Jump to content

Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Apacheguy (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 8 April 2010 (→‎Friendly fire or collateral damage?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Editorialized Video

Can someone place this edit in paragraph 4: On April 5, 2010, the Internet leak website Wikileaks released a[n editorialized version of a] classified video of the incident entitled Collateral Murder...

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.153.108 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This disappeared again. it doesnt say anywhere wikileaks released not only a 40 minute original video but also a shorter editorialized video as the main release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plastichandle (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hey everyone, this page is in need of some help! There's a plethora of information on this incident I haven't been able to integrate yet. Most of it can be found at collateralmurder.com and wikileaks.org, and is mirrored on all of the major news websites. The Washington Post also has some info. I'm pretty new to editing, so any help with formatting is much appreciated!WhisperingWisdom T C 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whew this grew quick. Work needed: "Incident" section should be expanded - with evidence from the video, a detailed description of the incident can be created, and referenced back to the video.WhisperingWisdom T C 05:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30mm Gunshot Wound?

In the article, it states the the little girl in the van suffered gunshot wounds. Does that mean she was hit by the 30mm apache cannon, or by small-arms later? Just seemed unlikely that a small child survived multiple hits with something that large... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but it is entirely possible that she could have been hit with pieces of shrapnel from the exploding rounds without being directly hit. --Hibernian (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A soldier stated that she had a belly wound from the video. The van was hit with multiple cannon rounds, and the girl was in the van, so it's most likely that she got hit by shrapnel from the van. Considering she lived, I'd doubt she was hit directly with cannon fire. 65.196.214.163 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon

I've heard that the pentagon has denied that this ever took place and that in fact also tried to get wikileaks taken down before April 5th to prevent the video from leaking. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, does it sound like something that should be mentioned in the article? Rafael 06:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US Government (probably not the Pentagon specifically) confirmed the existence of the incident at the time (Reuters started pressuring them very quickly), but it's the more controversial details (what exactly the Apache crew saw and how they made their decisions) that were unknown until now (because the Pentagon denied requests to see this video). Wikileaks has also stated that they've had conflict with US intelligence services, and has posted documents supposedly from the Pentagon talking about the threat Wikileaks might pose and steps that can be taken to stop whistleblowers. I'm not sure if all of these things are directly related, and I don't believe the Pentagon report has been officially confirmed as real (although I wouldn't be surprised if it has been).
More directly: No denial of incident, just denial of access and details. As for taking Wikileaks "down", I haven't seen anything other than the usual paranoia (somewhat rightfully) associated with this kind of event - definitely no verified action against Wikileaks other than the aforementioned conflicts and confrontations. At this point it looks like everything is "acceptable", in the sense that there don't seem to be any "the sky is green" lies or attempts to do anything other than intimidate Wikileaks. 98.246.144.63 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Twitter. Probably not related, see [1]. --mj41 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias In The Transcript

The 'transcript' here is not complete in any way, and does not claim to be. However, there are selected quotes here that are not a fair representation of the video. Adding things like: One small child wounded. Over." - "Roger. Ah damn. Oh well." and 07:25:27 "There it goes! Look at that bitch go!" but not including the full text really doesnt seem right. Someone should do a full text (of the full 40 minute video not the short one with comments on it) to really show what is going on in the video. The selective quotes are not enough. This is an important incident, and many many people should see the video in its entirety. We all know this video is useless if its edited to support your point of view or only show selective parts of it

Full transcript, now linked in the External links section. I wonder how we should incorporate that into the article though... NW (Talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest adding it to wikiquote and leaving a link to the text here. Other articles use that format, so it should not be an issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media Blackout

There clearly wasn't a media blackout, as the incidenct was covered by CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Huffington Post, the BBC, amongst others only a few hours after the incident. It wasn't exactly speedy, but it seems unlikely that they were pressured into not running the story (whether they were pressured into omitting facts is a different matter). The media blackout controversy seemed to have started on reddit soon after the release because it took the MSM a few hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.67.97 (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - reddit has a tendency to hype the conspiracy side of things. I think the section in "Publicity" on the so-called media blackout should be rewritten more neutrally.WhisperingWisdom T C 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted all the media blackout stuff, since, you know, it didn't exist.--132.177.67.97 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good call, reddit's BS self-posts are not a legitimate source. this was definitely on tv yesterday Plastichandle (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances

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

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

Assuming the audio and video are well synched, it's got to be a considerable distance. 33° (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia lists the muzzle velocity of the M230 chain gun on the Apache as 805 m/s, the delay between seeing the camera shake (gun being fired) and the bullets hitting the ground is ~2.1sec, which gives an approximate distance of 1690 meter or ~1 mile. -- Grumbel (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Not to take away from anyone's inside knowledge or math skills based on probably reasonable assumptions, but unless a reliable source discusses the distance of the helicopter to the targets, it's contrary to Wikipedia:No original research to make any claims about this in the article. — Scientizzle 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding this edit claiming that the "no original research" policy was never intended to apply to straightforward arithmetic...it's not just straightforward arithmetic. There are a number of assumptions that are necessary for the arithmetic to be correct, including knowing the exact models of the equipment onboard or that the camera shake accurately represents the time of gun firing. Also, it's clear that the engagement range varied over the attack as well. We can wait for a secondary source to discuss this issue. — Scientizzle 16:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry - I didn't see these new comments in this section. However, the approximate range should be in the article to counter the impression that the video gives that the helicopter was close to the target area. New Thought (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point regarding the zoom lens being possibly confusing. Leaving a {{cn}} on a likely correct claim that the range was about a km isn't unreasonable. It's likely that more specific data will surface regarding this point. Perhaps there's something in the official report--the cryptome.org link--that indicates the range of engagement? It wouldn't surprise me. — Scientizzle 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pulled the range & altitude sources from the Technical Manual for the Apache, TM 1-1520-251-10 Technical Manual for Helicopter, Attack, AH-64D Longbow Apache, U.S. Army. Since this cannot be considered a reliable source due to its proprietary nature, I will continue to search for a more easily verifiable way to back my claim.Apacheguy (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Pretext"

I've moved this off the article for further discussion:

although it has also been noted that they seem to be looking for a pretext, with one pilot stating "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon".

This quote is accurate but calling it a pretext implies it happened before shots were fired, whereas actually it comes later. I'm not sure if it should be in the article. 33° (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pretext because they were looking for an excuse to open fire again, to finish off the wounded and clearly unarmed victim. They were not looking for a pretext for the original round of shooting that had already occurred since they had been authorized to fire that time. Since the American personnel's eagerness to fire indiscriminately was one of the key criticisms arising from the video evidence, I think it is necessary to demonstrate examples like this in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the American gunners showed an 'eagerness' or 'indiscrimination' at all. These comments degrade the skill of US troops in combat. Please remember this is video shot during WAR- where it is the JOB of soldiers to kill. Because US troops do that job very well is not an indication of 'desensitization'. At min3:40 of the video the targets are clearly seen holding weapons. The Rueters crew surely knew they were embedded with beligerent fighters and that fact doesn't seem to be raised in these discussions. Haamerhed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.141.252 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[NC in LB, CA here] I am curios why the original author of this article chose to write: "During their surveillance of the group, the crewmen identified weaponry in the hands of the Iraqis..." when in fact, the object(s) in the hands of one- or more of the persons on the ground would later be acknowledged to be cameras? It would be more accurate to state that crew-members "mistook" one object for another (if that is, in fact, what occurred). I am all for dispassionate reportage of passion-rousing events, but the original author appears to have intentionally omitted a vital - and admitted fact from their recounting of the event.

It would appear that there were AK type assault weapons being held by members of the group but also cameras being held by journalists. I don't have an issue with the wording of "During their surveillance of the group, the crewmen identified weaponry in the hands of the Iraqis..." However I am in favour of how it is currently worded. In the article it states that Bravo Company found an AK-47 or AKM weapon and two RPGs. TwinnedChimera (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civilians?

At 3:45 in the 17 minute video, the behaviour of the guys in the top centre of the video looks very suspicious indeed - and the item they are carrying looks very much like an AK-47 or RPG to me. Are we 100% stone cold certain that they are civilians? New Thought (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Army's investigation report says that the Bravo Company discovered "two RPG's and an AK-47 or AKM among the group of insurgents clustered near the wall. They also discovered two Canon EOS digital cameras with large telephoto lenses attached in the immediate vicinity of the bodies." [2] (see page 13 of the PDF). This makes it very difficult to argue that they were all civilians or that we don't know if they were insurgents. --HYC (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The footage clearly shows that several of the "civilians" are carrying AK-47s. The rather biased description in this article needs to be changed whok (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them had weapons. The rest were insurgents too, but they just happened to be unarmed at the time. If they're roaming the streets amongst a group of armed terrorists, then they're not civilians. (122.106.227.165 (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You can see one of them carying an RPG. Ordinary Iraqis own Ak-47s but only military, insurgents, militia or AQ would be carying an RPG. Then there is a guy who squats behind the corner of the building pointing what looks like an RPG, but it might have been a camera with a very long lense. Though I can see how they might have mistaken it for a weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.177.109 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how terrorists think: in black and white. And they're not "terrorists", they are insurgents fighting an occupying army. Even Fox News knows the difference. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ Thank you. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have an easier time making that distinction when you remember to ask the questions "Why don't you feel safe? -- Who is threatening you?" and "So what do you plan to do to defend yourself if threatened?" . I'm not taking a position here, of course, on whether those Iraqis with arms (for which the evidence is not wholly agreed upon, by the by) should carry them / defend themselves from invading forces; what I mean is that when you say "I'm taking a shotgun because I might be endangered outside because the country is being invaded," your goals are similar to the insurgents'. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting philosophical question then, is 'who is in the right'? Because when an invader is trying to establish law. He believes himself to be in the right, but when the defender thinks of his right to be independent, defend themselves, their family, friends, and their homes, they believe themselves to be in the right.....129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the answer seems to be straight forward : Even Americans claim a "right to selfdefense" ! No ? 79.210.121.165 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question and deserves discussion, but not here, unfortunately. For this event the (sad?) reality of the U.S. military in Iraq is already accepted. 74.12.22.96 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original synthesis

