This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The geography of this incident might be of some interest. For example, after following the Coordinates link, and assuming the morning sun is in the east, I was able to determine that the van came out of the road at the western side of the open square. What's interesting about this is that this area was the eastern edge of a combat zone that day, with some of the heaviest fighting near the east edge. So I'm inclined to think that the parents and children were actually fleeing the combat zone rather than entering it, when they stopped to pick up the wounded person. They were headed toward the edge of the city, about 0.4 miles away. Does this make sense? It'll be interesting to see if I can find discussion of the landscape. Wnt ( talk) 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone fix this up: "While US ground forces were en route to the scene, an unmarked van arrived, from which two men disembarked. " Close inspection of the short video from 9:04/17:47 to 9:22/17:47 reveals that neither of the two additional men disembarked from the van, but rather arrived separately on foot from the same direction as the van. Galerita ( talk) 02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems the van is seen very early in the 39 min version of the video. See Talk:July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Geography. Galerita ( talk) 12:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The "black" van seen and mentioned early in the long video is probably NOT the same van. The van in the shooting is light blue (see photo at http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/img/photos/AliAbbas_VAN.jpg.html) and has a noticeably faded roof.
There were three airstrikes.
The article is locked so I can't perform the move. JD Caselaw ( talk) 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
On the The Dylan Ratigan Show of April the 5th Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, apparently a notable U.S. intelligence officer, commented on the incident. The interview is linked in this article (the interview starts at 4m38s, here's a convenient YouTube link). You can find a rush transcript of the interview I made here:
It might be relevant to include a reference to this in the article later, in a coverage, opinion or a rules of engagement section. It may also not, we'll see. -- Bruce ( talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Bruce, I thought that interview was excellent and gets to the nub of why this article and the leaked video are so important. Your link to the video didn't work.
Maybe this one will.
Galerita (
talk)
14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
For the timeline to be correct the Apache crew(s) asked for, and got, permission to engage before Chmagh(?) peered around the corner with his telephoto lens, and got (mis)identified as holding an RPG and preparing to fire. Also, we should give a time so that it is apparent how long after they arrived on station the first attack occurred. All these facts are not disputed (including the sequence and misidentification of the camera). So I propose:
Around 10:19 am the United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters observed 11 men walking one block away from Bravo company vehicles. In the group were two employees of the Reuters news service, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver/camera assistant Saeed Chmagh. The helicopter crews reported seeing two individuals with weapons, one carrying an AK-47, and another carrying a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). The crews asked for, and received, permission to open fire. As they circled around to attack, Chmagh peered around the corner with a telephoto lens, which was reported by a helicopter pilot as an insurgent preparing to fire an RPG. When the group of men were in view again the helicopters fired with their M230 Chain Guns, killing or wounding all the men. Lipsticked Pig ( talk) 03:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
I believe this paragraph should be moved to later in the article: "A subsequent legal review by staff at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq during July 2007 stated that the helicopters had attacked a number of armed insurgents within the rules of engagement, and that in an apparent case of collateral damage two reporters working for Reuters had also been killed." Apart from this paragraph the material up to 2007 coverage is largely concerned with the events themselves, the leaking of the video (the reason for the notability of the events), and adding historical context.
The 2nd paragraph is part of the interpretation of the events - whether the rules of engagment were followed - and so belongs in a section that examines subsequent coverage and interpretation, and indeed the controversies that surrond what happened. This is the conclusion of the US Army Investigation, and would better be dealt with in Publication of supporting documents.
An alternative would be have an early paragraph that notes the controversy surrounding whether the ROE were followed, but this would be better placed after the paragraph beginning, "The attacks received worldwide coverage following the release of 39 minutes of classified cockpit video...", as the controversy has largely been driven by the release of the video. Galerita ( talk) 11:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll give it a go. Delete the 2nd paragraph and insert something like this as the third paragraph:
Immediately after the 2007 attack Reuters asked the US military to "conduct a full and objective investigation" citing doubts about the initial explanations given for their deaths ( here). The U.S. military stated the action was in accordance with its "Rules of Engagement", but denied access to its records (ref?). Reuters was subsequently unsuccesful with a Freedom of Information application ( see here for FOIA), an outcome which WikiLeaks used as justification for releasing the video ( here). The leaked footage continues to generate worldwide controversy about the circumstances of the attack and was soon followed by the release of the US Army's own internal legal review of the event (ref?). Galerita ( talk) 13:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I am just wondering what the Wikipedia policy is towards using a video directly as a source, particularly in a case such as this in which the video shows the event directly and has been confirmed as genuine by the Pentagon. Obviously there are some things in the video which are a matter for debate, such as how many people were armed etc, but there are certain things which are clear, such as the order in which the events took place. Is there any problem with the video as a source for such things? For example, it is clear from the video that one of the crewmen, believed that the camera being pointed at him was an RPG. So far, I have searched for "reliable sources" such as media networks to state what clearly happens in the video before I can cite it, but if the media outlets are basing what is clear from the video, then is there any problem with us doing so, as long as there is no disagreement among us about what the video actually shows? Gregcaletta ( talk) 00:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Cite #7 sucks big time, primarily because it is from immediately after the release of the WikiLeaks video, is one person's opinion based on the viewing of that (editorialized) video, and so sonsequently is factually inaccurate. This quote from it currently being used as a reference for the article is: "One American claims to have spotted six people with AK-47s and one with a rocket-propelled grenade. It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone."
