Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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)

Yes I noticed this earlier. It's a two tone van and looks very similar to the van that was attacked. It enters frame at 00:39/39:14 and departs at 00:54 driving south past the blue domed mosque upper centre here, heading in the opposite direction from which it later returns to pick up the wounded Saeed Chmagh.

The video conversation is:

Pilot "I got a black vehicle under target. It's arriving right to the north of the mosque."

Someone "Yeah, I would like that. Over."

Pilot "Moving south by the mosque dome. Down that road."

Then the conversation changes:

Controller "Okay we got a target fiftenn coming at you. It's a guy with a weapon..."

It suggests that there is more to the van driver's story than we've been told. Unfortunately we can only speculate. Galerita (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that we should expand the article with whatever we know from the family (from interviews) regarding what the van was doing. I've heard he was dropping off his children, but also working as a part-time taxi driver or something. Some people have claimed that it's not logical for people to be on the street during a military operation, but I don't know if that is really so illogical (would love to see a credible source delve into this). --Bruce (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment the best I can do is this and this. Kristinn Hrafnsson of RUV the Icelandic National broadcasting Service, interviewed the family of the victims. Quotes from truthseed: "Sayad and Doaha were on their way to school when the American Apache helicopters “engaged” and opened fire..."; and "Saleh Matasher Tomal, born 1964, He was 43 when he was killed in 2007, he was married and father of four. He made a living hiring out the mini-van. It was the family’s source of income." It seems a strange time to go to school (~10:20 am), but the YouTube Video says they were going to "special classes". I can come up with all kinds of speculation, but it's also possible the innocent explanation is the truth. Galerita (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see here, "In addition to Jónsdóttir, Kristinn Hrafnsson, a journalist at the Icelandic national broadcaster RÚV, and Icelandic filmmaker Ingi Ragnar Ingason, helped Wikileaks prepare the video’s publication." But I soon hit pages in Icelandic. Galerita (talk) 01:11, 12 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)

The badge does look like the "italic" H in an oval that Hyundai use. Galerita (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the footage, I think it is clear that one bearded person leads the van to the reporter from at least the point where the road enters the main square - he can actually be seen running around that corner before the van is visible. Another bearded person follows it. While the two on foot start to pick up the reporter, a third bearded person gets out of the van, runs around to the passenger (right-hand) side to open a sliding door, then gets back in the van, without ever touching the reporter. The two on foot never make any attempt to get into the van, and it begins to pull away and turn right (toward the east, its original direction of travel) just before it is attacked. What I wonder about is that the two children can be seen at the window, the driver gets up to reveal a grey seat, and there is a darkness between them. The first time I watched I assumed there was a woman sitting there, but it's just too hard for me to make out on any version of the video I've seen.

Incidentally, it is well worth downloading the VLC media player and the footage, to avoid the incessant freezing/skipping of the Firefox version and also allowing you to slow down the video and properly appreciate the Orcish narrative. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems the van is seen very early in the 39 min version of the video. See Talk:July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Geography. Galerita (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The "black" van seen and mentioned early in the long video is probably NOT the same van. The van in the shooting is light blue (see photo at http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/img/photos/AliAbbas_VAN.jpg.html) and has a noticeably faded roof.

Please move to July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrikes

There were three airstrikes.

The article is locked so I can't perform the move. JD Caselaw (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This idea has been mentioned before, ( ≈1½ days ago) see Talk:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike#"airstrike" to "airstrikes". Doesn't seem to have any support --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to the previous thread. I see User:Sladen's comment that the change might "mak[e] linking more inconvenient", but I'm not convinced -- a redirect will still exist after the move.

My main concern is that, in the first sentence, we say that the article is about "three airstrikes". JD Caselaw (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I support renaming it, I just can't be bothered --Bruce (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I also support it. __meco (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer on the Dylan Ratigan Show

On the The Dylan Ratigan Show of April the 5th Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, apparently a notable U.S. intelligence officer, commented on the incident. The interview is linked in this article (the interview starts at 4m38s, here's a convenient YouTube link). You can find a rush transcript of the interview I made here:

It might be relevant to include a reference to this in the article later, in a coverage, opinion or a rules of engagement section. It may also not, we'll see. --Bruce (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't there. I don't know what his infantry experience is.

I can find a Lt. Colonel with a different take. That doesn't mean we take every one of them.

Besides that, if it was recorded on April 5th then he may only have seen the short version that makes it look like there may not have been insurgents there. It's not fair to him to imply that he would still buy the Wikileaks story today.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce, I thought that interview was excellent and gets to the nub of why this article and the leaked video are so important. Your link to the video didn't work. Maybe this one will. Galerita (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Attack on personnel

For the timeline to be correct the Apache crew(s) asked for, and got, permission to engage before Chmagh(?) peered around the corner with his telephoto lens, and got (mis)identified as holding an RPG and preparing to fire. Also, we should give a time so that it is apparent how long after they arrived on station the first attack occurred. All these facts are not disputed (including the sequence and misidentification of the camera). So I propose:

Around 10:19 am the United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters observed 11 men walking one block away from Bravo company vehicles. In the group were two employees of the Reuters news service, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver/camera assistant Saeed Chmagh. The helicopter crews reported seeing two individuals with weapons, one carrying an AK-47, and another carrying a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). The crews asked for, and received, permission to open fire. As they circled around to attack, Chmagh peered around the corner with a telephoto lens, which was reported by a helicopter pilot as an insurgent preparing to fire an RPG. When the group of men were in view again the helicopters fired with their M230 Chain Guns, killing or wounding all the men. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

1. A distance would be better than "one block" (such things only really exist in the United States and vary from ~60 metres (Manhatten) up to several hundred metres!
2. It needs to cite from somewhere that it was Chmagh photographing the Humvee around the corner (rather than Namir).
3. Whilst the crews may, or may not, have seen any RPGs, the permission to engage request (CZ18→H26) was made solely on the basis of a reported plural number of people with AK-47s (s:July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike transcript):
   • 01:33 Hotel Two-Six this is Crazyhorse One-Eight. Have individuals with weapons.
   • 01:41 Yup. He's got a weapon too.
   • 01:43 Hotel Two-Six; Crazyhorse One-Eight. Have five to six individuals with AK47s. Request permission to engage.