The Publicity section appears to be completely original synthesis. We need external sources connecting all the dots. It's not our task to do that. __meco (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


How it was reported in 2007

someone should include a section for how it was reported in 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=4&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

this article says the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed. which turned out to be a complete lie.--86.133.232.107 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a "lie"? Weapons were indeed found at the scene. No one is now disputing that some civilians were killed but some of the group were conspicuously armed.whok (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that anyone armed is an insurgent may be standard US military practise currently (which is interesting considering the fuss about the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment), but that doesn't make it a factual statement. I doubt the NY Times made that mistake in the article, and are probably quoting the military statements about the incident at the time. Articles around the same time also interviewed eye witnesses that suggested a chain of events closer to what is shown in the video, so I think it might be worth trying to add something along these lines to the article if we can find decent sources for it. --86.181.123.179 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to point above about connotations. Don't reinforce the negative stereotype that armed Arabs are Insurgents. In a country like that, it's fairly common for people to own a weapon. Annihilatron (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

useful images

These are images to be added when the article has enough text to hold them.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I would agree with that, especially the picture of the Apache's gun there as it also shows an on-board camera, presumably similar to the one used to film the incident. Also a general picture of an Apache would be good for people who don't know what it looks like. --Hibernian (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The camera from which the video was recorded is located on the nose of the aircraft, rather than the gun itself [3] I'm assuming you're looking at the low-light visible designation laser located to the lower right of the barrel as seen head on, next to the armament guy's knee.Apacheguy (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the mistaken identity of the camera it would be appropriate, if used, to show it next to a picture of an RPG7 which, when ready to fire, is rather different to the EOS. Weakopedia (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

Rules of Engagement

I propose a section evaluating the video in light of the Rules of Engagement in effect at that time, which are available at http://www.collateralmurder.org/en/resources.html.WhisperingWisdom T C 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be original research. We should wait for third party sources to evaluate it on those guidelines (like The New Yorker article above). NW (Talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right right. We could expand the New Yorker ROE analysis and put something about the ROE in the title specifically (instead of just "legality", and reference it back to the New Yorker page and the ROE available on Wikileaks.WhisperingWisdom T C 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline section

I have commented out the timeline section until a more neutral (less selective) version can be implemented.   — C M B J   23:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the full timeline is far too long...maybe someone could extract out the main points of interest and compose a timeline out of them?WhisperingWisdom T C 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply removed the section. The incident is too intricate to represent fairly with an extracted timeline, so it is better to link the full transcript to the incidents section and write it out in prose, quoting when necessary. NW (Talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, it is worth noting that the TimesOnline transcript contains errors. Here is an example:
TimesOnline: "Hey, uh, I need to get the Brads to drop rads I got a wounded little girl we need to take her off the maya."
Original audio: "Hey, uh, I need to get the Brads to drop rads. I got a wounded girl we need to take to Rustamiyah."
If a better source can be located, we should use it instead.   — C M B J   00:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And an accurate transcription would be nice too... its not "Brads to drop rads" its "Brads to drop ramps", no? Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is not too complicated to represent with a timeline and I for one think the addition of a timestamped, sequential list of events adds a lot to the article. If this is unrealistic or incorrect, please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ButOnMethItIs (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way that the section was before, a reader would have inferred that the soldiers involved were cold-blooded murderers on a rampage; however, the complete transcript makes it abundantly clear that the entire incident was an honest mistake—even down to the most controversial of statements. I do not oppose inclusion of a timeline, so long as it does not selectively include hyperbolic, POV-slanted quotes.   — C M B J   00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically would improve that timeline? There seems to be a complete absence of detail in this discussion. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to create our own analytical and apathetic timeline of major events, without the [ab]use of quotations.   — C M B J   01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well that clears up everything. 98.71.211.76 (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To CMBJ: If I may say so, it [may have been -- you say was -- probably is] an honest mistake. However, few people are disputing that, and the prosecuting tone of all the news reports and commenters either do not see the mistake as innocuous aside from the lives in this specific incident -- they are not getting so worked up over an honest mistake -- or else they are being quite absurd. (Obviously the army makes mistakes, and obviously they are in a position where that costs lives. Nothing new there.) But the controversy, I believe, comes from the fact that this honest mistake was capable of being made under the impression of total adherence to the rules of engagement / human rights. It raises questions about the validity of those rules (seeing that they can generate mistakes that seem so in accordance with them that there is no doubt whatsoever, only cheering and eagerness for it, by the perpetrators). So the soldiers were probably not "cold-blooded murderers on a rampage", not whatsoever, but the army and the war that commissioned their service has a tendency to lead to incidents like this one, which are indeed murder, and this incident is intended to be taken as an instance of that tendency. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors in the Army report?

