Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike/Archive 7

New Documentary: Incident in New Baghdad
A new documentary just premiered on Easter Sunday: "Incident in New Baghdad". Hopefully some decent investigative reporting was done as research for the doco, to clear up some of the dodgy news reporting. If it's a poor doco, at least some of the interviews might be useful. In this preview Ethan McCord says "nothing really happened happened for the majority of the day ... we were bored" which contradicts Cohens reporting in the "Context" part of this article that they had been under fire all day. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the action he witnessed that day Mr. McCord has previously stated: " It was now about 0400 hours when we heard the sirens for incoming. BOOM first one not very far from where we were gathered. BOOM this one a little closer. We were used to this by now, and although afraid inside, we knew that if we ran for cover we'd look like cowards in the eyes of some of our NCOs. So the majority of us just stood there, praying that a mortar wouldn’t land on us. [...]Finally the mortars stopped."
 * And
 * "We started funneling into an alleyway to leave the area, when some locals on the roofs above us started firing their AK-47s at us. We took cover along a wall and were returning fire. We could hear other fire coming from another platoon just a few blocks from us as well, on the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire." That would signify that he did see action that day.


 * By the way, the after action report states that there were at least 2 RPG launchers and several RPG rounds. ("An additional RPG launcher with a loaded round still in it") P.13, in the PDF, Paragraph 6.
 * That was backed by a secondary source and I'de like to restore it. V7-sport (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a secondary source that says 2 RPG launchers? Gregcaletta (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree than McCord is almost contradicting his previous statements when he says "nothing really happened happened for the majority of the day ... we were bored", almost but not quite. In any case both statements can be included in the article.  Gregcaletta (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * His statement contradicts all other reports on the matter and himself though. V7-sport (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should still be included. In fact that is all the more reason it should be included.  Gregcaletta (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That he is contradicting himself is all the more reason to include him contradicting himself? V7-sport (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is contradicting the official line is more reason to include his statements. Also, we should included his statement that "there was no RPG rounds in the RPG [launcher]) ... I don't think they were armed to fight us; they were just showing off for the cameramen that were there".(http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/incident-in-new-baghdad-premieres-at-tribeca-film-festival/)  Gregcaletta (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But that goes in the "Commentary" section whereas the comment that "nothing really happened happened for the majority of the day ... we were bored" goes in the "Context" section. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He is contradicting himself, and the other reporting on the days events, including an embedded reporter.
 * McCord has previously stated: " It was now about 0400 hours when we heard the sirens for incoming. BOOM first one not very far from where we were gathered. BOOM this one a little closer. We were used to this by now, and although afraid inside, we knew that if we ran for cover we'd look like cowards in the eyes of some of our NCOs. So the majority of us just stood there, praying that a mortar wouldn’t land on us. [...]Finally the mortars stopped."
 * And
 * "We started funneling into an alleyway to leave the area, when some locals on the roofs above us started firing their AK-47s at us. We took cover along a wall and were returning fire. We could hear other fire coming from another platoon just a few blocks from us as well, on the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire." That would signify that he did see action that day.  V7-sport (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No that's not contradicting himself because he said no action for the "majority" of the day. He is contradicting the reporter who said there was action "all day", and that is all the more reason to include the comment.  WP:NPOV says all significant viewpoints must be represented.  This is no "fringe theory" but reporting form someone who was there.  Gregcaletta (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if he were contradicting himself, that would not be reason not to include his most recent comments. Perhaps he is less concerned than he used to be about contradicting the official line.  Gregcaletta (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Official line"... You mean the one that doesn't contradict itself? He is already in the article by the way, obviously. V7-sport (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And here you give yet another example of why the POV tag needs to remain. McCord's statements are at least as reliable if not more valuable than Cohen's, if not more so, but you exclude McCord's because they oppose your POV.  Gregcaletta (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Had I excluded Mccords statements they wouldn't be in the article... V7-sport (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Info box
None of those sources state "confirmed", Subh83 was correct, as it reads now it's a hash. And yes the previous sources mention the longer tape and had the footage of the building. V7-sport (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we are allowed and even encouraged to replace news style language with encyclopaedic style language. When a news source say 12 people killed they mean 12 confirmed.  Gregcaletta (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Confirmed" means something different then what has been reported. As such it's original research. They didn't say confirmed therefore you don't know it was confirmed. V7-sport (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And you have created another cite-error. V7-sport (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BOT fixed it. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources say confirmed, writing that is original research and that the citations for the 12 dead were already there. V7-sport (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited for "12 people killed" mentioned the building. It is original research to assume they are including the attack on the building when they have not mentioned it.  It is not original research to replace merely replace "killed" with "fatalities confirmed".  You've made it pretty clear that you haven't fully understood the WP:OR policy.  Gregcaletta (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the ones from the Times mention the long version of the tape that includes the building.Yes it is original research to state that they were confirmed because no one stated that they were confirmed. From OR; V7-sport (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)"This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." Right? The sources don't say "confirmed", they say killed or dead. V7-sport (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the reports were "confirmed", how could they vary? It just doesn't make sense. V7-sport (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have WP:OR confused. The part you just quoted is explaining that you don't need to cite sources for something that has never been challenged, as long as it is clear that a source exists.  A strange part for you to quote because it is not particularly relevant to our discussion.  It certainly doesn't not say in that section or anywhere else in the policy that we cannot change the style of the language.  "12 killed" and "12 fatalities confirmed" means the same thing in this context; the second is just clearer and more encyclopaedic language.  Gregcaletta (talk)
 * But it also seems you don't understand the meaning of "confirmed fatalities". When there is an military conflict or a natural disaster there are confirmed deaths (where bodies have been found) and unconfirmed deaths (where person is missing and no body is found).  So the "confirmed fatalities" is the minimum number of fatalities.  Gregcaletta (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But all of this is a bit beside the point because the number 12 should be removed from the infobox altogether as well as the word confirmed. The article mentions the long version of the video elsewhere in the article.  It says 12 people killed in an attack "on a street" so it does not include the building attack.  Gregcaletta (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"The part you just quoted is explaining that you don't need to cite sources for something that has never been challenged"... I have been challenging whether or not they are "confirmed". From Websters. Confirm: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact  If these were "confirmed" there would be no ambiguity as to how many dead there were. It would be 1 number that we all agreed on. If the article mentions the long version of the tape, they are aware of the building. If they list a total is with the knowledge of the building attack. V7-sport (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was patiently debating this with you but now you have started reverting my copyediting again and there is no excuse for this behaviour. Here I was think your behaviour had improved to some level of decency.  