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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

New Documentary: Incident in New Baghdad

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

Regarding the action he witnessed that day Mr. McCord has previously stated: " It was now about 0400 hours when we heard the sirens for incoming. BOOM first one not very far from where we were gathered. BOOM this one a little closer. We were used to this by now, and although afraid inside, we knew that if we ran for cover we'd look like cowards in the eyes of some of our NCOs. So the majority of us just stood there, praying that a mortar wouldn’t land on us. [...]Finally the mortars stopped."

And

"We started funneling into an alleyway to leave the area, when some locals on the roofs above us started firing their AK-47s at us. We took cover along a wall and were returning fire. We could hear other fire coming from another platoon just a few blocks from us as well, on the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire." [1] That would signify that he did see action that day.

By the way, the after action report states that there were at least 2 RPG launchers and several RPG rounds. ("An additional RPG launcher with a loaded round still in it") P.13, in the PDF, Paragraph 6.

That was backed by a secondary source and I'de like to restore it. V7-sport (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a secondary source that says 2 RPG launchers? Gregcaletta (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree than McCord is almost contradicting his previous statements when he says "nothing really happened happened for the majority of the day ... we were bored", almost but not quite. In any case both statements can be included in the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

His statement contradicts all other reports on the matter and himself though. V7-sport (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It should still be included. In fact that is all the more reason it should be included. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That he is contradicting himself is all the more reason to include him contradicting himself? V7-sport (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he is contradicting the official line is more reason to include his statements. Also, we should included his statement that "there was no RPG rounds in the RPG [launcher]) ... I don't think they were armed to fight us; they were just showing off for the cameramen that were there".(http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/incident-in-new-baghdad-premieres-at-tribeca-film-festival/) Gregcaletta (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But that goes in the "Commentary" section whereas the comment that "nothing really happened happened for the majority of the day ... we were bored" goes in the "Context" section. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He is contradicting himself, and the other reporting on the days events, including an embedded reporter.

McCord has previously stated: " It was now about 0400 hours when we heard the sirens for incoming. BOOM first one not very far from where we were gathered. BOOM this one a little closer. We were used to this by now, and although afraid inside, we knew that if we ran for cover we'd look like cowards in the eyes of some of our NCOs. So the majority of us just stood there, praying that a mortar wouldn’t land on us. [...]Finally the mortars stopped."

And

"We started funneling into an alleyway to leave the area, when some locals on the roofs above us started firing their AK-47s at us. We took cover along a wall and were returning fire. We could hear other fire coming from another platoon just a few blocks from us as well, on the net we could hear that they were taking small arms as well as RPG fire." [2] That would signify that he did see action that day. V7-sport (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No that's not contradicting himself because he said no action for the "majority" of the day. He is contradicting the reporter who said there was action "all day", and that is all the more reason to include the comment. WP:NPOV says all significant viewpoints must be represented. This is no "fringe theory" but reporting form someone who was there. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if he were contradicting himself, that would not be reason not to include his most recent comments. Perhaps he is less concerned than he used to be about contradicting the official line. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Official line"... You mean the one that doesn't contradict itself? He is already in the article by the way, obviously. V7-sport (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And here you give yet another example of why the POV tag needs to remain. McCord's statements are at least as reliable if not more valuable than Cohen's, if not more so, but you exclude McCord's because they oppose your POV. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Had I excluded Mccords statements they wouldn't be in the article... V7-sport (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Info box

None of those sources state "confirmed", Subh83 was correct, as it reads now it's a hash. And yes the previous sources mention the longer tape and had the footage of the building. V7-sport (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we are allowed and even encouraged to replace news style language with encyclopaedic style language. When a news source say 12 people killed they mean 12 confirmed. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Confirmed" means something different then what has been reported. As such it's original research. They didn't say confirmed therefore you don't know it was confirmed. V7-sport (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And you have created another cite-error. V7-sport (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

BOT fixed it. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources say confirmed, writing that is original research and that the citations for the 12 dead were already there. V7-sport (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources cited for "12 people killed" mentioned the building. It is original research to assume they are including the attack on the building when they have not mentioned it. It is not original research to replace merely replace "killed" with "fatalities confirmed". You've made it pretty clear that you haven't fully understood the WP:OR policy. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the ones from the Times mention the long version of the tape that includes the building.Yes it is original research to state that they were confirmed because no one stated that they were confirmed. From OR; V7-sport (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)"This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." Right? The sources don't say "confirmed", they say killed or dead. V7-sport (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If the reports were "confirmed", how could they vary? It just doesn't make sense. V7-sport (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have WP:OR confused. The part you just quoted is explaining that you don't need to cite sources for something that has never been challenged, as long as it is clear that a source exists. A strange part for you to quote because it is not particularly relevant to our discussion. It certainly doesn't not say in that section or anywhere else in the policy that we cannot change the style of the language. "12 killed" and "12 fatalities confirmed" means the same thing in this context; the second is just clearer and more encyclopaedic language. Gregcaletta (talk)