100px|left|thumb Non-free image removed.  fetchcomms☛ 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The Army report states that the van was "black" (Captions to Exhibits F, H, I), yet the color image of the van after the attack shows a (sky-?) bluish van, with possibly a white roof, and white "skirts". Maybe Apacheguy can enlighten us if this is due to the fact that the spectral sensitivity of the gunsight is shifted to the infrared (of course assuming that this information is not restricted)? Do all the other facts in the report hold up? -- Enemenemu (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Target Acquisition Designation System is in its 'Day TV' mode during the engagement. In this setting, its acting like a 'simple' telescopic video camera without any thermal imagery. I'm a little surprised that the van isn't lighter in the video, if the full color picture is accurate, and not color/contrast corrected. Source is restricted due to 'For Official Use Only' designation.Apacheguy (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! -- Enemenemu (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is another photo of the van that shows the same color: http://collateralmurder.com/file/imgiraq/mini_van.jpg.html
Color aside, the damage on the van doesn't match what is shown in the video, where did that additional damage come from? -- Grumbel (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikileaks calls it tank-related damage, but I have seen no corroborration yet. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See full video 27m01s. --mj41 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good call 74.12.22.96 (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Intro

Whoever modified the intro, it is now in need of references.WhisperingWisdom T C 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, info in the intro should not be cited unless there is a good reason for it; the reason being that whatever appears in the intro is going to be elaborated on in the article body. This is not to say that there should not be citations in the intro if the information demands a cite, but do try and refrain from citing in the intro unless its absolutely necessary. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly fire or collateral damage?

The lead, which I edited a bit, currently says "... A subsequent investigation of the incident by US forces determined that although the helicopters had engaged a number of armed insurgents, the engagement left two reporters for Reuters dead in an apparent case of friendly fire. ..." However, the Friendly fire article says "... inadvertent harm to non-combatatants[sic] or structures, usually referred to as "collateral damage" is also not considered to be friendly fire. ...", and I'm fairly sure Reuters employees are non-combatants. Perhaps the two articles should be reconciled? --an odd name 00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Perhaps the distinction is made between enemy civilians and allied civilians?   — C M B J   00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"friendly fire" should really only be applied to allied military casualties, changing that to "collateral damage" in lede. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either term is appropriate. The children in the van are clearly collateral damage, but what of the actual targets of the gunships? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was that "two reporters for Reuters" were engaged because of misidentification, or killed by being in direct proximity to intended targets. I think collateral damage is "approriate" (both terms are macabre and disgusting IMO regardless). Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If collateral damage is taken to mean damage that is "unintended or incidental", I don't understand how the deaths of the men outside the van (the targets) could constitute collateral damage. From what I can tell, it's some type of illegitimate engagement. The children inside the van would then be collateral damage of that illegitimate engagement. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Take on this is that COLLATERAL DAMAGE is unintended damage done to non-targets, whether this be to combatant-allies, noncom-civilians, etc. FRIENDLY FIRE is a special type of collateral damage done to combatant allies. I'd love to see a source that specifically addresses this though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[4] addresses the issue somewhat. However, I do not think it is our place to label the dead as either collateral damage or victims of friendly fire. Instead, we should see what the best sources refer to them as. NW (Talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you NW. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that this is neither collateral damage or friendly fire. It was clearly intentional from the pilot feed, especially the 'hopeing' of the wounded to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him. That bleeds of criminal intent right there. Comparison; You shoot two people in self defence. One is wounded. You point a gun at him and think to yourself, 'god, I hope he picks up a weapon so I can kill him'. Is that murderous? I'll have to look into what kind of term should be applied though....129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to this community as of this article, but isn't the determination of whether or not intent can be labeled as criminal the role of the judiciary, rather than the Wikipedia project?Apacheguy (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video file is biased

