Talk:Somalia affair

Stamford Prison Experiments
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

Could we have some positive material as well?
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)

Continued improvements

 * We need to find out what "the February 17 incident on the bailey bridge" is about
 * I'm thinking of merging Clayton Matchee and Kyle Brown (Canadian soldier) into this article. I'm generally against merging, but both articles right now are just a sloppy re-telling of the story; often at odds with this article. Thoughts on a merge? Brown seems more legitimate to merge...Matchee, one could argue his suicide attempts and family's response would give WP:UNDUE to this article, and belong in one of his own.
 * Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting
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.
 * the article content does not match the reference
 * other equally credible references contradict the content
 * the references are from poor or unreliable

SimonP (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so I'm not misunderstanding, do you believe there is a problem with the sourcing on any of the used footnotes, or merely observing? I'd originally viewed the "Knights" book a bit skeptically simply because of its cover-art (I still haven't found out if that's a legitimate image, or an artist's rendering) and "sensationalist" title; but the content inside it seems to be legitimate and largely match with all other accounts.
 * The images are almost a non-issue, since even if they were deleted from Commons, most of them would re-appear here under clear auspices of Fair Use; though we would only have one of the two Matchee/Arone images.
 * The "Legal proceedings" section still needs a lot of work, would appreciate collaboration since I haven't kept any notes of who/howMuch/why/when.
 * An initial thought to FORK out the material on the Inquiry itself was abandoned as unfeasible, sadly. They're too intertwined with each other to separate out so easily. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:10, 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)

Capt Hillier?
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)

Censoring
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 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)
 * Well-spotted! I knew there had to have been a policy covering this issue somewhere & indeed there is. WP:PROFANITY makes it clear that:


 * "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."


 * Suitable alternatives are indeed available and have already been provided. What's more, the Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner section of that policy page covers almost this same exact issue. Middayexpress (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, would the "two of you" be able to find an example in which you could not it an "equally suitable alternative" to replace the word "nigger" with the term "racist language"? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we shouldn't censor a quote. That is the way it is spoke and censoring it would just make it more confusing for the reader. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an opinion. It is not a demonstration of how the phrase "one using racist language and loudly complaining about the presence of black soldiers in the Airborne", for example, is not a suitable alternative to Sherurcij's preferred "one stating loudly "We're not racist - we just don't want niggers in the Airborne". Other than the all-important presence of the word niggers, anyone can see that the two phrases are virtually identical. What you've written is also not a demonstration of how the omission of the word niggers "would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". It is just a vote, and Wikipedia's consensus policy unfortunately does not function according to popular vote. Moreover, the Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner section of the WP:PROFANITY page gives an example of substituting gratuitously profane language with more appropriate language which perfectly parallels our present situation. The highlighted example replaces the words piece of shit and bitch in the phrase "Jane was heard shrieking that John was a "piece of shit" and a "bitch" when the police were called" with a logical & much less offensive shrieking insults: "Jane was heard shrieking insults at John when the police were called". And this of course was specifically cited as an instance where, contrary to what you've written above, "the strong wording is relevant but not central to the statement", which is why said insults were relegated to footnotes. Middayexpress (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If somebody says "I'm not a racist - but I believe X", it is not adequately summarised as saying "He said something racist about believing X". But that is not the crux of my concern at "whitewashing" history, which is removing exact notable quotes that received extensive coverage in the news for four years and resulted in the drastic castration of the Canadian military because you consider them personally offensive to Somalians. They were offensive to Somalians, they are meant to be offensive to Somalians - that is the nature of the words that were spoken. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No one said those words weren't offensive words to Somalis or that they weren't meant to be. You did just now. In fact, that is a textbook strawman argument on your part. What I've written above, referencing actual policy, still stands, as you have not and of course cannot disprove it. The example it cites, after all, pertains to this exact same sort of situation. Your cries of "whitewashing history" are also especially amusing in light of the fact that use of more appropriate language & footnoting is the very protocol Wikipedia policy itself recommends in this situation (as also just demonstrated), and when you yourself have done seemingly everything in your power to censor any detailed mention of the legal punishments meted out to the offending soldiers, including repeatedly removing perfectly reliable sourced statements altogether. Middayexpress (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * I would appreciate if "both of you" would please revert to add the reference tags...without reverting the rest of the improvements to the article. I can let the cursing sit in the footnotes for a week while consensus is sought - but you need to stop reverting dozens of other improvements like here. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you need to stop reverting actual improvements to the article. The fact is, you haven't improved a darn thing. What you've actually done is simply attempt to camouflage your transparent attempts at trying to preserve at all costs the gratuitous use of the word nigger in this article, although as just demonstrated above, it clearly runs afoul of WP:PROFANITY. I've already addressed all of your other false claims & your disingenuous cries of "you're wrecking the formatting" at the administrator's noticeboard. Placing the actual legal sentences meted out to the offending soldiers in question between so-called "small" wiki-tags so that the casual reader does not see what became of these people only makes you look bad, not me. It also serves to only further demonstrate just what it is you are really trying to accomplish here. The same goes for your continuous removal of sourced material for which you of course have no argument either. You've already violated WP:3RR over these same changes. Stop disrupting the article. Middayexpress (talk) 04:44, 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)


 * Anonymous IP: Why don't you first try logging into your real account before attempting a stab at strawman argumentation? I did not say Sherurcij was a white supremacist. He suggested I did below and now you. You attempt to liken relegating the gratuitous use of the word "nigger" to footnotes as an attempt to "whitewash and antibacterialize history" (one of Sherurcij's own favorite phrases, incidentally), when this line of argument has already been discredited above by pointing out that this is actually what WP:PROFANITY itself recommends when "the strong wording is relevant but not central to the statement". And it has also already been demonstrated above that this present situation with the gratuitous use of the word "nigger" qualifies as "relevant but not central to the statement" since the very example WP:PROFANITY itself cites in the Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner section of that policy page perfectly parallels it. Again, less tangents and more appeals to actual facts. Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anonymous editors are typically readers of the article, in this case likely drawn to the talk page by the large template saying this revision of the article is under dispute. They don't have an account to log into - and yelling at them isn't exactly likely to encourage them to participate further. I have no idea when I have ever used the term "whitewash and anti-bacterialise history"...perhaps you could enlighten me, or is this just another one of your attempts to deflect everything into a personal attack against the majority-editor of the article? And you did say I was a White Supremacist and racist, both on Commons and on ANI, and were chided for it repeatedly...in fact I can still see SimonP's warning on your talkpage that it's bad form to call somebody a racist to try and win your argument. Perhaps you are the one who could go off on a few less tangents, and stick to the issues? The quotes are not only verifiable, but immediately central to the section which is dealing with the racist attitudes of the unit deployed to Somalia - which was given significant coverage for four years in national media. Yet now you claim it's not really important what they said? The Independent, Kyle Brown's book, in fact...17 different books written about the Somalia Affair all considered it importantly relevant to quote the exact phrases used by the soldiers. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, unless you are privy to some extraneous information I am not aware of, you do not know whether this anonymous IP has an account to log into or not. Supposing that a surprisingly informed IP who has chosen this particular post tucked away mid-way down a not-often-visited talk page of all the thousands of editable articles on Wikipedia on this of all days to perform his/her only edits does indeed have a real account does not constitute "yelling" I'm afraid, but is simply highlighting what is a truly delicious coincidence. Calling other users "vandals" as you yourself have done here, on the other hand, does indeed approach "yelling" and is actually a personal attack. Furthermore, you have used the phrase "whitewashing history" or variations thereof repeatedly on this talk page, which is obviously what I was alluding to. That's not a personal attack, but empirical fact. And how can you "still see" SimonP's warning on my talk page when I only have two posts on there, and neither are from him? Should I too dig into your archives as well and "still see" what "poor form" others have accused you of and report it here to score cheap points? Perhaps your extensive block log as well? The fact is, it does not matter how many books or television programs have repeated those offensive words. Wikipedia is a separate medium with an altogether different set of best practices for what is appropriate on this website, standards that are solely determined by its own internal set of policies, not by what's on TV (especially late night). Middayexpress (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What WP:Profanity actually says
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)