Other than those issues, it's reasonable. —Sladen (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The distance from the corner to the intersection is around 120-150 meters. However, the road is diagonal and the military report states that the individuals were less than 100 meters away. Which is certainly possible but not verifiable by watching the video footage (which doesn't capture the unit from 2-16 ). For sources and more information see #Proximity_of_individuals_to_friendly_forces

By the way it wasn't Chmagh, it was Namir. Chmagh was the one who ran then got shot and was later killed in the van attack. --Bruce (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Namir taking the photos around the corner. It is him reviewing them just before the shooting starts.Galerita (talk) 13:40, 11 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 [1] 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)

It's not as if the van was just innocently passing by; those guys were part of the terrorist gang and turned up to salvage the weapons and help the survivor escape. (Huey45 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Huey 45,

1. We have no way of knowing what the van driver & other persons motivations/affiliations were. Maybe terrorists, maybe not. 2 children (who were badly injured when 'strafed') were in the van. Possibly terrorists take their 4 & 8 year olds on field trips, but, really?). I have stopped to check on a person lying in the street, fortunately, not in Baghdad!
2. The 'survivor' has been identified as Reuters employee Saeed Chmagh. Therefore he is innocent.
3. Please keep the wp:terrorist, wp:NOTOPINION and wp:Neutral point of view policies in mind.
4. Assume my good faith here, I'm not trying to tell you what to think. Just that your comments are not helping improve the article. Happy Editing! :-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputable. In fact, I personally take offense in your categorization that "those guys" were part of "the terrorist gang" and "turned up to salave [sic] weapons and help the survivor escape" as there is no conclusive evidence to support this accusation at this time. There certainly is a possibility that the van is the same as the vehicle described as "dropping off enemy personnel and picking them up" (perhaps even explicitly traveling with children so ground forces would not engage), but we don't know. All we know for sure is that:

1. In the camera footage a van eerily similar to the one attacked later can be seen in the traveling North to East (passing the Mosque and then the courtyard where the individuals were later engaged)
2. There were reports of a 4-door passenger vehicle that kept dropping off enemy personnel and picking them up from that area (reports mention a sedan specifically, not a van)
3. A van arrived in the area and tried to evacuate a wounded individual (presumed to be Saeed Chmagh)

Here's are a few relevant quotes from the investigation report:

LTC (b)(6), (b)(3) When did you first identify the van?

CW3 (b)(6), (b)(3) The initial indication, sir when we rolled up and checked in, they said we had a black car, blue car, cant remember probably black, 4-door passenger vehicle that keeps dropping off enemy personnel and picking them up from that area. So our initial indication of that was when we first arrived on the scene. After the engagement, it had to have been two to three minutes maybe a little more, but we noticed another vehicle pull up. Initially (b)(6), (b)(3) was looking at the corner for more weapons and possible bad guys there. The van pulled up, guys jumped out, before he had the chance to get the line of sight down there, I noticed individuals moving to where the bodies were and where the weapons where. That's why I immediately called the ground guys and said we have guys extracting personnel and weapons.

LTC (b)(6), (b)(3) That's good information. I didn't read the [sic] anything about the vehicle in your statement. Did the ground guys indicate that a black or blue sedan was there?

CW3 (b)(6), (b)(3) They said a black 4-door sedan. It was dropping folks, and it was doing it all day they said. I forgot to put that in my debrief, but...

LTC (b)(6), (b)(3) The van comes up, you engage it. Did you acquire or see at anytime the size or shape of people in the van?

CW3 (b)(6), (b)(3) 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.

LTC (b)(6), (b)(3) Did you see anything in the van?

CW3 (b)(6), (b)(3) I couldn't see inside the van, but they ran around right after I had seen them extract weapons and individuals.

LTC (b)(6), (b)(3) 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?

CW3 (b)(6), (b)(3) 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.

Moving on, your phrasing of "turned up to salave [sic] weapons and help the survivor escape" in particular I find rather troubling. Based on the video footage I dispute the various statements that the individuals were gathering or picking up weapons (a few examples of which can be found in the text above).

--Bruce (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said "salave", I said "salvage". Either you weren't paying attention when you read what I wrote (which seemed likely anyway) or you deliberately made up that error in a petty attempt to discredit me. Either way, get it right. (Huey45 (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Move second paragraph

I believe this paragraph should be moved to later in the article: "A subsequent legal review by staff at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq during July 2007 stated that the helicopters had attacked a number of armed insurgents within the rules of engagement, and that in an apparent case of collateral damage two reporters working for Reuters had also been killed." Apart from this paragraph the material up to 2007 coverage is largely concerned with the events themselves, the leaking of the video (the reason for the notability of the events), and adding historical context.

The 2nd paragraph is part of the interpretation of the events - whether the rules of engagment were followed - and so belongs in a section that examines subsequent coverage and interpretation, and indeed the controversies that surrond what happened. This is the conclusion of the US Army Investigation, and would better be dealt with in Publication of supporting documents.

An alternative would be have an early paragraph that notes the controversy surrounding whether the ROE were followed, but this would be better placed after the paragraph beginning, "The attacks received worldwide coverage following the release of 39 minutes of classified cockpit video...", as the controversy has largely been driven by the release of the video.Galerita (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. (a) High-level overview: where, when, what, why, who, how. (b) Establish notability. —Sladen (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. Delete the 2nd paragraph and insert something like this as the third paragraph:

Immediately after the 2007 attack Reuters asked the US military to "conduct a full and objective investigation" citing doubts about the initial explanations given for their deaths (here). The U.S. military stated the action was in accordance with its "Rules of Engagement", but denied access to its records (ref?). Reuters was subsequently unsuccesful with a Freedom of Information application (see here for FOIA), an outcome which WikiLeaks used as justification for releasing the video (here). The leaked footage continues to generate worldwide controversy about the circumstances of the attack and was soon followed by the release of the US Army's own internal legal review of the event (ref?). Galerita (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I support changing this but I will have to think about how to word it. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes,I think that is much better, but don't say "continues to generate worldwide controversy" as to avoid making the article time-specific Lipsticked Pig (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How about: The leaked footage generated worldwide controversy about the circumstances of the attack and was soon followed by the release of the US Army's own internal legal reviews of the event. (Reference 2) I'm reluctant to attempt my own editing of the page - even if that were possible - as this is the first Wikipedia page I have been involved in.Galerita (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate Galerita...see WP:BOLD. Everyone working on this article have (very) different opinions on what would make it better, and its gets heated, but the end result is a better article (and props to EVERY editor who has worked on this so far). Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Video as reliable source

