Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content and options to not see an image.
|This is not a forum for general discussion about the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. Please do not discuss the air strikes, the conduct of the war, or anything else not directly related to the article.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|A news item involving July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 6 April 2010.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 12, 2013.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Don't have time to even begin reviewing/editing this in detail, but there are some serious POV issues in the 'Incidents' section, including considerable speculation about what the Apache crews were 'thinking' and 'expecting'; far too much partisan interpretation of the video. Also, while blocks of text are quoted from the video that support this particular view (that the Apache crews really did think they were acting heroically, protecting colleagues from imminent attack), there are no quotes whatsoever from the more controversial parts of the audio track (e.g. 'Ahahaha!', 'look at those dead bastards!', 'right through the windshield!' and so on...). To me, this section reeks of having been either entirely written by, or heavily edited by, a person or persons with a POV that is strongly sympathetic to the Apache crews and other US forces involved in the incidents. Please could someone try to make this section at least a little more balanced? The whole controversy around the video centred on how shocking and apparently callous the behavior of some of the Apache crew seemed to be, from their comments, laughter and eagerness to kill... trying to dress this up as a simple case of 'civilians' misunderstanding (or WikiLeaks misrepresenting) the incidents is *not* for a Wikipedia page to do.
Isn't there evidence laid out in the article that the context of the videos released by wiki leaks was manipulated? Please don't get me wrong, the only things that belong on wikipedia is evidence and fact, not feelings or emotions. However, one can and should include the full statements and actions of all parties involved. That goes for both wikileaks as well as the apache pilots. How wikipedia lays out these facts should leave no room for narrative, simply a record of what's known to have happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, if you search the article as it stands today for the string 'laugh', the only match is 'slaughter' (in the bibliography, a reference to an article about the event). Since there is no controversy that there was laughter, and there were remarks about the 'bastards', and 'right through the windshield', some or all of those quotes should be included. Wouldn't this be not only allowed, but practically mandated by the NPOV policy? Son of eugene (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Please, check and improve availability of reference URLs. For example No 73 needs changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbearable and curious (talk • contribs) 18:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Context of an interview
Simply put. This article links to an article. That article was deposition given by an individual named Bradley Manning.
This article, is about the event of that day and links to an article (which includes the name Bradley).
In that context, then name as given is correct.
You cannot say that Yul Bryner's mother migrate to China. She migrated to Manchuria, now a part of China.
You cannot say that Christoper Columbus landed in America, as it was not known as America...
MOS:IDENTITY . Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).
STOP one-click editing....
Also, the Court Marshal
Revising the person;s name here creates a mistruth. If a reader were to reserach for a military court marshal for someone named Chelsea Manning, ther they would find nothing...
In the context, this sentence is WRONG.
In a personal statement during her court martial, Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) stated that the military did have access to this information, and that it was actively examining it, yet it denied access partially on the basis that the information may no longer exist.
It should read:
In a personal statement during their court martial, Bradley Manning stated that the military did have access to this information, and that it was actively examining it, yet it denied access partially on the basis that the information may no longer exist.
How the fact that Bradley Manning's court marshal testimony to this case or not is not material, relevant, or crucial was established when it was included in the article.
The fact that the person has now changed there name is NOT RELEVANT to the article.