 * Uh, no one said anyone "participating in this discussion is a "racist"" or that anyone "participating here should have faced the accusation that they were a "racist"." You did just now i.e. that is a strawman on your part. As for "what WP:PROFANITY actually says", it makes it clear that:


 * "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."


 * Since the gratuitous use of the word "nigger" that "would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if", among other criteria, "no equally suitable alternatives are available", the fact that suitable alternatives are indeed available and have already been provided makes it painfully clear that the word nigger should in this case at the very least be relegated to footnotes (if used at all). Moreover, the Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner section of the WP:PROFANITY page gives an example of substituting gratuitously profane language with more appropriate language which perfectly parallels our present situation:


 * At times, strong language should be retained in the article exactly as sourced. However there are cases where the information can be characterized without loss of information, and the actual wording adds little to the article, and other cases where it can be footnoted if specificity is required. This is often useful in cases where the strong wording is relevant but not central to the statement. For example:


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

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.
 * Before:


 * [1] Source citation.


 * }


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

According to the New York Times,[1] Jane was heard shrieking insults at John[2] when the police were called.
 * After:

[2] For example, a "piece of shit" and a "bitch".
 * [1] Source citation.


 * }


 * An example of this: before after (from the article Signifying Rapper).


 * As can be seen above, the highlighted example replaces the words piece of shit and bitch in the phrase "Jane was heard shrieking that John was a "piece of shit" and a "bitch" when the police were called" with a logical & much less offensive shrieking insults: "Jane was heard shrieking insults at John when the police were called". This example closely parallels the replacement of the word nigger in our present situation with more appropriate wording while including the exact quote in footnotes since "the strong wording is relevant but not central to the statement":


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

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]
 * Before #1:


 * [1] Source citation.


 * }


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

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]
 * After #1:

[2] In the video, McKay can be heard saying "we ain't killed enough niggers yet".
 * [1] Source citation.


 * }


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

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]
 * Before #2:


 * [1] Source citation.


 * }


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

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]
 * After #2:

[2] For example in the video one soldier can be heard saying "We're not racist - we just don't want niggers in the Airborne".
 * [1] Source citation.


 * }


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers".[1]
 * Before #3:


 * [1] Source citation.


 * }


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation with racial slurs.[1][2]
 * After #3:

[2] Brocklebank described it as "operation snatch niggers".
 * [1] Source citation.


 * }


 * The policy is very clear on all of this. Middayexpress (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When I was in University I had some buddies who studied pure math. It was funny to hear them argue, because they carried the kinds of proofs they used in their pure math courses into their arguments about real life topics.  One was "proof by assertion".  We are all agreed that compliance with the guideline would cause leaving out or paraphrasing most real life profane quotes.  Sherurcij has suggested that McKay's quote was one of the exceptions.


 * I think the New York Times example is a weak one, not really applicable. In instances where the profane person seems to have randomly picked an insult, and could have used a variety of alternatives, then that insult is a good candidate for being paraphrased, as in the NYTimes example.  But when a soldier, sent on a long mission to help Africans, in Africa, Africans that a particularly vicious racist would call a "nigger".  Why shouldn't we regard that as a whole different ball-park?  He didn't call them "morons", or "homos", or "motherfuckers".  He picked a specific insult.  Sending poorly disciplined soldiers who hated "niggers" on a peacekeeping mission in Africa was a mistake.


 * Could you explain why you consider the "afters" as adequate substitutes? Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The circumstances of the "mission", if you will, do not matter. If they did, Wikipedia would have specified something to that effect, but it hasn't. What it has specified I've neatly laid out above. The New York Times example is of a girl that for some reason chooses to disparage a guy. In the example, it does not matter what the guy was called. It's just vulgar language; specifically, an insult. This is why Jane is "heard shrieking insults at John" in the rephrase rather than "heard shrieking that John was a "piece of shit" and a "bitch"". The piece of shit and bitch represent "strong wording that is relevant but not central to the statement" and thus get "footnoted if specificity is required". One is coprophilic and the other is zoomorphic, while the term nigger in the phrases above is racist. In other words, despite representing different types of insults, they are all profanity at the end of the day. WP:PROFANITY does not differentiate between these slurs or specify a grading scale of some sort from least severe insult to most severe insult; they're all words "that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers". Middayexpress (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that "the circumstances of the 'mission', if you will, do not matter..." puzzles me. Of course it matters.  These soldiers were sent on a peace-keeping mission, to protect africans.  Instead some Africans were killed.  (Shidane Arone was not the only case, only the most publicized.)  And we have soldiers, like McKay, keeping track of how many "niggers" have been killed, saying, specifically, that "enough haven't been killed".  Is this an admission of guilt, of a conspiracy?  No.  But, even if some readers, perhaps many readers, might find this quote shocking, the full quote is necessary to properly cover the events.  Our readers deserve to have the information necessary to make up their own minds.  Stripping the article of the full quote strips our readers of the information they need to reach an informed conclusion.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, and that is that the phrase can be easily rewritten to accommodate the overarching meaning of the passage (e.g. "In the video, McKay, using racist language, can be heard complaining that he and his comrades had not killed enough locals"). This is what happens everyday on Wikipedia, as editors paraphrase material from reliable sources while still preserving the essence of those respective passages. As explained above, it's the actual profane language that's the issue. Readers also are not stripped of any information since the actual quote, vulgar language and all, is already included in footnotes as WP:PROFANITY itself instructs. Middayexpress (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, a quick perusal of Google Books shows 17 different books which give the verbatim quotes (without censoring "nigger" to "n-word" or "n-"); so I think history judges it central and relevant to the discussion of the racism in the Airborne which stirred such furor. Also, television programmes running the footage for four years all included the exact quotes without censoring. Only a determined Wikipedia editor is claiming it's racist or otherwise bad form to include the exact quotes. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your appeal to Google Books and television programs for support is irrelevant. Things that are appropriate in books or television are oftentimes not appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an altogether different medium from television and print with its own rules and methodology, and that is what we go by here on this website. Best practices are determined by actual Wikipedia policies only, not by television programs or books:


 * "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."


