This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Somalia affair:
|
The Kyle Brown (Canadian soldier) article was blanked on 8 July 2024 and that title now redirects to Somalia affair. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history; for the discussion at that location, see the redirect's talk page. |
The Clayton Matchee article was blanked on 22 April 2013 and that title now redirects to Somalia affair. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history; for the discussion at that location, see the redirect's talk page. |
Thankyou —for the article. The scenario's described graphically in this piece are remarkably similar to other incidents in the military and prison environments. The use of trophy photos, the apparent lack of supervision, the prodigious inventiveness of the sadism involved, the obvious dehumanization. It is uncanny, the similarities to Guantanamo Bay, and AG Prison. Also similar is the subsequent use of terminology, specifically "the bad apple" complex.
You may be interested in a book by Phil Zimbardo, a psychologist in the united states who perfomed an infamous experiment called the Stamford Prison Experiments. In this experiment, college students were placed in a mock prison, and made either 'prisoners' or 'guards'. Very soon, psychologically healthy men were engaging in a culture of sadism, and torture, with some eerey congruences with your article, with the experiment having to be abandoned.
The uncomfortable thesis of Dr Zimbardo is that everyone of us is capable of evil. Far from being 'bad apples' often people and actions are forged by 'bad barrels'. In an enviroment with no rules, no supervision, where one is painted into a dominant role, situational rather than dispositional forces can generate evil. A very uncomfortable, and counter intuitive idea, where personal choice and free will are comforting ideas.
Phil Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect, gives excellent research into this field, and may contextualize the psychological substrate of the above with other similar incidents. He also has a web site. Dr Zimbardo has been sited in many reports in the US relating to the AG affair in Iraqu.
It may be considered too editorial for you article, but you obviously have an interest, and it is a fascinating, if somewhat dissturbing area.
Cheers
ADAM
I have never been involved in editing, so forgive stupid questions, but I notice there is little information on the actual mission here. I was serving in CAR during this time and this is but one incident tarnishing a noble mission and it would be nice to have some mention of what we did while we were there other than these few psycho's that caused this uproar. I don't know how the rules apply to someone directly involved doing any of the editing, so am not going to touch it until I get clarification on that. Steveaustin1971 ( talk) 07:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Steveaustin1971
But this is an article about the torture and killings, not about the mission in general. And it wasn't just one incident! Manormadman ( talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Manormadman
I see the Diplomacy footnote lists "the murder of Arone, the 17 February incident on the Bailey bridge and the deaths of two other somalis on 4 and 17 March sparked fierce controversy" as all part of the 'affair'; we are clearly missing some information in the article right now. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, if this article is only about the scandle it covers a lot of info about the whole mission in general! I was there! I know. I don't know how to edit this article nore do I have the time right now. But many key points have been avoided over the almost 20 years since this mission: First and formost The mission was a 100% success in the canadian AOR(Area of Operations) and one to the north which no one covered at all but us. The Canadian AOR was the only one in Somalia than was rehabilitated, secured and officially droped a security level. No other countries AOR's did!! The Americans used the Canadian's method of operations in our AOR as a model for their op's in Bosnia. Second, (not that what happend was in any way proper) But the Canadian's were Boy Scout's in Somailia compaired to many other big countries (as some what stated in the article) but far far from the extent or brutality I saw or herd about and no other country will admit to that. espesially after confusingly watching Canada crusify itself over the mater of activities in a counrty that to this day is still in Kaos, black listed and no one will ever help again. Third, There were many known criminals in the area as the district Jial and local Police station was there and were destroyed (I know I recced them for repair) As the only central point for aid was in town they didn't go far but lived in a Thieves den just out side town and traveled in daily passed the Canadian camps to do their illegal buisness in town, an of course on the look out for easy pick'ins in our camps on the way there. Every Somali that was captured or shot was taken to town for identification by local officials and as far as I know every one a known criminal. Dead ones were I'm sure just dumped in the Webi Shabeli or out in the desert by locals not us. During the riot in town there was a poor start that happened in the morning and was then retried in the afternoon. As per riot proceedures only the leaders of the riot were shot at and it then dispersed, it was found out from them that they were paid by the war lord's to try to create trouble in our AOR. They were treated very well in hospital, fed well and reliesed to probably cause more trouble later! Let me tell you as well I've been there and its a very very scarry thing to be in a small group as the canadian soldiers were and be surounded by hundereds of Somali's bent on stoneing (which people here don't understand is leathal force) and tearing you apart as was seen happen to the pilots in Blackhawk Down! Lastly the bridge to Mattaban was done by the 21 Airborne Field Squadren Engineers of 2 CER, and it was done about 2 months into the op. Local Somali's spent 3 weeks chopping the the wood on the ramps out of the bridge untill it was gone and had to be replace with steel plates which were welded in place.I recce'd it and the minefield around it. The also rebuild the police jail, the hospital, a school, removed truck loads of munitions for disposal from the town and cleared several mines from the surounding areas. Canadian Forces Sgt 2 CER Somalia 92/93 ( 70.48.56.139 ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)) Ref: Me One there VERY specific point!!! The Somalia mission mandate as a "piece keeping mission" was chainged on Dec 10 1992 before any troops left Canada. It was changed to a "PIECE MAKING" mission under the UN chaper that allows use of leathal force in enfocement of the UN mandate! We were told to cover our blue helmets up and remove any UN markings. In theater we were issued full battle load, 250 rounds of ammo, 2 grenades, rocket launchers RCD's had HESH (high explosive sqash head rounds) and mortors had high explosive rounds. Thats combat load as in Afganistan now. Lets get it straight !!!!! please and thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.56.139 ( talk) 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The reverting of this page has to stop, and we need to figure out a way to move forward that addresses everyone's concerns. The images are currently up for deletion on Commons. The image issue will be resolved one way or the other in a few days. There is thus no need to remove them now.
As to the content. This article is quite well referenced. If any user has problem with some of the referenced content they must make one of three arguments:
So far no such arguments have been presented. Personal attacks on users who posted the content are in no way an acceptable method of justifying reversions, and are more likely to get those making personal attacks into trouble.
