Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

New article

Hey everyone, this page is in need of some help! There's a plethora of information on this incident I haven't been able to integrate yet. Most of it can be found at collateralmurder.com and wikileaks.org, and is mirrored on all of the major news websites. The Washington Post also has some info. I'm pretty new to editing, so any help with formatting is much appreciated!WhisperingWisdom ^{T C} 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Whew this grew quick. Work needed: "Incident" section should be expanded - with evidence from the video, a detailed description of the incident can be created, and referenced back to the video.WhisperingWisdom ^{T C} 05:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

30mm Gunshot Wound?

In the article, it states the the little girl in the van suffered gunshot wounds. Does that mean she was hit by the 30mm apache cannon, or by small-arms later? Just seemed unlikely that a small child survived multiple hits with something that large... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but it is entirely possible that she could have been hit with pieces of shrapnel from the exploding rounds without being directly hit. --Hibernian (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A soldier stated that she had a belly wound from the video. The van was hit with multiple cannon rounds, and the girl was in the van, so it's most likely that she got hit by shrapnel from the van. Considering she lived, I'd doubt she was hit directly with cannon fire. 65.196.214.163 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The 30 mm shells from the M230 cannon are high explosive dual purpose. This means they explode on impact producing high velocity fragments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank_warhead#High_explosive_dual_purpose). They are not solid rounds, but are more like grenades or small mortar rounds. This explains the nature of the childrens' injuries.Galerita (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So if it's shrapnel... is it still considered a "gunshot wound"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon

I've heard that the pentagon has denied that this ever took place and that in fact also tried to get wikileaks taken down before April 5th to prevent the video from leaking. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, does it sound like something that should be mentioned in the article? Rafael 06:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The US Government (probably not the Pentagon specifically) confirmed the existence of the incident at the time (Reuters started pressuring them very quickly), but it's the more controversial details (what exactly the Apache crew saw and how they made their decisions) that were unknown until now (because the Pentagon denied requests to see this video). Wikileaks has also stated that they've had conflict with US intelligence services, and has posted documents supposedly from the Pentagon talking about the threat Wikileaks might pose and steps that can be taken to stop whistleblowers. I'm not sure if all of these things are directly related, and I don't believe the Pentagon report has been officially confirmed as real (although I wouldn't be surprised if it has been).

More directly: No denial of incident, just denial of access and details. As for taking Wikileaks "down", I haven't seen anything other than the usual paranoia (somewhat rightfully) associated with this kind of event - definitely no verified action against Wikileaks other than the aforementioned conflicts and confrontations. At this point it looks like everything is "acceptable", in the sense that there don't seem to be any "the sky is green" lies or attempts to do anything other than intimidate Wikileaks. 98.246.144.63 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow Twitter. Probably not related, see [1]. --mj41 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias In The Transcript

The 'transcript' here is not complete in any way, and does not claim to be. However, there are selected quotes here that are not a fair representation of the video. Adding things like: One small child wounded. Over." - "Roger. Ah damn. Oh well." and 07:25:27 "There it goes! Look at that bitch go!" but not including the full text really doesnt seem right. Someone should do a full text (of the full 40 minute video not the short one with comments on it) to really show what is going on in the video. The selective quotes are not enough. This is an important incident, and many many people should see the video in its entirety. We all know this video is useless if its edited to support your point of view or only show selective parts of it

Full transcript, now linked in the External links section. I wonder how we should incorporate that into the article though... NW (Talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it to wikiquote and leaving a link to the text here. Other articles use that format, so it should not be an issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Media Blackout

There clearly wasn't a media blackout, as the incidenct was covered by CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Huffington Post, the BBC, amongst others only a few hours after the incident. It wasn't exactly speedy, but it seems unlikely that they were pressured into not running the story (whether they were pressured into omitting facts is a different matter). The media blackout controversy seemed to have started on reddit soon after the release because it took the MSM a few hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.67.97 (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - reddit has a tendency to hype the conspiracy side of things. I think the section in "Publicity" on the so-called media blackout should be rewritten more neutrally.WhisperingWisdom ^{T C} 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted all the media blackout stuff, since, you know, it didn't exist.--132.177.67.97 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

good call, reddit's BS self-posts are not a legitimate source. this was definitely on tv yesterday Plastichandle (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumstances

Does anyone know why the helicopter crew were suspicious of people walking around? Had people been told to stay indoors or leave the district, for example? New Thought (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to work out either from the video or from the gap between the gun firing and rounds arriving in the target area how far the helicopter was from the target area? New Thought (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the audio and video are well synched, it's got to be a considerable distance. 33° (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists the muzzle velocity of the M230 chain gun on the Apache as 805 m/s, the delay between seeing the camera shake (gun being fired) and the bullets hitting the ground is ~2.1sec, which gives an approximate distance of 1690 meter or ~1 mile. -- Grumbel (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also two questions that should be answered in the article: Is it allowed to shoot people caring AK-47 in a non-threatening manner? Some people mentioned that owning and carrying a AK-47 is perfectly legal in Iraq (but maybe not at the time and location of the incident?). Also some people mentioned that the video quality inside the helicopter is substantially better then what we see in the recorded video, is that the case? Does anybody have an example for comparison? -- Grumbel (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The range is ~1050m as the helicopter comes around the building, immediately before they open fire. They close to 940m by the time the burst impacts. The range, coupled with their altitude of ~1000ft syncs up pretty well with the gun's muzzle velocityApacheguy (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The range can be read off the video in units of 10 metres. It is displayed just to the top right (outside) of the rectangle at the bottom centre of the screen. The main difficulty is that the video resolution (480p) is probably below the native resolution of the gun camera, so it's hard to read. I make the range 1000m when they start firing and about 850m at the end of the first burst. This range (calculated via laser rangefinder ?) is of course used to calculate a firing solution. Galerita (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the projectile velocity will fall rapidly once it leaves the muzzle due to air resistance. Page 8 of this document (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/28824935/30mm-x113-Spotter-Charge-Prototype) suggests it is only about 340 m/s at 1000m (It's unclear if this is fired at ground level or 500 feet). If this was constant deceleration (with time) we could just take the distance divided by the average velocity (1000m/570m/s) to give time (1.75 sec). (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion) However, the projectile decelerates more rapidly initially, so 2.1 seconds is a reasonable time of flight over 1000m. Galerita (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not to take away from anyone's inside knowledge or math skills based on probably reasonable assumptions, but unless a reliable source discusses the distance of the helicopter to the targets, it's contrary to Wikipedia:No original research to make any claims about this in the article. — Scientizzle 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding this edit claiming that the "no original research" policy was never intended to apply to straightforward arithmetic...it's not just straightforward arithmetic. There are a number of assumptions that are necessary for the arithmetic to be correct, including knowing the exact models of the equipment onboard or that the camera shake accurately represents the time of gun firing. Also, it's clear that the engagement range varied over the attack as well. We can wait for a secondary source to discuss this issue. — Scientizzle 16:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry - I didn't see these new comments in this section. However, the approximate range should be in the article to counter the impression that the video gives that the helicopter was close to the target area. New Thought (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point regarding the zoom lens being possibly confusing. Leaving a {{cn}} on a likely correct claim that the range was about a km isn't unreasonable. It's likely that more specific data will surface regarding this point. Perhaps there's something in the official report--the cryptome.org link--that indicates the range of engagement? It wouldn't surprise me. — Scientizzle 16:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I pulled the range & altitude sources from the Technical Manual for the Apache, TM 1-1520-251-10 Technical Manual for Helicopter, Attack, AH-64D Longbow Apache, U.S. Army. Since this cannot be considered a reliable source due to its proprietary nature, I will continue to search for a more easily verifiable way to back my claim.Apacheguy (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article states that 'Both children were evacuated to forward operating base Loyalty'. However, both the chatter (transcript) and Wikileaks claim the children were simply dumped at a local facility, suggesting a different standard of care. I do not consider the source is credible as it has been established that the official statements were inaccurate. As the video is deemed genuine by all parties involved it should be assumed that it was a local hospital and not military care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rernst2 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Pretext"

I've moved this off the article for further discussion:

although it has also been noted that they seem to be looking for a pretext, with one pilot stating "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon".

This quote is accurate but calling it a pretext implies it happened before shots were fired, whereas actually it comes later. I'm not sure if it should be in the article. 33° (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a pretext because they were looking for an excuse to open fire again, to finish off the wounded and clearly unarmed victim. They were not looking for a pretext for the original round of shooting that had already occurred since they had been authorized to fire that time. Since the American personnel's eagerness to fire indiscriminately was one of the key criticisms arising from the video evidence, I think it is necessary to demonstrate examples like this in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the American gunners showed an 'eagerness' or 'indiscrimination' at all. These comments degrade the skill of US troops in combat. Please remember this is video shot during WAR- where it is the JOB of soldiers to kill. Because US troops do that job very well is not an indication of 'desensitization'. At min3:40 of the video the targets are clearly seen holding weapons. The Rueters crew surely knew they were embedded with beligerent fighters and that fact doesn't seem to be raised in these discussions. Haamerhed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.141.252 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The job of soldiers is, similar to police, to preserve life and the goals or ideals of their country. Their job is not to kill - killing, simply, at times, preserves life. If it was the job of soldiers to kill, they might as well all be bloody psychopaths. In any case, lets avoid turning this into a forum. //Annihilatron (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[NC in LB, CA here] I am curios why the original author of this article chose to write: "During their surveillance of the group, the crewmen identified weaponry in the hands of the Iraqis..." when in fact, the object(s) in the hands of one- or more of the persons on the ground would later be acknowledged to be cameras? It would be more accurate to state that crew-members "mistook" one object for another (if that is, in fact, what occurred). I am all for dispassionate reportage of passion-rousing events, but the original author appears to have intentionally omitted a vital - and admitted fact from their recounting of the event.

It would appear that there were AK type assault weapons being held by members of the group but also cameras being held by journalists. I don't have an issue with the wording of "During their surveillance of the group, the crewmen identified weaponry in the hands of the Iraqis..." However I am in favour of how it is currently worded. In the article it states that Bravo Company found an AK-47 or AKM weapon and two RPGs. TwinnedChimera (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Civilians?

At 3:45 in the 17 minute video, the behaviour of the guys in the top centre of the video looks very suspicious indeed - and the item they are carrying looks very much like an AK-47 or RPG to me. Are we 100% stone cold certain that they are civilians? New Thought (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Army's investigation report says that the Bravo Company discovered "two RPG's and an AK-47 or AKM among the group of insurgents clustered near the wall. They also discovered two Canon EOS digital cameras with large telephoto lenses attached in the immediate vicinity of the bodies." [2] (see page 13 of the PDF). This makes it very difficult to argue that they were all civilians or that we don't know if they were insurgents. --HYC (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The footage clearly shows that several of the "civilians" are carrying AK-47s. The rather biased description in this article needs to be changed whok (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of them had weapons. The rest were insurgents too, but they just happened to be unarmed at the time. If they're roaming the streets amongst a group of armed terrorists, then they're not civilians. (122.106.227.165 (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

You can see one of them carying an RPG. Ordinary Iraqis own Ak-47s but only military, insurgents, militia or AQ would be carying an RPG. Then there is a guy who squats behind the corner of the building pointing what looks like an RPG, but it might have been a camera with a very long lense. Though I can see how they might have mistaken it for a weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.177.109 (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how terrorists think: in black and white. And they're not "terrorists", they are insurgents fighting an occupying army. Even Fox News knows the difference. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

^ Thank you. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You have an easier time making that distinction when you remember to ask the questions "Why don't you feel safe? -- Who is threatening you?" and "So what do you plan to do to defend yourself if threatened?" . I'm not taking a position here, of course, on whether those Iraqis with arms (for which the evidence is not wholly agreed upon, by the by) should carry them / defend themselves from invading forces; what I mean is that when you say "I'm taking a shotgun because I might be endangered outside because the country is being invaded," your goals are similar to the insurgents'. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The interesting philosophical question then, is 'who is in the right'? Because when an invader is trying to establish law. He believes himself to be in the right, but when the defender thinks of his right to be independent, defend themselves, their family, friends, and their homes, they believe themselves to be in the right.....129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And the answer seems to be straight forward : Even Americans claim a "right to selfdefense" ! No ? 79.210.121.165 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a good question and deserves discussion, but not here, unfortunately. For this event the (sad?) reality of the U.S. military in Iraq is already accepted. 74.12.22.96 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Original synthesis

The Publicity section appears to be completely original synthesis. We need external sources connecting all the dots. It's not our task to do that. __meco (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How it was reported in 2007

someone should include a section for how it was reported in 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=4&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

this article says the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed. which turned out to be a complete lie.--86.133.232.107 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a "lie"? Weapons were indeed found at the scene. No one is now disputing that some civilians were killed but some of the group were conspicuously armed.whok (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that anyone armed is an insurgent may be standard US military practise currently (which is interesting considering the fuss about the right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment), but that doesn't make it a factual statement. I doubt the NY Times made that mistake in the article, and are probably quoting the military statements about the incident at the time. Articles around the same time also interviewed eye witnesses that suggested a chain of events closer to what is shown in the video, so I think it might be worth trying to add something along these lines to the article if we can find decent sources for it. --86.181.123.179 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Refer to point above about connotations. Don't reinforce the negative stereotype that armed Arabs are Insurgents. In a country like that, it's fairly common for people to own a weapon. Annihilatron (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This should also go here. It's a contemporary report published on Friday, July 13, 2007 in the Washington Post about that day's events. Reporter David Finkel as an "embedded journalist" also participated in writing it to cover [up] what really happened.