 * Lastly, while this Wikipedia editor is indeed determined, I did not claim that it was "racist" to include the exact quotes but quite clearly and repeatedly that your continuous use of the racial epithet "nigger" was in this case gratuitous, as this "strong wording is relevant but not central to the statement". This has all been covered above point by point with specific references to WP:PROFANITY, so let's not pretend you're hearing this for the first time. And do stop quoting me out of context; it's a breach of WP:CIV and only makes you look bad. Middayexpress (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you did call me a racist, multiple times. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That was months ago and I was asked to refrain from doing so and I have. However, you still have yet to be warned for labeling (and multiple times) other editors as "vandals" in this present dispute, so let's not compare apples to oranges. Middayexpress (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Actual censoring
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:


 * Regarding the wiki-table where the legal sentences meted out to the offending soldiers in question are displayed, Sherurcij continuously placed the text in the "Charge" column in between so-called "small" wiki-tags. This had the net effect of making the text in that column appear much smaller and therefore much harder to read/notice for the casual reader. He only later expanded the small tags to engulf the entire table, thereby now making all of its text difficult to read.
 * At first, I couldn't understand why he insisted on small tags and specifically just for this one column, but as I got a closer look at the sources on the subject, I realized that a lot of the legal sentences which Sherurcij had personally indicated (1, 2, 3) the soldiers received were patently false and/or incomplete and that all were unsourced (i.e. no footnotes were placed after them for verifiability). For example:
 * Regarding the charges laid on Private Kyle Brown (one of main soldiers involved in the actual assault), Sherurcij indicated that Brown was charged with Manslaughter and Torture. This is false. Brown was, in fact, charged with the much more serious 2nd Degree Murder in addition to Torture. In the "Result" column where the verdicts & aftermath of the affair are mentioned, Sherurcij indicated that Brown was convicted to 5 years imprisonment and later released on parole after one year, which is true. However, he conveniently neglected to mention that Brown was also discharged from the army in disgrace and that all appeals were dismissed.
 * Regarding the charges laid on Sergeant Mark Boland, Sherurcij indicated that Boland was charged with Negligent Performance of Duties. This is only partly true since Boland was actually charged with Negligent Performance of Duties and the quite serious charge of Torture. In the "Result" column, Sherurcij indicated that Boland received a 1 year imprisonment and was demoted to Private. That is, to put it mildly, an understatement. What actually happened was that Boland pleaded guilty to negligent performance of duty for his role in the death of Shidane Arone, and not guilty to torture (a charge which, again, Sherurcij for some reason did not even mention). Boland was then sentenced to 90 days' detention, and since he was deemed to be "willfully blind" to the beating, Boland was also demoted to private. The prosecution subsequently appealed the sentence, only for Boland's conviction to actually be increased to 1 year of imprisonment.
 * Regarding the charges laid on Major Anthony Seward, Sherurcij indicated that Seward was only charged with Negligent Performance of Duties. This is false, as Seward was actually charged with both Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm and Negligent Performance of Duties. In the "Result" column, Sherurcij then indicated that Seward received 3 months' imprisonment. This, as earlier, is only a tiny part of what transpired. What happened is that Seward was acquitted of unlawfully causing bodily harm (a charge which, again, Sherurcij did not even mention), but found guilty of negligent performance of duty for giving instructions to abuse detainees. For this latter charge, Seward was sentenced to a severe reprimand. The prosecution then appealed for a tougher sentence. The Court Martial Appeal Court subsequently imposed a term of 3 months' imprisonment. The defense appealed this decision, but this appeal was declined. Seward was also dismissed from the Canadian Forces.
 * Regarding the charges laid on Captain Michael Sox, Sherurcij here too indicated that Sox was only charged with Negligent Performance of Duties. In actuality, Sox was charged with Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm, Negligent Performance of Duties, and an Act to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline. In the "Result" column, Sherurcij then indicated that Sox only received a reduction in rank and a reprimand. What actually happened was that Sox was acquitted of unlawfully causing bodily harm (a charge which Sherurcij did not even mention), but convicted of negligent performance of duty. A stay of proceedings was also entered on the charge of an act to the prejudice of good order and discipline (yet another charge Sherurcij did not mention). Sox was specifically demoted to lieutenant, and received a severe reprimand. In addition, appeals by both sides were dismissed.
 * Sherurcij "sourced" many of the aforementioned false and/or incomplete legal sentences to this dead link. I've searched that website, and still could not find any of the things he claimed. So what we have here is a user adding original research that has the net effect of making the offending parties look a lot less reprimanded (and therefore a lot more innocent) than they actually were, and then supposedly "referencing" that to what is ultimately an unverifiable source.

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)