SimonP ( talk) 14:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
""No, I have no problem with any of the sources. I'm just giving examples of what sort of arguments need to be presented before removing referenced content. - SimonP ( talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a single reference to a Captain Hillier in the last paragraph of the Death Shidane Arone section. Can we get a first name attached to this? Because as it stands, it would be easy to infer that this is Rick Hillier. The book referenced for this information has a reference to a "Captain Hillier" but all other references seem to be for a sergeant identified as J.K. Hillier.
I'm changing it to Sgt J.K. Hiller. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P ( talk) 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a belief that the word "nigger" shouldn't be used in exact quotes in the article as it's offensive to even report that it was used. I feel this goes against what we strive to achieve, which is neutrality. In the video, McKay stated that "we ain't killed enough niggers yet" isn't really adequately or neutrally summarised by an editor changing it to "McKay used racist language" - after all, if a man is heard saying "I've been working like a [n] in a woodpile" and if he's heard saying "I want to kill some [n]s", those both send different meanings and levels of offensiveness - and WP policy is not to "generalise" but to report the exact nature of a situation. The exact nature is, those words were used, thus when we describe what the soldiers yelled at the black soldier as they smeared faeces on him...we shouldn't just say "racist things". Jokes about his large black penis would be "racist", suggesting he didn't know who his father was would be "racist", but they were specifically saying they didn't believe "niggers" belonged in the Airborne...that detail is important to readers and to history, in judging this event.
The word can be used "in context" such as describing an exact quote made that received controversy and scrutiny. And that is what we have here, no different from say, Michael_Richards#Controversy or To Kill a Mockingbird talking about how Atticus Finch is labeled a "nigger lover" for taking on the court case. This isn't because Wikipedia editors are racists who enjoy using the word, it's because they're documenting the exact nature of a situation in which the term was used. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with neutrality its simply not encyclopedic, see WP:Profanity there is a perfect example given in the Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner section of the article. Secondly your argument of just because such language is used in other wiki-articles therefore why not here is not a good case, its the duty of those editing those articles in question to wikify it in the most encyclopedic manner, we however are discussing this particular article and the unnecessary use of profanity/racist language for whom much better alternatives can be found. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 22:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.
The strong language used in the example of WP:PROFANITY such as 'piece of shit' and 'bitch' are offensive aswell because they too are ment to be offensive to the person or entity its projected at. This however doesn't mean it's encyclopedic, the version of the article reverted to several times by both me and Middayexpress follows the example given in WP:Profanity and the unencylopedic racial content is shown in the references where it belongs. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"trying to preserve at all costs the gratuitous use of the word nigger in this article" (Middayexpress) <- I'm quoting you to point out how the word can be used in text without it being a scarlet letter telling the world the author of it is a racist. It's perfectly reasonable for someone writing an article detailing the actions of a racist to include his racist words, and to claim this reflects the author's own prejudice is foolish. If we whitewash and antibacterialize history by removing parts of it, we are doing ourselves and the future a disservice. I would challenge you to prove how Sherurcij's careful attention to detail in quotes in any way reflects white supremicism in his own beliefs or actions. You can't, because there is no correlation. 72.70.177.119 ( talk) 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I just read WP:Profanity. No one participating in this discussion is a "racist". No one participating here should have faced the accusation that they were a "racist".
Note, it says: "Discussions about whether to include an offensive image or profanity are often heated. As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties practice civility and assume good faith. Words like 'pornography' or 'censorship' tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided. Objective terminology is more helpful than subjective terminology."
Note, it also says, right in the thumbnail: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."
What we should be discussing is whether this particular quote is an instance where common sense suggests the quote should be used literally. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.
Before: According to the New York Times,[1] Jane was heard shrieking that John was a "piece of shit" and a "bitch" when the police were called.
|
After: According to the New York Times,[1] Jane was heard shrieking insults at John[2] when the police were called.
|
Before #1: In the video, McKay stated that "we ain't killed enough niggers yet", and pre-deployment photographs showed him wearing a Hitler shirt in front of a Swastika.[1]
|
After #1: In the video, McKay can be heard uttering racial slurs,[2] and pre-deployment photographs showed him wearing a Hitler shirt in front of a Swastika.[1]
|
Before #2: The black soldier Christopher Robin was shown on all fours with a leash, led around like a dog, with the phrase "I Love KKK" written on his back, while surrounding soldiers screamed about White Power and jeered, one stating loudly "We're not racist - we just don't want niggers in the Airborne".[1]
|
After #2: The black soldier Christopher Robin was shown on all fours with a leash, led around like a dog, with the phrase "I Love KKK" written on his back, while surrounding soldiers screamed about White Power and jeered, one demonstrating his objection to Black soldiers in the Airborne through racist language.[1][2]
|
Before #3: Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers".[1]
|
After #3: Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation with racial slurs.[1][2]
|
Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth.