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html
  

Johannjs (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

useful images

These are images to be added when the article has enough text to hold them.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• 
  AH-64 Apache 30mm gun
• 
  Canon 70-200mm similar to the one Namir Noor-Eldeen held
• The picture he took as he looked around the corner, mistaken for firing an RPG.
  The picture he took as he looked around the corner, mistaken for firing an RPG.

I would agree with that, especially the picture of the Apache's gun there as it also shows an on-board camera, presumably similar to the one used to film the incident. Also a general picture of an Apache would be good for people who don't know what it looks like. --Hibernian (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• The camera from which the video was recorded is located on the nose of the aircraft, rather than the gun itself [3] I'm assuming you're looking at the low-light visible designation laser located to the lower right of the barrel as seen head on, next to the armament guy's knee.Apacheguy (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the mistaken identity of the camera it would be appropriate, if used, to show it next to a picture of an RPG7 which, when ready to fire, is rather different to the EOS. Weakopedia (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be great to include a photo in the article of the type of helicopter used in that attack at an early stage like this. Many, me included, do not know how that aircraft looks like and it would be a good illustration for the article. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The AH-64 Apache article has heaps of pictures. It should be possible to include one, though it's a mean looking machine so it may raise NPOV concerns. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Legality

• The New yorker has published a legal investigation of the incident, whether the pilots had the right to engage or not: New Yorker legal investigation--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rules of Engagement

I propose a section evaluating the video in light of the Rules of Engagement in effect at that time, which are available at http://www.collateralmurder.org/en/resources.html.WhisperingWisdom ^{T C} 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research. We should wait for third party sources to evaluate it on those guidelines (like The New Yorker article above). NW (Talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Right right. We could expand the New Yorker ROE analysis and put something about the ROE in the title specifically (instead of just "legality", and reference it back to the New Yorker page and the ROE available on Wikileaks.WhisperingWisdom ^{T C} 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline section

I have commented out the timeline section until a more neutral (less selective) version can be implemented.   — C M B J   23:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the full timeline is far too long...maybe someone could extract out the main points of interest and compose a timeline out of them?WhisperingWisdom ^{T C} 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply removed the section. The incident is too intricate to represent fairly with an extracted timeline, so it is better to link the full transcript to the incidents section and write it out in prose, quoting when necessary. NW (Talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, it is worth noting that the TimesOnline transcript contains errors. Here is an example:

TimesOnline: "Hey, uh, I need to get the Brads to drop rads I got a wounded little girl we need to take her off the maya."

Original audio: "Hey, uh, I need to get the Brads to drop rads. I got a wounded girl we need to take to Rustamiyah."

If a better source can be located, we should use it instead.   — C M B J   00:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And an accurate transcription would be nice too... its not "Brads to drop rads" its "Brads to drop ramps", no? Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The incident is not too complicated to represent with a timeline and I for one think the addition of a timestamped, sequential list of events adds a lot to the article. If this is unrealistic or incorrect, please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ButOnMethItIs (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The way that the section was before, a reader would have inferred that the soldiers involved were cold-blooded murderers on a rampage; however, the complete transcript makes it abundantly clear that the entire incident was an honest mistake—even down to the most controversial of statements. I do not oppose inclusion of a timeline, so long as it does not selectively include hyperbolic, POV-slanted quotes.   — C M B J   00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What specifically would improve that timeline? There seems to be a complete absence of detail in this discussion. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to create our own analytical and apathetic timeline of major events, without the [ab]use of quotations.   — C M B J   01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well that clears up everything. 98.71.211.76 (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To CMBJ: If I may say so, it [may have been -- you say was -- probably is] an honest mistake. However, few people are disputing that, and the prosecuting tone of all the news reports and commenters either do not see the mistake as innocuous aside from the lives in this specific incident -- they are not getting so worked up over an honest mistake -- or else they are being quite absurd. (Obviously the army makes mistakes, and obviously they are in a position where that costs lives. Nothing new there.) But the controversy, I believe, comes from the fact that this honest mistake was capable of being made under the impression of total adherence to the rules of engagement / human rights. It raises questions about the validity of those rules (seeing that they can generate mistakes that seem so in accordance with them that there is no doubt whatsoever, only cheering and eagerness for it, by the perpetrators). So the soldiers were probably not "cold-blooded murderers on a rampage", not whatsoever, but the army and the war that commissioned their service has a tendency to lead to incidents like this one, which are indeed murder, and this incident is intended to be taken as an instance of that tendency. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also to CMBJ: "...the complete transcript makes it abundantly clear that the entire incident was an honest mistake." I'm reluctant to call the initial engagement a "mistake", particularly if that implies a mistake on the part of the Apache crew. To my eye when viewing the video at the best resolution available (480p) the group of 9 men initially fired upon included 3 who were carrying weapons: an AKM (or similar), an RPG launcher and an RPG reload. If that is correct, a reasonable interpretation is that the Reuters crew were there to photograph the engagement from the insurgents POV. It's clear from Namir's last photos that the group were well within RPG and small-arms range of US forces and may have been waiting in ambush. They would seem an appropriate target for the Apache crew and well within the rules of engagement, perhaps even if two were known to be press. Galerita (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is with the ethics of the follow-up to the initial attack. The apparent firing on seriously wounded "insurgents", and the attack on the Kia van, without evidence of weapons. The military report (http://cryptome.org/reuters-kill.zip) states that, "The Apache pilot requests permission to engage in order to prevent the escape of the insurgents." That suggests that the mission is to kill or capture insurgents rather than allow them to flee even if they are wounded. There appears to be no "mistake" on behalf of the Apache crew in seeking to fulfill this mission. Does this tie with the rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention? This is an ethical question beyond Wikipedia's remit.Galerita (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Factual errors in the Army report?

100px|left|thumb Non-free image removed.  fetchcomms☛ 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The Army report states that the van was "black" (Captions to Exhibits F, H, I), yet the color image of the van after the attack shows a (sky-?) bluish van, with possibly a white roof, and white "skirts". Maybe Apacheguy can enlighten us if this is due to the fact that the spectral sensitivity of the gunsight is shifted to the infrared (of course assuming that this information is not restricted)? Do all the other facts in the report hold up? -- Enemenemu (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Target Acquisition Designation System is in its 'Day TV' mode during the engagement. In this setting, its acting like a 'simple' telescopic video camera without any thermal imagery. I'm a little surprised that the van isn't lighter in the video, if the full color picture is accurate, and not color/contrast corrected. Source is restricted due to 'For Official Use Only' designation.Apacheguy (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! -- Enemenemu (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is another photo of the van that shows the same color: http://collateralmurder.com/file/imgiraq/mini_van.jpg.html

Color aside, the damage on the van doesn't match what is shown in the video, where did that additional damage come from? -- Grumbel (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks calls it tank-related damage, but I have seen no corroborration yet. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See full video 27m01s. --mj41 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call 74.12.22.96 (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Modified Intro

Whoever modified the intro, it is now in need of references.WhisperingWisdom ^{T C} 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, info in the intro should not be cited unless there is a good reason for it; the reason being that whatever appears in the intro is going to be elaborated on in the article body. This is not to say that there should not be citations in the intro if the information demands a cite, but do try and refrain from citing in the intro unless its absolutely necessary. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We had a situation with an editor repeatedly[4] reverting[5] the substance of the WP:LEAD claiming it had "no proof". As consequence of this and another edit[6], the lede is now extremely well cited. —Sladen (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Friendly fire or collateral damage?

The lead, which I edited a bit, currently says "... A subsequent investigation of the incident by US forces determined that although the helicopters had engaged a number of armed insurgents, the engagement left two reporters for Reuters dead in an apparent case of friendly fire. ..." However, the Friendly fire article says "... inadvertent harm to non-combatatants[sic] or structures, usually referred to as "collateral damage" is also not considered to be friendly fire. ...", and I'm fairly sure Reuters employees are non-combatants. Perhaps the two articles should be reconciled? --an odd name 00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps the distinction is made between enemy civilians and allied civilians?   — C M B J   00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"friendly fire" should really only be applied to allied military casualties, changing that to "collateral damage" in lede. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure either term is appropriate. The children in the van are clearly collateral damage, but what of the actual targets of the gunships? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning was that "two reporters for Reuters" were engaged because of misidentification, or killed by being in direct proximity to intended targets. I think collateral damage is "approriate" (both terms are macabre and disgusting IMO regardless). Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If collateral damage is taken to mean damage that is "unintended or incidental", I don't understand how the deaths of the men outside the van (the targets) could constitute collateral damage. From what I can tell, it's some type of illegitimate engagement. The children inside the van would then be collateral damage of that illegitimate engagement. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My Take on this is that COLLATERAL DAMAGE is unintended damage done to non-targets, whether this be to combatant-allies, noncom-civilians, etc. FRIENDLY FIRE is a special type of collateral damage done to combatant allies. I'd love to see a source that specifically addresses this though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[7] addresses the issue somewhat. However, I do not think it is our place to label the dead as either collateral damage or victims of friendly fire. Instead, we should see what the best sources refer to them as. NW (Talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you NW. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd think that this is neither collateral damage or friendly fire. It was clearly intentional from the pilot feed, especially the 'hopeing' of the wounded to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him. That bleeds of criminal intent right there. Comparison; You shoot two people in self defence. One is wounded. You point a gun at him and think to yourself, 'god, I hope he picks up a weapon so I can kill him'. Is that murderous? I'll have to look into what kind of term should be applied though....129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am new to this community as of this article, but isn't the determination of whether or not intent can be labeled as criminal the role of the judiciary, rather than the Wikipedia project?Apacheguy (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The video file is biased

The name of the video file is "CollateralMurder". Murder is a crime that needs to be proven in a court of law and I don't think that's happened yet. The name clearly reflects bias. Also, the Author of the video is listed as "US Apache helicopter" when clearly the real author has drastically altered the original feed. This needs to be remedied immediately as it appears that the video is in violation of BLP rules (it gives the impression that the pilots have been convicted of murder and that this might be the conclusion of the US government which is not true). If this isn't fixed, the video file should be removed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The file itself is unacceptably biased? Because of the file name and the metadata? 98.71.211.76 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you watched the video? It clearly was not made by the US Army. The interlude at about 10:40 where the video talks about how handing the children over to the Iraqi authorities instead of taking them to the U.S. base at Rustamiyah does seem biased to me. And the title is unacceptably biased. Therefore, the video is misattributed (we don't know who made it) and biased. That needs to be corrected.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The authenticity of the audio and video are disputed by no one. If you'd like the full, unedited version, it's widely available. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually would like the full, unedited version. If it's widely available it shouldn't be a problem erasing this biased version. Any administrators out there listening?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone know how to convert a Mp4 Torrent file into a .ogv?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI. I tried to mark the file for speedy deletion due to BLP concern but that wasn't one of the options. And I have to go. If anyone else has the same concerns, I encourage you to replace this biased file with an unedited version, and to rename it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a Commons admin and an enwiki admin, I don't know which project it is hosted on, but I would decline a speedy deletion request on either. Please file a proper deletion request: WP:FFD for enwiki and commons:COM:DR for Commons. NW (Talk) 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cdogsimmons, the video presented in the article should be as uneditorialized as possible. For example, the resolution that you see on the wikileaks version makes it harder to see the difference between an RPG versus a camera. The actual resolution of the TADS equipment in the helicopter is much better. Other problems with the Wikileaks version (and these problems do fall under BLP when you are calling individuals complicit in murder, regardless or not whether that is "true") can be seen here: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/ Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• "A U.S. defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the video and audio were authentic." Reuters (April 5, 2010). "Leaked U.S. Video Shows Deaths Of Reuters' Iraqi Staffers". New York Times. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help) NW (Talk) 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Cdogsimmons has no problem with its authenticity, just the use of the low-res annotated version instead of the full mp4 that ButOnMethItIs mentioned above. Or did I miss something? --an odd name 02:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, that would make more sense. Well, I have the full file from the torrent as well. The only problem is that the .mp4 file is 610MB, 6.1x too large to put on Commons. It would have to be split up. I will ask User:Cirt if he knows how to split it up, as I believe he knows how. NW (Talk) 02:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Is splitting the video into 7 parts really the smartest thing to do? Unless you can string all of it together for playback on this article, I'd say it's doing more harm than good. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, hosting any file that is more than 6MB larger than the one currently uploaded is impossible. I would like to put a set of 6 files in a gallery somewhere though; I feel like that would be very useful. NW (Talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is about the controversy, I don't think that there is a problem with hosting Wikileak's main edited video, as long as it is properly described as such. If the longer, unedited version is available, then why not post both? PS, all Wikileaks statements (such as alleging murder) shouldn't have BLP problems as long as they are properly attributed. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. NW (Talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Then we need to correctly cite things. The author of the video is not the US Army Apache helicopter, it's somebody else. (Wikileaks? CollateralMurder? The unidentified whistleblower(s)? We need to establish this before we can properly cite it. The video, in case anyone is wondering is at File:CollateralMurder.ogv. I suppose the title makes sense considering the source. The comment on the file says "Gun camera footage of the airstrike of 12 July 2007 in Baghdad, showing the slaying of Namir Noor-Eldeen and a dozen other civilians by an US helicopter." Is it established by any sources that they were definitely civilians? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Authorship; the gunner directing the gun (and thus camera) on the primary Apache is referred to as "Kyle" (@03:20 "God damn it, Kyle!"). Other than that, the names of other actors are not known and have been redacted from the military reports. —Sladen (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The video size should be made larger in the article. It's a 480×384, 100mb video that's shown in a tiny 180px square. Awful waste of bandwidth and it's just unviewable. Mahanga^Talk 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.212.189 (talk)

Upped to 360px, so it should be about double now. --an odd name 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to commit murder before it has been proved in a court of law. Specifically this is when it defies any rules in place concerning causing death. There is good reason to believe the deaths in the video were caused outside of the bounds of the rules of engagement. Regardless, whether or not the content of the video constitutes murder is discussed in the only article in which the video appears. // The author of that material is as stated. It was edited by someone else but they did not generate the material. Surely they did not generate the audio which has been subtitled; that was generated by the listed author. The other information presented in the video was added by the later editor. It would be more appropriate to list this editor as an Editor or a Commentator, but there is no field for that (or if there is, it can be put there instead). The author field is correctly listed. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This video is unquestionably a notable work broadly discussed in the media that can be hosted on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. And its title, from the source, is "Collateral Murder", so that's what we should call it. We have an article Meat is Murder, no, despite the BLP implications for non-vegetarians. We don't censor out allegations in the titles of newspaper articles.