 * The {small} tags are to prevent the section overlapping against the RQuote template, as I have repeatedly explained to you. And since I'm the one who added the damned text and table in the first place, it must be hard to pretend like I'm the one trying to "minimise" it. But then, you are the same editor who complained to WMF that I uploaded a freely-licensed photo to David Irving's article and suggested that I was therefore a White Supremacist - so I'm guessing reality doesn't frequently confine your actions and beliefs. We are including a fairly large table in an already large article - there is hardly a conspiracy afoot because somebody uses HTML formatting to help that. Kyle Brown was charged with 2nd degree murder, but convicted of Manslaughter - so that is the title of his crime. Again, very straight-forward. I don't know whether you're purposely misconstruing facts, just plain stupid, or woefully ignorant - but I clearly used 10 ref footnotes for the 8 men's charges/verdicts. You then went and changed things to list a slew of mixtures of "dropped charges" and to make the wording strangely say "Convicted to three months" instead of "Convicted, 3 months imprisonment" which is far more appropriate English. (Or you could use "Convicted, sentenced to 3 months", but nobody is "convicted to..." anything). Again per Boland, he was found guilty of Negligence and Not Guilty of Torture, so we list his convictions and his actual sentence (1 year, + demotion), not his pre-appeal conditions. Seward I'm confused, you say Sherurcij says he was found guilty of Negligence and sentenced to three months, when in reality...he was found guilty of Negligence and sentenced to three months? I'm not even sure how to respond. Again, with Sox...not sure what your problem is, I seem to have accurately summarised his conviction and sentence. Per the "problem" with the fact that we live in the real world, and yes, links do go dead, you might be well-served to just type the quoted phrase into a search engine noting it to search only Canadian government websites and voila...you will notice the page was simply moved from the Canadian Heritage (pch.gc.ca) to the Culture, Heritage and Recreation (culturecanada.gc.ca) domain. I've gone ahead and updated the link for you...but don't let it stop your ranting about "original research" and "fabricating evidence".
 * If you wish to go into exhaustive details about appeals, then please create a spin-off Court-martials arising from the Somalia Affair article and put them there. Do not try to randomly stuff four years of proceedings into a one-sentence table. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 12:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is too funny. Firstly, it is indeed true that Sherurcij created that table or, in his words, "added that damned text". But as I have already pointed out, that is not worth much when "that damned text" actually for the most part consists of blatant fabrications or cites only a small part of the charges that were actually laid on the offending soldiers and the verdicts they received (as just demonstrated in my detailed analysis above). Secondly, Sherurcij has not explained anywhere that the {small} tags were for the purpose he has just claimed, as can be seen in his own previous comments above. Whatever the case, as can easily be seen here, the table did and does not even come close to "overlapping against the RQuote template", so he has no argument here either. Thirdly, I did not claim anywhere that Sherurcij was a white supremacist. I indicated that he has made some pretty questionable decisions, including voluntarily opting to title an image of human torture "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers". Why would a normal, seasoned editor do that when they know perfectly well that this is counter to Wikipedia's file naming policies, not to mention needlessly offensive? You can read for yourself the details on what I actually said here, free of Sherurcij's spin. Fifthly, not one of the things he has written above about the actual content of the table is true. Everything I have indicated in my previous post is correct (which is why Sherurcij cannot dispute it but instead has to engage in ad hominem and misrepresent what I have actually said). This includes all of the legal sentences meted out to the rogue soldiers in question, which, again, Sherurcij either outright distorted or did not even bother to mention. Kyle Brown, for one, was indeed charged with 2nd Degree Murder, not the much less serious charge of Manslaughter as Sherurcij has just claimed. Manslaughter wound up being what Brown was convicted of, yes, but I'm afraid that was not what he was his initially charged with (it is the "Charge" column in the table where the charges actually laid on the soldiers are cited, not the "Results" column). This and all of the other things I have already indicated about what actual charges the soldiers received can easily be verified on the Canadian Forces own website, a website which Sherurcij of course never bothered using as a source but instead preferred to invent stuff and then supposedly "source" that to this dead link. As it stands, contrary to his bizarre claims, Sherurcij does not have consensus for any of his changes, but is in reality on the vulnerable end of some pretty indefensible edits. In short, his material is not sourced, as already demonstrated in my previous post. A dead link is not verifiable, but all of the improvements I have made to the table and described above in detail actually are. Sherurcij has already been warned not to revert and to wait until dispute resolution takes place, but he has predictably decided to pass on that too, just like he did last time before he was blocked for violating WP:3RR. When will this disruptive behavior cease? Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The naming of the file was the direct quote of the media file, and I actually supported renaming the file to something less controversial...but I notice you mispresent that as well. Per the charts...I'll let an image do the talking.


 * I think that solidifies my point about why we'd use {small} tags, and short summaries to avoid WP:UNDUE. Details like Matchee's suicide attempt are already covered elsewhere in the article, you insisting on repeating them inside a table only makes the table useless and burdensome. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: Sherurcij has now updated his dead link to a working link. But, as can be seen by comparing the charges he has indicated in the table with the actual charges laid on the soldiers, many of the charges he has indicated are still false and/or incomplete, as are many of the elements in the "Results" column (as described above). In fact, all he has literally done is update that dead link, a source which for the most part doesn't even support his edits. Just for a quick example, compare what that updated link indicates were the charges Major Seward received ("Major Seward, who was effectively the company commander of the personnel involved in Arone's death, was charged with unlawfully causing bodily harm and negligent performance of a military duty arising from his instructions to his soldiers permitting the abuse of detainees") with what Sherurcij claims Seward was charged with (Negligent Performance of Duties only, as explained above). More of the same 'ol, same 'ol. Middayexpress (talk) 16:48, 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:

My version of the table:

Sherurcij's version:

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)

Dispute resolution and third opinions
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)
 * Actually, the Canadian Military History project is quite possibly the least "useful" place to ask for objective third opinions in this particular case, as that is specifically an area where User:Sherurcij himself regularly works and where he is, in fact, an active participant. Despite his disingenuous and ironic allusion above to canvassing, this is yet another predictable and transparent attempt by Sherurcij at stacking the deck, although Third_opinion makes it clear that third opinions must be neutral:


 * "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."


 * I have therefore undone that self-serving post, and instead re-posted an appeal for dispute resolution at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, where neither Sherurcij nor I nor any of the other disputing parties have ties. Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no extensive interaction with the Wikiproject, beyond being a Canadian who edits a number of military-related articles...and you are definitely not allowed to go remove other people's posts on talk-pages because you disagree with them. You might want to familiarise yourself with the basic rules of Wikiquette before proceeding. I have restored the request, as I feel the Canadian Military wikiproject is most likely to be able to give us a proper answer. (If anything, aren't they likely to be biased to your opinion that we shouldn't quote the soldiers exactly?) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Canadian Military History board is not what's the problem. What's the problem is your being a part of it, yet soliciting assistance from what are in effect fellow participants in that Project. Despite your protests above, this is indeed a problem, as these are people that in all likelihood have "previously had dealings with" you. That's not neutral, whereas my posting to the Content noticeboard where neither one of us or any of the other parties in the dispute have ties is. If a simple dispute resolution as opposed to an attempt at stacking the deck is your goal, then you honestly have nothing to complain about. Middayexpress (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * A neutral message to all of the WikiProjects involved, MILHIST and relevant task forces included, is normally what is done. Midday, you are certainly not supposed to remove others' messages. On to the article....
 * I don't see how using the word "nigger" is offensive here. It's much more descriptive than "racial slur", and I really don't think that it is offensive to a "typical Wikipedia reader", as it would only be offensive to some of us Americans. Also, is it not "a cited quotation"? If so, WP:NOTCENSORED says that even if it "contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored."
 * What else is in contention here? The discussion in the above sections is really confusing. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only other contention, so far as I'm aware, is the difference between the two tables. I believe in a small table using HTML to keep it compact with a brief summary of the charge they were convicted of, and if not convicted, that they were acquitted for. Midday/Scooby believe in a much larger table without HTML which he believes mitigates the seriousness of the allegations with a more full detail about each officer, including charges which were dropped and failed appeals, and repeating already-mentioned details like Matchee's suicide attempt - all in the table. I believe "full details" would have to be forked into separate articles about those individual authors if we want to include them, since they are not central to a full understanding of the affair and the article is already bursting at 38K (limit should be 32K) and we still have much information to cover. I made an image illustrating the contrast between the two tables - File:Comparison of Charts.JPG - though Midday/Scooby contend the image file is "an unverifiable misrepresentation of the situation at hand" and has reproduced the charts in full in the section above this one. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed: I don't know which part of the globe you're living in, but the word nigger is indeed considered to be universally offensive just about everywhere in the world, including the United States (I can't believe you're suggesting that it isn't). WP:PROFANITY cites the insults piece of shit and bitch as examples of offensive words, yet here you suggest that the racial slur nigger by comparison isn't? With all due respect, that is utterly and lamentably absurd. Wikipedia's policies also aren't just restricted to the United States. They pertain to all articles on English Wikipedia (not American Wikipedia), no matter where in the world one happens to live. You write that the word "nigger" is more descriptive than "racial slur". Be that as it may, the insults piece of shit and bitch on the WP:PROFANITY page, despite also being direct quotes of what someone labeled someone else and perhaps being more descriptive than the term insults they were replaced with, still were relegated to footnotes because they too were "relevant but not central to the statement". WP:PROFANITY also links (1, 2) to another, well-publicized example that closely parallels our present situation of a direct quote of one person insulting another, which is substituted with more appropriate language while the offensive language itself is footnoted "if specificity is required":