The name of the video file is "CollateralMurder". Murder is a crime that needs to be proven in a court of law and I don't think that's happened yet. The name clearly reflects bias. Also, the Author of the video is listed as "US Apache helicopter" when clearly the real author has drastically altered the original feed. This needs to be remedied immediately as it appears that the video is in violation of BLP rules (it gives the impression that the pilots have been convicted of murder and that this might be the conclusion of the US government which is not true). If this isn't fixed, the video file should be removed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file itself is unacceptably biased? Because of the file name and the metadata? 98.71.211.76 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you watched the video? It clearly was not made by the US Army. The interlude at about 10:40 where the video talks about how handing the children over to the Iraqi authorities instead of taking them to the U.S. base at Rustamiyah does seem biased to me. And the title is unacceptably biased. Therefore, the video is misattributed (we don't know who made it) and biased. That needs to be corrected.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The authenticity of the audio and video are disputed by no one. If you'd like the full, unedited version, it's widely available. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually would like the full, unedited version. If it's widely available it shouldn't be a problem erasing this biased version. Any administrators out there listening?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does anyone know how to convert a Mp4 Torrent file into a .ogv?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. I tried to mark the file for speedy deletion due to BLP concern but that wasn't one of the options. And I have to go. If anyone else has the same concerns, I encourage you to replace this biased file with an unedited version, and to rename it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Commons admin and an enwiki admin, I don't know which project it is hosted on, but I would decline a speedy deletion request on either. Please file a proper deletion request: WP:FFD for enwiki and commons:COM:DR for Commons. NW (Talk) 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cdogsimmons, the video presented in the article should be as uneditorialized as possible. For example, the resolution that you see on the wikileaks version makes it harder to see the difference between an RPG versus a camera. The actual resolution of the TADS equipment in the helicopter is much better. Other problems with the Wikileaks version (and these problems do fall under BLP when you are calling individuals complicit in murder, regardless or not whether that is "true") can be seen here: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/ Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A U.S. defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the video and audio were authentic." Reuters (April 5, 2010). "Leaked U.S. Video Shows Deaths Of Reuters' Iraqi Staffers". New York Times. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help) NW (Talk) 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Cdogsimmons has no problem with its authenticity, just the use of the low-res annotated version instead of the full mp4 that ButOnMethItIs mentioned above. Or did I miss something? --an odd name 02:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that would make more sense. Well, I have the full file from the torrent as well. The only problem is that the .mp4 file is 610MB, 6.1x too large to put on Commons. It would have to be split up. I will ask User:Cirt if he knows how to split it up, as I believe he knows how. NW (Talk) 02:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is splitting the video into 7 parts really the smartest thing to do? Unless you can string all of it together for playback on this article, I'd say it's doing more harm than good. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, hosting any file that is more than 6MB larger than the one currently uploaded is impossible. I would like to put a set of 6 files in a gallery somewhere though; I feel like that would be very useful. NW (Talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is about the controversy, I don't think that there is a problem with hosting Wikileak's main edited video, as long as it is properly described as such. If the longer, unedited version is available, then why not post both? PS, all Wikileaks statements (such as alleging murder) shouldn't have BLP problems as long as they are properly attributed. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. NW (Talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then we need to correctly cite things. The author of the video is not the US Army Apache helicopter, it's somebody else. (Wikileaks? CollateralMurder? The unidentified whistleblower(s)? We need to establish this before we can properly cite it. The video, in case anyone is wondering is at File:CollateralMurder.ogv. I suppose the title makes sense considering the source. The comment on the file says "Gun camera footage of the airstrike of 12 July 2007 in Baghdad, showing the slaying of Namir Noor-Eldeen and a dozen other civilians by an US helicopter." Is it established by any sources that they were definitely civilians? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video size should be made larger in the article. It's a 480×384, 100mb video that's shown in a tiny 180px square. Awful waste of bandwidth and it's just unviewable. MahangaTalk 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.212.189 (talk) [reply]

Upped to 360px, so it should be about double now. --an odd name 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible to commit murder before it has been proved in a court of law. Specifically this is when it defies any rules in place concerning causing death. There is good reason to believe the deaths in the video were caused outside of the bounds of the rules of engagement. Regardless, whether or not the content of the video constitutes murder is discussed in the only article in which the video appears. // The author of that material is as stated. It was edited by someone else but they did not generate the material. Surely they did not generate the audio which has been subtitled; that was generated by the listed author. The other information presented in the video was added by the later editor. It would be more appropriate to list this editor as an Editor or a Commentator, but there is no field for that (or if there is, it can be put there instead). The author field is correctly listed. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters/photographers/employees

The article is unclear about the nature of the two Reuters employees, alternately referring to them as staff, reporters and photographers. There is a tendency in the media lately to consider anyone affiliated with newsgathering to be a "journalist" of some degree, even if they are drivers or interpreters. This article could use clarification of the exact nature of the two men's relationship to Reuters.

^As well as their relationship to the armed men in the video. The blunt statement they worked for Reuters ignores their assignment and what perspective they were covering. Haamerhed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.141.252 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters inquiry about why two cameras were confiscated is unclear - I trust that is a reference to two cameras confiscated from the deceased Reuters employees. At that point the article had referred to the employees as "staff" and as "reporters," though, so the reference to cameras comes out of the blue - we had not yet been told whether they were actually photographers.