It is clear from the video, and we should be able to find a better cite that says so, that the crews identify two (ONLY) men with weapons before requesting, and receiving, permission to engage (they then identify Noor-Eldeen as aiming an RPG as they circle around to attack). Saying that they "spotted six men with AK-47s" is grossly inaccurate.
The "unclear if some of the men are armed" is strictly an opinion, as well as "Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone." Just because its meets WP:RS and whatever else doesn't mean that it is the best source, and the source that we should use in the article. Its biased against both sides. Lipsticked Pig ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The section about the 3rd incident, "Attack on a building", currently discusses the video footage, not the incident itself. It should be rewritten to describe the incident, not the video footage. Discussion of the footage should be moved to the video section. Kaldari ( talk) 22:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I found this video at Democracy Now offers insight into the psychological conditioning of the soldiers involved. It is an interview with Josh Stieber a conscientious objector, who was at the time assigned to Bravo Company 2-16, although he was not part of the days events. In what is a remarkably objective view of the events of the day and the army in general he argues that,
He continues,
Other quotes, on dehumanization :
On the best interests of my country:
On callousness:
On the presence of civilians:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita ( talk • contribs)
I think Josh Stieber's POV is a useful contrast to the views of Joan Smith of The Independent, who (like Julian Assange himself) emphasizes the individual actions of the soldiers ("the whole thing sounds like a game") and with the military failing to "identify combatants with serious psychological problems". Josh Stieber is saying this behavior is not aberrant, rather it is precisely how these soldiers - himself included - have been trained to act. I suggest after the paragraph ending, "US military fails both its own soldiers and their "victims".[27] Command structures need to be in place to identify "combatants with serious psychological problems", add: In contrast Josh Stieber, conscientious objector, who was at the time assigned to Bravo Company 2-16, claimed that although it's natural to "judge or criticize the soldiers", in fact "this is how [they] were trained to act". He claims that the debate should be re-framed, that it is more appropriate to ask "questions of the larger system" that teaches "doing these things is in the best interests of my own country" [2]. "If you want to keep things like this from happening, stop screaming at soldiers...and instead spend your energy exposing the training that soldiers are put through and demand...leaders reexamine the system that creates the callousness displayed in this video..." [3] The main issue is the credibility of the source, but I would argue that Stieber is a credible source: a clearly spoken conscientious objector who was with Bravo Company 2-16 at the time. Galerita ( talk) 06:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I gave it a go but I can't get the references right. Can someone please fix this or point me to a referencing guide? Also the final quote I used is from his blog. Although it encapsulates his point, I'm not sure it is a important enough source. Galerita ( talk) 06:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that the pilots could see more than what the video records (colors? better image?) but I am no expert on the Apache gun sight or its recording system. Can anybody provide some facts? Seems relevant to the whole "blame" thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.209.93 ( talk • contribs)
I'm troubled that the front of the van (where the children were wounded) was crushed by a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. You can see this in the video, and there's a photo of the result at http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/img/photos/AliAbbas_VAN.jpg.html. This was clearly intentional because the driver can be heard asking if anything else needs to be driven over. Is this standard military procedure (destroying "enemy" equipment) or was it deliberate destruction of evidence? Does it shed any light on the issue of driving over bodies?