Of course, if the U.S. military releases some other high-resolution version, by all means we should carry it, and link to it from this article. In addition to the Wikileaks version. I'm sure that some cynical reader will take great pleasure going over the two frame by frame and trying to decide if either has been tinkered with, and that's exactly the sort of public use and discussion we'd like to promote. Wnt (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reporters/photographers/employees

The article is unclear about the nature of the two Reuters employees, alternately referring to them as staff, reporters and photographers. There is a tendency in the media lately to consider anyone affiliated with newsgathering to be a "journalist" of some degree, even if they are drivers or interpreters. This article could use clarification of the exact nature of the two men's relationship to Reuters.

^As well as their relationship to the armed men in the video. The blunt statement they worked for Reuters ignores their assignment and what perspective they were covering. Haamerhed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.141.252 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Reuters inquiry about why two cameras were confiscated is unclear - I trust that is a reference to two cameras confiscated from the deceased Reuters employees. At that point the article had referred to the employees as "staff" and as "reporters," though, so the reference to cameras comes out of the blue - we had not yet been told whether they were actually photographers.

Jnmwiki (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it normal for (American) journalists to be around insurgents? Maybe WP can provide some context for readers? 96.226.212.189 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Reuters is a British (UK) based company, and the "Journalists" were Iraqi. The only thing American was the Apache Crew that engaged armed targets within a pre-designated target zone. 24.21.11.36 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not everything is a controversy - change the title

I've seen other examples on Wikipedia before, maybe it's to create drama or push a certain viewpoint, but there is no reason the article title should have the word "controversy" in it, which forces the direction of the article. This is an article about the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, and that should be the article title. We can detail the publication and response to the details and let the reader decide as to how "controversial" this is without telling him outright via the URL. - 92.17.45.6 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Moved. NW (Talk) 02:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the title change. (That said, either one would be descriptive, and not widely accepted as the name of the airstrike by sources. As such, I don't think they should appear bold in the lead, but not long after I removed the bold title, another editor added one again. I'd rather not edit war over style stuff, but I still think it's wrong.) --an odd name 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike incident might be more in line with similar articles.   — C M B J   03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the change was appropriate, but maybe not disambiguous enough ("Baghdad Apache airstrike", "Baghdad Rueters airstrike", etc.) Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) ALSO, this aids in searching for this article. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing "controversy", but "July 12, 2007 Baghdad Airstrike" is a little too ambiguous..."July 12, 2007 Baghdad Airstrike Incident" seems like an appropriate neutral title to me.24.68.52.10 (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another agreement here, on strictly factual grounds: the article does not describe a controversy, or disagreement: all parties cited seem to agree on what happened. The word "incident" seems to be unnecessary; what happened was an airstrike on a group of civilians including journalists, who were mistaken for armed insurgents. --FOo (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with FO. The "controversy" claims are fringe at best, despite the Internet community's sudden (and sure to short-lived) fixation on it. And "incident" is vague and redundant. Good move. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with above comments. The title is too ambiguous - there may have been many airstrikes on that day in Baghdad - and I do not feel that adding the words "controversy" or "incident" to the title would be an exageration. The killing of innocent civilians may have been unintentional, it is still a huge mistake by the US military, which passively tried to cover this "incident" up through various means.--DragonFly31 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What "various means", exactly? They openly addressed all of this years ago, and the release of the footage only supports their position that the reporters were embedded with armed insurgents. There was no cover-up. People who want to see controversy will find it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

At very least, the question of whether there were other airstrikes in Baghdad on that day is irrelevant; many, many articles are titled something which could apply to some other subject that is not notable enough. For example, I do not doubt that there are a thousand people with the common two names Tom and Hanks, yet the article only concerns itself with those two. // "Controversy" describes (and literally means) argument or crossing of words (stories). An event with many controversial implications is not necessarily a controversy, and is necessarily not a controversy when the story of what constitutes the event is not argued at all. // "Incident" is not an exaggeration, but it is redundant. An airstrike is an incident. Similarly, half the articles on Wikipedia could have the word "incident" added to the end; if you try it, while the adding would be analogous to this article, it might be more obvious that the word is unnecessary in "Assassination of Julius Caesar Incident" something similar. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If the desire is for more detail in the article title, then follow the US Military reports and use "... New Baghdad airstrike" (the exact area it took place in). Fluff words such as "incident" add little of value, and make linking hard, requiring pipes. —Sladen (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If we agree that this airstrike could be considered as an "incident", it would then be much more suitable to include this in the title. The reason that it would be inapropriate to title "Assassination of Julius Caesar Incident" is that there was only one Caesar, and only one assassination of Caesar. This is not the case with this airstrike. My opinion is that the title is vague enough that some other wording should be used to clearly identify this strike as different - I trust that reporters are not killed in every US strike in Bahgdad. To answer another user, reference to a "cover-up" in this case is probably exaggerated - and a parallel to 9/11 theories is clearly exaggeration too. Yet, the military personnel which gave that video to Wikileaks clearly does not want to be identified. Why has Wikileaks released this video? If the military truly were "open", should it not have released that video years ago with appropriate explanation? ... How many other similar events have occurred?--DragonFly31 (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title reflect what is unique about this event? To me that is the leaked video showing the deaths of two Reuters camera men under US fire in a combat zone. The length of the leaked video is itself also unusual. I have not seen anything like it. Deaths in conflict, combat video excerpts and air-strikes in Baghdad are commonplace. Perhaps a title along the lines of: "July 12, 2007 Reuters photojournalists killed in Baghdad airstrike: leaked video". Slightly wordy I guess.Galerita (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said before: yes, it's true that the title could refer to any airstrike in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But as an encyclopaedia article title it is not ambiguous. There was only ONE notable airsrike in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. (Notable here means that many newsplaces/people have paid attention to it.) Similarly there was probably more than one Julius Caesar (given people's tendency to steal famous names for their children...), but only one really notable one, so that article title which SHOULD be considered ambiguous is not. ... Though how the unambiguity of a title relates to adding the unnecessary word "incident" is a mystery to me.

To make it clear again: an "airstrike" is an "event", or "incident." Similarly, "Tom Hanks" is a person, and "the World Trade Center" is a building, but it would be the same to call the articles "The human named Tom Hanks" or "The World Trade Center buildings." Flipping Mackerel (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point - and agree with it now.--DragonFly31 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)--194.98.70.12 (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Category "Reuters Group plc"

Currently, the article is under category "Reuters Group plc". However, given that its main article is Reuters, I think this and the category's other articles should be moved to category "Reuters". I'm not a category wonk, so I'm not keen to boldly changing every article from the long name to the short, but the short one seems better to me. --an odd name 02:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a matter for WP:CFD. I will go nominate it now, actually. NW (Talk) 03:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously biased

[... Obviously biased ...]

This article is not biased in any way. The article is simply reporting the facts. American soldiers killed civilians whom they mistook for Iraqi freedom fighters. 63.115.34.34 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Deadman909

This article is extremely biased. Furthermore, the individuals in this video are clearly insurgents and this whole claim of "war crimes" is just people trying to stir up international anger at the US military. At 1:20 you can clearly, obviously see a man with a RPG7 leaning out from around the corner of a building observing the Apache (or possibly responding to the noise of its rotors). At 2:01 before the AH-64 begins to fire you can clearly see one individual with an AKM on his shoulder and another holding to me what looks like a RPG warhead. Another is holding what some think is a camera, but it looks much more like a black case for carrying grenades or mortar rounds to me. When they zoom in at 4:03 after engaging the targets you can clearly see a Kalashnikov lying on the ground next to one of the bodies. Then a van shows up and starts loading the bodies up. Seriously, how much more clear could this be people? Why would news reporters move a van to a location they had just been SHOT AT and start loading up the bodies of insurgents they've never met before as well as two "reporters"?

This whole thing is ridiculous. There are plenty of real gun camera captures where questionable engagements take place, but this is not one of them. You all just want to see something that isn't there. Vayne (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not discuss your opinion, some of which I agree with, but instead contribute constructively to make a better make a better, NPOV encyclopedic article. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to discuss my opinion. I was simply stating it. I provided the honest facts of what I saw in the video with the hope that someone who does care enough about editing this article (frankly, I do not) can do so with some honest information rather than the biased "these are innocent civilians" BS being passed as truth. I've never more clearly seen weapons on a helicopter gun cam before. This whole controversy is absurd and I'm entitled to point that out to spare the gullible people who believe whatever they read to be truth. Wikileaks totally blew it by claiming these were innocents, don't perpetuate the lie! Vayne (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get some good screen grabs of what you're talking about.   — C M B J   05:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You come over rather arrogantly. "I provided the honest facts of what I saw" - it's your opinion, nothing more, nothing less - and you're asking here for people to modify the article accordingly, because you don't care enough to do so! Toby Douglass (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you see it that way, Toby. I wasn't asking anyone to edit the article, I was simply providing what I saw! You can call it my opinion if you want, but I know what I saw and once I know what I've seen it becomes a fact personally *to me*. By saying, "I provided the honest facts" I was simply stating that what I had seen was enough to convince *me*. If you want to interpret that as me saying that it's the "100% honest and complete truth and you are all wrong and not entitled to your opinions" then by all means, go ahead. Personally, I'm out of this conversation. Nothing good can come of it at this point. There's my opinion, like it or leave it. Vayne (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should question what you believe to be a fact in this matter. This is exactly what we all try to do. When you say, "... is holding what some think is a camera, but it looks much more like a black case for carrying grenades or mortar rounds to me...", clearly there is enough doubt in your sentence to say that it is not a definite statement. I agree, it is difficult enough (for those of us who do not have extended military knowledge or an experience in analysing these videos) to see the difference between a camera and other types of equipment. RPG's can be mistaken for cameras. Cameras can be mistaken for RPG's.--DragonFly31 (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course if cameras were mistaken for RPGs, either coincidentally there were also RPGs lying around or being used as well, or the US military is lying about finding them on the site in their original report of the matter. --86.181.123.179 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

..."a fact personally *to me*" is the definition of an opinion, Vayne. It is also a common fallacy to attribute ignorance, incompetence, or apathy to other people, but the idea that you are the first person with the expertise to examine the video (and the will to comment) is ludicrous. You are welcome to raise objections but you are not encouraged to elevate a position which has been dismissed nearly universally by qualified people (yes, most of the commenters here are unqualified, including myself, on military video, but not everyone whose opinions are expressed in the article are. One organisation in particular that disagrees with your assessment is the U.S. Army, which declared there were cameras despite their obvious bias against there being any evidence indicating civilian victims.) Please, therefore, proceed in a civil manner and not an unduly exalted one. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

After reading the entry, I have to question if the incident, as it stands, should be in Wikipedia. Basically, it comes down to a military operation, among thousands, that killed some civilians. There's no credible evidence of misbehavior. There's no evidence of any more coverup than routine OPSEC. So far, there's no real backlash. I think we jumped the gun by posting it before seeing if there was even another shoe to fall. I won't tag the entry just yet, since I want to see what y'all think. But, as of now, I don't think it's sufficiently encyclopedic. Izuko (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

At least a dozen major news agencies have covered the video release already, whether in some cases they are covering the behaviour in the video, others are about the implications of the release of confidential information at WikiLeaks, there is plenty of coverage to justify an entry here. --86.181.123.179 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, in much the same way, Barack Obama, John Lennon, and the Neanderthal species are each merely a mass of carbon and other common elements of which there are uncountably many atoms in the universe, and yet for some reason the news pays attention to those masses, so we have to document it. :P Flipping Mackerel (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the news covers something does not mean it's encyclopedic. Not every military operation, death, or lost dog needs to be in Wikipedia. So the mere fact that there's news coverage is not sufficient to justify its being here. What makes this significant enough to merit an entry before all the facts are out? Izuko (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The killing of journalists caught on feed by a helicopter gunship. Also the fact that it became a big news thing on a multitude of stations once wikileaks released it. It does fall under Wikipedia:Notability, it has multiple reliable sources reporting on it, and several editors have presumed it to be important. Additionally there are several sources confirming it - not everything is based off the single video. 129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not everything that the news covers is encyclopaedic. But everything that a significant amount of the media pays a significant amount of attention to is notable, and Wikipedia's idea of encyclopaedic is merely notable. Wikipedia's goal, as I remember it, is making the sum of human knowledge accessible. What makes it significant enough is not for us to decide at all, but is up to the humans who identify it as an important point of knowledge. 74.12.22.96 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But does it violate [[8]]? I think it was shooting the gun to run out and start an article immediately after the news release. It is clear that the intention is to cover things that are more than just blips on the radar. Big news that doesn't catch on is not encyclopedic. Izuko (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Izuko has a point here. This should probably be on Wikinews, not here yet. The notability criteria for events states that A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance... I'm not so sure this will meet that requirement—this certainly isn't My Lai. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Editorialized Video

Note: moved this comment from top of page -M.Nelson (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone place this edit in paragraph 4: On April 5, 2010, the Internet leak website Wikileaks released a[n editorialized version of a] classified video of the incident entitled Collateral Murder...