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

Director Abel Ferrara was angered by the incident, which he felt "ruined the movie":
 * Before:

"I'll strangle that cocksucker Jimmy Page. As if every fucking lick that guy ever played didn't come off a Robert Johnson album. 'Signifying Rapper' was out for five years, and there wasn't a problem. Then the film had already been out for two years and they start bitching about it. And these pricks, when their attorneys are on the job, our guys are afraid to come out of their office. You're not gonna fight their fucking warriors, you know what I mean? Can you imagine, this was down at a federal court in New York, with a 70-year-old judge, and they're playing Schoolly D and Led Zeppelin to the guy? It cost Schoolly like $50,000. It was a nightmare. And meanwhile, 'Signifying Rapper' is 50 million times better than 'Kashmir' ever thought of being. And then, this prick [Page] turns around with Puff Daddy and redoes it for the Godzilla soundtrack. Here's Puff Daddy, where every other song this boy sang was King Of New York this and King Of New York that. And I would never even fucking think of suing these guys. Why sue? You should be happy that somebody is paying homage to your work.[1]"

[1] Tobias, Scott (November 27, 2002). Interview:Abel Ferrara. The Onion
 * }


 * {| style="border:1px black solid"

Director Abel Ferrara was angered by the incident, which he felt "ruined the movie". Referring to Page in venomous.[1] tones, he commented that:
 * After:

"'Signifying Rapper' was out for five years, and there wasn't a problem. Then the film had already been out for two years and they start bitching about it. [...] It cost Schoolly like $50,000. It was a nightmare. And meanwhile, 'Signifying Rapper' is 50 million times better than 'Kashmir' ever thought of being. [...] Why sue? You should be happy that somebody is paying homage to your work.[2]"

[1] "Cocksucker" and "prick" were two of these. [2] Tobias, Scott (November 27, 2002). Interview:Abel Ferrara. The Onion
 * }


 * This is not "censorship", but WP:PROFANITY's own sensible instructions. You also cite a snippet of WP:NOTCENSORED for support, but do so out of context. As with WP:PROFANITY, WP:NOTCENSORED also makes it clear that "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". Since the gratuitous use of the word nigger that "would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if", among other criteria, "no equally suitable alternatives are available", the fact that suitable alternatives are indeed available and have already been provided (and can easily be re-factored) makes it painfully clear that the word nigger should in this case at the very least be relegated to footnotes (if used at all). This issue has already been addressed in considerable detail above. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sherurcij: It is not enough to "believe in a small table using HTML to keep it compact". One must have actual reasons for choosing this, not just something against what is in effect going the default route of using a regular-sized table. The fact is, the text in your table is microscopic, as can clearly be seen above. Unless your goal is to make it difficult for the average Wikipedian to read or even notice the legal sentences meted out to the offending soldiers that are specified in the table, your micro-table is beyond inadequate. You are complaining about the size of a table that is not even a fraction of what is found on many other articles on Wikipedia. And a table with actually readable & noticeable text to boot. Your table also contains blatantly false and/or incomplete information; this too has already been demonstrated above by me in painstaking detail. And now you bizarrely write that the actual full details of the legal sentences the offending soldiers received "are not central to a full understanding of the affair" when those same details are direct paraphrases of the Canadian Forces' own summary on the matter?! That is really reaching. Furthermore, yes, Matchee's suicide attempt is obviously mentioned in the "Results" column of the table since, because of this attempt at taking his own life, he was deemed unfit to stand trial. This is commonsense & the "Results" column is obviously therefore where the suicide attempt should've been mentioned in the first place, just like it was in the Canadian Forces' own summary on the outcome of the legal proceedings vis-a-vis the soldiers. There is also no such Wikipedia rule which limits the size of articles to a measly 32K as you have just insinuated. In fact, Wikipedia instructs that "anything over 100K (roughly 20,000 words) almost always need to be split", whereas you yourself have just indicated that the article is only at the moment a fraction of that in size (38K). It also specifies that "creating daughter articles is a matter of judgment. Don't start spinning off content as soon as article exceeds 32K or 64K or even 100K." Lastly, neither Scoobycentric nor I "contend" that the image file is an unverifiable misrepresentation of the situation at hand. Only I have matter-of-factly asserted this, and here again is how I explained it:


 * "'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!'."