Jnmwiki (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal for (American) journalists to be around insurgents? Maybe WP can provide some context for readers? 96.226.212.189 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling. Reuters is a British (UK) based company, and the "Journalists" were Iraqi. The only thing American was the Apache Crew that engaged armed targets within a pre-designated target zone. 24.21.11.36 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is a controversy - change the title

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

Sounds good to me. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Moved. NW (Talk) 02:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the title change. (That said, either one would be descriptive, and not widely accepted as the name of the airstrike by sources. As such, I don't think they should appear bold in the lead, but not long after I removed the bold title, another editor added one again. I'd rather not edit war over style stuff, but I still think it's wrong.) --an odd name 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike incident might be more in line with similar articles.   — C M B J   03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change was appropriate, but maybe not disambiguous enough ("Baghdad Apache airstrike", "Baghdad Rueters airstrike", etc.) Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) ALSO, this aids in searching for this article. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing "controversy", but "July 12, 2007 Baghdad Airstrike" is a little too ambiguous..."July 12, 2007 Baghdad Airstrike Incident" seems like an appropriate neutral title to me.24.68.52.10 (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another agreement here, on strictly factual grounds: the article does not describe a controversy, or disagreement: all parties cited seem to agree on what happened. The word "incident" seems to be unnecessary; what happened was an airstrike on a group of civilians including journalists, who were mistaken for armed insurgents. --FOo (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FO. The "controversy" claims are fringe at best, despite the Internet community's sudden (and sure to short-lived) fixation on it. And "incident" is vague and redundant. Good move. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with above comments. The title is too ambiguous - there may have been many airstrikes on that day in Baghdad - and I do not feel that adding the words "controversy" or "incident" to the title would be an exageration. The killing of innocent civilians may have been unintentional, it is still a huge mistake by the US military, which passively tried to cover this "incident" up through various means.--DragonFly31 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "various means", exactly? They openly addressed all of this years ago, and the release of the footage only supports their position that the reporters were embedded with armed insurgents. There was no cover-up. People who want to see controversy will find it. Kafziel Complaint Department 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At very least, the question of whether there were other airstrikes in Baghdad on that day is irrelevant; many, many articles are titled something which could apply to some other subject that is not notable enough. For example, I do not doubt that there are a thousand people with the common two names Tom and Hanks, yet the article only concerns itself with those two. // "Controversy" describes (and literally means) argument or crossing of words (stories). An event with many controversial implications is not necessarily a controversy, and is necessarily not a controversy when the story of what constitutes the event is not argued at all. // "Incident" is not an exaggeration, but it is redundant. An airstrike is an incident. Similarly, half the articles on Wikipedia could have the word "incident" added to the end; if you try it, while the adding would be analogous to this article, it might be more obvious that the word is unnecessary in "Assassination of Julius Caesar Incident" something similar. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the desire is for more detail in the article title, then follow the US Military reports and use "... New Baghdad airstrike" (the exact area it took place in). Fluff words such as "incident" add little of value, and make linking hard, requiring pipes. —Sladen (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category "Reuters Group plc"

Currently, the article is under category "Reuters Group plc". However, given that its main article is Reuters, I think this and the category's other articles should be moved to category "Reuters". I'm not a category wonk, so I'm not keen to boldly changing every article from the long name to the short, but the short one seems better to me. --an odd name 02:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a matter for WP:CFD. I will go nominate it now, actually. NW (Talk) 03:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously biased


Notable?

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

At least a dozen major news agencies have covered the video release already, whether in some cases they are covering the behaviour in the video, others are about the implications of the release of confidential information at WikiLeaks, there is plenty of coverage to justify an entry here. --86.181.123.179 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in much the same way, Barack Obama, John Lennon, and the Neanderthal species are each merely a mass of carbon and other common elements of which there are uncountably many atoms in the universe, and yet for some reason the news pays attention to those masses, so we have to document it. :P Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the news covers something does not mean it's encyclopedic. Not every military operation, death, or lost dog needs to be in Wikipedia. So the mere fact that there's news coverage is not sufficient to justify its being here. What makes this significant enough to merit an entry before all the facts are out? Izuko (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The killing of journalists caught on feed by a helicopter gunship. Also the fact that it became a big news thing on a multitude of stations once wikileaks released it. It does fall under Wikipedia:Notability, it has multiple reliable sources reporting on it, and several editors have presumed it to be important. Additionally there are several sources confirming it - not everything is based off the single video. 129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not everything that the news covers is encyclopaedic. But everything that a significant amount of the media pays a significant amount of attention to is notable, and Wikipedia's idea of encyclopaedic is merely notable. Wikipedia's goal, as I remember it, is making the sum of human knowledge accessible. What makes it significant enough is not for us to decide at all, but is up to the humans who identify it as an important point of knowledge. 74.12.22.96 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit O

Is it just me, or is there no AK-47 or RPG in the Exhibit O photos? There's some piece or wood or scrap metal in the AK-47 photo, but it's definitely not a gun. And the RPG photo just shows some dirt. Why don't they just go ahead and label one of the bodies "Osama bin Laden" and call it a day. Anyway, I've changed the label on the photo to reflect the ambiguity of the photos. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the pictures are not of high quality, but this is the pixel resolution the United States Central Command decided to release. Anyway, if you look at the image labelled "AK-47" on the right half of the "black elongated structure", and compare this with the barrel of the 1955 version on the AK-47#Variants wikipage, you can spot some resemblance. A RGP-7 is definitely NOT visible on the non-redacted portion of the top right image. The soldier depicted in the bottom right image might be carrying an RPG, but given the image resolution and the redaction it is hard to identify (it might also be the AK-47 depicted in the top left image). -- Enemenemu (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an RPG?