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.153.108 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This disappeared again. it doesnt say anywhere wikileaks released not only a 40 minute original video but also a shorter editorialized video as the main release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plastichandle (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Exhibit O

Is it just me, or is there no AK-47 or RPG in the Exhibit O photos? There's some piece or wood or scrap metal in the AK-47 photo, but it's definitely not a gun. And the RPG photo just shows some dirt. Why don't they just go ahead and label one of the bodies "Osama bin Laden" and call it a day. Anyway, I've changed the label on the photo to reflect the ambiguity of the photos. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the pictures are not of high quality, but this is the pixel resolution the United States Central Command decided to release. Anyway, if you look at the image labelled "AK-47" on the right half of the "black elongated structure", and compare this with the barrel of the 1955 version on the AK-47#Variants wikipage, you can spot some resemblance. A RGP-7 is definitely NOT visible on the non-redacted portion of the top right image. The soldier depicted in the bottom right image might be carrying an RPG, but given the image resolution and the redaction it is hard to identify (it might also be the AK-47 depicted in the top left image). -- Enemenemu (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed the captions back. The fact that your opinion is the photos are ambiguous, or your original research leads you to think so, doesn't mean you should change the captions to match. Not that I don't agree with you. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed the photo captions again to be as close to the original titles in the Army report. Yes, those titles were self-serving, but I think the best way to handle that is by phrasing in the body of that subsection something to the effect of "included in the report were photos which the Army stated showed insurgents carrying weapons" Lipsticked Pig (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there an RPG?

After adding the initial summary of the US Army report to the article, I wonder: can we write that one person visible in the video was carrying an RPG, or do we have to write that the US Army claims that one person in the video was carrying an RPG? How many users can see an RPG (1) in the video, (2) in the stills of the video, but (3) excluding any post-incident photographs? Who doesn't? And who's not sure? To me, it's a clear

• {{Contra}} - after viewing the video several times at high magnification, as well as the stills in the report, I fail to make out anything remotely resembling an RPG. -- Seelefant (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

At 2:41, a man is seen peeking around the corner of a building carrying a large black circular object. Though an after-the-fact analysis suggests that this may have been Noor-Eldeen's Canon EOS, it (along with cautious physical movement) looks highly suspect from the perspective of an airman in a warzone.   — C M B J   17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• You are missing the point. The report does not use this scene to rate the attack as justified. It does not say the helicopter crew made an acceptable mistake. Rather, it rates the attack as justified by views from another angle, and it claims that from this angle an actual, factual RPG is visible, and the helicopter crew identified this correctly, and that there was no mistake. Included in the report are still imagess with circles, one labeled "RPG round", and one labeled "A", and the text seems to imply that the thing marked as "A" was in fact an RPG". However, no matter how hard I look, and even try to imagine something like an RPG into that "A", it doesn't work for me. I see just a blur, that could be anything, including a shadow. There's no way I would put my name under a a claim of "yes, there is an RPG visible in that image".-- Seelefant (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just responding to your question of "How many users can see an RPG [...] in the stills of the video". I see what the airmen could have easily mistaken for an RPG-7 at 2:41 in the video, but as with you, I do not see irrefutable evidence of an actual RPG-7 in Exhibit A/B/O or elsewhere.   — C M B J   18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• How is a straw poll of Wikipedia editors useful for improving the article? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a poll, of course. I'm merely asking for second opinions on what can or can not be seen in the fiven images. This seems highly relevant when considering how to formulate this article. -- Seelefant (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't relevant. It's original research. It doesn't matter what anybody here thinks, only what reliable sources have published. What you can or cannot see doesn't matter, as you are not an Apache gunner, and no amount of discussion about it will have any bearing on the article. Talk pages are for discussions related to improving the articles, not for discussions about the subject itself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a primary source and we can interpret it - if all we're doing is agreeing on what we see. At 1:20 to 1:30 on the video, a long object with a knob at the end of it is seen waving around past the corner of the building, and the conversation in the helicopter is that it is an RPG and that the person holding it is getting ready to fire. I'm not military, but it seems very credible to me that they believe this, and I say that even though my POV is very hostile regarding the events of 7:30-8:00 on the video. I think this object may actually be the camera with the long lens people were talking about - however, I think there was also something in the article about an RPG actually being found later, which is sort of odd isn't it. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. And if there is a source for the interpretation, then this straw poll is still pointless. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOR for more info. -ChadyWady^Talk 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadyWady (talk • contribs)

He does have a point with the matter of "someone was carrying an RPG" vs "the US Army claims asserts that someone was carrying an RPG". The latter is necessitated by both policy and established precedent.   — C M B J   18:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. WP:NOR says that we can make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. "Interpreting" a photograph is just an unfortunate phrase here. In any case - yes, we can say what the video shows and report what the soldiers say.

We should say "The US Army said that someone was carrying an RPG". See WP:WTA. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kafziel is right, we cannot interpret primary sources, per WP:SYNTH. We can, however, report what other sources say about the videos. We can also specify who exactly is claiming what. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg I think now that there is no argument here. Take the picture to the right, from Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Probably none of us has been there, however, we have no reason to doubt that its description is correct, and so we can describe it e.g. as "A protester on Tianamen Square in 1989", without refering to who originally claimed that this was accurate. In the Baghdad case, however, we have pictures with a description saying that they show a man carrying an RPG, and while WP:NOR forbids us to write "actually, there is no RPG in that picture", our critical reception as editors forbids to write "there is an RPG in that image" as well, and only allows us a qualifying "the US army claims that there is an RPG visible in this picture". Critical reception in this case is the very contrary of OR. -- Seelefant (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's where you're wrong. I don't know what you mean by "critical reception", but what you're describing is exactly what we cannot do. What you (or any of us) can or can't see doesn't matter, and saying that the Army "claims" there's an RPG injects prejudice and gives undue weight to a fringe conspiracy theory. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Figured you wouldn't. -- Seelefant (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"According to the U.S. Army, a man with an RPG..." or "...the U.S. Army asserts that it identified an RPG..." would presumably not have the same negative effect.   — C M B J   22:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious if Wikipedia has the famous "Weapons of Mass Destruction" slides shown to the UN by Colin Powell. If so, how are the descriptions of those photos handled? Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We have File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Mobile Production Facilities.jpg. NW (Talk) 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that there is an RPG. This site has a clip of the relevant portion of the video: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php Leuchars (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it legal to attack people solely for picking up the wounded?

The rules of engagement, as suggested above, are very important - but they are cryptic, and what I really want to see is some explanation of the policy behind the events at 7:30-8:15 or so on the video, where the soldiers see a van pull up and people try to pick up the wounded reporter. I don't think there's any doubt from looking at it and hearing the transcript that they attacked the van solely for this action. Now I don't know if the Geneva Convention offers any protection whatsoever to an impromptu, unmarked ambulance, but how can anyone identify two people with their hands on a wounded person to carry him (or their children) as "combatants"? Wnt (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

On issues of legality, one would need to consult a lawyer, the issue of legality itself would only be known unequivocally after being decided by a court of suitable, and respected jurisdiction. Such agreed jurisdiction may be hard to establish owing to the on-going occupation situation following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. —Sladen (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC) (See the United States and the International Criminal Court article for an overview of the situation regarding employees of the United States Military and wider international court frameworks).

I think that kind of research would make the article unbalanced and leaning toward Wikipedia accusing the military of wrongdoing rather than just reporting the facts. Unless it was balanced with a report of the psychology of decision making by soldiers in war.--72.181.103.95 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only properly marked (red cross, red crescent) noncombatant medical personnel are off limits. If it appears that medical personnel are part of the armed engagement (such as a corpsman) they are legal targets. Did this van just happen by, or were they waiting in the wings to support the insurgency by collecting wounded men (and possibly weapons)? That is subject to debate, but not by us. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To be encyclopedic, we cannot accuse anything. But if you want to do reading, you can check out the first geneva conventions and act 18 of it - specifically "No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick." http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570022?OpenDocument - The US is a signatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.174.78 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed [9] in the section "Legality" above, which is a reliable source discussion this point about this video. Fortunately this means we can edit about this question. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, although there is an earnest opinion that the actions of the Apache crew firing on the van were legally (and morally) questionable, it should remain that the facts be reported. They did fire on the van for their reasons as stated in the audio and the official report, anything else should be left for lawyers to argue. Whether there is a degree of immunity from prosecution due to the US refusing to sign the ICC could possibly be mentioned. G0ggy (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Death of ~12 individuals including 2 civilian reporters

" ... Something that has been missed in some of the press reportage about this is that there is a third attack, just twenty minutes later, by the same crew, involving three Hellfire missiles fired onto an apartment complex where the roof was still under construction. We have fresh evidence from Baghdad that there were three families living in that apartment complex, many of whom were killed, including women. And we sent a team down there to collect that evidence. So that is in the full video we released, not in the shortened one, because we didn’t yet have that additional evidence. Innocent bystanders walking down the street are also killed in that attack. ..."

" ... But we also see that the total death count is wrong. There were people killed in the buildings next to this event who were just there living in their houses. There were additional bystanders killed in the Hellfire missile attack, and those people weren’t even counted, let alone counted as insurgents. So you cannot believe these statements from the military about number of people who were killed, whether people are insurgents, whether an investigation into rules of engagement was correct. ... "

Julian Assange, Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of Journalists, www.democracynow.org, 6.4.2010

If this article is about full video (39min) then "Death of ~12 individuals including 2 civilian reporters" (in infobox) is not good estimation. --mj41 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias, Agenda Oriented

Cited from "Wikileaks?" I looked at their website... Wow. Really guys? We can't get a more neutral and a "just the facts, ma'am" source this? I'm not going to start that old can of worms about mistakes happen in wars and turn this into a big shitstorm, but really why is this so clearly slanted towards the "the american military is full of murderers" school of thought? There's been no definitive ruling on this incident yet, but already this piss-poor, agenda oriented article has decided the tragic accident is actually just cowboyism by "those awful Americans." I suppose the worldwide fanbase probably likes that thought, and I'm sure whoever is the guiding hand behind this article is simply playing to a crowd, but for Christ sake people..! Enough of this! Jersey John (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks released the video. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cheapens itself and I will never send them a thin dime

I have seen the video. Some of these guys had AK-47s and the guy with the "camera" appears in reality to be a guy with an RPG. At least, at first glance that is exactly what it appears to me to be. Fair is fair and the anti-American soldier bias of Wikisource is obvious. These actions of the American soldiers were lawful.

It is fine to say the United States should not be in Iraq, (I do not think we should be there) but falsely accusing Americans of atrocity is another matter. The recording shows the Americans were doing their best to protect bystanders. The reporter who drove up to the scene while battle was hot was an idiot who brought his death on himself; and I suspect one or both of these reporters were in fact also also insurgent agents or at least a little too friendly to them.

This will be exactly like the Vietnam era protesters who blamed the war on the individual American soldier and spat on him when he came back to the States. I assure you, if Wikipedia executives and Wikisource thinks this is the protest tactic to use it will backfire on them badly. Doing this to individual American soldiers is despicable. And if these Iraqi guys were innocent, tell me just what hot war in history did not include innocent people caught in the crossfire? This is part of the nature of war.

If you guys want anyone to blame, blame the cozy relationship of a lot of American politicians to Israel. Without our support of Israel we would not be embroiled in Middle Eastern affairs at all, there would have been no 9-11 attack, and no clumsy Bush reaction to it. Unfortunately getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a mistake. If we leave Iraq, Iran will absorb most or all of it, as Iran has a legitimate claim to the area. Watch tensions mount after that happens, my friends.Mtloweman (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything except for your Israel bashing. Besides that you hit the nail on the head. 71.230.152.65 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The redacted report released by the army (as noted by the article itself) explicitly states that the pilot mistook the camera for an RPG (emphasis mine):

c. 0620:34 Z (Exhibit C Photo). One of the cameramen is seen peering from behind the wall looking west toward the approaching Bravo Company soldiers. The voice on the gun tape mistakenly identifies the long telephoto lens as an RPG.

d. 0620:38 Z (Exhibit D). The cameraman raises the camera to sight through the viewfinder and his action appears to prompt one of the pilots to remark "He's getting ready to fire."

It also notes that they found cameras at the scene:

g. 0631:53 Z (Exhibit G Photo). The first elements of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry arrive on the scene and begin to secure the area. They discover two RPGs and an AK-47 or AKM among the group of insurgents clustered near the wall. They also discovered two Canon EOS digital cameras with large telephoto lenses attached in the immediate vicinity of the bodies. The Soldiers gathered the two Canon digital cameras at the site as evidence for analysis. Two of the Military-aged males are still alive and the soldiers on the scene render first aid and call for a medic.