See the section article on democracynow above. And also this still from the video. What is clear from the long version of the video is that the children were removed prior to the front of the van being crushed. It appears that the front of the van was crushed as a Bradley was trying to pass or position itself between Saeed Chmagh's body and the van. The passage to the left of Chmagh's body was blocked by a truck at the time. And yes it sheds light on the issue of driving over bodies (discussed above). Galerita ( talk) 06:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Attack on personnel section it says "The crewmen misidentified the cameras carried by Namir and Saeed as weapons ...". This has not been established. The crewmen say they saw people with weapons, but we don't know which individuals they are referring to, and there are other more weapony things visible on the video. The citation provided is also fairly useless: Fox News saying that WikiLeaks said that the weapons were misidentified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.209.93 ( talk) 14:31, April 13, 2010
There should be a paragraph before the 1st attack decribing the events that day up until that point. The operations by the ground forces, and later Crazyhorse being reassigned to support those ground forces. Meanwhile Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen at another assignment leave to cover the fighting, eventually ending up one block away from the Army forces, in a gathering with other men, where Chmagh takes the photo of the HUMMMVs (and include that photo with a caption like "Chmagh took this photo of US Army HUMMMvs before being killed"). Its important to understand how everyone got there and under what context they were operating. Lipsticked Pig ( talk) 14:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently watched the videos, and I was wondering if anyone would object to my expanding the bit on the use of hellfires on the abandoned building. I would be using the videos as a primary source, and I would specifically mention the first missile where a guy is walking infront of the building as it hits. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 21:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion finished
|
---|
Just a quick explanation of why Gawker counts as a reliable source for the statement "Wikileaks have claimed that Facebook deleted their fan page, which had 30 000 fans." I understand why Gawker.com might generally be unreliable for most claims, however, no source is considered "unreliable" in general. This is emphasised under WP:RELIABLE, where it states
In WP:SOURCES there is a section on "Questionable sources" which states
Gawker.com would potentially be considered a "questionable sources" under this policy, however the specific article in question and the statement made does not "rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion". And you will notice it is stated that even "questionable sources" can be used "as sources of material on themselves". For example, even a "Twitter" page could be used as a "reliable source" if it were in order to make a claim about a statement made on that page. In this case the Gawker article is making a statement about a twitter comment, which it provides a direct link to. Gregcaletta ( talk) 05:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|
My edits were reverted, wrt the target being "an armed group of military-aged males presumed to be insurgents." The rationale being that this is a controversial point, and that it a matter of interpretation.
I don't see the controversy. I don't think anyone doubts that they were presumed to be insurgents. The military report itself calls them insurgents without qualification. Since it's illegal to own an RPG over there, and to form such groups in a combat zone, the word "presumed" was itself overly cautious.
It is currently POV. Removing that part now suggests that being military-aged males was deemed sufficient to kill them. That's very misleading, as it causes one to wonder if this was conducted iaw the laws of armed conflict.
Taken as a group, they should be described as armed. A few individuals didn't have arms themselves, but they were with men who were very heavily armed.
There is no reasonable doubt on this point. I understand that early reports didn't know or care about the weapons found on the scene, but that was then. The source, since removed from the lede, states that weapons were recovered of the very types in these first two pictures. The Army report shows more. We don't need to rely at all on anyone's interpretation of the pictures in order to call them armed.
It also eliminated that the Reuters reporters "whose camera equipment only gave the impression of being weapons." This was an important point that wasn't controversial at all, and shouldn't have been removed.
It's fine with me if you want to edit that further, but that they were armed is more important than that they were military-aged males, and it must say they were presumed insurgents.