After adding the initial summary of the US Army report to the article, I wonder: can we write that one person visible in the video was carrying an RPG, or do we have to write that the US Army claims that one person in the video was carrying an RPG? How many users can see an RPG (1) in the video, (2) in the stills of the video, but (3) excluding any post-incident photographs? Who doesn't? And who's not sure? To me, it's a clear

At 2:41, a man is seen peeking around the corner of a building carrying a large black circular object. Though an after-the-fact analysis suggests that this may have been Noor-Eldeen's Canon EOS, it (along with cautious physical movement) looks highly suspect from the perspective of an airman in a warzone.   — C M B J   17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing the point. The report does not use this scene to rate the attack as justified. It does not say the helicopter crew made an acceptable mistake. Rather, it rates the attack as justified by views from another angle, and it claims that from this angle an actual, factual RPG is visible, and the helicopter crew identified this correctly, and that there was no mistake. Included in the report are still imagess with circles, one labeled "RPG round", and one labeled "A", and the text seems to imply that the thing marked as "A" was in fact an RPG". However, no matter how hard I look, and even try to imagine something like an RPG into that "A", it doesn't work for me. I see just a blur, that could be anything, including a shadow. There's no way I would put my name under a a claim of "yes, there is an RPG visible in that image".-- Seelefant (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just responding to your question of "How many users can see an RPG [...] in the stills of the video". I see what the airmen could have easily mistaken for an RPG-7 at 2:41 in the video, but as with you, I do not see irrefutable evidence of an actual RPG-7 in Exhibit A/B/O or elsewhere.   — C M B J   18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a poll, of course. I'm merely asking for second opinions on what can or can not be seen in the fiven images. This seems highly relevant when considering how to formulate this article. -- Seelefant (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't relevant. It's original research. It doesn't matter what anybody here thinks, only what reliable sources have published. What you can or cannot see doesn't matter, as you are not an Apache gunner, and no amount of discussion about it will have any bearing on the article. Talk pages are for discussions related to improving the articles, not for discussions about the subject itself. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a primary source and we can interpret it - if all we're doing is agreeing on what we see. At 1:20 to 1:30 on the video, a long object with a knob at the end of it is seen waving around past the corner of the building, and the conversation in the helicopter is that it is an RPG and that the person holding it is getting ready to fire. I'm not military, but it seems very credible to me that they believe this, and I say that even though my POV is very hostile regarding the events of 7:30-8:00 on the video. I think this object may actually be the camera with the long lens people were talking about - however, I think there was also something in the article about an RPG actually being found later, which is sort of odd isn't it. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. And if there is a source for the interpretation, then this straw poll is still pointless. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOR for more info. -ChadyWadyTalk 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadyWady (talk • contribs) [reply]
He does have a point with the matter of "someone was carrying an RPG" vs "the US Army claims asserts that someone was carrying an RPG". The latter is necessitated by both policy and established precedent.   — C M B J   18:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. WP:NOR says that we can make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. "Interpreting" a photograph is just an unfortunate phrase here. In any case - yes, we can say what the video shows and report what the soldiers say.
We should say "The US Army said that someone was carrying an RPG". See WP:WTA. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kafziel is right, we cannot interpret primary sources, per WP:SYNTH. We can, however, report what other sources say about the videos. We can also specify who exactly is claiming what. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tianasquare.jpg I think now that there is no argument here. Take the picture to the right, from Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Probably none of us has been there, however, we have no reason to doubt that its description is correct, and so we can describe it e.g. as "A protester on Tianamen Square in 1989", without refering to who originally claimed that this was accurate. In the Baghdad case, however, we have pictures with a description saying that they show a man carrying an RPG, and while WP:NOR forbids us to write "actually, there is no RPG in that picture", our critical reception as editors forbids to write "there is an RPG in that image" as well, and only allows us a qualifying "the US army claims that there is an RPG visible in this picture". Critical reception in this case is the very contrary of OR. -- Seelefant (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that's where you're wrong. I don't know what you mean by "critical reception", but what you're describing is exactly what we cannot do. What you (or any of us) can or can't see doesn't matter, and saying that the Army "claims" there's an RPG injects prejudice and gives undue weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"According to the U.S. Army, a man with an RPG..." or "...the U.S. Army asserts that it identified an RPG..." would presumably not have the same negative effect.   — C M B J   22:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious if Wikipedia has the famous "Weapons of Mass Destruction" slides shown to the UN by Colin Powell. If so, how are the descriptions of those photos handled? Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Mobile Production Facilities.jpg. NW (Talk) 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of engagement, as suggested above, are very important - but they are cryptic, and what I really want to see is some explanation of the policy behind the events at 7:30-8:15 or so on the video, where the soldiers see a van pull up and people try to pick up the wounded reporter. I don't think there's any doubt from looking at it and hearing the transcript that they attacked the van solely for this action. Now I don't know if the Geneva Convention offers any protection whatsoever to an impromptu, unmarked ambulance, but how can anyone identify two people with their hands on a wounded person to carry him (or their children) as "combatants"? Wnt (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On issues of legality, one would need to consult a lawyer, the issue of legality itself would only be known unequivocally after being decided by a court of suitable, and respected jurisdiction. Such agreed jurisdiction may be hard to establish owing to the on-going occupation situation following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. —Sladen (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC) (See the United States and the International Criminal Court article for an overview of the situation regarding employees of the United States Military and wider international court frameworks).[reply]
I think that kind of research would make the article unbalanced and leaning toward Wikipedia accusing the military of wrongdoing rather than just reporting the facts. Unless it was balanced with a report of the psychology of decision making by soldiers in war.--72.181.103.95 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only properly marked (red cross, red crescent) noncombatant medical personnel are off limits. If it appears that medical personnel are part of the armed engagement (such as a corpsman) they are legal targets. Did this van just happen by, or were they waiting in the wings to support the insurgency by collecting wounded men (and possibly weapons)? That is subject to debate, but not by us. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be encyclopedic, we cannot accuse anything. But if you want to do reading, you can check out the first geneva conventions and act 18 of it - specifically "No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick." http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570022?OpenDocument - The US is a signatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of ~12 individuals including 2 civilian reporters