None of the reporters "drove up"; both the reporters were in the initial group. The guy in the van was someone passing through with his children. The report also at no point claims the reporters are insurgents or even claims to suspect such a thing. As for claims of them "doing their best to protect bystanders", the latter bit of the unedited version of the video shows them firing a hellfire missile at a building with one of those bystanders near it, and then again shortly after, as more people have come to see what happened. Every statement of yours is at odds with both the video and even the report by the army you are so eager to defend. 173.203.100.79 (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There were some people in front of the building and on passerby-pedestrian. But this is war. In WWII there were plenty of German civilians killed as they simply went about their business. Had the United States fought with the rules of engagement you evidently want, Hitler would have won the war on the Western front. If you want us out of Iraq, do so through the politicians that got us there. Do not trash the individual American soldier.Mtloweman (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but this article accepts their bias slant at face value, and makes it its own. That's horrible. Jersey John (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The current citations in the article: CNN, CentCom, Seattle Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, BBC News, Reuters, Reuters, NY Times, Al Jazeera English, BBC News, Primary source (Wikileaks) used to quote wikileaks' own words, two primary sources (Wikileaks Twitter account) to note a few facts not mentioned elsewhere (if they are, they can be replaced), Al-Jazeera, an interview with the Wikileaks advisory board member on The Alyona Show, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, Department of the Army, Democracy Now used to quote a Wikileaks advisory board member. Which of those do you find objectionable? NW (Talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is massively flawed in that it takes the bias from Wikileaks and adopts it. That's a problem. Then again, people like to only selectively enforce not being bias. If everyone who facors the idea of the Amerian military being nothing but mindless killers, then I gues that sort of bias will be allowed. You KNOW what my point is, it is one that has been made before. I'm only voicing my dissatisfaction, not in the mood to argue, because if I'm going to argue with a handful of people, by myself, that all believe the horrible bias is justified, that would be futile for me. But don't think everyone agree with this bias BS. This article is disgusting in its bias and the fact that it just accepts Wikileak's personal agenda. I'm done so you can criticise me to your heart's content, I probably won't be checking back. Jersey John (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have NO IDEA what your point is, other than that you are dissatisfied with the article because of some perceived bias. If you can't be specific, we can't even talk about it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Jersey John isn't above using Wikipedia to promote his own agendas and baises.[10] Kaldari (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but he's correct that there biases in Wikileaks and that bias is reflected in the article. Before we start attacking each other by accusing each other of being politically motivated, let's see if we can try to find some common ground. Can we all agree that the article needs improvement and should be as unbiased as possible. Certain elements do strike me as portraying bias (the use of the word "murder" in CollateralMurder). Let's try to find some others. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course Wikileaks is cannot be considered neutral here. However, what specific parts of the Wikipedia article do you find biased? NW (Talk) 01:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolution of the Video

WikiLeaks has provided copies of the video at 360p and 480p. Even at 480p the image text is hard to read, yet in the leaked army report (http://cryptome.org/reuters-kill.zip) the investigating officer has no trouble reading the time and other details from the video. This suggests to me that even the 480p copy of video is not at its original resolution.

A full resolution version would help to resolve the issue of whether members of the group were armed with AKMs and RPGs. Note that the army report implies the screen in the cockpit is small and would not be as clear as viewing it on a large monitor. Galerita (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

480p is probably not the actual resolution of the video, YouTube just labels videos that way. All of the versions can be found at http://collateralmurder.com/en/download.html. Sorafune +1 02:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded the BitTorrent version. It's resolution is no better than the one on YouTube.Galerita (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The original 4:3 gun-sight camera footage (probably sourced at 640×480) is presented 3/4-size (480×360) within a 480-line video stream. —Sladen (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember hearing about this.

I remember reading about this some time ago. My older brother, who is a US Army Ranger, was talking about this with me. Me and him both agree that this illustrates just how messed up the entire situation in Iraq really is. A "normal" war, there isn't the sort of confusion that results in this. I refuse to believe that the Apache pilots saw a bunch of civilians and thought "hey I wanna kill some dudes!" Which is what the tone of this article implies. To be a chopper pilot requires an education that people with murderous tendencies don't really have the psychological capacity to go through, really, and I really, REALLY doubt that they would have fired if they had known exactly what was really happening. This is little more than an example of the horrors the confusion of war causes, it's not outright murder like what is hinted in this article. Neutrality on Wikipedia? It's becoming difficult to see these days on news articles. Yes, this was a tragedy but this also seems more like something slightly politically motivated than an informational article. Leave the political motivations to blogs, please? 71.191.209.143 (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello .143; Wikipedia has a very strong requirement to maintain WP:NPOV. Could you highlight any of the sentences that you feel convey bias, and suggest how they could be improved. Hopefully the article follows the body of WP:RS used as citations within the article (and this includes the redacted report that Centcom made available). Many appreciations for your feedback. —Sladen (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of cited material

I'll jump in. I'm curious as to why you reversed my removal of an obviously incorrect claim from the article. The vast majority of sources reporting on this (including wikileaks) acknowledge that the individuals being targeted in the video possessed, at the minimum, one AK-47. The fact that one article from one paper says that "it is unclear if some of the men are armed" does not support this article's claim that the video is unclear as to whether anyone was armed. Could you explain why you felt necessary to reinsert that claim? Leuchars (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This revert[11] restores the wording "From the video, it is unclear if any of the men are armed." following up that citation, it includes the assertion "It is unclear if some of the men are armed but Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone." Since they tie up, meet WP:CITE and WP:RS I'm intrigued on how it adds to the article by removing them. Perhaps you could explain the perceived benefit?

The summary message used to document the deletion "The video makes it exceedingly clear that at least 2 of the men were armed, and the subsequent discovery of AK-47s and RPGs at the site further confirms this" certainly sounds like WP:OR, something that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. When there is a choice between a secondary source and one's own interpretations, then the secondary source needs to be followed. —Sladen (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a choice between a secondary source and my own interpretation, it's a choice between a secondary source and various other secondary sources including the very video at issue. Wikileaks and most other sources explicitly acknowledge that there is an AK-47. Removing that sentence adds to the article by removing incorrect information. If I found an article that said "it is unclear from the video whether the insurgents had been firing on US troops," do you think it would add to the article to include that? From my perspective it would unnecessarily inject bias, much like the text you're defending. Leuchars (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The video footage is a primary source. You must not rely, infer, decree or attempt to interpret what it shows (WP:NOR). If The Guardian (a secondary WP:RS) makes a statement, then that passes WP:V and is appropriate for inclusion.

If you can find a known WP:RS (eg. a respected puplication with a reputation to loose) that states "it is unclear from the video whether the insurgents had been firing on US troops," (your example) then as a neutal editor one should integrate that reliable information and WP:CITE it. To not do is implicitly contributing to WP:BIAS and counter to Wikipedia's objectives (the WP:FIVEPILLARS). —Sladen (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The video itself is a primary source, but wikileaks' commentary and annotations are secondary. They explicitly state that there is an AK-47. Do you consider wikileaks to be unreliable? I'm also not following your logic - anytime that a reliable source says anything about a topic, it must be included whether or not such selective inclusion would appear biased? Leuchars (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks is an organisation that provides source material for journalists whereas The Guardian as mainstream news source historically has more to lose, and would likely be held up as more reliable (WP:RS "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable.") Recall that (WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth).—Sladen (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Unedited video and clips

I have uploaded the unedited full-length video in two parts at Commons:Baghdad 2007-07-12 airstrike videos. Each video is about 90mb. The quality is not as sharp as the original because it was over 600mb. We can decide if we want to add the videos to the article in place of the edited video. Also, another user has split relevant portions of the video (ranging from 10 to 60 seconds) which may be of use here. They are located in the link above. Mahanga^Talk 06:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional Material/references

This link on DefenceTech gives an interesting perspective: http://defensetech.org/2010/04/06/centcom-releases-report-on-apache-gun-camera-video/#axzz0kULrg6JR

Regarding rules of engagement: "There was apparently an extremely permissive ROE in effect during the operation because the statement from one of the Apache pilots says that after the attack that can be seen on the gun camera footage, the pilots spotted an individual(s) carrying an AK-47 enter a 3-story building. The pilots asked for and received clearance to fire and blasted the building with three Hellfire missiles, one in each floor, destroying the building. The statement says between 8 and 11 bodies were subsequently removed from the building."

On the van (excerpt from interview with investigating officer): "LTC: Did you see anything in the van? Pilot: I couldn’t see inside the van, but they ran around right after I had seen them extract weapons and individuals. LTC: As you saw on the tape, they didn’t have any weapons. So, what drove you then? What threat made you want to engage the van? Pilot: Well the friendlies were 300 meters away and from the initial report that a black car, sedan had been coming in and dropping off insurgents, taking them out, moving them to different locations. That was my whole thought process."

Applying ROE on the job : "LTC: Did you think your knowledge of ROE and the law of armed conflict adequately prepared you for this engagement? Pilot: You know, I know we go through ROE a lot, and you’ll be like oh okay, I’m tired of talking about the ROE. I think the heat of the moment is always the one thing that sometimes you might not have control over or you have to actively stop yourself and be like wait, think through it again, you know, and I talked with some of the other guys after the engagement..."

Where the children were sent: "The Wikileaks report is mistaken in saying that the children wounded in the van were not evacuated to an American hospital. The report says both wounded children were taken to the trauma center at FOB Loyalty, and later transferred to an Iraqi hospital."

Reporter's reaction to the language in the video: "The part of the video I had trouble with is the dialogue between the Apache pilots, which almost sounds like a caricature it’s so callous. I spent a lot of time around troops in Baghdad in 2005-06 and never heard anything even akin to that. Soldiers wanted to do soldier stuff and kill the enemy, but there was a basic level of respect for human life and the power of the weapons they carried. Trust me, there was a lot of gallows humor and grim photo collections of piles of dead from the civil war, but there wasn’t the absurd blood lust that’s so apparent in the pilot’s conversation. Perhaps it was because the ground troops saw the grisly aftermath of death and the second order effects on families up close and personal that they had a different outlook than the pilots that buzzed the city in glass enclosed cockpits. Or perhaps they spent so much time in the homes of the Iraqi people that they saw them as fellow human beings."

The original source of the interview excerpts is here: http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View={41BA1AAF-785A-481A-A630-12470AFCD6FD} Specifically: http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/2--Sworn%20Statements%20.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 07:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is relevant to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 07:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"airstrike" to "airstrikes"

I have changed the lead to make clear there were three separate strikes by the same helicopter force. Someone could change the title too. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The downside of moving the article to something that ends in 's' is that it making linking more inconvenient. Note also that the US military report refers to the whole incident period using the singular (" ... Casualties Resulting from an Engagement ..."). —Sladen (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AJ Martinez Blog

Now that his analysis was cited here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100406/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1490 it would be nice to include some of it in this article. http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/ Lipsticked Pig (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete the following

I would like to delete the following the strikeout protion of this sentence: "During the helicopter force's surveillance, the group of men on the ground displayed no obvious hostile behaviour and most were clearly unarmed the crewmen reported seeing weapons: one man carrying an AK-47 and another man a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG).

The "no hostile behaviour" is sourced to one reporter's opinion having watched the video, and isn't the best opinion, or the opinion we should include in the article (its silly when you consider one guy is walking round a street with an RPG-7, which is inherently hostile behavior). The second part is just weasely, the article already states that there were 12 individuals, and only 2 were identified and carrying weapons. Repeating that the remaining 10 were unarmed is for POV reasons. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, got rid of it, its just so unreasonable. The article clearly later states that the crewman misidentified the raising of a camera as the raising of an RPG (hostile intent). Lipsticked Pig (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed the pic captions from the Army report, got rid of the "allegedly" and "purportedly". Why were they there to begin with? Does any reputable source claim that those aren't weapons highlighted or that the weapons were planted after the fact? Just seemed completely weasely to me. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Changed "reported" to "crewmen identified two individuals with weapons, one man carrying an AK-47 and another man a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG)." The source (FOX News) for the statement isn't ideal though (again its a reporter's opinion). Lipsticked Pig (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the POV claims. This article is quite badly tainted by POV. It will be interesting to see how much of it I remove, is reinserted. Parrot of Doom 11:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Even when taking into account that al-Amin al-Thaniyah that morning was a red zone (the company present, some 240 men[12], had been under small arms and RPG fire) I would still say that while the group obviously represented a potential threat, they did not pose an immediate threat warranting a response by the Air Weapons Team (AWT). At A Look Inside, Anthony Martinez, a (former?) infantryman who went to Iraq twice with the 3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division and has experience with analyzing aerial footage, shares the same opinion:[13]

I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. [...] That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed.

Note that at the time the AWT requests permission to engage (solely on the basis of some of the men being armed) the various individuals walk through the streets in a relaxed manner and in my opinion do not undertake anything that could be construed as hostile action.

When Namir peeks around the corner to take a photograph of the Humvee some 300 meters down the street (the photographs itself can be seen in the investigation reports released by CENTCOM) the gunner mistakes Namir’s camera (approximately 355mm long with a 70-200 zoom lens[14]) for an RPG launcher (which when loaded is over a meter in length) and proceeds to state that he is going to open fire (the situation has now escalated and perhaps a response is warranted), however his pilot tells him to hold on so the chopper can come around.

Eventually more than 30 seconds pass (2:34 - 3:13 in the full unedited 39 minute video) and when the chopper has come around the group is away from the corner and seem to be calmly discussing something, yet the crew does not reassess the situation and the gunner opens fire (after which the second helicopter, Crazyhorse 19 follows suit).

So there is certainly a lot to be said for the statement that "the group of men on the ground displayed no obvious hostile behaviour and most were clearly unarmed" (I would dare to say that the latter part is indisputable).

--Bruce (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As Martinez said:

"At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error."

What Martinez is saying is that the reality was Crazyhorse (and Bushmaster) was not under any immediate threat. But based on what they thought they saw, they were. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Major issues with this "article"

There are many instances of POV-trailing on this article. Right from the start, editors are mixing hindsight with the attack. The incidents should be described dispassionately, without hindsight. That hindsight should be left until later in the article, otherwise you have readers assuming that the pilots purposely misidentified weapons, and behaved in a gung-ho fashion.