I am just wondering what the Wikipedia policy is towards using a video directly as a source, particularly in a case such as this in which the video shows the event directly and has been confirmed as genuine by the Pentagon. Obviously there are some things in the video which are a matter for debate, such as how many people were armed etc, but there are certain things which are clear, such as the order in which the events took place. Is there any problem with the video as a source for such things? For example, it is clear from the video that one of the crewmen, believed that the camera being pointed at him was an RPG. So far, I have searched for "reliable sources" such as media networks to state what clearly happens in the video before I can cite it, but if the media outlets are basing what is clear from the video, then is there any problem with us doing so, as long as there is no disagreement among us about what the video actually shows? Gregcaletta (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE states "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source." The video was originally distributed by Wikileaks, not quite "reputable" yet, but it has been re-distributed by a broad range of media outlets -- CNN, New York Times, FOx News etc -- and confirmed as genuine by these media outlets via the Pentagon. So the policy seems to say that we could actually site the video as a source directly, obviously as long as it is something that is clear from the video and not reasonably disputed by anyone. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You say "For example, it is clear from the video that one of the crewmen, believed that the camera being pointed at him was an RPG.". I don't get the idea that the crew believed the "weapon" was being pointed at them, , neither from the video nor the sworn statements. As far as I can tell they believed it to be pointed at this: File:NamirLastphoto.png. Personally I'd use the military report as a source for describing what is seen in the video, it's pretty neutral. --Bruce (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. But in general, if the report says one thing and the video clearly shows another, then we can cite the video directly? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Guardian cite

Cite #7 sucks big time, primarily because it is from immediately after the release of the WikiLeaks video, is one person's opinion based on the viewing of that (editorialized) video, and so sonsequently is factually inaccurate. This quote from it currently being used as a reference for the article is: "One American claims to have spotted six people with AK-47s and one with a rocket-propelled grenade. 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."

It is clear from the video, and we should be able to find a better cite that says so, that the crews identify two (ONLY) men with weapons before requesting, and receiving, permission to engage (they then identify Noor-Eldeen as aiming an RPG as they circle around to attack). Saying that they "spotted six men with AK-47s" is grossly inaccurate.

The "unclear if some of the men are armed" is strictly an opinion, as well as "Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera. Chmagh is talking on his mobile phone." Just because its meets WP:RS and whatever else doesn't mean that it is the best source, and the source that we should use in the article. Its biased against both sides. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Strike that, actually after identifying only two weapons Crazyhorse does report "a group of men with AK-47s" So changing the following:

"The accompanying audio communication between the helicopter gunner and pilot, ground units, and military command, demonstrates that the units involved believed that some in the group were carrying AK-47s, and a rocket-propelled grenade.[7] Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera and Chmagh is seen talking on his mobile phone.[7] The video also shows the attack on the unmarked van and its occupants, and two children inside the van who were seriously injured in the attack can be seen being evacuated by arriving US ground forces.[21]"

to this:

"The accompanying audio communication between the helicopter crews, ground units, and commanders, shows the crews identifying two individuals with weapons, and reporting "five to six individuals with AK-47s"[7] Highlighted in the video are Noor-Eldeen with a camera and Chmagh talking on his mobile phone.[7] The video also shows the attack on the van and as well as the driver and two other men, and the two children seriously injured in the attack being evacuated by US ground forces who arrived on the scene.[21]

Its unclear if we are hearing in the video comms from the other Crazyhorse helicopter (so say plural "crews"), its clear that that positively identify only 2 men with weapons, but report an armed group, and the men killed in the second attack were not "occupants of the van". Lipsticked Pig (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Attack on a building

The section about the 3rd incident, "Attack on a building", currently discusses the video footage, not the incident itself. It should be rewritten to describe the incident, not the video footage. Discussion of the footage should be moved to the video section. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"This Is How These Soldiers Were Trained to Act"

I found this video at Democracy Now offers insight into the psychological conditioning of the soldiers involved. It is an interview with Josh Stieber a conscientious objector, who was at the time assigned to Bravo Company 2-16, although he was not part of the days events. In what is a remarkably objective view of the events of the day and the army in general he argues that,

"The natural thing to do would be to instantly judge or criticize the soldiers in this video."

He continues,

"If we’re shocked by this video, we need to be asking questions of the larger system, because this is how these soldiers were trained to act."

Other quotes, on dehumanization :

"Part of that training is the dehumanization of other people in whatever country we happen to be in...the process throughout the history of military in general."

On the best interests of my country:

"Throughout my military training there were...times when things would trouble me...a natural human reaction...but I'm told that doing these things is in the best interests of my own country. This video should provide grounds for a much needed conversation of whether or not that's true."

On callousness:

"That callousness that the helicopter pilots have is a result of 1) military training that's hammered into them, and 2) an excuse...trying to distance themselves from the act that has just happened."

On the presence of civilians:

"I would take so much of this back to the training we had. ...I think about one exercise...leaders would ask...if somebody were to pull a weapon in marketplace full of unarmed civilians. And not only did your response have to be that you would return fire, even if you knew it was going to hurt innocent civilians,...the answer had to be yes, but again it had to be an instantaneous yes. Again these things are just hammered into you through military training. That's just the background of what the people in the helicopter had in their minds..."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs)

Is this a proposal to improve the article? If so, how? --John (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want, Galerita, you can be bold and add some of these quotes into the article under "2010 coverage". If someone thinks it doesn't add anything to the article they will edit it back out. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Josh Stieber's POV is a useful contrast to the views of Joan Smith of The Independent, who (like Julian Assange himself) emphasizes the individual actions of the soldiers ("the whole thing sounds like a game") and with the military failing to "identify combatants with serious psychological problems". Josh Stieber is saying this behavior is not aberrant, rather it is precisely how these soldiers - himself included - have been trained to act. I suggest after the paragraph ending, "US military fails both its own soldiers and their "victims".[27] Command structures need to be in place to identify "combatants with serious psychological problems", add: In contrast Josh Stieber, conscientious objector, who was at the time assigned to Bravo Company 2-16, claimed that although it's natural to "judge or criticize the soldiers", in fact "this is how [they] were trained to act". He claims that the debate should be re-framed, that it is more appropriate to ask "questions of the larger system" that teaches "doing these things is in the best interests of my own country" [2]. "If you want to keep things like this from happening, stop screaming at soldiers...and instead spend your energy exposing the training that soldiers are put through and demand...leaders reexamine the system that creates the callousness displayed in this video..." [3] The main issue is the credibility of the source, but I would argue that Stieber is a credible source: a clearly spoken conscientious objector who was with Bravo Company 2-16 at the time.Galerita (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a go but I can't get the references right. Can someone please fix this or point me to a referencing guide? Also the final quote I used is from his blog. Although it encapsulates his point, I'm not sure it is a important enough source.Galerita (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Both of these POVs are wildly biased in the same direction.