Gregcaletta (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert anything. I manually changed it to a new edit. "your behaviour", "your behaviour".... You are writing to a middle aged man, not a kindergartner. Can you cut out the finger wagging about "behaviour" please?V7-sport (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well change your behaviour then; it's disgraceful. It was a copy-paste which is as bad as a revert.  I can tell it was a copy-paste because it includes the mistakes in punctuation, source formatting etc. that were present in the original.  Gregcaletta (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop editing in bad faith. There wasn't a reversion, that was untrue. It wasn't a copy and paste, that too is untrue. There were no mistakes in punctuation, it was what 2 other editors have suggested to you. (Not that you have shown yourself to be an expert on punctuation.) What is a "disgrace" is the tag-teaming that you and Iqinn are engaging in. V7-sport (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a "tag team" should be avoided as it is uncivil. IQinn (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Einstein... If you want to avoid accusations of being in a tag team you might want to wait 30 or so seconds before your buddy wrongly accuses me of making a single reversion to post the template... and you might want to avoid chiming in here all together. V7-sport (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything to IQuinn. He must have seen your edits and objected for the same reasons I did.  There's nothing that bad about punctuation mistakes -- they can be fixed -- but these punctuation changes show that they are the result of copying and pasting text from an older version and then making a few slight changes to your own reversion.  You make yourself you rather silly by denying this is what you did.  Gregcaletta (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * AGAIN, I DIDN'T COPY AND PASTE A PERVIOUS EDIT, I CONSULTED THE LANGUAGE ON THE TALK PAGE ABOVE. You have made yourself "silly" by claiming thatI had reverted.... back peddling without having the class to apologize and now claiming that I had copied and pasted a previous edit when it is provably different. The fact that Iqinn hopped on your mistake like a vulture on a gut wagon pretty much tells the tail about how much good faith you have employed here. V7-sport (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's the same thing because the language above comes from an old version of the article; that's just an underhand way of reverting. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @V7-sport Calling other editor "tag team", liar and continues shouting is uncivil. I am not reminding you again to stop uncivil behavior. IQinn (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the same thing, what I posted was demonstrably different. And no, it's not an underhand way of reverting, had I wanted to revert there would be nothing to stop me from doing exactly that. V7-sport (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Boy Iqinn, you can dish it out but you can't take it. By all means, don't remind me again, about anything, I'm not interested. V7-sport (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Boy Iqinn" yeah it looks like that any good faith attempt from all sites of the community has failed so far to make behave in a civil way. IQinn (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind on the "underhand" part. It appears you didn't intentionally revert, but unintentionally reverted.  Just try to be more careful with copying and pasting.  Gregcaletta (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, there was no reversion, unintentional or otherwise. Had I wanted to revert, I would have reverted. What was posted was new language that tried to include the contributions of other editors. (- Subh83) As it stands now you have it as "Press reports of number killed fatalities vary from... " Which is hilarious considering that you were just ragging on me about punctuation. I'm going to remove "fatalities" because it is redundant. No need to have Iqinn toss me another 3rr template... Just cleaning up a mess. V7-sport (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it myself. I wasn't ragging you about punctuation.  In fact I said "There's nothing that bad about punctuation mistakes -- they can be fixed -- but these punctuation changes show that they are the result of copying and pasting text from an older version and then making a few slight changes to your own reversion".  It's still clear from comparing these three versions that your edit was a reversion to older material: 2011-04-25T13:43:13; 2011-04-25T16:29:41; 2011-04-25T15:31:43.  Gregcaletta (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There were no punctuation mistakes, that was just you needing to assert yourself as you have done continually here. The revisions you posted are different, that they are similar is due to the fact that there is only so many ways you can post similar information. Again, had I wanted to revert, I simply would have. Now repeat the same thing over again, you are starting to sound like Iqinn. V7-sport (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you have the same problem with different editors - ever thought there might be a problem on your side.? IQinn (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, formatting mistakes then. I changed "result" to "casualties and losses" and you changed it back to "result", which is a formatting error that resulted from your copying and pasting of an old talk page suggestion which was very similar to the old version of the article.  In the future, please change the things you specifically disagree with rather simply replacing the whole section with material based on a copy-paste from an old talk page discussion.  Gregcaletta (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No formatting mistakes either. There are no other Wikipedia articles on military engagements with "casualties and losses" in it's own highlighted area in the info box. That's why I changed it. It's something that I don't think belongs there. I would prefer "results" but can live with "Casualties" if you remove the highlighting. Bottom line, it wasn't a "formatting error", it's something I object to and it should be changed. V7-sport (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re Iqinn, good thing you get along so well with the other editors here. Your hypocrisy is amazing. V7-sport (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Greg how does he get along with other editors? I think quite well while you have countless conflicts just resently with a lot of other editors. Anyway just leave it like that. IQinn (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC) You also continue to call other editors liars. That is uncivil. IQinn (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here another lying and another liar...there seems to be no way to have a civil conversation with you. IQinn (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can dish it out Iqinn, but when it comes to taking a little back you act like the aggrieved party and run for help. No one is buying it. Awesome how you deny that that you are tag teaming but you bring up what's on his talk page. V7-sport (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Check model example: "Result: Swedish victory" and Casualties and losses is highlighted. This is just part of the correct template formatting and it's the same at all the featured military conflict articles.  And in any case your change of this was a reversion of my own change, so it needs to be made as a separate edit with a proper edit summary, and your attempt at justification needs to be given there.  Gregcaletta (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have had admins explain to you that changes don't have to be done one at a time, and I've explained the rationale behind the edit repeatedly. V7-sport (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes don't have to be done one at a time, but reversions need proper justifications in their edit summaries. I changed "results" to "casualties" which is a basic formatting (and vocabulary) issue.  You changed it back to "results" so this part at least is a reversion and needed a proper justification in the edit summary.  Gregcaletta (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was explanation provided here. You are repeating yourself and I'm not going to do the same at this point.V7-sport (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Gregcaletta and User:V7-sport. Thank you for all the discussion. Although I partially lost track of it while reading through, I guess my 2-cents are as follows: Also, User:V7-sport, let's stick to No_personal_attacks and Civility through constructive discussions. That way we will be able to contribute more. - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) When there are different conflicting reports from multiple reliable sources, we cannot use the word "confirmed". The best thing to do is remain transparent about the disagreement among sources by proving citations for the different reports. I checked the references, and they do have different numbers ranging from 12 to 18.
 * 2) I am in favour of keeping the infobox sub-title "Casualties and losses" instead of the previous "results", as the former is more relevant and makes more sense. The purpose of it is not to mention who came victorious in the conflict, but rather the number of people killed (since it is more aptly an assault rather than a conflict). So the "result" block of Template:Infobox_military_conflict does not apply here.
 * My introduction to this user was:

...And that was pretty much the high point of our communication. Civility is a 2 way street. The tag teaming, talk page filibustering and drive by tagging, along with the perpetual sanctimony and petulance have pretty much done in the assumption of good faith. V7-sport (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The kind of edits you have been making including series of agenda driven edits in one go borders on vandalism and if it continues I will request to have you blocked from the article.”
 * “you appear to be blinded by an agenda.”
 * “it is you own personal bias that leads you to choose that particular part of the interview to include in the article.”
 * “I'm too busy and too tired to keep reverting your changes and attempt to point out to you what to me is blindingly obvious when you have shown that you will not be reasoned with. Go ahead and ruin the article.”
 * “I am very tired of repeating myself to you, but I will reiterate anyway. The points you wrote were mainly a distraction from rather than a response to what I wrote”
 * “have a look at the way V7-sport's "discussion" is just an attempt to distract from our complaints, and the complaints of others, rather than respond.”
 * “It's so tiring to have to repeat myself like this Are you actually reading my points?"
 * “I don't know how to respond to this last point of yours. It is embarrassingly incoherent.”

ok, no one in specific is at fault. No_personal_attacks and Civility is for all, and all editors should respect them. Let's set aside personal disagreements from the past (please no more of that below this line), and instead let's look at specific disagreements regarding the contents of the article so that we can bring it to good quality through constructive discussion and Consensus.

User:V7-sport, would you please give a comprehensive bulleted list of your current disagreement with respect to specific contents in the article with brief reason for each?

And to all the editors: Please wait for Consensus in this discussion before editing/reverting any of the questioned contents. - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding legality of the attack
I see that there is already a section about this, and some peoples' oppinions. However, wouldn't it be better to add some material that has the laws of war as a reference, in order to better explain how a case can be made against/in favor of the attack? 83.248.146.209 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While interesting, doing so would be quite hard if not impossible given Wikipedia policy’s against original research. If there exist news articles or books that takes up the subject then we have something to go on, but I do not know any that talks about this in that type of detail. Belorn (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning you (I'm quite sure you're right, but I'd just like to understand how it wouldn't be allowed), but would it be original research if, let's say someone looked up the legality of attacking a mixed group of armed and unarmed persons not wearing uniforms, or attacking a civilian vehicle evacuating members of the mentioned group and simply wrote something along the lines of "According to paragraph random of the bla bla bla, doing that and that is illegal/legal"? 83.248.146.209 (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what we already have in the "Legality of the attacks" section with Raffi Khatchadourian, Mark Taylor, Luke Baker, and then the U.S. military review? The people who claim to care about human rights made their claims, and U.S. military lawyers looked into it finding nothing chargeable.
 * You could certainly add more. Some more notable names would be nice.