--
Randy2063 (
talk)
20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well the fact that they were "presumed to be insurgents" is already included later in the article, but it is particular detail which doesn't really need to be in the lead. The lead has already be expanded to include more specific details than it really should have in order to include the comment about some of the men being armed. Any information about the specific weapons they may have had would be included in the body of the article not in the lead. Unfortunately, only major media article that I know of says there was an RPG among those fired upon ( from Fox News); most articles just say "AK-47s" and some believe the long object in one man's hand was a tripod ( Reuters on CNN). Even the FoxNews article does not claim that there were any RPGs visible at the moment the US forces opened fire. In any case, this is a question for the body of the article not the lead, and again, we need to use facts which are agreed upon by reliable sources. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Mate, I don't think you are quite listening to me. The reason we can't say "heavily armed group" is simply because none of the reliable sources say "heavily armed group". WP:RELIABLE is how Wikipedia establishes NPOV. The statement that FoxNews have made about the "RPG", however, can be included in the article. In fact, it already is included in the article, under the 2010 coverage section. The reason it is in the section is because it is only claimed by major media organisation, and there are other major media organisations that have made contrary claims, such as the citation I gave above, as well as this one. You say the lead "reads as though the group was primarily guilty of being military-aged males". This is your interpretation of the lead. We can't anything about your interpretation of the lead. We can only deal with what the lead actually says. Currently, everything in the lead is consistently supported by reliable sources. The statements you want to a add are not. Gregcaletta ( talk) 05:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Ethan McCord is a veteran of Bravo Company 2-16 who is seen in the video rushing to the van and is also seen later rushing back to a Bradley with a child (the boy) in his arms (note there are two occurrences of soldiers running with a child in their arms, the latter of which is Ethan). I believe it would be very useful to expand the article with made by Ethan McCord in an interview. Here's a few relevant remarks from it (I might be transcribing the interview more fully later):
-- Bruce ( talk) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed part of discussion about the source
|
---|
|
I added a short paragraph about an interview McCord gave with the World Socialist Web Site. The transcript includes an interesting discussion of views on mental health in the military, and McCord twice calls the airstrike an "everyday" occurrence. The WSWS pulls no punches, so their interview questions are predictably slanted sometimes. But McCord's responses lend a lot to the discourse. — The Realms of Gold ( talk) 18:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this actually occurred in the "New Baghdad" district, wouldn't it be more accurate and encyclopedic to provide greater detail and location in the name of the article, perhaps renaming it "July 12, 2007 New Baghdad airstrike?" After all, greater Baghdad is a large city in terms of both population and square mileage, and there have numerous "airstrikes" during the ongoing war/"operation" there. Renaming the article might allow more researchers to find it. Of course there are some who would prefer this entire incident, and the encyclopedia article about it, to be buried in history with a more vague, less specific name, right? CriticalChris 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
In this "rephrasing" [4], a series of events seems to be portrayed: Finkel denying seeing the video, Assange then disputing Finkel's denial, and at the end, a claim that the Washington Post was denying Assange's disputation, possibly implying that the Washington Post supported Finkel in some denial of seeing the video.
However, the source apparently cited, an independent documentary run on Australian TV, does not unambiguously support this "rephrasing" narrative. For one thing, it says nothing about Finkel denying seeing the video. (I've added a transcript reference to the citation.)
I found a posting by Finkel at the Washington Post website (see WaPo citation added) showing him being evasive when asked how he got to see the unedited video (which, earlier in the transcript, he appears to know something about, at least as to its relative length). It has him claiming to have based the episode in his book on sources that were "all unclassified". It can't be assumed from any of this that he saw the classified video before using information derived from it (or other channels at the time) in his book: he might have heard an unclassified audio of the conversation, or even gotten a transcript. He replies evasively, but that's consistent with protecting sources.
If this is all there is, then, at most, here's all we have:
As the text stood, it had Assange contradicting Finkel. As far as I can tell from these sources, however, Finkel doesn't confirm or deny Assange's assertion. If so, that's how Wikipedia should present it: as Finkel being, in fact, ambiguous.
Of course, it really helps to have a video transcript to see this. It's very easy to slip into inaccurate narrative when relying on a medium in which you can't do rapid text searches. It can make editors sloppy about double-checking sources to make sure their edits are not doing violence (or adding further violence) to the facts. This passage was a case in point. Yakushima ( talk) 18:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet more WP:SYNTH. One can steal a video by making a copy and deleting it from the source. In fact, the effect of theft is greater, if it incurs a loss for the victim of the theft. Whether and how it leaves a trace depends on the sophistication (or luck) of the person raiding the archive. Do you have the facts on how it was actually done? Does any RS have them? If not, you can't say it in the Wikipedia article.
The Al Jazeera story you cite actually says this:
There, they aren't saying they lost it. At most, they are saying there was no reason to look further in places (CentCom, Iraq HQ) where there was nobody directly responsible for filing the video, and are saying they are now looking in another place. And at that point, if you include "the unit that did the investigation" as "the military", then Al Jazeera was just making a logical error, by reporting that the military didn't have the video in its files when it might actually still have had it, in the files of that particular unit. Because of this possible contradiction of itself, if you're going to use that source, maybe you say it in the Wikipedia article as follows
though a Wikipedia reader might be understandably confused at that. I'd go with a clearer source.