The fact is that the soldiers were observing the rules of engagement. The ROE were written this way to comply with the laws of war. They are correct for this type of engagement when the enemy refuses to wear uniforms.

What needs to be remembered is the many critics of U.S. policy had previously claimed to care about the Geneva Conventions. Joan Smith obviously does not. Her supporters do not.

If you watch the video, it's clear that the Apache crew had the same clarity of view that an infantryman might have on the ground during a battle. It was a mistake anyone could make. It is the reporter's responsibility to distinguish himself from the combatants. This is why the Army has accompanying reporters wear gear to identify themselves.

The fact is, many of the men in that group were carrying weapons, including RPGs, on a day when a battle was going on. And since the insurgents refuse to wear uniforms, and the reporters were carrying equipment while near insurgents carrying weapons, while not distinguishing themselves, it's to be expected that they'd be confused with the insurgents around them.

I do like Streiber's phrase "If you want to keep things like this from happening." The fact is, that if critics of U.S. policy had really wanted to keep things like this from happening then they'd have asked the insurgents to observe the laws of war.

People who care about the Geneva Conventions have supported the aviators in this. People who don't care have supported Wikileaks.

I don't mind having Streiber's and Smith's views represented in the article, but it should be obvious that this is their opinions. Let history remember on whose side they stood.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's obvious that these are POVs. The material after 2010 Coverage including Publication of supporting documents is an attempt to cover the debate about ROE, ethics, psychology, fog-of-war, etc. The reason this issue is controversial is that many strong and divergent views are expressed.Galerita (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

what video records vs. what pilot sees

I suspect that the pilots could see more than what the video records (colors? better image?) but I am no expert on the Apache gun sight or its recording system. Can anybody provide some facts? Seems relevant to the whole "blame" thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.209.93 (talk • contribs)

The helicopters are hovering ~800 metres (0.5 mi) away for the duration—it is the zoomed-in stabilized feed from the targeting system that allows the gunner to be able to see what they do (the pilot is primarily there to fly the aircraft). The exact details of the targeting system are likely to be classified. —Sladen (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

crushing front of van

I'm troubled that the front of the van (where the children were wounded) was crushed by a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. You can see this in the video, and there's a photo of the result at http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/img/photos/AliAbbas_VAN.jpg.html. This was clearly intentional because the driver can be heard asking if anything else needs to be driven over. Is this standard military procedure (destroying "enemy" equipment) or was it deliberate destruction of evidence? Does it shed any light on the issue of driving over bodies?

See the section article on democracynow above. And also this still from the video. What is clear from the long version of the video is that the children were removed prior to the front of the van being crushed. It appears that the front of the van was crushed as a Bradley was trying to pass or position itself between Saeed Chmagh's body and the van. The passage to the left of Chmagh's body was blocked by a truck at the time. And yes it sheds light on the issue of driving over bodies (discussed above). Galerita (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

misidentified cameras?

In the Attack on personnel section it says "The crewmen misidentified the cameras carried by Namir and Saeed as weapons ...". This has not been established. The crewmen say they saw people with weapons, but we don't know which individuals they are referring to, and there are other more weapony things visible on the video. The citation provided is also fairly useless: Fox News saying that WikiLeaks said that the weapons were misidentified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.209.93 (talk) 14:31, April 13, 2010

The reticle was trained on an individual with a camera at the time. In reality, that doesn't necessarily mean this is what the aviator was referring to, although I personally think it probable that he was.

That paragraph is sloppy, though. If people are going to think about blame, then it should state clearly that there were armed men in the group. The fact that two individuals were not really armed does not make the group an invalid target.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we use one of the Army reports? I think they establish/say explicitly that the crewmen misidentified a camera as an RPG. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's still not the entire truth. At least one RPG was there.

More importantly, they misidentified one camera as a weapon, but correctly identified other AK-47s before firing. To say only that they misidentified some leaves readers to believe there were no weapons there at all.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to state the following (still does need to be reworked a bit):

1. The crewmen initially identify two (ONLY) men in the group carrying weapons (an AK and RPG), and these men were not Noor-Eldeen or Chmagh.

2. They then report "a group of men" armed with AKs and request and receive permission to fire

3. While getting into a firing position they then (mis)identify Noor-Eldeen peering around the corner raising his camera as an insurgent preparing to fire an RPG

I think those 3 (verifiable) facts are all that is needed without emphasis. Some editors want to hammer home the fact that some of the group were armed, other editors want to emphasize that most of the group was not. Just stating those 3 facts above is the most NPOV. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I would just add a 4th verifiable fact, if we can find reliable sources and they are in agreement.

4. How many people there were in the group

Gregcaletta (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How many? NINE A good source, which agrees with the video is David Finkel's book "The Good Soldiers" (published September 2009). (He was "embedded" with the 2-16th and has almost certainly reviewed the video in some detail prior to its leaking.) A quote from his book on the number can be found here,

"There. Now all of the men could be seen. There were nine of them, including Noor-Eldeen. He was in the middle, and the others were clustered around him, except for Chmagh, who was on his cell phone a few steps away." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Context: events leading up to the attacks

There should be a paragraph before the 1st attack decribing the events that day up until that point. The operations by the ground forces, and later Crazyhorse being reassigned to support those ground forces. Meanwhile Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen at another assignment leave to cover the fighting, eventually ending up one block away from the Army forces, in a gathering with other men, where Chmagh takes the photo of the HUMMMVs (and include that photo with a caption like "Chmagh took this photo of US Army HUMMMvs before being killed"). Its important to understand how everyone got there and under what context they were operating. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing his last two pictures at http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html I dont understand when he could have taken a picture of a US hmmwv. --91.19.20.162 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I had assumed that it was Namir who took the photograph and it most likely was but I cannot independently verify this. Here's what the military report specifically states:

d. 0620:38 Z (Exhibit D). The cameraman raises the camera to sight through the viewfinder and his action appears [sic] prompts one of the pilots to remark "He's getting ready to fire." Photos later recovered from he camera show a US Army HMMWV sitting at an intersection, less than 100 meters away from the camera. The digital time/date stamp on the photo indicates that these photos were the ones taken as the cameraman peered from behind the wall (Exhibit R). Due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on US soldiers.