 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem I see is that if we select and pick law texts to show, it will be close to impossible to do so without an agenda of the editor shining through in the selection. That said, if book authors or researcher on the event reference specific law then we surely can show that and the issue becomes a much simpler one. Belorn (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of adding something that provides the reader with knowledge as to what is deemed legal/illegal by the laws of war, and how it would be applied in this situation. Right now there are essentially just brief summaries of what some people have said regarding the incident, like "It is illegal.", instead of "It is illegal because..." Additionally, some people might say that those who claim that it was illegal have a anti-American agenda, and that the Army which isn't proscectuing is covering up, so personally I think it might make the article more solid so to say. Used to be 83.248.146.209 Pavuvu (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be nice. The "how it would be applied to this situation" is the sticking point.  I just don't see any good references for that.
 * The press deserves much of the blame for it. They could have asked for specifics from the military spokesmen and from those who sympathize with the other side.  Maybe some of them did but I haven't seen it yet.
 * That said, there probably isn't a clear line in a treaty that a reporter could point to and ask about. These treaties were written by governments with the advice of their generals.  They weren't going to allow a situation where children could legally be used as human shields, which is basically what the critics are asking for now.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

RPG and AK-47s citations
This article seems to feature less care in citation than when it was originally created. As it stands we have prominent statements each apparently followed by many citations. For example "one had an AK-47 and another an RPG-7" at the top purportedly backed by five citations ("[1][4][9][10][11]"). Reviewing those cited sources again:


 * [1] (web citation frame) NYTimes; does not mention RPG or AK-47 at all.
 * [4] . NYTimes; does not mention RPG or AK-47 at all.
 * [9] Fox; "WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG."
 * [10] The Week; does not mention RPG or AK-47 at all.
 * [11] Department of the Army Investigation, rebulished by Wired.  "Exhibit B – 0620:07 Z Still from Apache Gun Camera Film showing insurgents with RPG and AKM." (p.3) "Photos: RPG-7 AK-47" (p.38).

AFAICT, that's a 40% hit rate, one of which is the Army's report of the incident themselves. If editors are making headline statements throughout such a controversial article, such as this, please do check that the citations actually back-up the preceding statement. —Sladen (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Added two more refs.
 * Of that 40%, the others aren't really disputing that there were weapons there. They just don't mention them.
 * I don't think it's controversial that some of the men were armed. One of the witnesses who acknowledges that there were weapons is a supporter of the Wikileaks narrative, and part of the so-called "anti-war" movement.  And you can see the weapons if you step through the video, and know where to look.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the edit adding two more citations. I've now removed (in this example) the three citation entries that do not mention the subject matter.  If a citation "just doesn't mention" an issue in question, then it's not a citation.  It would be useful (given the circumstances) if another could do a second check that the remaining citations do back up the statements in question.


 * BTW, I conducted this quick check/review in response to seeing the removal of an IP comment questioning the level of citation—this just happened to be the first sentence/citation block I bothered to check. I would perhaps note that the tone of the edit summary was what caused me to have a look.  Additionally the "sheesh" added to the edit summary of another recent edit is perhaps inappropriate aswell.  Please keep edit summaries (and editing in general) factual and to-the-point, and citations true and accurate.  Citations are not just there for fun, there are there to give credence and reliability.  —Sladen (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Those citations you removed were probably put there as references to something else, and then got shifted when the text was rewritten. I doubt it matters, though, as there are more than enough citations.
 * I took that anonymous comment as superficial. Had he been serious, I'd have moved his comment to a new section with a timestamped signature.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When did Fox News become a reliable source? As far as I can tell it is a propaganda channel owned by Rupert Murdoch. --129.125.102.126 (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fox news is not a reliable third party source in this case. Fox news has been cited by a verifiable sources to have a clear political stance against wikileaks. Thus, the link to fox news should be removed as RS sources (by WP:RS), and be regarded as any other primary source. The army report is a very clear case of Primary and when there is third-party sources, primaries is normally to be avoided. I moved it down to EL as it is still a informative document, and thus should belong in that list. Belorn (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue the point about primary or secondary sources now. I may or may not agree with you.
 * The point about Fox News not being RS has been whined about over and over again in the noticeboard. The day Wikipedia bends over and buys that line will be the final acknowledgement that Wikipedia is a leftist site.
 * I'm unclear what your point is about those links. The term "Fox News contributor" is generally applied to anybody Fox News contracts with.  They hire contributors on different issues.  Some are on the left and some are the right.  Since they often don't agree with each other, you can't say that they represent the position of Fox News.  Most legitimate U.S. news sources do this, and probably others as well.  Even RussiaToday has a pro-American contributor to debate with them, although I'm not sure that he's paid.
 * As for Wikileaks, as a site that supports the use of children as human shields (sorry, but it's undeniably true), everyone who supports the Geneva Conventions has to have a bias against them.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not about trying to declare that Fox news in general should be declared as an unreliable source. Generalizations are bad (in general). Reliability depend on context. This is not a novel idea, the policy state this strongly with an Large Clear exclamation mark icon in the lead. Fox news can be perfectly OK to use in other contexts, but in regards to Wikileaks it is verifiable shown to be a Partisan secondary source and are thus unsuitable in supporting facts. Thankfully, the article is in very good shape and do not depend on the Fox News article on all cases except for one small claim (see the diff ). The one small claim that was solely supported by Fox news (that the van was unmarked) should exist elsewhere in better sources. The citation needed is not there because the truthfulness of the statement is in doubt. It is simply an invitation to find a better source. Belorn (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"As for Wikileaks, as a site that supports the use of children as human shields". I have not heard about that. Where does this come form? Please provide us with a reference. Thx. Pianomore (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Very simply, if they publicly blame the side that wears uniforms and marks its own combatant vehicles, and not the side that allows this type of confusion to happen, then they are supporting the use of children as human shields.
 * Here's a link on the legality of the incident from a critic of the U.S. side of the war. This isn't a moderate view.  It's an extreme opposing view, but he acknowledges that the attack was legal.  But that's not the reason I'm citing it here.
 * He's technically correct on some of it, but he's missing the proper solution, which would be to ask that the insurgents fight in accordance with the laws of war. (Remember when critics of the war were all pretending to support the Geneva Conventions?)  That would have saved countless lives, and could have kept those two kids safe.
 * Has Wikileaks ever asked that insurgents keep children away from the fighting? Did they ask that combatant vehicles distinguish themselves from non-combatant vehicles?  Don't say they can't.  These insurgents were with Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had regular contact with the type of people who would later support Wikileaks.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * alternet.org is a US source. --129.125.102.126 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your explanation is complete garbage and i am surprised that you could not provide one reliable source verifies that Wikileaks would support the use of children as human shields. Please stop smearing organizations and the people involved there with unverified claims. Disgusting. Pianomore (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not that pertinent to the basic topic, but I stand by what I said. My link does agree that the helicopter crew followed the laws of war.  It is obviously the insurgents and their supporters that didn't care about those kids.
 * And I note that you didn't say Wikileaks' supporters think the insurgents should be asked to follow the laws of war. Nor did you try to say that Wikileaks has demanded that they do so.  Assange's position is quite clear.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that you still can not provide any reliable source that verifies your claim that Wikileaks support the use of children as human shields. Instead you repeat your smear and lies. I guess Fox news has a forum where you can leave your rants and smear. Wikipedia should not allow that. I repeat. Disgusting. Pianomore (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Discussing the lawfulness of the actions described in the article might be interesting, through maybe a bit futile. Is the above discussion suggesting changes to the article - maybe a claim about the legality of the attack? The waters looks muddy enough that I think we should refrain from adding a legal claim if it is not supported by a reliable source. Belorn (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The waters can be quite clear.
 * Now I see what you're getting at. You're saying that because Fox News -- like every American cable news channel -- employs opinion commentators who discussed Wikileaks from different POVs, you think that none of its regular non-opinion news reporters can be considered RS on the topic of Wikileaks.  Well, you're wrong.
 * Justin Fishel is a news reporter. The others you were linking to are a "contributor" and an analyst, whose jobs are to provide perspectives on the news.
 * Oddly, only one of them has an anti-Wikileaks POV. Judge Napolitano is saying here that Assange should be accorded all the privileges of a journalist, which is actually pretty funny when you consider that you're trying to degrade the value of a real reporter because he works for Fox News.
 * I'm reverting your change.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To user:129.125.102.126:
 * "alternet.org is a US source." (above)
 * AlterNet is an independent far-left organization that is based in the U.S. It's not affiliated with the U.S. government.
 * I'm reverting your changes. The insurgency was not simply against the occupation.  They were against the government of Iraq that was formed by U.N.-monitored elections.  The clearest evidence of this is the hell that Iraqi citizens had to live through at that time because the Mahdi Army's death squads, torture centers, and general brutality toward moderate and/or non-Shiite Muslims.  I'm surprised anybody's forgotten the thousands of civilian casualties every month at that time.  It was Iraqis killing Iraqis.  (Those who paid attention to Riverbend (blogger) might recall that this is why she had to leave Iraq.)  This horror is why U.S. forces went in there.
 * The Mahdi Army was obviously not fighting simply because of the occupation. The next year, Iraqi forces had to go in to clear out Basra the same way.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternet is an organization of European squatters on American soil. It isn't far-left, because it supports the ethnic cleansing of North-America.
 * The alleged "government of Iraq" is a puppet regime. This article is about one of the hunderds of US death squads which routinely kill unarmed civilians. If it wasn't routine, the US government would not keep Bradley Manning in a torture centre; but it would arrest the murderers. About "Iraqis killing Iraqis", that's like the "niggers killing niggers" excuse: a redneck murders a black, 10 rednecks (a jury) muder another black. --129.125.102.126 (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The tone and content of your edits and summaries are combative and unsubstantiated by logic or legitimate reference. Approaching things in this manner is generally counter productive to accomplishing your goals on Wikipedia. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The tone of your edits is mealy-mouthed and unctuous. You are defending the killing of unarmed civilians by foreign troops who occupied the country of those civilians for false reasons (like "WMD in Iraq" or "This horror is why U.S. forces went in there"). "Politely" defending a war crime still defends a war crime. --129.125.102.126 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unsubstantiated by logic" seems like a baseless attack: it wasn't "Iraqis killing Iraqis", it was "Iraqis and/or US troops and/or US henchmen and/or other foreigners killing Iraqis" and the US command blaming non-collaborating (in their terms extremist) Iraqis until videos like "Collateral murder" were leaked. The report of someone employed by an organization (like DoD), can only be used as a reference for the opinion of that organization. Could you cite an RPG allegation (or, better yet, all those allegations)? --129.125.102.126 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fox news as an reliable third-party source
To be considered a reliable source, a party need to be entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. When one is to consider the reliability of the third party source, the publisher of the work and the creator of the work affects the reliability together with the content itself. Context matter also, so what is considered reliable source for predicting the weather, might not be considered reliable source to predict politics (see WP:Verifiable, WP:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:Independent sources for more details).