Read sources carefully. Apply a little logic. Twice, so that you're sure. Don't jump to conclusions, no matter how tempting. This is Wikipedia and it's about things that reflect very seriously on some living people's reputations, in a very large organization (the U.S. military), full of people with all kinds of motives, some of them good, some of them bad. It's not like it's about some shoes you can't find. Yakushima ( talk) 09:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The geography of this incident might be of some interest. For example, after following the Coordinates link, and assuming the morning sun is in the east, I was able to determine that the van came out of the road at the western side of the open square. What's interesting about this is that this area was the eastern edge of a combat zone that day, with some of the heaviest fighting near the east edge. So I'm inclined to think that the parents and children were actually fleeing the combat zone rather than entering it, when they stopped to pick up the wounded person. They were headed toward the edge of the city, about 0.4 miles away. Does this make sense? It'll be interesting to see if I can find discussion of the landscape. Wnt ( talk) 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone fix this up: "While US ground forces were en route to the scene, an unmarked van arrived, from which two men disembarked. " Close inspection of the short video from 9:04/17:47 to 9:22/17:47 reveals that neither of the two additional men disembarked from the van, but rather arrived separately on foot from the same direction as the van. Galerita ( talk) 02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems the van is seen very early in the 39 min version of the video. See Talk:July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Geography. Galerita ( talk) 12:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The "black" van seen and mentioned early in the long video is probably NOT the same van. The van in the shooting is light blue (see photo at http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/img/photos/AliAbbas_VAN.jpg.html) and has a noticeably faded roof.
There were three airstrikes.
The article is locked so I can't perform the move. JD Caselaw ( talk) 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
On the The Dylan Ratigan Show of April the 5th Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, apparently a notable U.S. intelligence officer, commented on the incident. The interview is linked in this article (the interview starts at 4m38s, here's a convenient YouTube link). You can find a rush transcript of the interview I made here:
It might be relevant to include a reference to this in the article later, in a coverage, opinion or a rules of engagement section. It may also not, we'll see. -- Bruce ( talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Bruce, I thought that interview was excellent and gets to the nub of why this article and the leaked video are so important. Your link to the video didn't work.
Maybe this one will.
Galerita (
talk)
14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
For the timeline to be correct the Apache crew(s) asked for, and got, permission to engage before Chmagh(?) peered around the corner with his telephoto lens, and got (mis)identified as holding an RPG and preparing to fire. Also, we should give a time so that it is apparent how long after they arrived on station the first attack occurred. All these facts are not disputed (including the sequence and misidentification of the camera). So I propose:
Around 10:19 am the United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters observed 11 men walking one block away from Bravo company vehicles. In the group were two employees of the Reuters news service, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver/camera assistant Saeed Chmagh. The helicopter crews reported seeing two individuals with weapons, one carrying an AK-47, and another carrying a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). The crews asked for, and received, permission to open fire. As they circled around to attack, Chmagh peered around the corner with a telephoto lens, which was reported by a helicopter pilot as an insurgent preparing to fire an RPG. When the group of men were in view again the helicopters fired with their M230 Chain Guns, killing or wounding all the men. Lipsticked Pig ( talk) 03:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
I believe this paragraph should be moved to later in the article: "A subsequent legal review by staff at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq during July 2007 stated that the helicopters had attacked a number of armed insurgents within the rules of engagement, and that in an apparent case of collateral damage two reporters working for Reuters had also been killed." Apart from this paragraph the material up to 2007 coverage is largely concerned with the events themselves, the leaking of the video (the reason for the notability of the events), and adding historical context.
The 2nd paragraph is part of the interpretation of the events - whether the rules of engagment were followed - and so belongs in a section that examines subsequent coverage and interpretation, and indeed the controversies that surrond what happened. This is the conclusion of the US Army Investigation, and would better be dealt with in Publication of supporting documents.
An alternative would be have an early paragraph that notes the controversy surrounding whether the ROE were followed, but this would be better placed after the paragraph beginning, "The attacks received worldwide coverage following the release of 39 minutes of classified cockpit video...", as the controversy has largely been driven by the release of the video. Galerita ( talk) 11:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll give it a go. Delete the 2nd paragraph and insert something like this as the third paragraph:
Immediately after the 2007 attack Reuters asked the US military to "conduct a full and objective investigation" citing doubts about the initial explanations given for their deaths ( here). The U.S. military stated the action was in accordance with its "Rules of Engagement", but denied access to its records (ref?). Reuters was subsequently unsuccesful with a Freedom of Information application ( see here for FOIA), an outcome which WikiLeaks used as justification for releasing the video ( here). The leaked footage continues to generate worldwide controversy about the circumstances of the attack and was soon followed by the release of the US Army's own internal legal review of the event (ref?). Galerita ( talk) 13:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I am just wondering what the Wikipedia policy is towards using a video directly as a source, particularly in a case such as this in which the video shows the event directly and has been confirmed as genuine by the Pentagon. Obviously there are some things in the video which are a matter for debate, such as how many people were armed etc, but there are certain things which are clear, such as the order in which the events took place. Is there any problem with the video as a source for such things? For example, it is clear from the video that one of the crewmen, believed that the camera being pointed at him was an RPG. So far, I have searched for "reliable sources" such as media networks to state what clearly happens in the video before I can cite it, but if the media outlets are basing what is clear from the video, then is there any problem with us doing so, as long as there is no disagreement among us about what the video actually shows? Gregcaletta ( talk) 00:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Cite #7 sucks big time, primarily because it is from immediately after the release of the WikiLeaks video, is one person's opinion based on the viewing of that (editorialized) video, and so sonsequently is factually inaccurate. This quote from it currently being used as a reference for the article is: "One American claims to have spotted six people with AK-47s and one with a rocket-propelled grenade. It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone."
