Jump to content

Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.161.81.20 (talk) at 19:33, 4 April 2018 (→Article title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 12, 2010Articles for deletionKept
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 6, 2010.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 12, 2013, and July 12, 2017.

Incidents/NPOV

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

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

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

Context of an interview

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

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

In that context, then name as given is correct.

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

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

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

STOP one-click editing....

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

footage footage

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

Article title

Shouldn't this be "July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike" per MOS:DATE which says "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation"? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the context it seems pretty clear to me that MOS:DATE is referring to when the date is used in a sentence. I don't think it would apply in this case.Aervanath (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you infer that from both MOS:DATE and MOS:COMMA? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike&oldid=834261417"