Fox news has been verifiable noted to have a clear political stance against wikileaks. That makes Fox news a Partisan secondary source. Partisans sources should at least be replaced when possible when there is other neutral third party sources we can use. No content to remove, just eliminate unsuited sources when there exist better ones.

If a source is on the side of Wikileaks, or against Wikileaks, equval disqualify them as being independent of the subject being covered. If AlterNet is verifiable "on the side of Wikileaks", taking a active stance in the political battle, then it too is a Partisans source and should be treated in that way. Either way it does not change the question: Is Fox news as an reliable third-party source?

This discussion was added to the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Belorn (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Attack on a van
The description in that lacks specific details in a way that is slightly misleading. For example: 'The watching helicopter crews requested permission to engage, stating "…looks like [the men] possibly uh, picking up bodies and weapons" from the scene, and upon receiving permission opened fire on the van and its occupants.

What is not said, is that the crew asked during this time enthusiastically for the permission to engage with "Let me engage" and "Come on, let us shoot!". One would assume based on all the press articles mentioning this detail, that this is one of the facts that should be in the article. Belorn (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point.
 * The Apache crews wanted authority to shoot, but they (quite properly) waited until it was given even though the men were probably picking up weapons. Not quite earth-shattering news.
 * It might belong in a section on the Legality of the attacks but I don't think it's that important.
 * Or do you think it's interesting that the men felt a degree of urgency in killing the terrorists?
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a person expressing their want to kill someone, and a person executing their duty and in that duty have to take someone life. It the same difference between a murderer going into someones house and opening fire at children sleeping in their bed, and someone protecting said children by shooting the intruder in order to protect their children. Intent is different (wanting to kill vs needing to kill), reason is different (I like to kill vs I have to kill), and morality is different (I enjoy killing vs I have a duty to protect). Neither of those might have any effect on the legal baring of the case. Soldiers might be forgiven any intent, reason or morality so long they follow the army rules. But it does not change the goal of a creating neutral encyclopedic information. Facts are facts, and since reliable source has specific mention them and made comments on it, it passes both WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRIVIA. Belorn (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally to the above discussion, I added the testimony of one of the surviving children. The context section only brings up the point of view of the army, but not the context around why the van was in the area or why they decided to stop. The testimony of the child does. WP:Weight do not bring up any guidelines on how to treat testimonies from victims, but without doing a direct question to the community if a testimony from a victim passes WEIGHT and TRIVIA, my believe is that they clearly do pass those tests. Being first hand reports, they add context to what happened to the child. Preferable the testimony should be summarized and baked into the article but until then, a unedited citation works to fill the void even if its a bit long. Belorn (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's where you have it wrong. Those soldiers had a moral and legal duty to fight terrorists that had turned that place into a living hell for its inhabitants (see Riverbend (blogger)).  There is absolutely nothing immoral about soldiers expressing an urgency to kill terrorists.
 * If the critics cared about the lives of those kids (and they did not), they had a moral duty to demand that the terrorists separate themselves from non-combatants -- especially children. Let's not forget that "anti-war" demonstrations included supporters of Sadr, the leader of the group involved in this incident.  The critics had every chance to discuss the laws of war with these friends and allies.  It is they who chose not to care about those kids.  They still don't, as evidenced by their continuing refusal to support the laws of war.  When it mattered, no critic of the U.S. side of the war cared about the lives of those kids.  We can still see this in the aftermath.
 * The new text you added from Al Jazeera is highly misleading in every possible way. It includes the line "Didn't they see we were children?" wrongly suggesting that the pilots could have seen the kids.  Keep in mind that some readers won't see the accompanying pictures, or the video, and may not recognize the blatant deception.
 * And those kids don't know that it was probably their father who chose to risk their lives -- although the possibility remains that he was coerced into it by other insurgents. Even after the fact, they are still being used as human shields.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be aware, just because you do not like the child's statement, or think the child is wrong, does not mean it should be removed. in the words of WP:IDONTLIKE. "while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted". If you keep deleting without following Wikiepdia policies, you are not leaving any space for consensus or discussion. If you have anything beyond your personal feeling towards what the children have to say, then state that. The only way to build a neutral Encyclopedic based on verifiability is by looking at the facts and then presenting them as best one can to the reader without redacting or trying to form it to force a specific opinion upon the reader.
 * The direct quotation is not perfect. it has an emotional tone, which can be improvement by baking it into the article in the same way the context of the army is baked into the article. But there is no improvement by just deleting because you do not like or agree to what a child victim has to say. The statement is an fact. The best thing we can do is to provide it to the reader as best we can while still maintaining all the details as those details provide the context around the event.
 * Last, what ever opinion one have about people who goes around enjoying killing, the article should not try to hinder the reader to reach his or her own opinion in the matter. It is, and it must be, completely up to the reader to from their own opinion. Thus we can not redact and remove information to push the reader in one direction or an other. Belorn (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't about the human shield kid's "statement" being wrong. We're not only disagreeing on an actual fact here.
 * These are little kids. They don't know any "facts" beyond what they were told by their handlers.  They simply don't know enough to render a separate opinion.  There's no valid reason to keep the line.  Basically, you're using a ignorant child's quote to add a deception into the article.  That can't stand.
 * I don't know what you're aiming at. Half the readers will pretend to have heartstrings pulled, and the other half will laugh at the obvious jihadi propaganda.  It's not going to improve the article for anyone.
 * My previous statement was not about "enjoying" the killing of terrorists. It was about the urgency of defeating them.  These are, after all, people who use children as human shields -- and a lot worse.  Those who might care about those kids should have asked those terrorists to keep the kids away from the fight.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Age do not render a persons ability to express themselves. If a child being molested by a pedophile gave a testimony, should we ignore it because "they are little kids unable to know any facts beyond what they have been told, and thus unable to render a separate opinion than that of the molester?". But you are even asking more here, as you want to censure the information just in case the child might convince someone. Belorn (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only is that a tangent into the editorial realm it's a bizarre analogy. Maybe a breather to reconsider your emotional investment in this material is in order. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So lets take a step back. Has anyone a suggestion that wont get instant reverted on how to incorporate the context of a), why the van was in the area (which this interview says was: get the children to school), b) Why it stopped (which this source says was because they saw a wounded man lying on the street), and c) what their intent was (second sources says this was to bring said man to the hospital). If not, then is there a reason of why that information would be OR and NPOV? Is there a lack of sources? Is the language used to broad? There is already a whole section describing the context and intent of the army involved, so for balancy, would it not make sense to include this too? I have no interest, position or emotional investment in how it get added, be that exact unedited quote, or baked in where needed, or in its own section if needed be. I do have some interest that it does get included and not excluded out of WP:IDONTLIKE reasons. If there is concern about the sources, or attribution, then lets discuss that. For example: Is any of the statements added in conflict with "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source". In general, more focus on the facts and less about the editors would be nice. Belorn (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading a bit on what other sources brings up specifically about the attack on the van, articles like from, discuss the quote “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”. list of additional sources for this quote: I notice that it too is not included in this article. Is this quote too trivia to be included? I have little interest to do a BOLD new edit a third time, so if you are holding the revert button, please provide some constructive criticism. Are the sources not good enough, or is there a lack of balance if the phrase were to be included in the chain of events surrounding the attack on the van? Again, please focus on the facts and sources. Belorn (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't pull the WP:IDONTLIKE line. This has nothing to do with my not liking the source.  In trials, the testimony of children is usually allowed only after a judge has reviewed it.  This one clearly fails.
 * I'm reminded of the judge in Miracle on 34th Street seeing his grandkids called to testify, ultimately forcing that judge into agreeing to stipulate the existence of Santa Claus. That wouldn't happen in real life.
 * I understand that you like the emotional impact, but that's really all this is about. You need genuine facts.  The kids don't know anything.  It's doubtful that they would know the real reason that their father chose to risk the lives of his children during a battle.
 * On facts and sources, you've got Al Jazeera and ignorant kids who've been spoonfed propaganda.
 * While it's true that someone said, "Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle," it's not particularly relevant. Besides that, what he said is mostly true.  It was mostly the fault of the father.  I say "mostly" because some remaining blame goes to the jihadis and their apologists who (had they cared about children) should have advocated the wearing of uniforms and the use of marked vehicles.
 * As Ethan McCord had said in one of the sources, people say things like that out of emotional need. I think it's obvious that those pilots cared more about those kids than any of the critics did.
 * BTW: The Guardian's Comment-Is-Free columns are opinion pieces.  They're good as sources only when tied directly to the writer.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On the matter if a child testimony can be used as any other primary sources, I have asked the Reliable sources noticeboard for a third opinion. Its clear that we have different opinion if the age of the person matters, so a third person opinion should help to clear that specific issue. Belorn (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious, Self-Serving Claim "Cameras Mistaken For Weapons" Presented As Fact
Under Incidents==>Attack On Personnel there is this sentence: "The helicopter crews mistook the photographic equipment carried by Chmagh and Noor-eldeen for weapons.[30]"

But that claim comes from the government itself, and it is extremely unlikely to be true. It is not at all plausible that a camera can be mistaken for a weapon, as they are shaped very differently and used very differently. This claim is precisely the kind of claim that someone who wants to create confusion to obfuscate a war crime would make. The government has done nothing to inform the reader how this bogus claim could possibly be true, and our article fails to point out the illogic and conflict of interest between truth and the source of the claim. Ace Frahm (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And the same false claim is presented under Legality of the attacks==>Military legal review "The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles, especially since neither cameraman is wearing anything that identifies him as media or press".[20] And this one also creates the false impression that journalists are somehow required to do something to identify themselves to random military aircraft in the sky, without specifying what such an "aircrew, please don't murder me" I.D. could possibly be.Ace Frahm (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The article fails to establish whether or not the rules of engagement for this war zone permitted the killing of anyone seen to be carrying a weapon in public, without a need for positive identification as to their personal identity or even general I.D. as "friend, neutral or foe". Our article is missing information as to whether "unknowns" were to be treated as presumed "enemies" instead of "neutrals" until proven otherwise. Does anyone have knowledge about the official "rules of engagement"? As it is not unreasonable for journalists to carry firearms in a war zone, the government's claim of "honest mistake" seems absurd, and does not absolve the perpetrators of responsibility. Ace Frahm (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

original research
I removed this image:

The arrows and text is original research. It is not up to WP editors to decide what is a weapon and what is not. Actually i do not see the weapons. The video has black errors that mark cameras. No red arrows anywhere. Who added these arrows? 46.20.220.120 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The still frames are from the leaked video and the video itself is important enough to the event to warrant inclusion in this article. Would the article be better without them? However, the arrows could use attributions, so lets just have the image but include in the description that the arrows was added in post-production by Wikileaks. The "weapon like appearance" statement should get sourced, and such source should already exist on the article. Belorn (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The arrows are not original research in this case because they do not introduce an unpublished idea or argument. They merely serve as a visual aid that highlights the subject of existing commentary. —  C M B J   13:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The person deleting this is on shaky grounds with an argument that this is original research based on red arrows. The editors of Wikipedia did not add the red arrows.Crtew (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually did add these arrows, but they're still not a violation of policy. —  C M B J    23:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "The editors of Wikipedia did not add the red arrows." I think that is wrong. The images are from the Wikileaks video, this video does not have these red arrows. Please provide me with the source. 46.20.220.120 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "They merely serve as a visual aid that highlights the subject of existing commentary." Please provide us with the reference of the commentary that shows that exactly the "shadows" you have marked are weapons. 46.20.220.120 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not attempting to argue that they are or aren't weapons. The point is that, whatever they might be, they are representative of what has been discussed ad nauseum by source material that spans all manner of opinions. —  C M B J   02:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that we do not know what shadows or weapons the sources talk about. To me it looks like you are pointing to shadows that you think might be weapons like. Do you have any reference that shows that they mean the same objects that you have marked?