It is clear from the video, and we should be able to find a better cite that says so, that the crews identify two (ONLY) men with weapons before requesting, and receiving, permission to engage (they then identify Noor-Eldeen as aiming an RPG as they circle around to attack). Saying that they "spotted six men with AK-47s" is grossly inaccurate.
The "unclear if some of the men are armed" is strictly an opinion, as well as "Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone." Just because its meets WP:RS and whatever else doesn't mean that it is the best source, and the source that we should use in the article. Its biased against both sides. Lipsticked Pig ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The section about the 3rd incident, "Attack on a building", currently discusses the video footage, not the incident itself. It should be rewritten to describe the incident, not the video footage. Discussion of the footage should be moved to the video section. Kaldari ( talk) 22:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I found this video at Democracy Now offers insight into the psychological conditioning of the soldiers involved. It is an interview with Josh Stieber a conscientious objector, who was at the time assigned to Bravo Company 2-16, although he was not part of the days events. In what is a remarkably objective view of the events of the day and the army in general he argues that,
He continues,
Other quotes, on dehumanization :
On the best interests of my country:
On callousness:
On the presence of civilians:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita ( talk • contribs)
I think Josh Stieber's POV is a useful contrast to the views of Joan Smith of The Independent, who (like Julian Assange himself) emphasizes the individual actions of the soldiers ("the whole thing sounds like a game") and with the military failing to "identify combatants with serious psychological problems". Josh Stieber is saying this behavior is not aberrant, rather it is precisely how these soldiers - himself included - have been trained to act. I suggest after the paragraph ending, "US military fails both its own soldiers and their "victims".[27] Command structures need to be in place to identify "combatants with serious psychological problems", add: In contrast Josh Stieber, conscientious objector, who was at the time assigned to Bravo Company 2-16, claimed that although it's natural to "judge or criticize the soldiers", in fact "this is how [they] were trained to act". He claims that the debate should be re-framed, that it is more appropriate to ask "questions of the larger system" that teaches "doing these things is in the best interests of my own country" [2]. "If you want to keep things like this from happening, stop screaming at soldiers...and instead spend your energy exposing the training that soldiers are put through and demand...leaders reexamine the system that creates the callousness displayed in this video..." [3] The main issue is the credibility of the source, but I would argue that Stieber is a credible source: a clearly spoken conscientious objector who was with Bravo Company 2-16 at the time. Galerita ( talk) 06:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I gave it a go but I can't get the references right. Can someone please fix this or point me to a referencing guide? Also the final quote I used is from his blog. Although it encapsulates his point, I'm not sure it is a important enough source. Galerita ( talk) 06:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that the pilots could see more than what the video records (colors? better image?) but I am no expert on the Apache gun sight or its recording system. Can anybody provide some facts? Seems relevant to the whole "blame" thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.209.93 ( talk • contribs)
I'm troubled that the front of the van (where the children were wounded) was crushed by a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. You can see this in the video, and there's a photo of the result at http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/img/photos/AliAbbas_VAN.jpg.html. This was clearly intentional because the driver can be heard asking if anything else needs to be driven over. Is this standard military procedure (destroying "enemy" equipment) or was it deliberate destruction of evidence? Does it shed any light on the issue of driving over bodies?