" ... Something that has been missed in some of the press reportage about this is that there is a third attack, just twenty minutes later, by the same crew, involving three Hellfire missiles fired onto an apartment complex where the roof was still under construction. We have fresh evidence from Baghdad that there were three families living in that apartment complex, many of whom were killed, including women. And we sent a team down there to collect that evidence. So that is in the full video we released, not in the shortened one, because we didn’t yet have that additional evidence. Innocent bystanders walking down the street are also killed in that attack. ..."

" ... But we also see that the total death count is wrong. There were people killed in the buildings next to this event who were just there living in their houses. There were additional bystanders killed in the Hellfire missile attack, and those people weren’t even counted, let alone counted as insurgents. So you cannot believe these statements from the military about number of people who were killed, whether people are insurgents, whether an investigation into rules of engagement was correct. ... "

Julian Assange, Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of Journalists, www.democracynow.org, 6.4.2010

If this article is about full video (39min) then "Death of ~12 individuals including 2 civilian reporters" (in infobox) is not good estimation. --mj41 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bias, Agenda Oriented

Cited from "Wikileaks?" I looked at their website... Wow. Really guys? We can't get a more neutral and a "just the facts, ma'am" source this? I'm not going to start that old can of worms about mistakes happen in wars and turn this into a big shitstorm, but really why is this so clearly slanted towards the "the american military is full of murderers" school of thought? There's been no definitive ruling on this incident yet, but already this piss-poor, agenda oriented article has decided the tragic accident is actually just cowboyism by "those awful Americans." I suppose the worldwide fanbase probably likes that thought, and I'm sure whoever is the guiding hand behind this article is simply playing to a crowd, but for Christ sake people..! Enough of this! Jersey John (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks released the video. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but this article accepts their bias slant at face value, and makes it its own. That's horrible. Jersey John (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current citations in the article: CNN, CentCom, Seattle Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, BBC News, Reuters, Reuters, NY Times, Al Jazeera English, BBC News, Primary source (Wikileaks) used to quote wikileaks' own words, two primary sources (Wikileaks Twitter account) to note a few facts not mentioned elsewhere (if they are, they can be replaced), Al-Jazeera, an interview with the Wikileaks advisory board member on The Alyona Show, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, Department of the Army, Democracy Now used to quote a Wikileaks advisory board member. Which of those do you find objectionable? NW (Talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is massively flawed in that it takes the bias from Wikileaks and adopts it. That's a problem. Then again, people like to only selectively enforce not being bias. If everyone who facors the idea of the Amerian military being nothing but mindless killers, then I gues that sort of bias will be allowed. You KNOW what my point is, it is one that has been made before. I'm only voicing my dissatisfaction, not in the mood to argue, because if I'm going to argue with a handful of people, by myself, that all believe the horrible bias is justified, that would be futile for me. But don't think everyone agree with this bias BS. This article is disgusting in its bias and the fact that it just accepts Wikileak's personal agenda. I'm done so you can criticise me to your heart's content, I probably won't be checking back. Jersey John (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have NO IDEA what your point is, other than that you are dissatisfied with the article because of some perceived bias. If you can't be specific, we can't even talk about it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Jersey John isn't above using Wikipedia to promote his own agendas and baises.[5] Kaldari (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike&oldid=354649707"