 * I have another point that is also concerning to me and that is neutral point of view. The Wikileaks video marks cameras with arrows that might have been mistaken by the pilots for weapons. We have already images that illustrates the weapons point of view. |images from the military report I do not think we need this redundancy and suggest to add the images from the wikileaks video where they have mark the journalists and there camera. That would take care of the neutral point view. I have no opinion on if there were weapons or not. The point is that there are two clear viewpoints referenced and i think both should be equally represented in the choice of images. (former IP) Redarrows12 (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * All three individuals depicted are verbally identified in the video itself. From 0:46–1:03, the first two are specified: "Hotel 2-6, this is Crazy Horse 1-8. Have individuals with weapons. Yep, he's got a weapon, too. Hotel 2-6, Crazy Horse 1-8. Have 5 to 6 individuals with AK-47s. Request permission to engage." The third is specified at 1:22–1:27: "He's got a RPG. Alright, we got a guy with an RPG. I'm gonna fire." These individuals are very clearly relevant to illustrating the pilot's perspectives, the associated commentary, and our own text.


 * In terms of POV, I believe that these illustrations improve our neutrality by accurately conveying the events that precipitated the airstrike. The Wikileaks arrows and the Army report's arrows were both intended to corroborate their opinions. However, they are inadequate (to me as a reader) in illustrating the incident in its entirety from an encyclopedic perspective. —  C M B J   05:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You did not answer my question. How did you match the verbal comments of the pilots with the shadows on the ground?


 * About neutral point of view. Sorry but your explanation does not make sense to me because it does not add up to a NPOV. You are repeating the military point of view and you are excluding the opposing view, that Reuters journalists: Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen, cameras were ostensibly mistaken for weapons. A neutral point of view has to include both sites. Are you opposing the inclusion of the image from the Wikileaks video where they have marked the journalists and their cameras with black arrows? Redarrows12 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Julian Assange's military experience
Why is Julian Assange quoted extensively in the article as if he is an expert in military affairs? Perhaps to put his comments into context, some mention of his military experience should be made. Just because he owns a website and has some celebrity status, doesn't make him an authority on how armies should conduct operations in a theatre of war. 68.144.172.8 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Very few of Assange's supporters have military experience. Most of them were probably claiming to support the Geneva Conventions back when the war started, but none of them really do.  In fact, I doubt that very many of them care about the lives of those kids.  If they did, they surely would have demanded that insurgents identify themselves from a distance in order to avoid errors like this.  But ten years ago, the critics were all claiming that it didn't matter.
 * That said, he's a notable figure. It's important that we never forget who it was that did support him.  The best you can do now is make clear that these are his opinions.  He really only has a small number of supporters anyway.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arrest, convictions and sentencing of Manning
This section was a mess as I found it today. I put it into chronological order, updated tense where appropriate, eliminated redundancies, but did not change any sources or other text. Activist (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Punishments, Discipline
The article lacks any information about who, if anyone, was prosecuted or disciplined in any way for these murders, especially for the ordinary good samaritan with the minivan & children who could not reasonably be portrayed as in any way suspicious. When have disciplinary actions, if any, have ever been taken? In particular, our article could be failing to properly inform by taking "The View From Nowhere", thus improperly creating the impression in the mind of the readers that there is a possibility space open other than the true one, given all available facts: A war crime has been commited, and NO ONE has ever been held accountable for it in any way, at any time. Ace Frahm (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No one was punished because their actions were proper, they were right to open fire based on what they thought they were seeing. A pilot who sees about ten insurgents armed with weapons such as AKs and RPGs, and another with what looks like a rocket launcher and is being pointed at US forces, has to open fire or be relieved of command for dereliction of duty. When a vehicle arrives to carry off the wounded insurgents, then it is reasonable to infer that this is another insurgent enabling the escape of a wounded comrade, and must also be fired on by any competent soldier/pilot.Walterego (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The notion that a soldier or pilot should be tried for war crimes when they were simply doing exactly what they were supposed to do, is why the US has to stay out of political kangaroo courts like the ICC.Walterego (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember this page is for discussing the article, not the actions themselves. Whether or not anyone should have been punished or disciplined for this isn't relevant here; what is relevant is whether anyone was punished or disciplined.
 * The "Legality of the attacks" section states there was no investigation, but that's not necessarily the same thing as whether anyone was disciplined for what happened. I can't find any good source for that either way, but I absolutely think it would be worth adding one.
 * —me_and 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OR, "what they thought they were seeing" is an after-the-fact excuse used to justify murders. It does not seem credible that any reasonable person could reach the same conclusions they claim to have reached, when we can see for ourselves from the crappy black & white low resolution video that those claims are not supported.  Pilots who can see out their canopies with their own two eyes would have had an even better view, and thus could not plausibly have made such an "error".  Your own language here now mislabels as "insurgents" these victims who are KNOWN to be completely innocent.  This strongly suggests you are an untrustworthy participant here.
 * You have defective logic when you state:
 * "When a vehicle arrives to carry off the wounded insurgents, then it is reasonable to infer that this is another insurgent enabling the escape of a wounded comrade, and must also be fired on by any competent soldier/pilot."
 * This is NOT reasonable at all. It would be reasonable to think: "Some random person in a minivan just discovered a bunch of dead people I just killed, and dying people I just shot, so like any normal person, he is trying to save lives."  It is a well-known war crime to kill civilians and medical personnel.  Military pilots are trained to know this, as more than any other kind of warrior, they are THE ones who could destroy ambulances & hospitals with bombs.  This violates  fundamental understanding of how anyone is allowed to act in a just war.  So if the pilot thinks this person is helping the injured as you claim, then he is obligated to let the first responder work.  Even if a pilot really did think the dying person was a combatant (an unproved idea here), he no longer poses any credible military threat, and is thus, not a legitimate target.
 * Additionally, the ICC cannot be conceived of as "kangaroo". It works very hard over long periods of time, with international cooperation, to get proof against rich & powerful criminals.  The court does not appear to have any credible corruption or meaningful conflicts of interest.  Even then, the tasks before it are so difficult, it sometimes cannot prosecute or deliver enough punishment to those who deserve it.  So, for you to describe them as "kangaroo" without evidence proves your unreasonableness here, Walterego.Ace Frahm (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussion of the article and how to improve it. It is not about what should have happened. -Darouet (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Military legal review
Editors - Please do not revert this correction again.

The grammar in the text is problematic. My edit, which was reverted, and which I've undone fixes that.

There is commentary above in TALK dating back to April that appears to be well reasoned.

The picture that accompanies the article is from the report cited. The reporters were no more "furtive" than anyone might be in a situation where there is a great deal of gunfire between opposing combatants. The photo was taken well before in a different area than that in which the 11 men were strafed. Ducking gunfire while photographing combat should hardly described as "furtive" and a reason to kill the Green Zone-credentialed cameramen. There is no evidence that they were 'with' or anywhere near the insurgents, three or four of whom were armed, when the "furtive" pictures were taken. In the pictures, it can clearly be seen that the Canon EOS camera looks nothing like an RPG launcher, any more than a Humvee looks like a Honda CR-V, though they both have four wheels. A launcher is more than a yard long and has a stock and barrel and trigger grips. When loaded with rounds commonly used, it is well over four feet long. You can see the camera dangling from a strap in the photo. It is perhaps 20" long. The camera is hanging over the wall, pointed directly at the ground. (Exhibit C Photo)

The investigating major's report, referencing (Exhibit A Photo) claims "The cameras could easily be mistaken for slung AK-47 or AKM rifles." This is patent nonsense. You can find pictures of either on the internet or even of replicas at the Airsoft site and you can also find pictures of the camera and the longest, hooded lenses. They could "easily be mistaken for slung AK-47s" by Stevie Wonder, maybe.