I don't see how the current examples of strong language (that caused the 'edit war') warrants Ignore all rules. The most recent version of the article that is now locked (not an indication of support by the Admin that locked it, nor opposition) does come the closest to serving both sides of the dispute, as better alternatives have been found for the strong language yet the actual quotes are retained in the footnotes, and therefore the article suffers no loss of information. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
During the brief blocking for breaching WP:3RR of one of the other major parties involved in the present dispute, one User:Sherurcij, I have had the opportunity to have a close look at the article, and I have not at all been impressed with what I've seen. Besides what I've already discussed above, here are some of the other problems I've noticed, specifically regarding the Legal proceedings section of the article, which was one of the main areas the dispute was centered on:
Sherurcij has continuously claimed that he is simply trying to produce a good article and not trying to "whitewash history" (a charge he ironically likes to level at others whenever the going gets tough). Well if that were the case, then he should not have been continuously indicating patently false and less severe or incomplete legal sentences for the accused/convicted parties. He also should not object to others replacing his false and/or incomplete claims -- which, again, were referenced if at all to a deadlink -- with detailed and accurate legal sentences referenced to working, actually verifiable sources. The irony is that the latter is the exact opposite of what he has continuously been doing in our dispute with him i.e. he has just been re-inserting (to the point of brazenly violating WP:3RR) all of these plain falsehoods & obfuscations, and then labeling as "vandals" users who object to this disruptive behavior. That is simply unacceptable. Middayexpress ( talk) 04:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
As can also be seen above, Sherurcij has posted an image of what he has insinuated is a side-by-side comparison of my version of the table with his. In reality, what that image is is an unverifiable misrepresentation of the situation at hand. You see, one of the main problems with Sherurcij's table is that the charges it indicates are largely false and/or incomplete (as I've already explained in considerable detail above). And the only way to verify that this is indeed the case is to actually visit those footnoted articles. But that can't happen if one doesn't even know what those numbers in brackets in that image he has posted above represent to begin with! Here is how one actually lets the tables "do the talking"... by actually posting the tables themselves & their accompanying footnotes:
Name | Charge | Result |
---|---|---|
MCpl. Clayton Matchee | *
2nd Degree Murder
[1] *Torture [1] |
Unfit to stand trial following suicide attempt. [1] Matchee tried to hang himself after being arrested and suffered serious brain damage. [2] |
Pte. Kyle Brown | *2nd Degree Murder
[1] *Torture [1] |
Convicted to 5 years imprisonment. [1] Dismissed from the army in disgrace. [1] Appeals were also dismissed. [1] Released on parole one year after conviction. [1] |
Sgt. Mark Boland | *Negligent Performance of Duties
[1] *Torture [1] |
Pleaded guilty to negligent performance of duty for his role in the death of Shidane Arone, and not guilty to torture. [1] Convicted to 90 days' detention. [1] Deemed to be "willfully blind" to the beating, Boland was also demoted to private. [2] Conviction increased to 1 year of imprisonment after prosecution appealed sentence. [1] |
Major Anthony Seward | *Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm
[1] *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] |
Acquitted of unlawfully causing bodily harm. [1] Found guilty of negligent performance of duty for giving instructions to abuse detainees, and sentenced to a severe reprimand. [1] Prosecution appealed for a tougher sentence. [1] Court Martial Appeal Court subsequently imposed a term of 3 months' imprisonment. [1] Defense's appeal was declined. [1] Seward was also dismissed from the Canadian Forces. [1] |
Capt. Michael Sox | *Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm
[1] *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] *Act to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline [1] |
Acquitted of unlawfully causing bodily harm. [1] Convicted of negligent performance of duty. [1] A stay of proceedings was entered on the charge of an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline. [1] Sox was also demoted to lieutenant, and received a severe reprimand. [1] Appeals by both sides were dismissed. [1] |
Lt. Col. Carol Mathieu | *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] | Acquitted. [1] The prosecution appealed the verdict, and the Appeal Court agreed to a new trial. [1] Mathieu was also acquitted in the second trial. [1] |
Capt. Michel Rainville | *Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm
[1] *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] |
Acquitted. [1] |
Sgt. Perry Gresty | *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] | Acquitted. [1] |
Pte. David Brocklebank | *Torture
[1] *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] |
Acquitted on both charges. [1] Prosecution's appeal was dismissed. [1] |
Name | Charge | Result |
---|---|---|
MCpl. Clayton Matchee | 2nd Degree Murder Torture |
Suicide attempt
[2] Unfit to stand trial [1] |
Pte. Kyle Brown | Manslaughter Torture |
5 years imprisonment Released on parole after 1 year [1] |
Sgt. Mark Boland | Negligent Performance of Duties | 1 year imprisonment
[3]
[1] Demoted to Private [2] |
Major Anthony Seward | Negligent Performance of Duties | 3 months imprisonment [4] |
Capt. Sox | Negligent Performance of Duties | Reduction in rank, reprimand [3] |
Lt. Col. Mathieu | Negligent Performance of Duties | Acquitted [3] |
Capt. Rainville | Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm Negligent Performance of Duties |
Acquitted [3] |
Sgt. Perry Gresty | Negligent Performance of Duties | Acquitted [1] |
Pte. Brocklebank | Torture Negligent Performance of Duties |
Acquitted [5] |
References:
To readers: please compare both versions at your convenience & visit the accompanying links. See for yourself that everything I've written above about Sherurcij's misrepresentation of the charges laid on the soliders & their verdicts are indeed true.
Middayexpress (
talk)
17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi all -- new to wikipedia as a member. I'm not quite sure that the file name for the image captioned "Video of a Canadian Airborne soldier boasting of breaking the limbs of Somalis" is appropriate. Non-confirmed and non-auto-confirmed users will only see the file name. From the context I don't see any good reason to keep this file name. It's not descriptive. File: Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers.ogv El Brodeur ( talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a section not to continue the bickering, but to allow previously uninvolved editors to voice their ideas for moving forward. I have left a note at the Canadian Military History wikiproject as it seems the most likely venue of useful and authoritative ideas. Feel free to "canvas" this dispute on 3O or RfC as well. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
The dispute is not about a historical fact regarding Canadian military history( which in that case would make the opinions of Canadian experts from that project extremely valuable) but one of terminology, therefore several opinions from individuals far removed from the situation or entities involved(including the Somali wiki projects) would be wiser in this case and would prevent the prolongation of this dispute through potential accusation of bias supporting or oppossing the editors involved in the original edit war.-- Scoobycentric ( talk) 03:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Before: Director Abel Ferrara was angered by the incident, which he felt "ruined the movie":
[1]Tobias, Scott (November 27, 2002). Interview:Abel Ferrara. The Onion |
After: Director Abel Ferrara was angered by the incident, which he felt "ruined the movie". Referring to Page in venomous.[1] tones, he commented that:
[1]"Cocksucker" and "prick" were two of these. |
"Sherurcij has posted an image of what he has insinuated is a side-by-side comparison of my version of the table with his. In reality, what that image is is an unverifiable misrepresentation of the situation at hand. You see, one of the main problems with Sherurcij's table is that the charges it indicates are largely false and/or incomplete (as I've already explained in considerable detail above). And the only way to verify that this is indeed the case is to actually visit those footnoted articles. But that can't happen if one doesn't even know what those numbers in brackets in that image he has posted above represent to begin with!".