--Bruce (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, I totally forgot about the video footage for a moment and it's pretty obvious from the footage that Namir is taking photos. --Bruce (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a contemporary report published on Friday, July 13, 2007 in the Washington Post about that day's events. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202357.html Johannjs (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedestrian taken out by hellfire

I recently watched the videos, and I was wondering if anyone would object to my expanding the bit on the use of hellfires on the abandoned building. I would be using the videos as a primary source, and I would specifically mention the first missile where a guy is walking infront of the building as it hits. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, make sure it is something which is clearly not in dispute from the video. You could try backing it up with a citation from this interview Gregcaletta (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Gawker.com

Discussion finished

Just a quick explanation of why Gawker counts as a reliable source for the statement "Wikileaks have claimed that Facebook deleted their fan page, which had 30 000 fans." I understand why Gawker.com might generally be unreliable for most claims, however, no source is considered "unreliable" in general. This is emphasised under WP:RELIABLE, where it states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." In WP:SOURCES there is a section on "Questionable sources" which states "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves." Gawker.com would potentially be considered a "questionable sources" under this policy, however the specific article in question and the statement made does not "rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion". And you will notice it is stated that even "questionable sources" can be used "as sources of material on themselves". For example, even a "Twitter" page could be used as a "reliable source" if it were in order to make a claim about a statement made on that page. In this case the Gawker article is making a statement about a twitter comment, which it provides a direct link to. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Most importantly, the statement in question is under the "2010 coverage" segment, which specifically deals with reactions, opinions, etc. and therefore it is acceptable, and even necessary, to use opinion sites in such a segment. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I've now included other sources to back up the statement, including the original twitter post. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Nothing you've added counts as a reliable source. I question whether this issue is at all relevant to the article in the first place. Please get consensus on this before adding back in. Ronnotel (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC) So you didn't read any of what I just wrote? Gregcaletta (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I read it. However, if reliable sources aren't discussing this issue (and I mean real reliable sources that we can all agree on as being such), then it doesn't belong in the article. Ronnotel (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC) What's the supposed relevance to this article? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Good question. All Wikileaks did was post the classified video and add their spin. Its shady anti-American/pro-jihad spin made it front page news, but that's as far as it goes. Regardless whether or not Gawker.com is RS, it would belong in the article on Wikileaks, and not here. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Fair, belongs in the Wikileaks article. 00:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta (talk • contribs)

NPOV lede

My edits were reverted, wrt the target being "an armed group of military-aged males presumed to be insurgents." The rationale being that this is a controversial point, and that it a matter of interpretation.

I don't see the controversy. I don't think anyone doubts that they were presumed to be insurgents. The military report itself calls them insurgents without qualification. Since it's illegal to own an RPG over there, and to form such groups in a combat zone, the word "presumed" was itself overly cautious.

It is currently POV. Removing that part now suggests that being military-aged males was deemed sufficient to kill them. That's very misleading, as it causes one to wonder if this was conducted iaw the laws of armed conflict.

Taken as a group, they should be described as armed. A few individuals didn't have arms themselves, but they were with men who were very heavily armed.

There is no reasonable doubt on this point. I understand that early reports didn't know or care about the weapons found on the scene, but that was then. The source, since removed from the lede, states that weapons were recovered of the very types in these first two pictures. The Army report shows more. We don't need to rely at all on anyone's interpretation of the pictures in order to call them armed.

It also eliminated that the Reuters reporters "whose camera equipment only gave the impression of being weapons." This was an important point that wasn't controversial at all, and shouldn't have been removed.

It's fine with me if you want to edit that further, but that they were armed is more important than that they were military-aged males, and it must say they were presumed insurgents.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying I should believe Fox News instead of my lying eyes? What was allegedly 'recovered' afterwords (according to the perpetrators of the attack) is not as relevant as the fact that the video shows a group of men, one with a cellphone, one with a camera that the voiceover identified as an 'RPG', and one or two who were possible carrying weapons, and a large number of other men, very definitely not armed. Identifying them as an 'armed group' would be a falsehood, and certainly would not be verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You can believe whatever it is you feel comfortable with.

Your apprehension about FoxNews isn't at issue. They're just reporting what the military told them, which conforms to the official report, which conforms with the testimony taken at the time. The official report is the best available information, and the most unbiased.

There is no question that those weapons were there. But you don't need to believe your eyes. You can imagine those were batons carried by members of a marching band if you like.

Those weapons were collected by ground troops who had no idea that this would ever be an issue. They had absolutely no reason to lie, and could have faced military prison if they had lied. On the other hand, Wikileaks did have ideological and financial incentives to shade the truth.

The "perpetrators of the attack" were actually the Islamist Mahdi Army who preferred to terrorize the rest of Iraq rather than work with the duly elected, and U.N. authorized, government of Iraq. It was they who chose not to wear uniforms -- an extreme violation of the laws of war -- and thus make the war even more dangerous for the innocents involved. This is one major reason the rules of engagement were what they were. Unfortunately, the people who had previously claimed to care about the Geneva Conventions were not as strident about human rights as they had wanted people to believe.

Perhaps the disposition of these insurgents should be added to the article.