Then the Major claims, referencing (Exhibit D), "Due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on US soldiers." In fact, the platoon of GI's was out of sight around a corner which was over 100 yards away and the photo of the cameraman was taken from above at altitude through the chopper's gunsight. Obviously, from that angle, there is no such "appearance." If someone was aiming a launcher, the launcher would clearly be much longer and protrude much further ahead and well behind a person firing such a weapon, which blasts fire out of the back end. The photographer was looking through the camera's viewer directly in front of his face and the lens would not extend in front of him as much as third of the distance of a loaded launcher. Even then, in a rare moment of near-candor, the major refers to photos of the dangling camera (p. 18-19) as "Probable Telephoto lens."

He further rationalizes killing the cameramen by writing (p. 14) "The mere fact that two individuals carried cameras instead of weapons would not indicate that they were noncombatants as the enemy commonly employ (sic) cameramen to film and photograph their attacks on Coalition Forces."

The major continues, "The van arrives as if on cue." In fact, the van arrived five minutes after the strafing, per the times on the photos. If it was traveling as slowly as 30 miles an hour, that would mean it was 2 1/2 miles away when the strafing occurred and it was very unlikely the driver would have heard the firing and put his children in that sort of a situation. The major then claims that the van which stopped beside the badly wounded, slowly crawling cameraman, was "joined by two military-aged males." With the kid's father, they try to load the cameraman to take him to emergency care. The major (part 8 - Conclusions) deliberately and repeatedly inaccurately refers to the Reuters' cameraman as a " 'wounded insurgent'." He adds, "It is unknown what, if any, connection the van had to the insurgent activity." He's written this knowing that this was a dad driving his two very young kids to their tutor.

As a consequence of my edit being reverted, I'm looking at the Wikipedia article's referenced major's report, made ten days after the killings of the cameramen, the three good Samaritans, and the actual insurgents. In fact, the WikiLeaks video, which was edited by them or parties unknown, is much clearer than the photos and from the audio it is apparent that the chopper crew is, rather than exercising due diligence, gleefully initiating and prolonging the turkey shoot.

Up until the point of the WikiLeaks release, the Army had refused to release the video despite three years worth of repeated requests by Reuters.

In a handwritten report included (p. 25) by a (company?) captain, he notes, "I observed the 2 children and believed them to be noncombatants. Ages of the children are the reason why I believe this, they appear to be around 4 and 6 years of age."

Nothing in the other cited stories supports the major's ill-founded conclusions, but his task, of course, is to give the chopper pilots the benefit of every doubt. He has consequently stretched the truth. He was not "observing" anything, just reviewing evidence and subsequently making a "claim." My edit was accurate.

The Reuters story, published just five days after the killings and (Exhibit S) in the major's report notes that they had a police report which referred to the incidents as "a random American bombardment."

I might add that a written statement, written two days after the killings, by a first lieutenant (platoon commander?) at (p. 27) of the report claims "...the only non-combatants were the two kids...," though there were only three weapons and one separate ammunition round found among the twelve deceased, plus the two Canon EOS cameras. Activist (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that it was "a situation where there is a great deal of gunfire between opposing combatants" certainly explains *why* they would want to be furtive, but it doesn't make them non-furtive. What was that really supposed to mean, anyway?  Well, perhaps it's not too furtive, considering that they were all in a war zone, generally grouped together, and heading in the same direction toward U.S. troops.  Are we supposed to think the others were war tourists?
 * When you say, "There is no evidence that they were 'with' or anywhere near the insurgents, three or four of whom were armed, when the "furtive" pictures were taken," I'm wondering how you measure proximity. Do you think unlawful combatants march in formation?  Real soldiers don't do that in hostile streets either.
 * I think you're being influenced by your POV. That's fine with me, as everybody here has a POV of some sort, but you have to pay some respect to what the law actually says.  There's no doubt that the camera was interpreted as being a weapon.  The men in those helicopters would have to have been play-acting on the radio, effectively lying to the controllers.  Assuming hostility was the natural connection for reasonable people to make.  It didn't look like a camera just earlier.  They had seen real weapons among them, and they truly believed the camera equipment were weapons.
 * I get the impression that you expect soldiers and airmen to wait until they have 100% certainty that the target is an insurgent. It has never been that way.  The men who compiled the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions never contemplated anything remotely like it.
 * You're not quite accurate when you say the Army refused three years of requests from Reuters. They didn't release the videos (you might recall we were still at war), but they certainly did allow Reuters to view them privately two weeks after the attack.
 * Combatants can be more than simply armed men. An RPG-7 uses a two-man crew, one of whom may not appear to be armed.  Yes, insurgents certainly do use photographers to create propaganda videos.  Jihadi videos often show up on YouTube until someone swats them down.  It was not an unfounded assumption to consider them as with the insurgents.  The credentials they had in their pockets weren't enough on that day.  Neither of them chose to wear the press vests and helmets to identify themselves even though Reuters could certainly have afforded to provide them -- if they really cared.
 * You're writing this, and first came upon the news of it, with the advance knowledge that that was a camera lens. You have the additional advantage of a still frame, time to examine it without other demands on your attention, and knowing that there's little chance that another insurgent in your vicinity wants to kill you or someone you've been tasked to protect.  These are luxuries that those men didn't have.
 * As with mirages and optical illusions, the brain interprets what it sees and tries to find a pattern. Until we have fully-autonomous weapons (which, interestingly, are opposed by many who usually claim to care about human rights), human imperfections are going to be part of the equation.  The laws of war factor that in.
 * There are ways to reduce these tragedies, and would almost certainly have prevented this one. That's why we have laws of war that demand separation of combatants apart from civilians.  Say what you like about what those aircrews said, they followed those laws, even adding risk to their own lives by taking more time than should have been necessary.  The insurgents chose not to.  The insurgents made the choice not to care, and none of the critics of the U.S. side of the war were willing to demand they change their minds.
 * You're wrong when you say, "He's written this knowing that this was a dad driving his two very young kids to their tutor." He knew nothing like that at that time.  It's still not certain that this was true.  All we have now is the family's word for it, and they were demanding payment.  There's no word that they were demanding insurgents to respect the laws of war, which they would do if they didn't want this to happen again.  In the U.S., we close schools for blizzards and hurricanes.  I don't doubt we would do the same for enemy attacks.
 * Does all of that really make each of them insurgents? It's tough to explain why any non-combatant would want to be that close to those openly carrying weapons, particularly an RPG.  Legally, that makes this a reasonable assumption to make.  You can believe they were off on a stroll that day if you like, but you shouldn't be making assumptions about what others believe when they were a lot closer to the action.
 * We don't have to know why each of those Iraqis was there, but we do know that they chose to hang around in close proximity to each other while a war was going on around them. You should understand that much even if you don't support the laws of war.
 * The edit needs to be reverted. I didn't look into disputing your other edits, but this one doesn't work.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I have to remind you two of the WP:No original research policy Wikipedia has? This is not a forum!, and no one cares about your personal interpretation of the chain of events, nor what is furtive, nor what you think the "law of war" is or isn't in U.S. international military campaign called "War on Terror". Go form a blog, argue on social media, or pick up a sign and walk to nearest street, but your opinion pieces with advocacy and propaganda is not welcome here. If the arguments you have for changing this Wikipedia article is not based on what sources says, do not write them here or try edit the article. The above two comments of yours are 2000 words, 11000 characters, and not a single source to be had. A sure sign if ever of the inappropriateness. Belorn (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. When you claim there there is "not a single source to be had," for instance, you've missed my seven page-by-page citations of the actual material in the report that is cited in the article. Your claim that I am engaging in "propaganda" is an unwelcome personal attack. My comments refer to a source that is twice supplied in the article. All I did was provide the basis for cautioning against another reversion of a sentence to a form that was both ungrammatical and inaccurate. I have previously done a considerable amount of work on this article that was at the time quite confusing, especially with regard to timeline and its being out of sequence, and with removing thoroughly redundant passages. Activist (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that I don't disagree with your edit in the article, only the discussion here on the talk page. When you write that the quote from the major was "patent nonsense", you comment ends up being as much your interpretation of the report as Randy2063 opinion about "Real soldiers". Using the report as the basis for your opinion is great for a blog post. However on wikipedia, any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources is original research. For that, there is no single source to be had above, but rather, simply references to seven pages of an report which you have analyzed. Your analyze will thus only end up being viewed as advocacy to those who agree with you, and propaganda by those who disagree, and neither will be good for a constructive discussion. Belorn (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Did they survive?
Everything else has been said, but did the kids survive? I really think it would be a relief to know. ~Eye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.8.191 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I didn't show it but I'd really like to know. Does anyone know? Please someone tell me! I know there were many deaths but I don't think that's a good excuse to ignore it. Please? 117.221.182.58 (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Eye
 * They both survived. I expect the boy had substantial and permanent brain damage. Activist (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am told that when Ethan McCord, the GI who took the siblings from the van went to Germany, he was shown a film where both kids expressed their gratitude to him for their rescue. The sister hopes for a career in medicine and her younger brother, despite his severe injuries, is doing well in school. Activist (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"biased locals" is not a valid argument
One do not get to decide that reliable sourced statements from the local population is biased and should be removed, while reliable sourced statements from the army is unbiased and should be kept. It should not come as a big surprise that no one has the right to selectively remove content simply because they dislike who media is interviewing. If someone want to remove information, you got to do more than a "I do not like them". Belorn (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That wasn't all that I'd said. There were two comments.  My previous comment was that the witness statements became irrelevant.
 * If you look at the source, it was from 2007 -- long *before* the video evidence became public. All those reporters had to go on back then was, on the one hand, the locals' story, which was an area controlled by the Sadrite militia (read Riverbend, who was driven out by radicals just weeks before the attack), and on the other hand, the military's story, which could have brought charges against the aircrew if the video didn't confirm their story.  The casual readers of this article will get the misimpression that the source's reporters had already seen the video before they interviewed the witnesses.  That's extremely deceptive -- even for Wikipedia.
 * The article now deliberately misinterprets its sources. It says, "However, this has been questioned, with the media reporting...," which gives the clear (and wrong) impression that the reporters were characterizing the witnesses' total response, even though they didn't see the video, and didn't think it would ever become public.
 * This isn't fair to the reporters. Imagine if we were to treat this like many clashing sources, and simply attributed perspectives to the reporters within this article.  How'd you like to be that reporter knowing that your words from 2007, before you saw the video and could ask witnesses about it, were being misapplied this way?
 * I'd said in my comment that the line could be added elsewhere, but not in the lede. The lede should be for the basic story as it stands now, not mingling different timelines and pretending they were all contemporaneous.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to fight for a perceived injustice for journalists, feel free to start a blog or post on social media. It was good that "this has been questioned" part was removed, since such editorial comment was not found in the source (original research). However, rather than implying that anyone who lives under government control is mind-controlled drones with no free wills, you could just have added the time context to the source and removed the OR part. This way, the reader has the same understanding that you and I got, and they get to decide their own opinion about the witnesses. Maybe the witness was similar mistaken about peoples armament as those who thought a camera was an RPG. Neither you or I can decide that for the reader. Belorn (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Also, the Court Marshal
Revising the person;s name here creates a mistruth. If a reader were to reserach for a military court marshal for someone named Chelsea Manning, ther they would find nothing...