 * I have therefore posted the actual tables in question above, so that readers are actually afforded the opportunity to verify for themselves the cited footnotes and compare them to the Charges & Results claimed in each respective table to see which is indeed more accurate and complete. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Readers: Regarding Sherurcij's post above, please have a look at this section for the lowdown. Everything he has just claimed has already been thoroughly discussed/debunked there, so kindly refer to that link for the full details on this particular sub-dispute, including the actual tables in question. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To Sherurcji are you insinuating with your use of Midday/Scooby that i am a sock puppet of Middayexpress since the table discussions was exclusively between the two of you?. Unless you initiate an investigation, i suggest you don't make a habit out of this for i consider this a personal attack on my character.--Scoobycentric (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Comment from uninvolved party
 * WP:UNCENSORED does not at all guarantee the inclusion of this racist language, if this is what you are suggesting. In fact, as with WP:PROFANITY, WP:NOTCENSORED also makes it clear that "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". Since the gratuitous use of the word nigger that "would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if", among other criteria, "no equally suitable alternatives are available", the fact that suitable alternatives are indeed available and have already been provided (and can easily be re-factored) makes it clear that the word nigger should in this case at the very least be put in footnotes. This is not censorship. The direct quotes have not been omitted; the offensive words in them have just been replaced with more appropriate language in the body of the article, but footnoted in their entirety "if specificity is required", as WP:PROFANITY itself instructs. Let's bear in mind that "including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." This issue has also already been addressed point by point here and here, with references to the offensive quotes in question, suitable alternatives to them, and actual examples taken from WP:PROFANITY itself of the treatment of offensive direct quotes that parallel this same situation. Middayexpress (talk) 09:40, 28 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)
 * With all due respect, it is highly doubtful that the table "stretches" your screen or throws anything "out of proportion", as it does not even come close to extending the full width of the screen -- unlike the majority of the text of every single article on Wikipedia, including (ironically) this very one -- and, as can clearly be seen above, it is the exact same width as the other table (only its text is actually legible). And even if it did, claiming that a table is "too wide" is not a legitimate reason to attempt to censor sourced information it happens to contain when the table widths can easily be adjusted. Furthermore, the word nigger could not "be mistaken as an offensive term". Actually, it is the very definition of an offensive term, and is unmistakeably used as a pejorative by the rogue soldiers in question. From the first few lines of the nigger article: "Nigger is a noun in the English language, most notable for its usage in a pejorative context to refer to black people, and also as an informal slang term, among other contexts. It is a common ethnic slur." Those phrases are sourced to, among other references, a website tellingly titled Abolish the N Word. Were the word nigger not an offensive term and the soldiers not using it as a pejorative, as you somehow suggest, there would be no reason let alone a movement to "abolish" the word's use on those very grounds. Insisting that "it is most certainly not a bad thing at all" when one is "quoting somebody and use offensive terms" is also a red herring. No one claimed that it is "bad" to quote the soldiers using the offensive term nigger, but that, among other things, it is gratuitous. This has been painstakingly demonstrated here and here, with references to the offensive quotes at hand, suitable alternatives to them (since "including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not"), and actual examples taken from WP:PROFANITY itself of the treatment of offensive direct quotes that parallel this same situation. That's appealing to actual Wikipedia policies, not to personal experiences. Your likening the present situation as akin to "go erase every WW2 article that mentions the holocaust" is also completely irrelevant, as no one has ever suggested deleting this article (see false dilemma). The direct quotes have not been omitted; the offensive words in them have just been replaced with more appropriate language in the body of the article, but footnoted in their entirety "if specificity is required", as WP:PROFANITY itself instructs. Middayexpress (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Article protection
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 would propose this version as our version with the best consensus; but would suggest that we remove the term "nigger" from the "Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers"." and reduce it to "using racist language". This would reduce the use of the word from three times in the article, to two. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope other editors will comment on Sherurcij's proposed version of the article. If agreement is reached, the protection should be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not a compromise at all, but simply the exact same version of the article that Sherurcij was reverting to and which we have been disputing over since the article was protected. I therefore reject the proposal for the reasons already explained in detail in the discussions above. Middayexpress (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's removing a third of the uses of the word to which you object, the third that I believe can be most easily lost without losing context in the article, and thus constitutes the most "extraneous" or "gratuitous" third. That would seem to be compromise. We can continue discussing ways to improve the article after protection is lifted, this is just a starting-ground so we now where the "default" lies, and move from there to build it into something better. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a "starting ground" much less compromise. It is literally the exact same version of the article you were reverting to before the article was locked and which has been discussed and dissected ad nauseam above (including the arguments you've just raised). Middayexpress (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not my version at all, it is a compromised version that I tried to display and was removed because you preferred your own version. I am suggesting we take my version and remove some of the parts you find offensive. But not all of them, because I feel you are being over-sensitive and trying to sanitise history by removing the offensiveness and burying it in rows upon rows of footnotes. I am not suggesting my version, I am suggesting a version which contains the actual words spoken...but not repeated/quoted every time they were used. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is literally the exact same version of the article you were reverting to before the article was locked and which has been discussed and dissected ad nauseam above (including the arguments you've just raised). No amount of preposterously insisting otherwise on your part is going to change this basic fact. Furthermore, if I am, as you say, "trying to sanitise history by removing the offensiveness and burying it in rows upon rows of footnotes" -- a charge you've already raised several times in the past on this talk page, always to be debunked -- well then so is WP:PROFANITY because, like it or not, this what that Wiki policy itself specifically instructs. It also stipulates that: "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." ...which of course you've just violated with your little atavistic ad hominem above. Middayexpress (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice how my version says "Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers"." and my proposed version says "Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation in racist terms"? Notice how clearly what I'm proposing is not "literally the exact same version", but I am trying to reach compromise? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice how the version of the article that you linked to above -- the one that reads: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sherurcij (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 15 October 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision." i.e. your version -- is the same exact version of the article you were reverting back to just before the article was protected some 36 hours later. Notice how your "proposed" version of the article -- the one that reads: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sherurcij (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 16 October 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision." -- is quite literally the last version of the article that you were championing when the article was protected some two hours after that edit. Hence, yes, I'm afraid both "your version" of the article and your "proposed" version of the article are both very much versions of the article that have been repeatedly analyzed/discredited in the discussions above that took place after the page was protected (about as far from a "compromise" as one can get). Middayexpress (talk) 02:57, 18 November 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)
 * If editors take an all-or-nothing approach, little progress will occur, and the article may remain protected for a long time. Since these events were so horrendous, some quoting of the soldiers' language seems necessary. Those who don't like Sherurcij's version should propose an alternative. Try to split the difference. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An all-or-nothing approach would be, on the one hand, to completely include or almost completely include the racist slurs, as Sherurcij is and has always advocated for, or, on the other hand, to not include the racist slurs at all, which no one is proposing. On the contrary, the direct quotes are still cited in the article and in their entirety; they have not been omitted. The racist slurs in them have just been replaced with more appropriate language in the body of the article, but footnoted in their entirety "if specificity is required", as WP:PROFANITY itself instructs. That is a compromise, and one supported by actual Wikipedia policies to boot. Sherurcij, however, has rejected this, alternately suggesting that it constitutes censorship (although this is what WP:PROFANITY itself instructs) and somehow also represents a loss of information (although the racist slurs are still included in the article, as just explained). Both WP:PROFANITY and WP:NOTCENSORED make it clear that "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". Since the gratuitous use of the word nigger that "would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if", among other criteria, "no equally suitable alternatives are available", the fact that suitable alternatives are indeed available and have already been provided (and can easily be re-factored) makes it clear that the word nigger should in this case at the very least be put in footnotes. So the onus is not, in fact, on us to make concessions. It is on Sherurcij and the other editors that believe that it is absolutely necessary to repeatedly include the racist term nigger in the article's body to explain 1) how replacing the racist words in the quotes with more appropriate language in the body of the article but footnoting them in their entirety "if specificity is required" would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate (although this is what WP:PROFANITY itself both instructs & even demonstrates with examples that closely parallel our present situation); 2) that no equally suitable alternatives are available (although suitable alternatives are indeed available and have already been provided & can easily be re-factored, as already demonstrated); and 3) which exact Wikipedia policy(s) ensures that racist language's inclusion (it sure isn't WP:UNCENSORED, as also already demonstrated). The forgoing has yet to be, and, in fact, cannot be done. Arguing that the pejorative term nigger is not actually racist and especially in the current context -- as some of these editors have actually suggested -- simply does not cut it. Middayexpress (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To add when protection is lifted
The affair led to the creation of Military Police Complaints Commission. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The first photo
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)
 * A similar conversation is taking place regarding the language in the article, but the photo should remain in the article per CENSORED. Options to not see an image has many suggestions on ways individual users can avoid an image, but removing the image is not really an option they offer. FWIW, this image was splashed across Canadian television screens and newspapers for 3 years, invoking the same gag-reflex in us as it does in you. This is an article about the torture and beating death of a teenager in a warzone...its subject is disturbing, and so is the graphic evidence. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know WP:CENSORED and I genuinely think that this particular photo falls under the last paragraph of that guideline; "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". This photo is particularly disturbing, and I don't think it adds anything that causes the article to be more informative than it would be without it.  As an aside, why was this image blown up and put in the lead? - Schrandit (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Canadian context it would be unimaginable to not have that image in this article. It would be similar to the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse not containing any of those images. It is an horrific and iconic image. There is even a rendition of it kept on display at our national war museum. Even today retrospectives on the events will lead with one of the photos. See this Toronto Star piece for example. - SimonP (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither what a national war museum in Canada nor the Toronto Star choose to depict/publish in the way of images for their own purposes and respective audiences has any bearing on whether that picture of race-motivated human torture -- an image of dubious copyright status, to boot -- is right for this Project/Wikipedia and its readership; only actual Wikipedia policies are. And as Schrandit has just pointed out, this particular offensive photo does indeed fall under the last paragraph of WP:CENSORED: "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". Since the photo obviously would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers, it remains to be proven whether this graphic depiction of one man beating another man to death adds anything to this Wikipedia article which cannot be conveyed in words. Middayexpress (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its copyright status is immaterial, since even if deleted from Commons, it would remain on the article as a textbook example of Fair Use. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 13:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course its copyright status matters, just as the copyright status of all images reproduced on Wikipedia matter. And even if one were to attempt to locally re-upload the image under Fair Use criteria, it would still be subject to the policies described above. Middayexpress (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Objections regarding copyright are addressed by fair use, so let's not waste any more time on them. The only question left to us is whether these photos are included here because they contribute to the value of the article or just for shock value.  Yes, the photos are absolutely horrible, but only because they accurately convey the horror of the actions they capture.  The Abu Ghraib comparison is very relevant, as the photos themselves were notable for their role in bringing home the reality of the actions.  In conclusion, because the article would be less informative, relevant and accurate without these images, I support their continued inclusion. CarolineWH (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, CarolineWH, that's a very weak argument. Arguing that this image of one man beating another man to death ought to be included because it "accurately convey[s] the horror of the actions [it] capture[s]" is akin to saying that it's ok to include images of child molestation, rape, and other similar vile, physically transgressive acts against other people since they too, after all, would "accurately convey the horror of the actions they capture". Wikipedia (thankfully) does not work that way. WP:CENSORED is clear that "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". It has yet to be proven that this graphic depiction of one man beating another man to death adds anything to this Wikipedia article which cannot be conveyed in words in the same way that it has yet (and, in fact, can't either) to be proven that photos of child molestation, rape, and other similar vile acts against other people which likewise "accurately convey the horror of the actions they capture" cannot be conveyed in words as well. The Wikipedia articles on child molestation and rape are not any less "informative" or "relevant" or "accurate" because they do not include photos of an adult molesting a child or a man raping a woman i.e. "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers". The inclusion of such images isn't the default option on Wikipedia, but an absolute last resort; that is what the if and only if caveat in the Wikipedia policy cited above represents. Furthermore, all of the images of torture in the Abu Ghraib torture article are free content; they were not uploaded as fair use content. Wikipedia's fair use policy is also very strict and far more limited in scope than U.S. copyright law:


 * "'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.'"


 * This has to do with the fact that two of Wikipedia's stated goals are "to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media", and "to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law". An image that may be fair use in the United States may not be in another country despite the fact that that other country's residents might also be able to access Wikipedia and view its images. This obviously presents legal problems, especially with regard to images such as those involving torture that are verboten in many countries. From Non-free_content:


 * "'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 criteria is also clear that "there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia", and that non-free images "may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" -- criteria which includes, among other things, that "non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic" and that no free equivalent is available:


 * "'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.)'"


 * Since the torture involved in the Somalia Affair can and is regularly and typically conveyed without the use of graphic images of torture but exclusively through words (some examples, all taken from the References section of this very article (no cherry-picking here): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), this subject can indeed "be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all". This means that these images fail at least one (if not more) non-free content criteria and thus also fail to meet WP:NFCC since all the non-free content criteria must be met in order to be eligible for use on Wikipedia, (as quoted above). Middayexpress (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you midday, we don't need this to convey what happened. - Schrandit (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"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)
 * That's an irrelevant analogy, as the Somalia Affair -- what this actual article is about i.e. "the subject" (not the Holocaust) -- can and is regularly and typically conveyed without the use of graphic images of torture but exclusively through words. See my last post above for direct, non-cherry-picked proof of this, as well as quotes and difs from Wikipedia's actual policies on this issue. Middayexpress (talk) 08:02, 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)
 * On the other hand, the article on The Holocaust has a photo of a pile of dead bodies right at the top. ElijahOmega (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's still an irrelevant analogy, as the Somalia Affair -- what this actual article is about i.e. "the subject" (not the Holocaust) -- can and is regularly and typically conveyed without the use of graphic images of torture but exclusively through words. See my large post above dated 16:30, 21 November 2009 for direct, non-cherry-picked proof of this, as well as quotes and difs from Wikipedia's actual policies on this issue. Middayexpress (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Look here. CarolineWH (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes really. As your own link shows, for every article on the Somalia Affair depicting those images of torture, there are exponentially more that don't need to in order to tell the story. That is what I meant by "the Somalia Affair can and is regularly and typically conveyed without the use of graphic images of torture but exclusively through words (some examples, all taken from the References section of this very article (no cherry-picking here): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)". And of course, what other articles on other websites choose to depict/publish in the way of images for their own purposes and respective audiences still has no bearing on whether those images of race-motivated human torture are right for this Project/Wikipedia and its readership; only actual Wikipedia policies do (as I've also already pointed out). Middayexpress (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust is also fairly regularly portrayed without the use of images; however, its Wikipedia article does start with an image. As such, I think it's an entirely relevant analogy. Some other examples:
 * Lynching
 * My Lai Massacre
 * War crime
 * The picture is unpleasant but it seems entirely in keeping with the rest of Wikipedia that this article should open with an image of the events in question. ElijahOmega (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid it is still very much a completely irrelevant analogy because WP:NFCC (an actual Wikipedia policy) again pertains to the subject of the article, which is the Somalia Affair -- not the Holocaust or Lynching or the My Lai Massacre or War crime: ""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." As I've just demonstrated in my last post above, the answer is indeed "yes". In fact, this was all explained over a week ago via actual Wikipedia policies in that quite large post of mine from 16:30, 21 November 2009; everything I've written there still very much applies -- just replace "Abu Ghraib" with "Holocaust", "Lynching", "My Lai Massacre" or "War crime" in the post below:


 * Arguing that this image of one man beating another man to death ought to be included because it "accurately convey[s] the horror of the actions [it] capture[s]" is akin to saying that it's ok to include images of child molestation, rape, and other similar vile, physically transgressive acts against other people since they too, after all, would "accurately convey the horror of the actions they capture". Wikipedia (thankfully) does not work that way. WP:CENSORED is clear that "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". It has yet to be proven that this graphic depiction of one man beating another man to death adds anything to this Wikipedia article which cannot be conveyed in words in the same way that it has yet (and, in fact, can't either) to be proven that photos of child molestation, rape, and other similar vile acts against other people which likewise "accurately convey the horror of the actions they capture" cannot be conveyed in words as well. The Wikipedia articles on child molestation and rape are not any less "informative" or "relevant" or "accurate" because they do not include photos of an adult molesting a child or a man raping a woman i.e. "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers". The inclusion of such images isn't the default option on Wikipedia, but an absolute last resort; that is what the if and only if caveat in the Wikipedia policy cited above represents. Furthermore, all of the images of torture in the Abu Ghraib torture article are free content; they were not uploaded as fair use content. Wikipedia's fair use policy is also very strict and far more limited in scope than U.S. copyright law:


 * "'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.'"


 * This has to do with the fact that two of Wikipedia's stated goals are "to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media", and "to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law". An image that may be fair use in the United States may not be in another country despite the fact that that other country's residents might also be able to access Wikipedia and view its images. This obviously presents legal problems, especially with regard to images such as those involving torture that are verboten in many countries. From Non-free_content:


 * "'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 criteria is also clear that "there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia", and that non-free images "may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" -- criteria which includes, among other things, that "non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic" and that no free equivalent is available:


 * "'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.)'"


 * Since the torture involved in the Somalia Affair can and is regularly and typically conveyed without the use of graphic images of torture but exclusively through words (some examples, all taken from the References section of this very article (no cherry-picking here): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), this subject can indeed "be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all". This means that these images fail at least one (if not more) non-free content criteria and thus also fail to meet WP:NFCC since all the non-free content criteria must be met in order to be eligible for use on Wikipedia, (as quoted above). Middayexpress (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * I'm afraid neither WP:CENSORED nor WP:NFCC differentiate between images of torture committed by pedestrians versus images of torture committed by folks in uniform. At the end of the day, they are all "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers". Middayexpress (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what I'm talking about. This is from the article: "The public outcry against Arone's death didn't occur until November 1994, when a publication ban was lifted against the 16 photographs Brown had taken of the torture session and they were widely published in Canadian media.[10]" And why was there a public outcry AFTER the photos were published? Because, although the public read descriptions of the crimes, it was the photographs that conveyed the true horror of what had actually taken place.114.161.229.100 (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, normal people do typically reel back in horror when confronted with images of torture, no different to how they would react should pictures of child molestation, rape, etc. be thrust in their face (as explained above). This is why WP:CENSORED makes it clear that the inclusion of such images to begin with isn't the default option on Wikipedia, but an absolute last resort: "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". This is also why (as also explained above) Wikipedia's fair use policy is so strict and far more limited in scope than U.S. copyright law i.e. "to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media", and "to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law". Furthermore, your argument that only these photos of one man beating another man to death can convey the "the true horror of what had actually taken place" is likewise irrelevant since, for one thing, the purpose per WP:NFCC is not to convey "the true horror of what had actually taken place", but to find out: ""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." The answer to that last question is obviously yes, since the torture involved in the Somalia Affair (i.e. "the subject") can and is regularly and typically conveyed without the use of graphic images of torture but exclusively through words (some examples, all taken from the References section of this very article (still no cherry-picking here): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Middayexpress (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How can these photographs be copywritten? They were released to the press by the Canadian government, and were used in numerous publications in Canada. Who owns them? What makes these photographs "non-free" to Wikipedia but free to other media?122.1.97.94 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid these photos are very much copyrighted and were, in fact, deleted (1, 2) for that very reason. Middayexpress (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a "Low Importance" Article?
The photograph of Arone being tortured is included in the book "100 Photos That Changed Canada" by Mark Reid. I think that makes this a more important article.114.161.229.100 (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia's own importance scale, an article's importance is not established by what photos are or are not featured in it but by the actual topic of the article. And the actual topic of this article is of course the Somalia Affair, not the "photograph of Arone being tortured". Middayexpress (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The photograph which shocked Canada and changed the nation was a photograph OF the Somalia Affair. It was judged to be one of the top 100 photos that shaped Canadian culture by the book's editors. If a photograph of a sailor kissing a woman in Times Square during the celebration of the end of WWII is a famous image in the U.S., that would lead one to believe that WWII was an important event in U.S. history.122.1.97.94 (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No... the photo is of a man beating another man to death. The Somalia Affair has to do with a lot more than that. And I'm afraid Wikipedia's importance scale does indeed make it clear that an article's importance is not established by what some random "book editors" think of photos that are (or, in this case, are not even) featured in it but by the actual topic of the article itself. An example, taken from the relevant "Criteria" column in the importance scale table: "The article is one of the core topics about Canada. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on Canada topics". Note how it says the article and not "the photo" (or rather, "the deleted photos" in this case), and that said "topics" are listed on a page of Wikipedia articles (i.e. "Canada topics"), not photos. There's a good reason for that. Middayexpress (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor Changes (to do, after protection lifted)
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)


 * I think that the quotation at the top-right of the section on legal proceedings may be squeezing the table just below it unnaturally to the left on some browsers (e.g. my own). Perhaps when protection's lifted, someone could check if a

template or or some other device could free up the space under the quotation, or whether the quotation could be formatted to permit the table greater room.—— Shakescene (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo deletion
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)


 * I would say that the photo should have been kept, since it was a historic image (and iconic and emblematic) of a seminal event in Canadian military history. WP:NOTCENSORED -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Intervention in the wake of The Somalia Affair"
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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323100350/http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c13ae.htm to http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c13ae.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.dcaf.ch/pcaf/ev_brussels_020712_winslow.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609182849/http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c14e.htm to http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c14e.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724092140/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/1995/950119.php to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/1995/950119.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002102401/http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/somaliae.htm to http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/somaliae.htm

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) 15:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)