While editors are busily inserting text like "the crews then misidentified x, and shot y (who showed no signs of hostile behaviour)", you'll never have a neutral and informative article. What you will have, is an article that seeks to establish blame, before the reader even has a chance to study the mission reports and subsequent media analysis.

In short, its an utter mess, and I can see myself becoming very quickly frustrated by the efforts of editors who clearly have an axe to grind against the US military. Let the readers arrive at their own conclusions—don't try to force those conclusions upon them. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, really. The horror of the event is so self-evident there is no need to slant it. Please stop inserting statement like "From the video, it is unclear if any of the men are armed" just because some reporter for The Guardian had that opinion, you agree with it, and you can, technically, "source" it. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can one of you please provide an actual example (not a paraphrase) of a specific edit that has been made which you disagree with. To give an example myself of a specific edit, the statement that "most of the men appeared unarmed" was removed, although, is both backed up by reliable source and clearly evident from the video, so it is neutral point of view. The implication that hindsight makes an an article biased seems absurd to me; hindsight is clearly something which gives us a more neutral point of view on the event. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to provide specific examples. What I'm going to do is remove anything that isn't necessary, and you can determine from those edits exactly what my problems are. "Most of the men appeared unarmed" - why is that important? Because mentioning it where it was, implies that the US was engaged in gung-ho military activity. It is irrelevant ath that point whether they were armed or not, because we do not have access to the intelligence that the forces involved in the incidents did. For all we know, those men might have had a stash of RPGs around the corner. It is not Wikipedia's place to make these determinations, we must report on the known facts only, and any inferences must be drawn by the reader from an entirely neutral and informative article. Leave the judgement to others, and if you want to include the opinions of reporters and what can and cannot be seen in the video, do so in a separate section - don't allow journalistic opinion to cloud the known facts of the incident. Parrot of Doom 12:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement that "most of them appeared" unarmed is a fact, clearly evident from the video and backed up by a reliable newspaper. What you think that implies about whether they are "gung-ho" is irrelevant. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the statement is an opinion, and your interpretation of aspects of the video is utterly irrelevant. Parrot of Doom 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg, I think it really seems heavy-handed. The facts stated as now show there were a group of men, and two were carrying weapons. Why does it need to be stated that the others were not, is that not clear from what has already been said? It's better this way because you have not inserted the opinion of some guy, who happens to write for a newspaper, after he viewed the Wikileaks version. Yes, we often source from some guy who happens to write for a newspaper, but saying "backed up by a reliable newspaper" is giving far too much undue weight. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The only bias I see here is from Lipstick Pig and Parrot GovernmentWalls (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reaction section

I suspect that eventually a reaction section will be appropriate. If you have any comments or items for inclusion, post them here. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I very much hope that somebody "noteworthy" states that Wikileaks has damaged its reputation by overstating its case - because that is EXACTLY what I am thinking, gentlemen. New Thought (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bushmaster and Hotel

The article informs that Crazyhorse designates a helicopter unit, but what about the other radio units we hear? __meco (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone who's actually in or was the military could probably shed some light on this but here's a list of all the callsigns used:

• Hotel Two-Two
• Hotel Two-Six
• Hotel Two-Seven
• Bushmaster element
• Bushmaster Four
• Bushmaster Five
• Bushmaster Six
• Bushmaster Seven
• Bushmaster Forty
• Crazyhorse One-Eight
• Bradley element
• Copperhead One-Six

--Bruce (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I just happened to read the excerpt from the transcript in the section just below. There in parenthesis it is explained that Hotel Two-Six is also a helicopter. I wonder if that could possibly be correct. __meco (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

crazyhorse One-Eight appears to be the helicopter from which the footage was shot

crazyhorse one-nine appears to be the second apache helicopter circling the scent, it fires the second burst seen by the footage.

the bushmasters appears to be the Humvee and Bradley column that shows up later in the video

following us army callsign conventions, Bushmaster Six is the leader of the column, have question regarding to whether he was the Bradley.

on the same note, Hotel two-six would be the leader of the the Hotel unit, they are not seen

that's all i can identify, I'm not very well versed in military matters, can someone with more expertise fill out the rest of the list 75.67.14.31 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"permission to engage" was given BEFORE Namir took up his camera.

From Wikileaks twitter NOTE: "permission to engage" (kill) Reuters journalists was given BEFORE Namir took up his camera.

01:33	Hotel Two-Six this is Crazy Horse One-Eight [communication between chopper 1 and chopper 2]. Have individuals with weapons.
01:41	Yup. He's got a weapon too.
01:43	Hotel Two-Six; Crazy Horse One-Eight. Have five to six individuals with AK47s [automatic rifles]. Request permission to engage [shoot].
01:51	Roger that. Uh, we have no personnel east of our position. So, uh, you are free to engage. Over.
02:00	All right, we'll be engaging.
02:02	Roger, go ahead.
...
02:11	All right, we got a guy with an RPG.
02:13	I'm gonna fire.
02:14	Okay.

--mj41 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Which leads me to another inconsistency in the sworn statements, I believe in this case of the pilot, who says:

One AIF was leaning around a corner with an RPG preparing to engage friendly forces so I called Bushmaster 06 to ask for clearance of fire. 1126 who was the commander of the element receiving fire and Bushmaster 06 then gave the team clearance to fire.

I'd like to point out that Hotel Two-Six isn't another AWT, they're ground forces, the other AWT uses the callsign Crazyhorse One-Nine (19). Though I am not sure what Hotel refers to (co-located teams?).

--Bruce (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What does "permission to engage" actually mean? Does it actually imply some actual policy or ethics decision-making process, or is it simply a request to check that no friendly units are in the area? Wnt (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the situation, but in this case the pilot thought he saw a hostile act, and asked if he could open fire. "Permission to engage" when used interrogatively is usually when the inquiring soldier is not automatically granted permission to fire by the rules of engagement, but believes that their target is hostile, and potentially threatening. There is some deliberation as to whether or not it will be granted, and it's as frequently denied as it is allowed. 24.182.101.122 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Permission to engage was requested solely based on the presence of arms within the group (during the moments when the group is not visibly displaying any hostile intent), it is not requested after Namir crouching near the corner (which could be interpreted as hostile action). So your description of the incident is off base. Anyhow, during the second incident (shooting the van) where the pilot requests permission to re-engage I certainly can't think up of anything that could be perceived as a hostile act. --Bruce (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Was anyone armed?

The description of the video, in one Guardian, article, includes the throw-away phrase "it is unclear if anyone was armed". However, a casual review of other articles shows more expert and convincing commentary that, yes, in fact, there were light arms and at least one RPG being deployed. My preference would be to ditch the phrase entirely and let viewers make up their own mind about what the video shows. However, if necessary, we should rely on expert commentary about what the the video shows rather than the view of one journalist. Ronnotel (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, here is a reference to said expert commentary confirming the presence of weaponry: "At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache." Ronnotel (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Its perfectly clear that The Guardian reports the "unclear" aspect as an opinion, and it should therefore be disregarded unless mentioned in a separate commentary regarding public and media reaction to the release of the video. Parrot of Doom 15:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - and from above, there is more substantial evidence that weapons *are* apparent on the video. I like the text as is, without the speculation. However, if forced to comment, it would be preferable to reference the opinion that weapons are identified before the less informed speculation that it is unclear. Ronnotel (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a military blog can be considered a more reliable source than the Guardian. WP:RS would favor the Guardian. I've looked around at some other newspaper articles, however, and it does seem that some disagree about the "unclear" assessment of the Guardian, particularly Fox News. Perhaps we could state that "sources disagree about whether or not weapons can be clearly seen in the video footage" and source it to the Guardian and Fox News. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ed)It is reliable because it is being published in the New York Times, where pains are taken to provide the authors bonafides as an expert. Compared to a throw-away comment by some random journalist, this would seem to take precedence, no? Ronnotel (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it's the New York Times blog, not the newspaper. Secondly it's a story about coverage of the event by military blogs, not an assessment of the event informed by experts who just happen to be posting in blogs. The editorial vetting of the "experts" would be very different in those two situations. Kaldari (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But there is absolutely no claim to expertise (or support, for that matter) regarding the throw-away comment in the Guardian. As I said, best is to ditch *all* of the speculation and leave it up to the viewer.

Reliable sources have nothing to do with it. The comment in The Guardian is clearly the opinion of a journalist, and not necessarily the opinion of those in the helicopter, or those in the military who might be more qualified to make such a judgement. Just because something is written by a journalist in a reliable source does not make what he writes reliable information. Parrot of Doom 16:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not our place to assess who is most qualified to say whether weapons are "clearly" visible in the video or not. That, if anything, is original research. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is precisely our place. Parrot of Doom 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaldari, we obviously exercise judgment on this every day. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. As stated above, it would be inappropriate to include a line saying "it is unclear if the individuals were firing on US troops" even if a paper reported that, because it injects unwarranted bias. I removed the line once, but it was reverted. Leuchars (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was adding a line saying "sources disagree about whether or not weapons can be clearly seen in the video footage", which no one has commented on. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to see how this improves the article: "Source A thinks he sees weapons being trotted about but Source B isn't quite sure what he sees, etc" Ick. Let's please stick to the facts. Ronnotel (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how that adds value. "Sources disagree" about lots of things, but that doesn't always make it a relevant addition. Leuchars (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean it doesn't add anything to article? It's central to the whole controversy surrounding the video. If it were obvious to everyone that the group was heavily armed, I doubt Wikileaks would have even bothered to release the video. Right now, someone reading this article without watching the video wouldn't even understand what all the hoopla is about (or what the Fox News article is complaining about). The ambiguity is central to the controversy and should be reflected in the article. If people disagree about the ambiguity, we should mention that as well. Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If its so central then it should be very easy indeed to find a source qualified enough to comment on the matter; that obviously doesn't include your average journalist. Parrot of Doom 20:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who has seen the video and knows what machine guns and RPGs look like is qualified to comment on whether or not weapons are visible in the video. What other qualifications are needed? Being in the military doesn't give you better eyesight than a journalist. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they're qualified to offer their non-expert opinion. Nothing more, and such opinion should not be treated as fact. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Kaldari, your comment above suggests that you are attempting to use a (deliberate?) ambiguity in the Guardian article as a coatrack upon which to hang a particular POV. I agree with Parrot - if you think some sort of "controversy" hinges on the split-second identification of weaponry in the heat of battle, then you need to supply sourcing that addresses that topic much more directly. As far as I can tell, the controversy, such as it is, has to do with whether the Rules of Engagement allowed an attack on the unidentified "rescue" vehicle as it entered the hostilities. I don't see much support for your apparent view that the victims where innocent bystanders. Ronnotel (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's one example: "The US military has confirmed the authenticity of newly released video showing US forces indiscriminately firing on Iraqi civilians... The voices on the tape appear to believe their targets are carrying weapons, but the footage unmistakably shows some of the victims holding camera equipment."[15] I can list others if you're interested. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or here's an even less ambiguous quote: "Nothing in the images suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents," - Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Still don't think there's controversy about the ambiguity? Kaldari (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any expert and objective analysis of the footage in that interview. And furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that the Army investigators who found the weapons shown on the tape somehow conspired to file a false after action report. Ronnotel (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So we can never mention what newspapers say about the news because they are not objective experts? That's absurd. We have a section devoted to "2010 coverage", so why can't we discuss the coverage? And I'm not suggesting anything about the military. The Guardian, Democracy Now, and other sources are suggesting that. Kaldari (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If there really were a controversy, then a reliable source would find experts to weigh in. Oh wait, that's already happened. Ronnotel (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So yes, there is a controversy. I'm glad we agree. Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"So we can never mention what newspapers say about the news because they are not objective experts?" - of course we can, but we must take care to remind the reader that any opinion offered by a journalist is just that - an opinion. For instance, many journalists might have an opinion as to what exactly happened to Lord Lucan, but their opinions are nothing more than speculation. Opinions must not be interpreted by the reader as fact, or else we do the public a disservice. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've added statements reflecting all 3 opinions to the 2010 coverage section and attributed them explicitly to their sources. Fox News = the weapons are clearly visible; The Guardian = it is unclear if weapons are visible; Süddeutsche Zeitung (the main newspaper in Germany) = there are no weapons visible. Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work, that's exactly how it should be treated. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

YES, good work Kaldari, this is how its should be done. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but theres nothing I saw in the article that spells out that american soldiers in helicopter were flying around a battle zone, and they see guys they think have RPGs and guns, which the RPGs are a threat to them, and they request permission to fire and carry out an attack. There at a distance, so yes its hard to see things clearly, and stuff is happening quickly. Do they wait for a potential attacker to shot an RPG at them and take them out of sky, or do they fire first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are Rules of Engagement, which do limit what they can do. As the article expands, we might want to discuss them. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate Sources

It seems to me that wikipedia's policies around secondary sources are actually poorly serving the accuracy and NPOV elements of this article. Press reports are not competent secondary sources in interpretation of video of military operations (or of the operations themselves), nor necessarily NPOV, but seem to be being used as such to justify editorial decisions in this talk page. Similar competency concerns apply to the interpretation being made by the personnel of wikileaks, who in addition are approaching the interpretation from an adversarial point of view. The release of the video under the 'collateral murder' label is very clearly an adversarial POV that taints the video by association before anyone even looks at it, as are the additional statements made by Julian Assange in various venues. The entire 'Reaction to report' section currently consists of further statements by Julian Assange, the person ultimately responsible for posting the report, so might more accurately be titled 'Further Allegations', it certainly isn't reaction. We need to be very careful to distinguish between fact, opinion, interpretation of video evidence by qualified personnel and interpretation of video evidence by unqualified personnel and whether or not those sources represent NPOV. Equally language used needs to be watched carefully, for instance 'The (army) report claims ' would seem to imply an acceptance of a level of doubt about the veracity of the report, which therefore sides with the wikileaks POV rather than NPOV, 'The report states' would more clearly be NPOV.

