Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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 (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)

Reference availability[edit]

Please, check and improve availability of reference URLs. For example No 73 needs changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbearable and curious (talkcontribs) 18:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Context of an interview[edit]

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[edit]

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.[52]

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.[52]

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.

Give me one reason as to it being relevant.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talkcontribs) 02:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)