As for a solution to the current dilemma, I suggest we present both sides in the lede. Unfortunately, I don't know of any who actually dispute the facts of the official report. The ones I've seen are either ignorant of it, or just act as though it doesn't exist.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, one or two figures in a much larger group are carrying what could be weapons, one oth member of the same group was misidentified as having weapons, and a much larger number of the group were definitely not carrying weapons. No amount of verbiage on your part will change this undeniable fact. And that is why calling then an 'armed group' is simply wrong and clearly not verifiable. Why not just call them a group? Or spell out the details? I don't think that is neccesary as the article explains the details sufficiently but it would be better than mischaracterizing them as an 'armed group'. Dlabtot (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK guys, this comes down to a fairly simple application of WP:RELIABLE and WP:LEAD. Firstly, saying "armed group" implies that "all of the men in the group were armed", which I proposed replacing with the statement "some of the men in the group were armed". The second statement is supported by a wide range of reliable sources. The first statement is supported by not a single reliable source. Not even the military investigation claims that all of the men were armed. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

yes. Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As a group, they were heavily armed.

It's fine to say that some of the men weren't carrying arms (assuming that's true), but then it has to be more explicit. To the reader who doesn't go below the lede, that could just as well mean they were only carrying sidearms.

An AK-47 is a serious weapon all by itself. An RPG-7 extremely serious. There is no question that it needs to be destroyed, and there is no excuse to be standing near one in a combat zone.

Besides that, RPG-7s require at least two men to operate in the field. For the second member to be called "unarmed" might seem true, but it's very misleading. Compare that to a four-man tank crew. Are three of its men unarmed?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. Why is it reasonable to label the group as armed rather than say there was a group and some members of that group were armed? Please be as specific and to the point as possible. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we're saying who the airstrike was "directed at." It wasn't directed at random military-aged males. It wasn't directed at reporters or children. It was directed at a seriously dangerous group. That some of the individual men may not have carried arms visible in the recording doesn't change the intent or legality of the airstrike.

Perhaps it's best if we separate the targeting and the results in two different sentences.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So the apparently unarmed people in that group are best described armed for two reasons: 1) they were close to men carrying weapons; and 2) they were all fired upon because they were all assumed to be hostile combatants. Does that sum it up? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the individuals should be described as they were. I'm just saying that the group was armed. That RPG wasn't glued to one of the men. Any of his associates could have picked it up.

I don't mind at all that we note that some of the individuals were not armed.

And yes, they were all fired upon because they were part of the group. Aside from the children hidden in the van, who obviously had no choice in the matter, the others all freely chose to associate with heavily armed insurgents during a battle in a conflict where insurgents chose not to wear uniforms. If they had any brains at all, they would have known what that meant.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So they were potential combatants and therefore armed? That's less than compelling. On the point of insurgents, I'm not aware of any reliable sources discussing who those men were and what they were doing there. It would be completely inappropriate to label anyone as an insurgent without a very good reason. That's one of many things that readers should sort out for themselves. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

They were insurgents iaw the rules of engagement, which were iaw the laws of war.

Nevertheless, my previous edit to the article said "presumed to be insurgents" which is NPOV. That way the readers who want to imagine that men carrying an RPG and AK-47 (while firefights were in the area) might be anything else can certainly believe whatever they like.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what they were presumed to be? Was that in the testimony? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Army's report refers to them as insurgents. It makes the judgment based upon having those weapons so close to U.S. troops. Even afterward, knowing full well that two reporters were there, it still calls the others insurgents.

This wouldn't have been a surprise to people living in the neighborhood. They all knew not to carry arms near a firefight. Nobody in the world thinks RPGs are for home defense. They have no purpose other than as weapons of war. That's why they're illegal in Iraq. The adults in that video were fully aware that what they were doing could get them killed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the military did say after the airstrike that everyone who died was an insurgent except for the two from Reuters. But it would be a mistake to use that to suggest that it was presumed before or during the airstrike, which is what we're talking about. An appropriate citation would resolve the matter. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As Reuters puts it, "thought they were engaging armed insurgents."

Or, the NYT, "The pilots believe them to be insurgents..."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Buddy, it comes down to reliable sources. The reliable sources don't say an "armed group", and they definitely don't say "heavily armed group", they say, at most, that "some of the men in the group were armed". You seem to be upset about what you think that "implies", and I don't blame you; I'm pretty upset about it too. But we have to stick to what the reliable sources say,; in particular in the case of the lead, we have to stick with statements for which there is a consensus among reliable sources. "Heavily armed group" is not mentioned in any that I know of, and certainly not in the majority. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources do say they had, at the very least, an RPG with multiple rockets and an AK-47. It doesn't get heavier than that without wheels, tracks, or wings. But it's fine. We can just say what they had, and let the reader figure out if it's heavy or not.

If any reliable sources doubt the investigation report then I'll be very happy to see it added -- as long as we list some notable people who claim to believe in an alternate theory.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well the fact that they were "presumed to be insurgents" is already included later in the article, but it is particular detail which doesn't really need to be in the lead. The lead has already be expanded to include more specific details than it really should have in order to include the comment about some of the men being armed. Any information about the specific weapons they may have had would be included in the body of the article not in the lead. Unfortunately, only major media article that I know of says there was an RPG among those fired upon (from Fox News); most articles just say "AK-47s" and some believe the long object in one man's hand was a tripod (Reuters on CNN). Even the FoxNews article does not claim that there were any RPGs visible at the moment the US forces opened fire. In any case, this is a question for the body of the article not the lead, and again, we need to use facts which are agreed upon by reliable sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not NPOV. The intro has to touch on both sides. There's enough room for an objective view without burying the facts behind the Army's side. It reads like it was written by the gang at Wikileaks themselves.

This is *not* about inadequate reliable sources. We've got enough to say what needs to be said.

Shouldn't the reader know why there was an attack? The weapons are important to the "why". Mentioning the insurgents' specific weapons is a very brief way of illustrating the size of the threat they posed, which explains why they were targetted. But if you'll remember, I was content leaving it as a "heavily armed group" to let the readers know this wasn't just a couple of guys with rifles. You didn't want that. (BTW: RPGs do fall in that definition as per heavy weapons platoon)

Compare this to the way the lede does say "30 mm caliber machine guns" and "AGM-114 Hellfire missiles". What makes that so important? It only goes to proportionality, which isn't a major part of the story. And even if it was, a Hellfire missile may be bigger than an RPG-7, but in terms of warhead lethality, it isn't far out of its class.

In fact, my version didn't mention their specific weapons. It only said they were an "armed group." That was dismissed as though you think the fact that a few of them weren't armed is important. It's not.