77.96.255.55 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) DWG

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" -- WP:V. Wikipedia makes no claims about being accurate (in the broader sense), merely accurately reflecting what the rest of the world has to say. Kaldari (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what 77 is complaining about. The question of weight is really important. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." -- WP:NPOV. Kaldari (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I felt this complaint was well justified, but I blamed it on a bad outline structure rather than bias per se. So I've changed the section specifically for "reaction to the US Army report" into a general "2010 coverage" section as an independent subheading, and added in the short paragraph naming media sources that covered the video. I hope this will encourage people from all sides to add or expand description of the reliable sources that document their points of view. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Gunsight"

This is an unimportant technical point, but I'm going to fact-tag each statement in the article that claims that the video came from the "gunsight". A better term (and preferably a wikilink) needs to be used for the video system; I just don't know what it is. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Try gun camera. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or more specifically, Target Acquisition and Designation System, Pilot Night Vision System. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a source [16] specifically identifying this as footage as being from a "TADS". I don't know if all TADS are TADS/PVNS or if whatever the Apaches are upgrading to according to that article would be covered there, but there isn't the same standard of referencing for Wikilinks as text content, so I'm putting in the link now. Wnt (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

article on democracynow

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/exclusive_witnesses_describe_deadly_2007_us

Especially:

"RICK ROWLEY: Yeah, now, I mean, I’m a journalist, and I go and talk to people and report what they said. And these residents came and told me that the man who they drove over was alive, that he had crawled out of the van that had been shot to pieces and that he was still alive when the Americans drove over him and cut him in half, basically, with a Bradley or tank or whatever armored vehicle they were driving in." 206.248.159.113 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And people believe that? 71.230.152.65 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to pretend it's totally implausible. You don't have to be stupid or naive to believe stories about cruelties committed by (even rightful?) invading forces. It is dubious given the rest of the evidence on this case, but that's a reasoned and well-informed decision, not an obvious one. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In the long version of the video at 18:37 a Bradley passes the body of the journalist. Shortly after a Humvee does the same. The body is visible in close up soon after with no evidence of dismemberment. A truck moves up and parks to the left of the road next to a large flat bed trailer. At 27:00 a 2nd Bradley attempts to move between the body of the journalist and the van. It appears to impact the van and the journalists legs are just under the front of the left track of the Bradley. The Bradley remains in that position until 31:07 when the Apache moves to the next target.Galerita (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to extract a video still from the YouTube video? At precisely 27:00/39:14 in the long version (viewed at 480p from http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/index.html) a Bradley is parked with its right side in contact with the Kia van (which it has just impacted, removing much of the front), and its left track on top off - or almost on top of - the legs of Saeed Chmagh the Reuters photographer. This would appear to partly corroborate the claim that "the Americans drove over him and cut him in half", although I can't tell if he is still alive. Given the soldiers identified and treated two severely wounded men at the scene it stands to reason they believe he is dead.Galerita (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the point is whether the guy was actually cut in half (I doubt he was, it was probably a figure of speech). The residents said one of them was still alive and got killed by being driven over. Whether this is true or not is unclear, I couldn't see anything that moved either when a tank went up the hill where Noor-Eldeen was or when the second tank impacted the van.

Concerning stills, you probably want to download the full version from http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder_full.mp4.torrent. 206.248.159.113 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, "I couldn't see anything that moved...". I agree I looked carefully at Saeed Chmagh's body from just after the van attack until the end of the footage. There was no obvious movement or change in the position of his body. Galerita (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

// not a forum

Whatever the implications of the event, the article, especially its introduction, conveys a conservative and factual story. To those who dislike the implications of the event: please stop turning this talk page into a forum for your opinions. If there are qualified and notable opinions expressed, they can be and have been cited in the article. To those who wish the implications of the event would be made explicit or exaggerated for a good cause: that's never Wikipedia's job, and the commentary of passion that doesn't go on the articles is not meant for Wikipedia talk pages either.

The many sections here expressing a) clearly the people on the ground are insurgents or b) clearly the gunners are murderers, are misplaced and should not be on Wikipedia. An article about an event, regardless of its implications, should not be accompanied by the sentiments those implications arouse.

Thank you. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We are not merely covering an airstrike event here. We are also covering a controversy created by the release of the Wikileaks video. The continual efforts to erase this controversy from the article are inappropriate and a violation of WP:NPOV. We should be presenting the opinions and reactions of the media on both sides of the issue, not simply pretending that there is no controversy. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We can cover a controversy. We do not need to create the controversy, nor furnish one with ammunition. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, sorry, I don't mean to erase the controversy from the article. As I said in my first post, the implications should be neither done away with nor exaggerated, passionate arguments for both of which are what's happening with the talk page... I wish you had not used the word "controversy", which I did not use, because while the controversy that exists exterior to Wikipedia is factual and should be documented, it should not exist on Wikipedia (Wikipedia not being a forum). If your opinion contradicts the one I'm trying to make clear, you see it will justify the turning of any subject whatsoever into one where controversy is generated by the editors expressing their opinions. At very best that constitutes original research... Flipping Mackerel (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in sworn statement of AWT (Crazyhorse 18) member

I'll start with the very first inconsistency I encountered in the sworn statements available from the CENTCOM website one of the members of the AWT says:

LTC [REDACTED]: The van comes up, you engage it. Did you acquire or at anytime the size or shape of people in the van?

CW3 [REDACTED]: I saw, when they opened up the doors, three to four individuals. I saw them go in and out, extract the personnel and weapons, and carry the guy back to the van. I did clear the individuals in the van.

He says he saw them extract weapons, however note that in the video the pilot says:

Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies.

Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.

Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.

And as is clear from the video nobody ever tries to pick up any weapons, they're completely focused on trying to get Saeed Chmagh out of there.

Note that LTC and CW3 are ranks, Lieutenant Colonel and Chief Warrant Officer Three respectively.

--Bruce (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the significance as it relates to this article? I don't find this to be notable by itself given how common errors are in after the fact statements. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Footage missing

I'm reading the sworn statements and it contains some information regarding the footage missing, specifically:

While team was providing security for 1126 at the first engagement area 1126 informed the team that they were receiving small arms fire from the S/SW and wanted to [sic] team to recon the area for AIF. CZ18 then located 5xAIF with AK-47's and 1xRPG. Team was given clearance to engage by 1126. I then observed a child and some other noncombatants in the vicinity of the AIF so decided to hold off on the engagement until the non-combatants were clear. After the non-combatants were clear CZ18 then [sic] engaged the AIF with 20x30mm. There were 2 possible WIA and I observed the individuals run into a large multistory building. The team then searched the area for more AIF. CZ 19 reported a red SUV that has possible AIF in it and team followed and observed the vehicle but could not get PID on any weapons. The team then returned to the engagement area. Upon arrival I observed another AIF with an AK-47 walking too [sic] the building. When the AIF heard our rotorwash he then ran into the building the other AIF had gone into. The building was a 4 story building that looked abandoned and half finished and possibly still under construction.

I'd be very interested in seeing all the footage taken and don't see any reasons DoD/CENTCOM shouldn't release it (last I heard they had some trouble "locating" any footage though).

--Bruce (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in the footage from Crazyhorse 19's camera, in particular after reading this:

A few minutes later both aicraft saw several individuals with AK-47's and RPG. They were peeking around the corner of a building and I saw one individual engage the ground unit. CrazyHorse 18 immediately called for a clearance of fires and it was granted by H26 and Bushmaster6. My aircraft engaged the hostile individuals with 30mm.

Emphasis mine. You'd think "engage" would refer to "firing". However, perhaps he's just what we now know was Namir taking pictures of the ground units located about 300 meters down the road.

--Bruce (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does this have an article?

A car bomb a week vs. this? How is this really notable other than it made it to Wikipedia thereby building its own notoriety? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.1.2 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:N Parrot of Doom 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't care much for WP:N, if somebody is motivated enough to write an article that's fine by me (whatever the subject matter) and in this case people clearly are. However, there's no question considering the attention this incident has been given that it is notable, even according to the before-mentioned guidelines. I'd also like to point out there's quite a few articles on suicide car and truck bombings in Iraq as well.

Of course, the real reason you're objecting to this article's existence is because you feel the U.S. military is being put in a bad spot. To that I say: research the facts and feel free to improve the article where you feel improvement is needed. I'd start your research by reading the sworn statements and various other documents released by CENTCOM. As the article is currently locked down, feel free to discuss anything you want on this talk page. However, please stick to the facts and take other viewpoints into consideration. --Bruce (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Of course, the real reason you're objecting to this article's existence is because you feel the U.S. military is being put in a bad spot." A completely untrue accusation that adds nothing to this discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.150.103 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Two Helicopters

Another editor privately queried whether both aircraft (CZ18 and CZ19) had engaged, or only one of them. For the avoidance of doubt, the official military reports state:

• Investigation into Civilian Causalities Resulting form an Engagement on 12 July 2007 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq
  • p.4 "engagement by helicopters"
  • p.11 "I reviewed the gun-camera tapes from 1^st Cavalry Division's Apache Helicopters"
  • p.12 "Two Apache helicopters"
  • p.12 "As the Apaches orbit"
  • p.14 "To the Apaches that engaged them"
  • p.30 "Whilst on the scene Crazy Horse (the Apaches) engaged a house to the east"
• Findings and Recommendations Pursuant to AR 15-6 Investigation into Conditions Surrounding the Possible Death of Two Reuters Reporters during an Engagement on 12 July 2007 by Crazyhourse 18 and 19 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq (Zone 30)
  • p.3 "Engagement on 12 July by Crazyhorse 18 and 19"
  • p.4,7,8 "an engagement on 12 July by I-227^th ARB aircraft, Crazy horse 18 and 19"
  • p.8 "after harmonizing their 30mm cannons in Zone 101"
  • p.8 "Crazyhorse 19 (trail aircraft) identified ..."
  • p.9 "At 1021 hours, the AWT engaged"
  • p.9 "Crazyhorse 18 requested immediate clearance to engage the van, received it, and completely disabled the vehicle within seconds"
  • p.10 "The aircrews"
• 2--Exhibit A Sworn Statements
  • p.1 (CW3) "Fired about 200 RDS of 30mm killing AIF"
  • p.1 "Fired 20 rds 30mm"
  • p.1 "made 2 runs. First missile was a K2 we aimed at the bottom floor, Next 2 missiles were N model aimed at 2^nd and 3^rd Floor of Building, all 3 missiles hit target, destroying target"
  • p.1 "End result 21 KIA, 3 WIA, 1 VAN Destroyed, 1 Building destroyed"
  • p.5 (CZ18,lead) "Both CZ18/19 engaged the AIF with approximately 200 rounds of 30mm."
  • p.5 "CZ18/19 engaged with approximately 70 rounds of 30mm destroying the vehicle and kill the AIF"
  • p.5 "CZ18 the [sic] engaged the AIF with 20x30mm"
  • p.5 "CZ18 fired 1xK2 and 2xN missiles, CZ19 fire 1x N missile"
  • p.7 (CZ19) "My aircraft engaged the hostile individuals with 30mm"
  • p.7 "Crazy House 18 engaged another group"
  • p.7 "Crazy House engaged with a K-2 hellfire missile on his first pass, we engaged with a N model missile, CrazyHorse 18 engaged with one more N model missile."
  • p.7 "During these two engagements, my aircraft fire 90 rounds 30mm and one N model missile."
  • p.7 "Neither CrazyHorse aircraft sustained battle damage"
  • p.10 (CZ19) "I think we started firing when they were still firing" x2
  • p.11 (CZ19) "Crazy Horse 18 initiated fire at the personnel with weapons and I engaged the same group. I fired approximately 50 rounds of 30mm"
  • p.11 (CZ19) "Crazy Horse 18 initiated fire and I fired approximately 40 rounds at the personnel and the van"
  • p.11 (CZ19) "Crazy Horse 18 fired at the personnel with weapons ... I did not engage"
  • p.11 (CZ19) "Crazy Horse 18 engaged the ground floor with a K model missile ... We engaged the same building with a N model missile at the ground floor ... Crazy Horse 18 then engaged the second floor of the building with another N model missile"

—Sladen (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For the cluelessuninitiated, could you explain what CZ18 is? Does the number uniquely identify the physical helicopter, or its assignment within the military? Does a single crew generally stay with a helicopter or do they just get in whichever one is ready to go (or does the number change depending on who gets in it like with Air Force One)? Wnt (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would offer an educated guess in that CZ18 is the helicopter Crazyhorse 1-8. Also, they are call signs asigned to the patrol or unit, not the physical vehicle which would have some other designation which probably hasn't come up in any of the reports we refer to. __meco (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"CZ" is the abbreviation they use for the callsign "Crazyhorse". There is no information about which physical airframes these relate to, or the longevity/uniqueness of the callsigns. The reports state that the team of CZ18/CZ19 return to base when the team of CZ03/CZ04, consisting of two more helicopter gunships, arrives. Each of those aircraft has two aircrew (one pilot and one gunner), so each "attack weapons team" they refer to is made up of four aircrew (two callsigns, two aircraft, two pilots, two gunners). —Sladen (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

David Finkel's account

David Finkel's account of the day sheds some more light on the context and should be integrated into the article.