See the section article on democracynow above. And also this still from the video. What is clear from the long version of the video is that the children were removed prior to the front of the van being crushed. It appears that the front of the van was crushed as a Bradley was trying to pass or position itself between Saeed Chmagh's body and the van. The passage to the left of Chmagh's body was blocked by a truck at the time. And yes it sheds light on the issue of driving over bodies (discussed above). Galerita ( talk) 06:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Attack on personnel section it says "The crewmen misidentified the cameras carried by Namir and Saeed as weapons ...". This has not been established. The crewmen say they saw people with weapons, but we don't know which individuals they are referring to, and there are other more weapony things visible on the video. The citation provided is also fairly useless: Fox News saying that WikiLeaks said that the weapons were misidentified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.209.93 ( talk) 14:31, April 13, 2010
There should be a paragraph before the 1st attack decribing the events that day up until that point. The operations by the ground forces, and later Crazyhorse being reassigned to support those ground forces. Meanwhile Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen at another assignment leave to cover the fighting, eventually ending up one block away from the Army forces, in a gathering with other men, where Chmagh takes the photo of the HUMMMVs (and include that photo with a caption like "Chmagh took this photo of US Army HUMMMvs before being killed"). Its important to understand how everyone got there and under what context they were operating. Lipsticked Pig ( talk) 14:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently watched the videos, and I was wondering if anyone would object to my expanding the bit on the use of hellfires on the abandoned building. I would be using the videos as a primary source, and I would specifically mention the first missile where a guy is walking infront of the building as it hits. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 21:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion finished
|
---|
Just a quick explanation of why Gawker counts as a reliable source for the statement "Wikileaks have claimed that Facebook deleted their fan page, which had 30 000 fans." I understand why Gawker.com might generally be unreliable for most claims, however, no source is considered "unreliable" in general. This is emphasised under WP:RELIABLE, where it states
In WP:SOURCES there is a section on "Questionable sources" which states
Gawker.com would potentially be considered a "questionable sources" under this policy, however the specific article in question and the statement made does not "rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion". And you will notice it is stated that even "questionable sources" can be used "as sources of material on themselves". For example, even a "Twitter" page could be used as a "reliable source" if it were in order to make a claim about a statement made on that page. In this case the Gawker article is making a statement about a twitter comment, which it provides a direct link to. Gregcaletta ( talk) 05:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|
My edits were reverted, wrt the target being "an armed group of military-aged males presumed to be insurgents." The rationale being that this is a controversial point, and that it a matter of interpretation.
I don't see the controversy. I don't think anyone doubts that they were presumed to be insurgents. The military report itself calls them insurgents without qualification. Since it's illegal to own an RPG over there, and to form such groups in a combat zone, the word "presumed" was itself overly cautious.
It is currently POV. Removing that part now suggests that being military-aged males was deemed sufficient to kill them. That's very misleading, as it causes one to wonder if this was conducted iaw the laws of armed conflict.
Taken as a group, they should be described as armed. A few individuals didn't have arms themselves, but they were with men who were very heavily armed.
There is no reasonable doubt on this point. I understand that early reports didn't know or care about the weapons found on the scene, but that was then. The source, since removed from the lede, states that weapons were recovered of the very types in these first two pictures. The Army report shows more. We don't need to rely at all on anyone's interpretation of the pictures in order to call them armed.
It also eliminated that the Reuters reporters "whose camera equipment only gave the impression of being weapons." This was an important point that wasn't controversial at all, and shouldn't have been removed.
It's fine with me if you want to edit that further, but that they were armed is more important than that they were military-aged males, and it must say they were presumed insurgents.