Given WP:UNCENSORED, I don't see any reason to omit offensive words, particularly in a direct quote (other than outright vandalism, obviously, which is not the issue). At the same time, we might consider the level of detail that a direct quote brings to this article. It seems more suited for Wikinews, or a primary or secondary source, but not necessarily for a tertiary source like Wikipedia (particularly if we link to the source of the quote). Including the direct quote certainly makes a very strong point about the soldiers' motives and character, but at the same time, we're not here to make a point. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I just have a few things to say, if I may. I don't know how much my opinion matters, but as far as the tables go, I'd recommend the smaller one, because the larger one stretches my screen a little bit and throws it out of proportion. I apologize if I'm behind in technology. Additionally, the smaller one also seems a lot neater in a way, you know? I also noticed the use of the word "nigger" and how some believe that it could be mistaken as an offensive term. From my own personal experience, when you are quoting somebody and use offensive terms, it is most certainly not a bad thing at all, it's all about relaying accurate information. If that was such a bad thing, we had better go erase every WW2 article that mentions the holocaust because that is very offensive to many people. I say keep the small table and that the use of the word nigger, if being quoted, is perfectly okay. Spectremancer ( talk) 19:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've protected the article, but will lift it as soon as consensus is achieved. Recently there was a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard about this article, and ANI as well. One idea to get more participants is to leave messages for everyone whose name already appears on this talk page. Compromise may be possible, even if no outside opinions can be found. Mediation may be considered if all else fails. Since this article has caused so much trouble, I suggest that admins leave the protection in place until they are sure a stable solution has been found. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's not a 'compromise' nor a 'starting point' at all it's the same version that got the article locked in the first place. Secondly i still haven't seen a convincing case that dismisses the WP:PROFANITY article under which these slurs clearly fall under, other than references to WP:Censored, evendo the slurs are retained in the article. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 09:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The affair led to the creation of Military Police Complaints Commission. [1] Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
References
Good God, children read this. The first photo is breathtakingly graphic, it is huge and unavoidable. Possibly of greater import, I don't believe a picture of a man engaging in the act of beating another man to death adds anything to the article which cannot be conveyed in words. I strongly believe the photo in the introduction should be removed. - Schrandit ( talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law. There are some works, such as important photographs, significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself. In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject. This policy allows such material to be used if it meet U.S. legal tests for fair use, but we impose additional limitations."
"Just because something is "fair use" on a Wikipedia article in the US does not mean it is fair use in another context. A downstream user's commercial use of content in a commercial setting may be illegal even if our noncommercial use is legal. Use in another country with different fair use and fair dealing laws may be illegal as well. That would fail our mission. We therefore limit the media content we offer, to make sure what we do offer has the widest possible legal distribution."
"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"
"A picture is worth 1000 words." You can describe torture, but the full horror and brutality can only be conveyed by photographs. Can anyone forget the images of naked, emaciated bodies being dumped into mass graves by the Nazis? Can you envision it by reading the words "naked, emaciated bodies?" Of course not. 114.161.229.100 ( talk) 04:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I quote "A picture is worth 1000 words.", that's a very neat 'saying' but a non sequitur in our case. If i may use Middayexpress excellent analogy with regards to horrendous crimes such as rape and child molestation 50000 words(general size of a book) could never capture the horror and brutality that a single picture displaying those crimes could. It still doesn't change the fact that we don't use those type of images on wikipedia. This is not a 'schock and awe' medium, this is a free-online-editable-encyclopedia, not a Snuff Film-- Scoobycentric ( talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law. There are some works, such as important photographs, significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself. In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject. This policy allows such material to be used if it meet U.S. legal tests for fair use, but we impose additional limitations."
"Just because something is "fair use" on a Wikipedia article in the US does not mean it is fair use in another context. A downstream user's commercial use of content in a commercial setting may be illegal even if our noncommercial use is legal. Use in another country with different fair use and fair dealing laws may be illegal as well. That would fail our mission. We therefore limit the media content we offer, to make sure what we do offer has the widest possible legal distribution."
"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"
There is an important difference between this crime and other crimes involving extreme brutality, and that is that it was committed by uniformed, on-duty service personnel of the Canadian government on a U.N. peacekeeping mission. While common criminals can be stopped by arrest and imprisonment, governments, in the absence of war crimes proceedings (which are generally only convened against defeated regimes), can only be deterred from allowing this kind of behavior by exposing it, IMHO. 114.161.229.100 ( talk) 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The photograph of Arone being tortured is included in the book "100 Photos That Changed Canada" by Mark Reid. [1] I think that makes this a more important article. 114.161.229.100 ( talk) 13:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a to do list, since users can't edit until after protection is lifted.
Second paragraph: verb tense should be "marred"'
Third paragraph: Propose rewording to "It has been compared to 'a Canadian version of...the Pentagon Papers', and to My Lai" (currently, "or" suggests to readers w/o knowledge of Vietnam War that My Lai is just another way of referring to the Pentagon Papers; in fact, it's a separate historical event) NinetyNineFennelSeeds ( talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to suggest the deletion of the photo depicting Clayton Matchee beating Shidane Arone. I know that a discussion has already taken place on this and my reasons are as follows:
1. The photo is unnecessary as the text in the article is itself graphic and describes the crime in considerable detail;
2. The photo could add to the distress of the Arone family as it clearly identifies him (I would find it hurtful if the killing of a member of my family was publicly shown in this way, and we cannot second guess what they think);
3. Through my faith as a Christian, I think people (publishers included) should treat others as they would want to be treated themselves (the photo is humiliating and degrading to Shidane Arone as a human being);
4. Wikipedia can easily by viewed by children, for whom this photo is inappropriate.
I know that, judged on copyright and free speech grounds, there is no legal restriction on displaying the photo. However, I think that there are more important moral factors (explained above) about how people should be treated when they are distressed, as he was at this moment, and how we respect people and their relatives when they have died violently. Looking forward to your suggestions and thanks for your time. Gecko177 ( talk) 10:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This last section reads a little like an extract from an essay (consider, "Canada never had a reputation for starting wars but instead was seen to come to the aid of war torn countries" and, "The Somalia Affair came as such as surprise to the Canadian public as no one would have thought Canada’s golden reputation for international peacekeeping could be tarnished", both largely subjective blanket statements sans any source).