Links:

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125630795
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040601368.html

--Bruce (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... do you think we need more than what I added just recently? Wnt (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the bit you added that led me to the NPR interview so thank you very much for adding it. However, while the statement by Finkel is very descriptive of the day it's still just a little snippet. I think after time has passed and the article has gone through a few iterations the article structure will change and the context will become clearer. I'm quite happy I actually managed to find the relevant excerpt of the book (couldn't locate it on the NPR website, though I did find another excerpt from the book there). Thanks again. --Bruce (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this one link should be added. It's a contemporary report published on Friday, July 13, 2007 in the Washington Post about that day's events, and in which Finkel also participated

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html
  

Johannjs (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Third attack

The third attack is definitely the same helicopter and crew. It's shown at the end of the unedited version of the video and the crew use the same call-sign througout. The New Yorker explicitly links the the third attack with the earlier ones: "...earlier portions of the video suggest that Crazy Horse One-Eight is not an entirely reliable narrator.".--MoreThings (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The following statements by the pilots estimate the number of KIA in the 3rd engagement:

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/2--Sworn%20Statements%20.pdf

page 4 [handwritten] "...from building was 8-11 AIF KIA."

page 5 [typed]"..approximately 10 AIF KIA..."

page 7 gives an overall total from the 3 engagements, [typed]"...estimated 21 AIF KIA. 3 WIA."Galerita (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Wikileaks unrelated to Wikipedia - should we say it?

I couldn't think of a single non-awkward way to point out that Wikileaks has nothing to do with Wikipedia in the text. But I wish there was some way to make this clear in the article lead, as I think some of the hostile reactions we've seen here might be based on the false but not particularly unforeseeable assumption that Wikileaks would have some relationship to the people behind Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wiktionary/Wikisource/Wikibooks/etcetera. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to cater for the lowest common denominator. If they want to jump to conclusions, let them. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done [17] Any good? —Sladen (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Looks alright to me! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ASR. Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASR is intended to prevent implicit self-references ("nb. Wikileaks is not related to this encyclopedia"), neutrally worded phrases are allowed ("Wikileaks is not related to Wikipedia").

The reasoning behind this is that if eg. Sunshine Press makes their own copy of Wikipedia then the first wording ("This is not X") would not be true and not make sense; whereas the encouraged neutral phrasing ("X is not Y") will always remain true and unambiguous. —Sladen (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow Parrot, you're a bit arrogant. IT's not "catering to the lowest common denominator." It wouldn't be unreasonable for someone with no prior experience with WP or Wikileaks to make the assumption, off the name, that there could be some connection. I personally knew from the start that there is not, however it is not nonsensical for one to make that assumption initially, and certainly not just because YOU say so. Having a disclaimer to make clear that "Wikileaks" is not somehow linked with Wikipedia.org is not a bad idea at all. I get the idea you believe many to be the "lowest common denominator." Jersey John (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice, straight in with the personal attacks. You'll excuse me if I treat your post with the contempt it deserves. Parrot of Doom 07:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Geography

The geography of this incident might be of some interest. For example, after following the Coordinates link, and assuming the morning sun is in the east, I was able to determine that the van came out of the road at the western side of the open square. What's interesting about this is that this area was the eastern edge of a combat zone that day, with some of the heaviest fighting near the east edge. So I'm inclined to think that the parents and children were actually fleeing the combat zone rather than entering it, when they stopped to pick up the wounded person. They were headed toward the edge of the city, about 0.4 miles away. Does this make sense? It'll be interesting to see if I can find discussion of the landscape. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Intriguing, but we can't write based on speculation or theory. If we can get a real expert, then we might have something - but also, we cannot say they were fleeing. It's altogether, lots of speculation without sources. Annihilatron (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just become aware that at the start of the full 38 minute video a van enters the frame at 0:39 and passes the mosque (the crew is aware of it) while moving to the direction of the courtyard. To me it looks very similar to the van which is engaged later on. However, the pilot describes it as a black van.

Do we have any more information on the van?

--Bruce (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Evacuated children

We first state that the children we denied medical treatment at an American facility (per Wikileaks) and later that they were evacuated to FOB Loyalty by the Americans for medical treatment (as per the CENTCOM report). We should figure out a good way to present this discrepancy. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think we should add the children to the lede ("In the first incident in al-Amin al-Thaniyah, twelve men were killed, including Reuters news staff Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen, and two children were seriously wounded"). I don't want to be inflammatory, but what makes this incident notable is the public reaction to it, and that reaction is heightened because of the the girls. I think that's obvious, although need to find a source that explicitly notes that. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, deleted the first occurence where this is mentioned. As clearly stated in the Army report, they were evacuated to FOB Loyalty, then to a CSH, then transferred the next day to an Iraqi facility. Adding that Wikileaks disputed that statement to later part of article. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cite format

Are you all OK with making the presentation of the references the same? I prefer simpler, without the extended quotes embedded in them. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned with ensuring that all the references are correct and complete, authors, dates etc. №4 for example has a "<" where it shouldn't. №15 has a typo, Hearld not Herald. These refs actually look very good, compared to some I have seen. This [18] is not a very informative reference, but I've seen a few of them about. Remember, someone has taken the trouble to add quotes to the references. Not sure if it is per wp:MOS. Strongly suggest you get a concensus before altering from current format. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Arrival of van

Can someone fix this up: "While US ground forces were en route to the scene, an unmarked van arrived, from which two men disembarked. " Close inspection of the short video from 9:04/17:47 to 9:22/17:47 reveals that neither of the two additional men disembarked from the van, but rather arrived separately on foot from the same direction as the van.Galerita (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Galeritas comments here. Though I haven't watched all the video, I have read the same information in some report. I think it was the report here(ref № 3), of the US military investigation that says it. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"[the van arrives] and is immediately joined by two military-aged males who emerge from the nearby courtyard" (p.4 in the report). So changing that sentence as you said Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My only problem with this is that in the video the two men appear to come from down the road (from the South) rather than from a "nearby courtyard". Do we need a source to interpret this from the video, or perhaps simply say, "...an unmarked van arrived at the scene together with two men on foot."Galerita (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was posting a retraction, as I could not find the text again. But Lipsticked Pig found it, p.4, para.9, of 5 page memo dated 17 July 2007, PDF p.14. (Though I also believe I read 'somewhere' that, "they arrived on foot from the same direction as the van". I will try to re-locate source.) nb. Galerita, beware of wp:Original Research ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This excerpt from the book "The Good Soldiers" by David Finkel (published September 2009) says:

"Now, as had happened earlier, their circling brought them behind some buildings that obstructed their view of the street, and when they were next able to see Chmagh, someone they had glimpsed running up the street was crouching over him, a second man was running toward them, and a Kia passenger van was approaching." From here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040601368_5.html?sid=ST2010040601423

It's pretty clear that Finkel has seen the video. Near the end of the excerpt:

"...back on the FOB, after Kauzlarich and the soldiers had finished their work in Al-Amin. They knew by now about Chmagh and Noor-Eldeen. They had brought back Noor-Eldeen's cameras and examined the images to see if he was a journalist or an insurgent. They had gotten the video and audio recordings from the Apaches and had reviewed them several times. They had looked at photographs taken by soldiers that showed AK-47s and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher next to the dead Iraqis. They had reviewed every thing they could about what had prefaced the killings in east Al-Amin, in other words--that soldiers were being shot at, that they didn't know journalists were there, that the journalists were in a group of men carrying weapons, that the Apache crew had followed the rules of engagement when it fired at the men with weapons, at the journalists, and at the van with the children inside--and had concluded that everyone had acted appropriately."Galerita (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A Kia van, there's a new bit of data I haven't seen elsewhere. Any idea of the model? I can't seem to find an article that matches it. An early Kia Carnival perhaps?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A photo of the van is here:

http://www.collateralmurder.com/file/photos/AliAbbas_VAN.jpg.html

I'm sure I picked up "Kia"from somewhere, but after a little searching I wonder if it's a Hyundai Grand Saloon

http://image5.sahibinden.com/photos/96/71/66/big_14967166_ivg.jpg

Galerita (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a Hyundai Grand Saloon to me (that's what I make of the text at the back of the car), here's one with similar colors (also notice the wheelcaps) --Bruce (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There was previously a pic of the van in the article, (same pic as from 'collateralmurder' per Galerita) now up for deletion, and it does say on the side/ rear "Grand Saloon", [see THIS] so 'Hyundai Grand Saloon' appears to be it. Nb. the brandname it appears under may vary from place to place and Kia is now part of, or a subsidiary company of Hyundai I believe. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancies

Some of these have been mentioned in passing above.

• In the lead "twelve men were killed" is stated. Apart from the infobox, it appears nowhere else. There is no reference given for it. In the quote in ref №4 (Seattle Times) 12 is mentioned. If the figure is is correct then a cite should be attached to that statement in the lead. An early comment was that the lead was "well cited". Currently there in only two citations in the whole section. Suggest a few more!
  
• The exact jobs the 2 Reuters employees did were also discussed. The sources nytimes, reuters1(2007), blogs.reuters say Namir Noor-Eldeen was a photo-journalist or photographer, and Saeed Chmagh was a driver and 'assistant' reuters2 (2010). Reports right after they died called them both journalists, which is obviously wrong. My 2 cents! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is confusing. Doesn't the Army report say 9 killed, and Noor-Zeldeen and Chmagh? I don't know if a definitive source exists about what happened to the evacuated wounded. I do think both men were considered to be "working in a journalistic capacity" by their employers Reuters and other journalists. If a 3-man ABC camera crew was killed in Chechnya, they would all be considered "journalists" including the sound man. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reuters has consistently used the terms photographer and driver, at least once indicating that Chmagh was also an assistant. I'm fairly comfortable using these terms instead of journalists. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)to Lipsticked Pig(!). I think the US army report would have to be the best authority, unless someone wants to count bodies in the videos, which would be OR and verboten! In any case if the army or whoever say X we need to cite it. I'd do it myself but I can't (protected article).
Don't want to nit pick over people who died 3 years ago. But from my reading of multiple sources (especially from Reuters) Noor-Zeldeen was definitely a photographer/photojournalist, and Chmagh definitely a driver and also mentioned as a camera assistant. Which could just mean carrying the spare gear(camera, tripod etc) and cleaning the lenses (no changing film nowdays). Note I have him as that in his article, which I have had largely to myself for 2 days! (take a look) 'Journalist' might be stretching it a bit! We also need consistency between related articles! Sources also said they were good friends. Times Online seems a good source, mentions that Noor-Zeldeen was single, not mentioned elsewhere + other personal details for both. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you all now. The initial Reuters press release (attached to end of the Army Report) describes them as "An Iraqi photographer and driver working for Reuters in Iraq." Lipsticked Pig (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, similar to the army, people have a way of being promoted when they die in combat. Just to make them look better. (cynical, devil's advocate thinking there). Can't we check up to see what he was prior to this? Annihilatron (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

selectively edited - missing 30 minutes of footage

The 'Full Version' of The Wikileaks Video Is Missing 30 Minutes of Footage, gawker.com, 9.4.2010 --mj41 (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The missing half hour is no secret. The time stamps are not difficult to read and the cut is noted on the time line at the Collateral Murder website. If the sworn statements are to be believed, the missing footage is of no relevance to this article. I also find it difficult to take seriously the idea that this somehow discredits Wikileaks or the video. It's not even known if Wikileaks has the missing footage in question. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The author is clearly biased and makes assumptions and implications that he fails to back up with evidence. In an update he finally mentions that "Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have"." but proceeds to make more baseless accusations, such as referring to Wikileaks military source (if we have to believe Jullian's statements the source is indeed military) as "disgruntled". How does he know? Also what makes him think the cut footage (which is described in the investigation report) can be considered redeeming? The thing is, we don't know. Perhaps if the Pentagon and/or CENTCOM had proper archiving regulations in place for recordings from TADS we'd have seen the entire reel by now (including footage from the TADS of Crazyhorse 19), but alas.

--Bruce (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We should accurately state in the article that the "unedited" version released by WikiLeaks was in fact a composite of two (or three) engagements. This can be done without bias, something simple like "the video obtained by WikiLeaks was a composite of two separate actions occuring x minutes apart". Lipsticked Pig (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

can I ask for someone to create al-Amin al-Thaniyah

I find it distressing that the neighborhood where the attacks occurred isn't documented at all in our List of neighborhoods and districts in Baghdad or in our Administrative districts in Baghdad.

I have gathered material to make a stub article, but I would prefer if someone else would make the article.

Variant spellings and namings:

• In this map, on the East side of Baghdad there is a neighborhood "al-Amin"
• In this map is simply called "Amin".
• In this map by the humanitarian info center for iraq, it is as "Ameen" (see sector 34, "Mashtal, Ameen, Nafit, Rustomiya", in the District "7 Nissan".)
• This article states that in 2003, some Shiite leaders renamed "Al-Ameen District" to "Al-Murthadha District, after Ali Murthadha, the first Shiite imam." (I believe that "al-Amin" refers to this religious figure).
• PS it looks like "Thanniyah" can also be spelled "Thania" or "Thanya".

Google searches: I find it helpful to include the word "district," e.g. baghdad "al-amin district".

Thanks and best wishes, JD Caselaw (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just be WP:BOLD and do it yourself. Start it at User:JD Caselaw/al-Amin al-Thaniyah, and when you're done move it to al-Amin al-Thaniyah. Parrot of Doom 15:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have enough mastery of the subject to create this article. JD Caselaw (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)