In the context, this sentence is WRONG.

In a personal statement during her court martial, Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley) stated that the military did have access to this information, and that it was actively examining it, yet it denied access partially on the basis that the information may no longer exist.[52]

It should read:

In a personal statement during their court martial, Bradley Manning stated that the military did have access to this information, and that it was actively examining it, yet it denied access partially on the basis that the information may no longer exist.[52]

How the fact that Bradley Manning's court marshal testimony to this case or not is not material, relevant, or crucial was established when it was included in the article.

The fact that the person has now changed there name is NOT RELEVANT to the article.

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

Incidents/NPOV
Don't have time to even begin reviewing/editing this in detail, but there are some serious POV issues in the 'Incidents' section, including considerable speculation about what the Apache crews were 'thinking' and 'expecting'; far too much partisan interpretation of the video. Also, while blocks of text are quoted from the video that support this particular view (that the Apache crews really did think they were acting heroically, protecting colleagues from imminent attack), there are no quotes whatsoever from the more controversial parts of the audio track (e.g. 'Ahahaha!', 'look at those dead bastards!', 'right through the windshield!' and so on...). To me, this section reeks of having been either entirely written by, or heavily edited by, a person or persons with a POV that is strongly sympathetic to the Apache crews and other US forces involved in the incidents. Please could someone try to make this section at least a little more balanced? The whole controversy around the video centred on how shocking and apparently callous the behavior of some of the Apache crew seemed to be, from their comments, laughter and eagerness to kill... trying to dress this up as a simple case of 'civilians' misunderstanding (or WikiLeaks misrepresenting) the incidents is *not* for a Wikipedia page to do.

Isn't there evidence laid out in the article that the context of the videos released by wiki leaks was manipulated? Please don't get me wrong, the only things that belong on wikipedia is evidence and fact, not feelings or emotions. However, one can and should include the full statements and actions of all parties involved. That goes for both wikileaks as well as the apache pilots. How wikipedia lays out these facts should leave no room for narrative, simply a record of what's known to have happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.212.21 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if you search the article as it stands today for the string 'laugh', the only match is 'slaughter' (in the bibliography, a reference to an article about the event). Since there is no controversy that there was laughter, and there were remarks about the 'bastards', and 'right through the windshield', some or all of those quotes should be included.  Wouldn't this be not only allowed, but practically mandated by the NPOV policy?  Son of eugene (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.channel4.com/news/iraq-war-files-the-apache-hellfire-victims
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9136984.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100411213043/http://gawker.com/5512623/reuters-chief-shoots-down-story-on-killing-of-his-own-staffers-in-baghdad to http://gawker.com/5512623/reuters-chief-shoots-down-story-on-killing-of-his-own-staffers-in-baghdad
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.collateralmurder.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html?_r=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

footage footage
In section "2007–2009 coverage" I read 'footage footage'. Does it mean footage of footage or is this a typo? --Gereon K. (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Context of an interview
Simply put. This article links to an article. That article was deposition given by an individual named Bradley Manning.

This article, is about the event of that day and links to an article (which includes the name Bradley).

In that context, then name as given is correct.

You cannot say that Yul Bryner's mother migrate to China. She migrated to Manchuria, now a part of China.

You cannot say that Christoper Columbus landed in America, as it was not known as America...

MOS:IDENTITY. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary).

STOP one-click editing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Article title
Shouldn't this be "July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike" per MOS:DATE which says "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation"? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * From the context it seems pretty clear to me that MOS:DATE is referring to when the date is used in a sentence. I don't think it would apply in this case.Aervanath (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you infer that from both MOS:DATE and MOS:COMMA? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)