you have an issue with something I have done why don't you spell it out? V7-sport (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This is under discussion on that place with also other editors involved and that's the best place to continue. I left a message for you there. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes. IQinn (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a no original research notice board, not a whatever the hell you want to talk about notice board., what problem do you had with the edits I have made. V7-sport (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that you are performing edits that are under dispute and that there is a discussion ongoing on that board a conflict resolution has been already worked out. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes So please continue the discussion and work towards consensus instead of edit warring. Thank you IQinn (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That problem has been resolved. I started the thread and now I am not going to contest the reason why I started it. Done and done. V7-sport (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Please do understand that this here is a community and there are other editors also involved in that thread. This thread is not yours and it is not about you. It is a content issue. In our case here a contend dispute. Simply to reject to work with the community will not help to solve the content issue. So please do continue to discuss them and stop making edit that are related to it and work towards consensus so that this dispute can be solved. Thank you IQinn (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, it's a community with guidelines. That is a original research noticeboard, I started an thread there because the assertion that this was 3 separate attacks is original research. I am no longer going to push for it to not be called 3 separate attacks so you can pat yourself on the back for wearing me down after 5 days of not providing any sources to back your claim. The content issue is solved. We will call it 3 attacks. OK? V7-sport (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It is irrelevant that you originally started the thread for and it does not matter that you have started the thread it involves now other editors and the discussion has developed and it is about the content. A proposal how to resolve it has been made. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes So please work with the community and work towards consensus. IQinn (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's resolved. The reason for putting that thread up no longer exists. There's nothing left to resolve there. You won, take yes for an answer and stop pestering me. V7-sport (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The content dispute is obviously not solved. I am not the winner as i am not here to fight i am here to improve the content and i am working towards consensus. So you agree that we perform the changes according to what i have written down here. Right? Other wise please point out what is wrong with it. IQinn (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Which specific changes? V7-sport (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
These specific change as listed here:Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes (copy for archive) Have you even fully read this discussion? IQinn (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
What I've read is your reversions on that page of the "resolved" tag. You can't seem to accept yes for an answer. Please self revert your last one. V7-sport (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing resolved and putting as an involved user yourself an resolved tag on something that is not resolved does not help much. Please work with the community. Your asked for the list of specific changes that has been suggested. Here it is. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes (copy for archive) Either agree that we implement the changes according to that proposal or tell us what is wrong with it so it can be changed and consensus can be achieved. IQinn (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Edits that concern issues that are under dispute is considered edit warring. Please have a look at that. Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is and please consider that you have been already warned multiple times in this conflict here. Edit warring is simply not the right way to solve disputes. IQinn (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, I'm not going to engage in another bout of circular editing for another week. I've asked you to revert the resolved tag on the OR noticeboard, the reason that I brought that issue there is resolved. If you have another reason to to post on the original research noticeboard you are free to start a thread. I have told you that I wont contest the 3 attacks meme. Enough arguing about it. Regarding "edit warring" you are in the process of doing it yourself. V7-sport (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is wrong the conflict does not only concern this one issue. I am working towards consensus. Part of the edits you are performing now are clearly part of this content dispute. I am actively engaging in a constructive way to solve these problems while you are performing edits that belong to this conflict. Please either agree to the suggested solution that has been laid out in detail or tell us what is wrong with it. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes (copy for archive). Thank you. IQinn (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a noticeboard for original research, I brought this there because your insistence on calling this 3 separate airstrikes. I am not going to continue to contest that because it is going to hold this up until armageddon. The edits I have preformed have all maintained the "3 attacks" that you wanted it to be listed as. Cut this out. V7-sport (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You said that already.It has been explained to you that is does not matter who brought the issue there as it concerns other editors as well and this is an unresolved content issues that concerns edits more than the edit you describe here. You are now performing edit concerning this dispute while i am actively engage in solving the conflict. A detailed proposal what was a lot of work on my side has been made. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes (copy for archive) Either agree to the proposal or tell us what is wrong with is so we can work on it and solve this dispute as soon as possible. IQinn (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The content dispute that the thread was about was resolved. 3 separate attacks as per your insistence ARE STILL IN THIS ARTICLE. That was the content dispute. Really, this is the only human interaction you get, isn't it? V7-sport (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There are more editors involved as you alone and there are more than the issue you describe here it is obviously not resolved. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes
Shouting and insulting other editors - you might not agree with does not help. Please stay calm and tell us what is wrong with the proposed solution if you do not like it in its current form so that we can improve on it. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No, there are not "more editors", I brought the thing up, I'm the one trying to let it drop. And no, there is not more then one issue. That, again, is a no original research notice board, not a whatever the you want to talk about notice board. If you think that there is something I am doing that is original research start a thread there. You tell me what is wrong with my edits. V7-sport (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There were obviously more editors involved that you alone in discussing these issues. Please do not try forum shopping that is not the right way things have been laid out. We do not need another forum to discuss the same issues. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes (copy for archive) It seems to me that you are just running away instead of working with the community. That does not help us in the work here. Please tell us what is wrong with the proposed solution. Things have been laid out, specific solutions have been worked out. So please tell us what is wrong with these solution or agree to implement them as they are written down. Thank you IQinn (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well no, that dispute was between you and me. Any other editor can find this page, it's even linked. Tell me the specific issues you have with what Ive done and I'll take a look into it.V7-sport (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that is of course not the case. There are surely other editors involved and as more the better. Your statement shows us that Wikipedia might not the right place for you. This is not a "dispute between you and me and it has never been. Not from my side. This is a content dispute there is nothing personal here. I have no problem with you apart from that it seems to me that you do not actively engages in working towards consensus and tries to solve content disputes through edit warring. The specific issues have been laid out and a solution how to improve the article has been worked out. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes (copy for archive) Either agree to these specific changes or tell us what's wrong with them so we can improve on them. You have been making edits that conflict with the suggested solution. That is by best to say troublesome. IQinn (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Not going to repeat the same thing over and over any more. If you have an issue state it. V7-sport (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure i do. Here it is: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Suggested solution and changes (copy for archive) IQinn (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference truthordare was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike/Archive_5&oldid=1075506494"