It's important to say that the two reporters weren't armed, and that their equipment was mistaken for weapons, but that's only to show that the reporters weren't themselves (necessarily) acting as insurgents. As reporters, they had a valid reason for being there. For the others, being unarmed doesn't exonerate them from being beside men with such weapons.

I understand that some have a visceral desire to say that unarmed men were killed. Not everyone cares about such things as the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions, and so I don't argue with leaving it in. But the facts on Army's side needs to be there, too. It presently includes none of them. How is that NPOV?

You misunderstand about the tripod that was mistaken for an RPG. Yes, that was a Reuters employee who probably had a tripod. But there was a real RPG visible on the video that was also verified by the troops on the ground. (Your FoxNews link also mentions this.) Its profile wasn't clear at the moment the aviators were counting weapons, and so it was taken for another AK-47 at that time.

The trouble is, it reads as though the group was primarily guilty of being military-aged males. That's way out of line.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We include in Wikipedia what is verifiable, in this case it has the added bonus of being true. Whether you think it is 'way out of line' is entirely irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mate, I don't think you are quite listening to me. The reason we can't say "heavily armed group" is simply because none of the reliable sources say "heavily armed group". WP:RELIABLE is how Wikipedia establishes NPOV. The statement that FoxNews have made about the "RPG", however, can be included in the article. In fact, it already is included in the article, under the 2010 coverage section. The reason it is in the section is because it is only claimed by major media organisation, and there are other major media organisations that have made contrary claims, such as the citation I gave above, as well as this one. You say the lead "reads as though the group was primarily guilty of being military-aged males". This is your interpretation of the lead. We can't anything about your interpretation of the lead. We can only deal with what the lead actually says. Currently, everything in the lead is consistently supported by reliable sources. The statements you want to a add are not. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not listening to me closely enough.

Again, our disagreement has nothing to do with a lack of reliable sources. Nothing. There are sources for what I want to say.

Look again at your source. It says much of what I just said.

There are no directly contrary claims. The differences are these:

Where I said the military recovered an AK-47 and an RPG launcher with grenades, this source describes it more simply as "machine-guns and grenades." Other reliable sources describe it more accurately, but at least it's basically the same thing.

I can understand your reluctance to describe grenade launchers as "heavy weapons" -- even though they are. Fine. I'd easily go with "machine guns and a grenade launcher." There are reliable sources for that.

Oddly enough, your source is very noncommittal about items we've assumed to be factual. For example, it says "believed to be Mr Noor-Eldeen" regarding the man who was taken into the van. Our article doesn't qualify it with "believed." BTW: Our article says it's Chmagh, not Noor-Eldeen.

Regardless, nothing in what you've found contradicts my basic take on it. I could even have used it as a source.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW: To make my point, this was the last edit I made.

Compare that first paragraph to the source you just gave. I'd say my version tracks pretty well.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The last edit you made was this one. You changed it to say "The first strike was directed at an armed group of military-aged males". What the article currently says is "The first strike was directed at a group of military-aged males, some of whom were armed". The second statement is backed up by all of the reliable sources that I know of; the first statement is backed up by none of the reliable sources that I know of. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC) The source that I gave you does not say they were an "armed group", it quotes a military official saying that they had mistakenly believed the entire group to be armed insurgents. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My last edit may have made one change, but that wasn't the only edit of mine that had been wiped out.

As a group, they were armed. But that's okay. I had already said that part could be revised, and so we'll do without it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, most of your more recent changes are fine by me. Are you OK with "cameras were mistaken for weapons" instead of "camera equipment only gave the impression of being weapons"? Gregcaletta (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly fine with me. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the article with Ethan McCord statements

Ethan McCord is a veteran of Bravo Company 2-16 who is seen in the video rushing to the van and is also seen later rushing back to a Bradley with a child (the boy) in his arms (note there are two occurrences of soldiers running with a child in their arms, the latter of which is Ethan). I believe it would be very useful to expand the article with made by Ethan McCord in an interview. Here's a few relevant remarks from it (I might be transcribing the interview more fully later):

Ethan: We were in a firefight a few blocks away when this incident happened. We heard the gunships opening fire. Us on the ground didn't know what was going on at the time. But when we were told to move now, to get to this position, we went down to that position and what we came across was actually quite horrifying in a sense -- but it didn't seem real, even in real life it didn't seem real. It seemed like something you would see at maybe a movie, or something like that. First thing I did was run up to the van, and I saw a little girl sitting on the seat, and a little boy halfway on the floorboard with his head laying on the seat next to his sister and the father slumped over. I originally thought that the boy had passed and -- the little girl had a wound to the stomach and had glass in her hair and eyes -- and my immediate response was to grab this child -- and I grabbed a medic and we went into the back -- there was houses behind where the van was -- and I took the girl there -- and we worked on her as much as possible making sure that there was [sic] no exit wounds or anything because we didn't really know what he exactly happened at that time -- and handed the girl to the medic who then ran her to the Bradley. I in turn went back to the van and that's when I saw the boy somewhat take a breath and I started yelling out that the boy was still alive, "The boy's alive" and I grabbed him and started running him towards the Bradley myself -- and I placed him in the Bradley, which I got yelled at afterwards for doing that.

Interviewer: Talk about that, why were you yelled at by your platoon commander?

Ethan: Because my main focus wasn't on pulling security -- going to a rooftop and pulling security. My main focus was to pull those injured children out. The first thing I thought of when I saw those children were my children at home and -- I can't stand to see children like that, so that was my main priority and I didn't care what anybody said at that time.

--Bruce (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's currently in the section on 2010 coverage, which should be about media and general public reaction. It doesn't belong there. All this says is that: 1) this soldier cared about the kids (which isn't anything new), and 2) he cared enough to violate procedures and put his platoon at risk. I don't see what it really brings to the article.