All of this is notwithstanding the fact that the whole text seems irrelevant to the rest of the article, perhaps with the exception of the explanations for the origin of the phrase "Somalia syndrome" and the demoralisation of combat soldiers on peacekeeping missions both of which could be drastically abridged. I wouldn't want to modify these details without consulting with other editors first, so - thoughts? ConorWilson ( talk) 17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)ConorWilson
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Somalia Affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dcaf.ch/pcaf/ev_brussels_020712_winslow.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Somalia affair:
|
The Kyle Brown (Canadian soldier) article was blanked on 8 July 2024 and that title now redirects to Somalia affair. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history; for the discussion at that location, see the redirect's talk page. |
The Clayton Matchee article was blanked on 22 April 2013 and that title now redirects to Somalia affair. The contents of the former article are available in the redirect's history; for the discussion at that location, see the redirect's talk page. |
Thankyou —for the article. The scenario's described graphically in this piece are remarkably similar to other incidents in the military and prison environments. The use of trophy photos, the apparent lack of supervision, the prodigious inventiveness of the sadism involved, the obvious dehumanization. It is uncanny, the similarities to Guantanamo Bay, and AG Prison. Also similar is the subsequent use of terminology, specifically "the bad apple" complex.
You may be interested in a book by Phil Zimbardo, a psychologist in the united states who perfomed an infamous experiment called the Stamford Prison Experiments. In this experiment, college students were placed in a mock prison, and made either 'prisoners' or 'guards'. Very soon, psychologically healthy men were engaging in a culture of sadism, and torture, with some eerey congruences with your article, with the experiment having to be abandoned.
The uncomfortable thesis of Dr Zimbardo is that everyone of us is capable of evil. Far from being 'bad apples' often people and actions are forged by 'bad barrels'. In an enviroment with no rules, no supervision, where one is painted into a dominant role, situational rather than dispositional forces can generate evil. A very uncomfortable, and counter intuitive idea, where personal choice and free will are comforting ideas.
Phil Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect, gives excellent research into this field, and may contextualize the psychological substrate of the above with other similar incidents. He also has a web site. Dr Zimbardo has been sited in many reports in the US relating to the AG affair in Iraqu.
It may be considered too editorial for you article, but you obviously have an interest, and it is a fascinating, if somewhat dissturbing area.
Cheers
ADAM
I have never been involved in editing, so forgive stupid questions, but I notice there is little information on the actual mission here. I was serving in CAR during this time and this is but one incident tarnishing a noble mission and it would be nice to have some mention of what we did while we were there other than these few psycho's that caused this uproar. I don't know how the rules apply to someone directly involved doing any of the editing, so am not going to touch it until I get clarification on that. Steveaustin1971 ( talk) 07:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Steveaustin1971
But this is an article about the torture and killings, not about the mission in general. And it wasn't just one incident! Manormadman ( talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Manormadman
I see the Diplomacy footnote lists "the murder of Arone, the 17 February incident on the Bailey bridge and the deaths of two other somalis on 4 and 17 March sparked fierce controversy" as all part of the 'affair'; we are clearly missing some information in the article right now. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, if this article is only about the scandle it covers a lot of info about the whole mission in general! I was there! I know. I don't know how to edit this article nore do I have the time right now. But many key points have been avoided over the almost 20 years since this mission: First and formost The mission was a 100% success in the canadian AOR(Area of Operations) and one to the north which no one covered at all but us. The Canadian AOR was the only one in Somalia than was rehabilitated, secured and officially droped a security level. No other countries AOR's did!! The Americans used the Canadian's method of operations in our AOR as a model for their op's in Bosnia. Second, (not that what happend was in any way proper) But the Canadian's were Boy Scout's in Somailia compaired to many other big countries (as some what stated in the article) but far far from the extent or brutality I saw or herd about and no other country will admit to that. espesially after confusingly watching Canada crusify itself over the mater of activities in a counrty that to this day is still in Kaos, black listed and no one will ever help again. Third, There were many known criminals in the area as the district Jial and local Police station was there and were destroyed (I know I recced them for repair) As the only central point for aid was in town they didn't go far but lived in a Thieves den just out side town and traveled in daily passed the Canadian camps to do their illegal buisness in town, an of course on the look out for easy pick'ins in our camps on the way there. Every Somali that was captured or shot was taken to town for identification by local officials and as far as I know every one a known criminal. Dead ones were I'm sure just dumped in the Webi Shabeli or out in the desert by locals not us. During the riot in town there was a poor start that happened in the morning and was then retried in the afternoon. As per riot proceedures only the leaders of the riot were shot at and it then dispersed, it was found out from them that they were paid by the war lord's to try to create trouble in our AOR. They were treated very well in hospital, fed well and reliesed to probably cause more trouble later! Let me tell you as well I've been there and its a very very scarry thing to be in a small group as the canadian soldiers were and be surounded by hundereds of Somali's bent on stoneing (which people here don't understand is leathal force) and tearing you apart as was seen happen to the pilots in Blackhawk Down! Lastly the bridge to Mattaban was done by the 21 Airborne Field Squadren Engineers of 2 CER, and it was done about 2 months into the op. Local Somali's spent 3 weeks chopping the the wood on the ramps out of the bridge untill it was gone and had to be replace with steel plates which were welded in place.I recce'd it and the minefield around it. The also rebuild the police jail, the hospital, a school, removed truck loads of munitions for disposal from the town and cleared several mines from the surounding areas. Canadian Forces Sgt 2 CER Somalia 92/93 ( 70.48.56.139 ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)) Ref: Me One there VERY specific point!!! The Somalia mission mandate as a "piece keeping mission" was chainged on Dec 10 1992 before any troops left Canada. It was changed to a "PIECE MAKING" mission under the UN chaper that allows use of leathal force in enfocement of the UN mandate! We were told to cover our blue helmets up and remove any UN markings. In theater we were issued full battle load, 250 rounds of ammo, 2 grenades, rocket launchers RCD's had HESH (high explosive sqash head rounds) and mortors had high explosive rounds. Thats combat load as in Afganistan now. Lets get it straight !!!!! please and thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.56.139 ( talk) 16:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The reverting of this page has to stop, and we need to figure out a way to move forward that addresses everyone's concerns. The images are currently up for deletion on Commons. The image issue will be resolved one way or the other in a few days. There is thus no need to remove them now.
As to the content. This article is quite well referenced. If any user has problem with some of the referenced content they must make one of three arguments:
So far no such arguments have been presented. Personal attacks on users who posted the content are in no way an acceptable method of justifying reversions, and are more likely to get those making personal attacks into trouble.