But it also seems you don't understand the meaning of "confirmed fatalities". When there is an military conflict or a natural disaster there are confirmed deaths (where bodies have been found) and unconfirmed deaths (where person is missing and no body is found). So the "confirmed fatalities" is the minimum number of fatalities. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But all of this is a bit beside the point because the number 12 should be removed from the infobox altogether as well as the word confirmed. The article mentions the long version of the video elsewhere in the article. It says 12 people killed in an attack "on a street" so it does not include the building attack. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"The part you just quoted is explaining that you don't need to cite sources for something that has never been challenged"... I have been challenging whether or not they are "confirmed". From Websters. Confirm: to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact <confirm a rumor> <confirm an order> If these were "confirmed" there would be no ambiguity as to how many dead there were. It would be 1 number that we all agreed on. If the article mentions the long version of the tape, they are aware of the building. If they list a total is with the knowledge of the building attack. V7-sport (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was patiently debating this with you but now you have started reverting my copyediting again and there is no excuse for this behaviour. Here I was think your behaviour had improved to some level of decency. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. I manually changed it to a new edit. "your behaviour", "your behaviour".... You are writing to a middle aged man, not a kindergartner. Can you cut out the finger wagging about "behaviour" please?V7-sport (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well change your behaviour then; it's disgraceful. It was a copy-paste which is as bad as a revert. I can tell it was a copy-paste because it includes the mistakes in punctuation, source formatting etc. that were present in the original. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop editing in bad faith. There wasn't a reversion, that was untrue. It wasn't a copy and paste, that too is untrue. There were no mistakes in punctuation, it was what 2 other editors have suggested to you. (Not that you have shown yourself to be an expert on punctuation.) What is a "disgrace" is the tag-teaming that you and Iqinn are engaging in. V7-sport (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a "tag team" should be avoided as it is uncivil. IQinn (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Einstein... If you want to avoid accusations of being in a tag team you might want to wait 30 or so seconds before your buddy wrongly accuses me of making a single reversion to post the template... and you might want to avoid chiming in here all together. V7-sport (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything to IQuinn. He must have seen your edits and objected for the same reasons I did. There's nothing that bad about punctuation mistakes -- they can be fixed -- but these punctuation changes show that they are the result of copying and pasting text from an older version and then making a few slight changes to your own reversion. You make yourself you rather silly by denying this is what you did. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AGAIN, I DIDN'T COPY AND PASTE A PERVIOUS EDIT, I CONSULTED THE LANGUAGE ON THE TALK PAGE ABOVE. You have made yourself "silly" by claiming thatI had reverted.... back peddling without having the class to apologize and now claiming that I had copied and pasted a previous edit when it is provably different. The fact that Iqinn hopped on your mistake like a vulture on a gut wagon pretty much tells the tail about how much good faith you have employed here. V7-sport (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's the same thing because the language above comes from an old version of the article; that's just an underhand way of reverting. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@V7-sport Calling other editor "tag team", liar and continues shouting is uncivil. I am not reminding you again to stop uncivil behavior. IQinn (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same thing, what I posted was demonstrably different. And no, it's not an underhand way of reverting, had I wanted to revert there would be nothing to stop me from doing exactly that. V7-sport (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Boy Iqinn, you can dish it out but you can't take it. By all means, don't remind me again, about anything, I'm not interested. V7-sport (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Boy Iqinn" yeah it looks like that any good faith attempt from all sites of the community has failed so far to make behave in a civil way. IQinn (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on the "underhand" part. It appears you didn't intentionally revert, but unintentionally reverted. Just try to be more careful with copying and pasting. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, there was no reversion, unintentional or otherwise. Had I wanted to revert, I would have reverted. What was posted was new language that tried to include the contributions of other editors. (- Subh83) As it stands now you have it as "Press reports of number killed fatalities vary from... " Which is hilarious considering that you were just ragging on me about punctuation. I'm going to remove "fatalities" because it is redundant. No need to have Iqinn toss me another 3rr template... Just cleaning up a mess. V7-sport (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it myself. I wasn't ragging you about punctuation. In fact I said "There's nothing that bad about punctuation mistakes -- they can be fixed -- but these punctuation changes show that they are the result of copying and pasting text from an older version and then making a few slight changes to your own reversion". It's still clear from comparing these three versions that your edit was a reversion to older material: 2011-04-25T13:43:13; 2011-04-25T16:29:41; 2011-04-25T15:31:43. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There were no punctuation mistakes, that was just you needing to assert yourself as you have done continually here. The revisions you posted are different, that they are similar is due to the fact that there is only so many ways you can post similar information. Again, had I wanted to revert, I simply would have. Now repeat the same thing over again, you are starting to sound like Iqinn. V7-sport (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As you have the same problem with different editors - ever thought there might be a problem on your side.? IQinn (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, formatting mistakes then. I changed "result" to "casualties and losses" and you changed it back to "result", which is a formatting error that resulted from your copying and pasting of an old talk page suggestion which was very similar to the old version of the article. In the future, please change the things you specifically disagree with rather simply replacing the whole section with material based on a copy-paste from an old talk page discussion. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No formatting mistakes either. There are no other Wikipedia articles on military engagements with "casualties and losses" in it's own highlighted area in the info box. That's why I changed it. It's something that I don't think belongs there. I would prefer "results" but can live with "Casualties" if you remove the highlighting. Bottom line, it wasn't a "formatting error", it's something I object to and it should be changed. V7-sport (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Iqinn, good thing you get along so well with the other editors here. Your hypocrisy is amazing. V7-sport (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How about Greg how does he get along with other editors? I think quite well while you have countless conflicts just resently with a lot of other editors. Anyway just leave it like that. IQinn (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC) You also continue to call other editors liars. That is uncivil. IQinn (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here another lying and another liar...there seems to be no way to have a civil conversation with you. IQinn (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You can dish it out Iqinn, but when it comes to taking a little back you act like the aggrieved party and run for help. No one is buying it. Awesome how you deny that that you are tag teaming but you bring up what's on his talk page. V7-sport (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Check model example: "Result: Swedish victory" and Casualties and losses is highlighted. This is just part of the correct template formatting and it's the same at all the featured military conflict articles. And in any case your change of this was a reversion of my own change, so it needs to be made as a separate edit with a proper edit summary, and your attempt at justification needs to be given there. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You have had admins explain to you that changes don't have to be done one at a time, and I've explained the rationale behind the edit repeatedly. V7-sport (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes don't have to be done one at a time, but reversions need proper justifications in their edit summaries. I changed "results" to "casualties" which is a basic formatting (and vocabulary) issue. You changed it back to "results" so this part at least is a reversion and needed a proper justification in the edit summary. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There was explanation provided here. You are repeating yourself and I'm not going to do the same at this point.V7-sport (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear User:Gregcaletta and User:V7-sport. Thank you for all the discussion. Although I partially lost track of it while reading through, I guess my 2-cents are as follows:

1. When there are different conflicting reports from multiple reliable sources, we cannot use the word "confirmed". The best thing to do is remain transparent about the disagreement among sources by proving citations for the different reports. I checked the references, and they do have different numbers ranging from 12 to 18.
2. I am in favour of keeping the infobox sub-title "Casualties and losses" instead of the previous "results", as the former is more relevant and makes more sense. The purpose of it is not to mention who came victorious in the conflict, but rather the number of people killed (since it is more aptly an assault rather than a conflict). So the "result" block of Template:Infobox_military_conflict does not apply here.

Also, User:V7-sport, let's stick to Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Civility through constructive discussions. That way we will be able to contribute more. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My introduction to this user was:

• "The kind of edits you have been making including series of agenda driven edits in one go borders on vandalism and if it continues I will request to have you blocked from the article.”
• “you appear to be blinded by an agenda.”
• “it is you own personal bias that leads you to choose that particular part of the interview to include in the article.”
• “I'm too busy and too tired to keep reverting your changes and attempt to point out to you what to me is blindingly obvious when you have shown that you will not be reasoned with. Go ahead and ruin the article.”
• “I am very tired of repeating myself to you, but I will reiterate anyway. The points you wrote were mainly a distraction from rather than a response to what I wrote”
• “have a look at the way V7-sport's "discussion" is just an attempt to distract from our complaints, and the complaints of others, rather than respond.”
• “It's so tiring to have to repeat myself like this Are you actually reading my points?"
• “I don't know how to respond to this last point of yours. It is embarrassingly incoherent.”

...And that was pretty much the high point of our communication. Civility is a 2 way street. The tag teaming, talk page filibustering and drive by tagging, along with the perpetual sanctimony and petulance have pretty much done in the assumption of good faith. V7-sport (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

Regarding legality of the attack

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

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

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

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

You could certainly add more. Some more notable names would be nice.

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

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

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

I agree that it would be nice. The "how it would be applied to this situation" is the sticking point. I just don't see any good references for that.

The press deserves much of the blame for it. They could have asked for specifics from the military spokesmen and from those who sympathize with the other side. Maybe some of them did but I haven't seen it yet.

That said, there probably isn't a clear line in a treaty that a reporter could point to and ask about. These treaties were written by governments with the advice of their generals. They weren't going to allow a situation where children could legally be used as human shields, which is basically what the critics are asking for now.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)