--
Randy2063 (
talk)
20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well the fact that they were "presumed to be insurgents" is already included later in the article, but it is particular detail which doesn't really need to be in the lead. The lead has already be expanded to include more specific details than it really should have in order to include the comment about some of the men being armed. Any information about the specific weapons they may have had would be included in the body of the article not in the lead. Unfortunately, only major media article that I know of says there was an RPG among those fired upon ( from Fox News); most articles just say "AK-47s" and some believe the long object in one man's hand was a tripod ( Reuters on CNN). Even the FoxNews article does not claim that there were any RPGs visible at the moment the US forces opened fire. In any case, this is a question for the body of the article not the lead, and again, we need to use facts which are agreed upon by reliable sources. Gregcaletta ( talk) 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Mate, I don't think you are quite listening to me. The reason we can't say "heavily armed group" is simply because none of the reliable sources say "heavily armed group". WP:RELIABLE is how Wikipedia establishes NPOV. The statement that FoxNews have made about the "RPG", however, can be included in the article. In fact, it already is included in the article, under the 2010 coverage section. The reason it is in the section is because it is only claimed by major media organisation, and there are other major media organisations that have made contrary claims, such as the citation I gave above, as well as this one. You say the lead "reads as though the group was primarily guilty of being military-aged males". This is your interpretation of the lead. We can't anything about your interpretation of the lead. We can only deal with what the lead actually says. Currently, everything in the lead is consistently supported by reliable sources. The statements you want to a add are not. Gregcaletta ( talk) 05:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Ethan McCord is a veteran of Bravo Company 2-16 who is seen in the video rushing to the van and is also seen later rushing back to a Bradley with a child (the boy) in his arms (note there are two occurrences of soldiers running with a child in their arms, the latter of which is Ethan). I believe it would be very useful to expand the article with made by Ethan McCord in an interview. Here's a few relevant remarks from it (I might be transcribing the interview more fully later):
-- Bruce ( talk) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed part of discussion about the source
|
---|
|
I added a short paragraph about an interview McCord gave with the World Socialist Web Site. The transcript includes an interesting discussion of views on mental health in the military, and McCord twice calls the airstrike an "everyday" occurrence. The WSWS pulls no punches, so their interview questions are predictably slanted sometimes. But McCord's responses lend a lot to the discourse. — The Realms of Gold ( talk) 18:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this actually occurred in the "New Baghdad" district, wouldn't it be more accurate and encyclopedic to provide greater detail and location in the name of the article, perhaps renaming it "July 12, 2007 New Baghdad airstrike?" After all, greater Baghdad is a large city in terms of both population and square mileage, and there have numerous "airstrikes" during the ongoing war/"operation" there. Renaming the article might allow more researchers to find it. Of course there are some who would prefer this entire incident, and the encyclopedia article about it, to be buried in history with a more vague, less specific name, right? CriticalChris 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
In this "rephrasing" [4], a series of events seems to be portrayed: Finkel denying seeing the video, Assange then disputing Finkel's denial, and at the end, a claim that the Washington Post was denying Assange's disputation, possibly implying that the Washington Post supported Finkel in some denial of seeing the video.
However, the source apparently cited, an independent documentary run on Australian TV, does not unambiguously support this "rephrasing" narrative. For one thing, it says nothing about Finkel denying seeing the video. (I've added a transcript reference to the citation.)
I found a posting by Finkel at the Washington Post website (see WaPo citation added) showing him being evasive when asked how he got to see the unedited video (which, earlier in the transcript, he appears to know something about, at least as to its relative length). It has him claiming to have based the episode in his book on sources that were "all unclassified". It can't be assumed from any of this that he saw the classified video before using information derived from it (or other channels at the time) in his book: he might have heard an unclassified audio of the conversation, or even gotten a transcript. He replies evasively, but that's consistent with protecting sources.
If this is all there is, then, at most, here's all we have:
As the text stood, it had Assange contradicting Finkel. As far as I can tell from these sources, however, Finkel doesn't confirm or deny Assange's assertion. If so, that's how Wikipedia should present it: as Finkel being, in fact, ambiguous.
Of course, it really helps to have a video transcript to see this. It's very easy to slip into inaccurate narrative when relying on a medium in which you can't do rapid text searches. It can make editors sloppy about double-checking sources to make sure their edits are not doing violence (or adding further violence) to the facts. This passage was a case in point. Yakushima ( talk) 18:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet more WP:SYNTH. One can steal a video by making a copy and deleting it from the source. In fact, the effect of theft is greater, if it incurs a loss for the victim of the theft. Whether and how it leaves a trace depends on the sophistication (or luck) of the person raiding the archive. Do you have the facts on how it was actually done? Does any RS have them? If not, you can't say it in the Wikipedia article.
The Al Jazeera story you cite actually says this:
There, they aren't saying they lost it. At most, they are saying there was no reason to look further in places (CentCom, Iraq HQ) where there was nobody directly responsible for filing the video, and are saying they are now looking in another place. And at that point, if you include "the unit that did the investigation" as "the military", then Al Jazeera was just making a logical error, by reporting that the military didn't have the video in its files when it might actually still have had it, in the files of that particular unit. Because of this possible contradiction of itself, if you're going to use that source, maybe you say it in the Wikipedia article as follows
though a Wikipedia reader might be understandably confused at that. I'd go with a clearer source.
Read sources carefully. Apply a little logic. Twice, so that you're sure. Don't jump to conclusions, no matter how tempting. This is Wikipedia and it's about things that reflect very seriously on some living people's reputations, in a very large organization (the U.S. military), full of people with all kinds of motives, some of them good, some of them bad. It's not like it's about some shoes you can't find. Yakushima ( talk) 09:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)