SimonP ( talk) 14:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
""No, I have no problem with any of the sources. I'm just giving examples of what sort of arguments need to be presented before removing referenced content. - SimonP ( talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a single reference to a Captain Hillier in the last paragraph of the Death Shidane Arone section. Can we get a first name attached to this? Because as it stands, it would be easy to infer that this is Rick Hillier. The book referenced for this information has a reference to a "Captain Hillier" but all other references seem to be for a sergeant identified as J.K. Hillier.
I'm changing it to Sgt J.K. Hiller. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P ( talk) 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a belief that the word "nigger" shouldn't be used in exact quotes in the article as it's offensive to even report that it was used. I feel this goes against what we strive to achieve, which is neutrality. In the video, McKay stated that "we ain't killed enough niggers yet" isn't really adequately or neutrally summarised by an editor changing it to "McKay used racist language" - after all, if a man is heard saying "I've been working like a [n] in a woodpile" and if he's heard saying "I want to kill some [n]s", those both send different meanings and levels of offensiveness - and WP policy is not to "generalise" but to report the exact nature of a situation. The exact nature is, those words were used, thus when we describe what the soldiers yelled at the black soldier as they smeared faeces on him...we shouldn't just say "racist things". Jokes about his large black penis would be "racist", suggesting he didn't know who his father was would be "racist", but they were specifically saying they didn't believe "niggers" belonged in the Airborne...that detail is important to readers and to history, in judging this event.
The word can be used "in context" such as describing an exact quote made that received controversy and scrutiny. And that is what we have here, no different from say, Michael_Richards#Controversy or To Kill a Mockingbird talking about how Atticus Finch is labeled a "nigger lover" for taking on the court case. This isn't because Wikipedia editors are racists who enjoy using the word, it's because they're documenting the exact nature of a situation in which the term was used. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with neutrality its simply not encyclopedic, see WP:Profanity there is a perfect example given in the Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner section of the article. Secondly your argument of just because such language is used in other wiki-articles therefore why not here is not a good case, its the duty of those editing those articles in question to wikify it in the most encyclopedic manner, we however are discussing this particular article and the unnecessary use of profanity/racist language for whom much better alternatives can be found. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 22:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.
The strong language used in the example of WP:PROFANITY such as 'piece of shit' and 'bitch' are offensive aswell because they too are ment to be offensive to the person or entity its projected at. This however doesn't mean it's encyclopedic, the version of the article reverted to several times by both me and Middayexpress follows the example given in WP:Profanity and the unencylopedic racial content is shown in the references where it belongs. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"trying to preserve at all costs the gratuitous use of the word nigger in this article" (Middayexpress) <- I'm quoting you to point out how the word can be used in text without it being a scarlet letter telling the world the author of it is a racist. It's perfectly reasonable for someone writing an article detailing the actions of a racist to include his racist words, and to claim this reflects the author's own prejudice is foolish. If we whitewash and antibacterialize history by removing parts of it, we are doing ourselves and the future a disservice. I would challenge you to prove how Sherurcij's careful attention to detail in quotes in any way reflects white supremicism in his own beliefs or actions. You can't, because there is no correlation. 72.70.177.119 ( talk) 14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I just read WP:Profanity. No one participating in this discussion is a "racist". No one participating here should have faced the accusation that they were a "racist".
Note, it says: "Discussions about whether to include an offensive image or profanity are often heated. As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties practice civility and assume good faith. Words like 'pornography' or 'censorship' tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided. Objective terminology is more helpful than subjective terminology."
Note, it also says, right in the thumbnail: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."
What we should be discussing is whether this particular quote is an instance where common sense suggests the quote should be used literally. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.
Before: According to the New York Times,[1] Jane was heard shrieking that John was a "piece of shit" and a "bitch" when the police were called.
|
After: According to the New York Times,[1] Jane was heard shrieking insults at John[2] when the police were called.
|
Before #1: In the video, McKay stated that "we ain't killed enough niggers yet", and pre-deployment photographs showed him wearing a Hitler shirt in front of a Swastika.[1]
|
After #1: In the video, McKay can be heard uttering racial slurs,[2] and pre-deployment photographs showed him wearing a Hitler shirt in front of a Swastika.[1]
|
Before #2: The black soldier Christopher Robin was shown on all fours with a leash, led around like a dog, with the phrase "I Love KKK" written on his back, while surrounding soldiers screamed about White Power and jeered, one stating loudly "We're not racist - we just don't want niggers in the Airborne".[1]
|
After #2: The black soldier Christopher Robin was shown on all fours with a leash, led around like a dog, with the phrase "I Love KKK" written on his back, while surrounding soldiers screamed about White Power and jeered, one demonstrating his objection to Black soldiers in the Airborne through racist language.[1][2]
|
Before #3: Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers".[1]
|
After #3: Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation with racial slurs.[1][2]
|
Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia; indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth.
I don't see how the current examples of strong language (that caused the 'edit war') warrants Ignore all rules. The most recent version of the article that is now locked (not an indication of support by the Admin that locked it, nor opposition) does come the closest to serving both sides of the dispute, as better alternatives have been found for the strong language yet the actual quotes are retained in the footnotes, and therefore the article suffers no loss of information. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 01:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
During the brief blocking for breaching WP:3RR of one of the other major parties involved in the present dispute, one User:Sherurcij, I have had the opportunity to have a close look at the article, and I have not at all been impressed with what I've seen. Besides what I've already discussed above, here are some of the other problems I've noticed, specifically regarding the Legal proceedings section of the article, which was one of the main areas the dispute was centered on:
Sherurcij has continuously claimed that he is simply trying to produce a good article and not trying to "whitewash history" (a charge he ironically likes to level at others whenever the going gets tough). Well if that were the case, then he should not have been continuously indicating patently false and less severe or incomplete legal sentences for the accused/convicted parties. He also should not object to others replacing his false and/or incomplete claims -- which, again, were referenced if at all to a deadlink -- with detailed and accurate legal sentences referenced to working, actually verifiable sources. The irony is that the latter is the exact opposite of what he has continuously been doing in our dispute with him i.e. he has just been re-inserting (to the point of brazenly violating WP:3RR) all of these plain falsehoods & obfuscations, and then labeling as "vandals" users who object to this disruptive behavior. That is simply unacceptable. Middayexpress ( talk) 04:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
As can also be seen above, Sherurcij has posted an image of what he has insinuated is a side-by-side comparison of my version of the table with his. In reality, what that image is is an unverifiable misrepresentation of the situation at hand. You see, one of the main problems with Sherurcij's table is that the charges it indicates are largely false and/or incomplete (as I've already explained in considerable detail above). And the only way to verify that this is indeed the case is to actually visit those footnoted articles. But that can't happen if one doesn't even know what those numbers in brackets in that image he has posted above represent to begin with! Here is how one actually lets the tables "do the talking"... by actually posting the tables themselves & their accompanying footnotes:
Name | Charge | Result |
---|---|---|
MCpl. Clayton Matchee | *
2nd Degree Murder
[1] *Torture [1] |
Unfit to stand trial following suicide attempt. [1] Matchee tried to hang himself after being arrested and suffered serious brain damage. [2] |
Pte. Kyle Brown | *2nd Degree Murder
[1] *Torture [1] |
Convicted to 5 years imprisonment. [1] Dismissed from the army in disgrace. [1] Appeals were also dismissed. [1] Released on parole one year after conviction. [1] |
Sgt. Mark Boland | *Negligent Performance of Duties
[1] *Torture [1] |
Pleaded guilty to negligent performance of duty for his role in the death of Shidane Arone, and not guilty to torture. [1] Convicted to 90 days' detention. [1] Deemed to be "willfully blind" to the beating, Boland was also demoted to private. [2] Conviction increased to 1 year of imprisonment after prosecution appealed sentence. [1] |
Major Anthony Seward | *Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm
[1] *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] |
Acquitted of unlawfully causing bodily harm. [1] Found guilty of negligent performance of duty for giving instructions to abuse detainees, and sentenced to a severe reprimand. [1] Prosecution appealed for a tougher sentence. [1] Court Martial Appeal Court subsequently imposed a term of 3 months' imprisonment. [1] Defense's appeal was declined. [1] Seward was also dismissed from the Canadian Forces. [1] |
Capt. Michael Sox | *Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm
[1] *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] *Act to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline [1] |
Acquitted of unlawfully causing bodily harm. [1] Convicted of negligent performance of duty. [1] A stay of proceedings was entered on the charge of an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline. [1] Sox was also demoted to lieutenant, and received a severe reprimand. [1] Appeals by both sides were dismissed. [1] |
Lt. Col. Carol Mathieu | *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] | Acquitted. [1] The prosecution appealed the verdict, and the Appeal Court agreed to a new trial. [1] Mathieu was also acquitted in the second trial. [1] |
Capt. Michel Rainville | *Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm
[1] *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] |
Acquitted. [1] |
Sgt. Perry Gresty | *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] | Acquitted. [1] |
Pte. David Brocklebank | *Torture
[1] *Negligent Performance of Duties [1] |
Acquitted on both charges. [1] Prosecution's appeal was dismissed. [1] |
Name | Charge | Result |
---|---|---|
MCpl. Clayton Matchee | 2nd Degree Murder Torture |
Suicide attempt
[2] Unfit to stand trial [1] |
Pte. Kyle Brown | Manslaughter Torture |
5 years imprisonment Released on parole after 1 year [1] |
Sgt. Mark Boland | Negligent Performance of Duties | 1 year imprisonment
[3]
[1] Demoted to Private [2] |
Major Anthony Seward | Negligent Performance of Duties | 3 months imprisonment [4] |
Capt. Sox | Negligent Performance of Duties | Reduction in rank, reprimand [3] |
Lt. Col. Mathieu | Negligent Performance of Duties | Acquitted [3] |
Capt. Rainville | Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm Negligent Performance of Duties |
Acquitted [3] |
Sgt. Perry Gresty | Negligent Performance of Duties | Acquitted [1] |
Pte. Brocklebank | Torture Negligent Performance of Duties |
Acquitted [5] |
References:
To readers: please compare both versions at your convenience & visit the accompanying links. See for yourself that everything I've written above about Sherurcij's misrepresentation of the charges laid on the soliders & their verdicts are indeed true.
Middayexpress (
talk)
17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi all -- new to wikipedia as a member. I'm not quite sure that the file name for the image captioned "Video of a Canadian Airborne soldier boasting of breaking the limbs of Somalis" is appropriate. Non-confirmed and non-auto-confirmed users will only see the file name. From the context I don't see any good reason to keep this file name. It's not descriptive. File: Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers.ogv El Brodeur ( talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a section not to continue the bickering, but to allow previously uninvolved editors to voice their ideas for moving forward. I have left a note at the Canadian Military History wikiproject as it seems the most likely venue of useful and authoritative ideas. Feel free to "canvas" this dispute on 3O or RfC as well. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
The dispute is not about a historical fact regarding Canadian military history( which in that case would make the opinions of Canadian experts from that project extremely valuable) but one of terminology, therefore several opinions from individuals far removed from the situation or entities involved(including the Somali wiki projects) would be wiser in this case and would prevent the prolongation of this dispute through potential accusation of bias supporting or oppossing the editors involved in the original edit war.-- Scoobycentric ( talk) 03:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Before: Director Abel Ferrara was angered by the incident, which he felt "ruined the movie":
[1]Tobias, Scott (November 27, 2002). Interview:Abel Ferrara. The Onion |
After: Director Abel Ferrara was angered by the incident, which he felt "ruined the movie". Referring to Page in venomous.[1] tones, he commented that:
[1]"Cocksucker" and "prick" were two of these. |
"Sherurcij has posted an image of what he has insinuated is a side-by-side comparison of my version of the table with his. In reality, what that image is is an unverifiable misrepresentation of the situation at hand. You see, one of the main problems with Sherurcij's table is that the charges it indicates are largely false and/or incomplete (as I've already explained in considerable detail above). And the only way to verify that this is indeed the case is to actually visit those footnoted articles. But that can't happen if one doesn't even know what those numbers in brackets in that image he has posted above represent to begin with!".
Given WP:UNCENSORED, I don't see any reason to omit offensive words, particularly in a direct quote (other than outright vandalism, obviously, which is not the issue). At the same time, we might consider the level of detail that a direct quote brings to this article. It seems more suited for Wikinews, or a primary or secondary source, but not necessarily for a tertiary source like Wikipedia (particularly if we link to the source of the quote). Including the direct quote certainly makes a very strong point about the soldiers' motives and character, but at the same time, we're not here to make a point. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I just have a few things to say, if I may. I don't know how much my opinion matters, but as far as the tables go, I'd recommend the smaller one, because the larger one stretches my screen a little bit and throws it out of proportion. I apologize if I'm behind in technology. Additionally, the smaller one also seems a lot neater in a way, you know? I also noticed the use of the word "nigger" and how some believe that it could be mistaken as an offensive term. From my own personal experience, when you are quoting somebody and use offensive terms, it is most certainly not a bad thing at all, it's all about relaying accurate information. If that was such a bad thing, we had better go erase every WW2 article that mentions the holocaust because that is very offensive to many people. I say keep the small table and that the use of the word nigger, if being quoted, is perfectly okay. Spectremancer ( talk) 19:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've protected the article, but will lift it as soon as consensus is achieved. Recently there was a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard about this article, and ANI as well. One idea to get more participants is to leave messages for everyone whose name already appears on this talk page. Compromise may be possible, even if no outside opinions can be found. Mediation may be considered if all else fails. Since this article has caused so much trouble, I suggest that admins leave the protection in place until they are sure a stable solution has been found. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's not a 'compromise' nor a 'starting point' at all it's the same version that got the article locked in the first place. Secondly i still haven't seen a convincing case that dismisses the WP:PROFANITY article under which these slurs clearly fall under, other than references to WP:Censored, evendo the slurs are retained in the article. -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 09:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The affair led to the creation of Military Police Complaints Commission. [1] Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
References
Good God, children read this. The first photo is breathtakingly graphic, it is huge and unavoidable. Possibly of greater import, I don't believe a picture of a man engaging in the act of beating another man to death adds anything to the article which cannot be conveyed in words. I strongly believe the photo in the introduction should be removed. - Schrandit ( talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law. There are some works, such as important photographs, significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself. In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject. This policy allows such material to be used if it meet U.S. legal tests for fair use, but we impose additional limitations."
"Just because something is "fair use" on a Wikipedia article in the US does not mean it is fair use in another context. A downstream user's commercial use of content in a commercial setting may be illegal even if our noncommercial use is legal. Use in another country with different fair use and fair dealing laws may be illegal as well. That would fail our mission. We therefore limit the media content we offer, to make sure what we do offer has the widest possible legal distribution."
"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"
"A picture is worth 1000 words." You can describe torture, but the full horror and brutality can only be conveyed by photographs. Can anyone forget the images of naked, emaciated bodies being dumped into mass graves by the Nazis? Can you envision it by reading the words "naked, emaciated bodies?" Of course not. 114.161.229.100 ( talk) 04:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I quote "A picture is worth 1000 words.", that's a very neat 'saying' but a non sequitur in our case. If i may use Middayexpress excellent analogy with regards to horrendous crimes such as rape and child molestation 50000 words(general size of a book) could never capture the horror and brutality that a single picture displaying those crimes could. It still doesn't change the fact that we don't use those type of images on wikipedia. This is not a 'schock and awe' medium, this is a free-online-editable-encyclopedia, not a Snuff Film-- Scoobycentric ( talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law. There are some works, such as important photographs, significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself. In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject. This policy allows such material to be used if it meet U.S. legal tests for fair use, but we impose additional limitations."
"Just because something is "fair use" on a Wikipedia article in the US does not mean it is fair use in another context. A downstream user's commercial use of content in a commercial setting may be illegal even if our noncommercial use is legal. Use in another country with different fair use and fair dealing laws may be illegal as well. That would fail our mission. We therefore limit the media content we offer, to make sure what we do offer has the widest possible legal distribution."
"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"
There is an important difference between this crime and other crimes involving extreme brutality, and that is that it was committed by uniformed, on-duty service personnel of the Canadian government on a U.N. peacekeeping mission. While common criminals can be stopped by arrest and imprisonment, governments, in the absence of war crimes proceedings (which are generally only convened against defeated regimes), can only be deterred from allowing this kind of behavior by exposing it, IMHO. 114.161.229.100 ( talk) 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The photograph of Arone being tortured is included in the book "100 Photos That Changed Canada" by Mark Reid. [1] I think that makes this a more important article. 114.161.229.100 ( talk) 13:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a to do list, since users can't edit until after protection is lifted.
Second paragraph: verb tense should be "marred"'
Third paragraph: Propose rewording to "It has been compared to 'a Canadian version of...the Pentagon Papers', and to My Lai" (currently, "or" suggests to readers w/o knowledge of Vietnam War that My Lai is just another way of referring to the Pentagon Papers; in fact, it's a separate historical event) NinetyNineFennelSeeds ( talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to suggest the deletion of the photo depicting Clayton Matchee beating Shidane Arone. I know that a discussion has already taken place on this and my reasons are as follows:
1. The photo is unnecessary as the text in the article is itself graphic and describes the crime in considerable detail;
2. The photo could add to the distress of the Arone family as it clearly identifies him (I would find it hurtful if the killing of a member of my family was publicly shown in this way, and we cannot second guess what they think);
3. Through my faith as a Christian, I think people (publishers included) should treat others as they would want to be treated themselves (the photo is humiliating and degrading to Shidane Arone as a human being);
4. Wikipedia can easily by viewed by children, for whom this photo is inappropriate.
I know that, judged on copyright and free speech grounds, there is no legal restriction on displaying the photo. However, I think that there are more important moral factors (explained above) about how people should be treated when they are distressed, as he was at this moment, and how we respect people and their relatives when they have died violently. Looking forward to your suggestions and thanks for your time. Gecko177 ( talk) 10:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This last section reads a little like an extract from an essay (consider, "Canada never had a reputation for starting wars but instead was seen to come to the aid of war torn countries" and, "The Somalia Affair came as such as surprise to the Canadian public as no one would have thought Canada’s golden reputation for international peacekeeping could be tarnished", both largely subjective blanket statements sans any source).
All of this is notwithstanding the fact that the whole text seems irrelevant to the rest of the article, perhaps with the exception of the explanations for the origin of the phrase "Somalia syndrome" and the demoralisation of combat soldiers on peacekeeping missions both of which could be drastically abridged. I wouldn't want to modify these details without consulting with other editors first, so - thoughts? ConorWilson ( talk) 17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)ConorWilson
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Somalia Affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dcaf.ch/pcaf/ev_brussels_020712_winslow.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)