I must have overlooked Galerita adding it. What is said by Ethan belongs more in the description of the incident as it offers more details on what happened in the aftermath of the engagement. It's also useful for various other reasons, though I'm having a bit of a hard time trying to find the words to describe these. I'll see what I can do. --Bruce (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed part of discussion about the source

I wish you could find a better source. That group is waaaaaay out of the mainstream -- even if it was merely an external link. Their website doesn't show who they are other than that they chose to ally themselves with some other shady groups. It could just be some kid in his basement. It's quite possible that McCord didn't know what kind of group he was being interviewed by. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I found some actual names here. It includes some hard-core extremists, one of whom wrote for Al-Jazeera. I do think it should be remembered that this is the kind of people who supported the insurgency, and encourages their war crimes, but it's still not fair to McCord to drag his name into it. -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I listened to the interview, and I take back part of what I said about McCord not knowing what kind of group he was interviewed about. I misunderstood and thought the interview was with Civ-Sol. That's a loon-site, but the interview itself is with a genuine radio program, not from the site itself. The reference needs to be properly attributed. That still doesn't change my other concerns. -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Replaced the link with this one that should meet RS standards. It's the same show. -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I changed the link above to point directly to the Steiner Show website (I found the interview through Wikileaks Twitter account which itself linked to the CivSol website. I've also collapsed the discussion so we can focus on the content itself :-) --Bruce (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph about an interview McCord gave with the World Socialist Web Site. The transcript includes an interesting discussion of views on mental health in the military, and McCord twice calls the airstrike an "everyday" occurrence. The WSWS pulls no punches, so their interview questions are predictably slanted sometimes. But McCord's responses lend a lot to the discourse. —The Realms of Gold (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be renamed "July 12, 2007 NEW Baghdad airstrike?"

Since this actually occurred in the "New Baghdad" district, wouldn't it be more accurate and encyclopedic to provide greater detail and location in the name of the article, perhaps renaming it "July 12, 2007 New Baghdad airstrike?" After all, greater Baghdad is a large city in terms of both population and square mileage, and there have numerous "airstrikes" during the ongoing war/"operation" there. Renaming the article might allow more researchers to find it. Of course there are some who would prefer this entire incident, and the encyclopedia article about it, to be buried in history with a more vague, less specific name, right? CriticalChris 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

New Baghdad is a district in Baghdad. This first paragraph gives the exact location. It would only be necessary to specify the exact location to distinguish it from an article about another notable airstrike in Baghdad on the same date, of which there are none, so the name is specific enough. There are problems of bias in the article, but this is not one of them. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Finkel incorrectly portrayed

In this "rephrasing" [4], a series of events seems to be portrayed: Finkel denying seeing the video, Assange then disputing Finkel's denial, and at the end, a claim that the Washington Post was denying Assange's disputation, possibly implying that the Washington Post supported Finkel in some denial of seeing the video.

However, the source apparently cited, an independent documentary run on Australian TV, does not unambiguously support this "rephrasing" narrative. For one thing, it says nothing about Finkel denying seeing the video. (I've added a transcript reference to the citation.)

I found a posting by Finkel at the Washington Post website (see WaPo citation added) showing him being evasive when asked how he got to see the unedited video (which, earlier in the transcript, he appears to know something about, at least as to its relative length). It has him claiming to have based the episode in his book on sources that were "all unclassified". It can't be assumed from any of this that he saw the classified video before using information derived from it (or other channels at the time) in his book: he might have heard an unclassified audio of the conversation, or even gotten a transcript. He replies evasively, but that's consistent with protecting sources.

If this is all there is, then, at most, here's all we have:

• Assange saying in this documentary that Finkel had seen (some version of) the video -- though with odd phrase structure, suggesting the possibility of qualifying words before "he [Finkel] had seen", such as "it's certainly possible that". (The documentary is pretty strongly POV, so we can't be sure that POV editing didn't introduced changes in Assange's meaning).

• Finkel only saying that any video he might or might not have seen was not anything he connected with Wikileaks, until Wikileaks released a version.

As the text stood, it had Assange contradicting Finkel. As far as I can tell from these sources, however, Finkel doesn't confirm or deny Assange's assertion. If so, that's how Wikipedia should present it: as Finkel being, in fact, ambiguous.

Of course, it really helps to have a video transcript to see this. It's very easy to slip into inaccurate narrative when relying on a medium in which you can't do rapid text searches. It can make editors sloppy about double-checking sources to make sure their edits are not doing violence (or adding further violence) to the facts. This passage was a case in point. Yakushima (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right that we would not say that Finkel denied it if he did not deny it directly. Thank you finding a source for a more direct quote. Are you happy with the paragraph in its current form? If you don't mind, I might put in a longer quote of what Finkel said. (In the edit you link to which I labelled as "rephrasing", I was doing minor copy-editing such as replacing words like "assert and "deny" with "says" (see WP:SAY). Are you perhaps objecting to the addition of the material in the first place by Meco?) Gregcaletta (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You were doing more than "minor copy-editing". You changed what it said.

• You introduced chronology (Finkel said something, Assange disputed what Finkel said) where it didn't necessarily exist in the sources cited.
• You changed Assange's statement from what he said ("at least one" individual) to a definite singular. [Was looking at edits cross-eyed, my mistake. -Y]

I already know (from our discussion above of your restoring a cite on this Wikipedia Daniel Ellsberg to what was only a previous version of this Wikipedia article with identical wording for the passage supposedly supported) that you can be very credulous and not very discerning about the sources you like. So I checked the source in this case. I noticed that it was a video. That set off more alarm bells: From discussion above about article Daniel Ellsberg where you say Nixon wanted to kill a lot of North Vietnamese with nuclear weapons, which you say you heard in a video (but for which I can't find a quote, despite the egregiousness of the statement and the public nature of the source), I know that your memory is not very reliable when it comes to video sources.

So I went and did what you should have done, before committing edits that changed the meaning of the passage, in an article about a controversial subject with potential WP:BLP consequences: I found the transcript, and saw that it didn't fully support the passage. Yes, I had a problem with the passage before your rewording. But I also have a problem with your general credulousness about sources whenever they support your POV, and your willingness to accept memory of video in lieu of more easily checked sources (likewise, when they support your POV.)

Speaking as someone who leans toward the Propaganda Model of Chomsky and Herman, I have to struggle against my own biases all the time, when editing Wikipedia articles fraught with political conflict and reliance on journalistic sources. Where I end up finding the most encouragement in that personal struggle, however, is in Chomsky and Herman themselves: they've seldom been found being sloppy with their sources (and hardly at all, compared to their stronger critics). I've found you being sloppy with sources several times in rapid succession. In this case, it's in not carefully checking sources when you change what Wikipedia said about some people. And you did this in a passage that could have been defamatory to one or the other of the two individuals named (the kind of thing that puts Wikipedia itself in increasing danger of being written off entirely on certain subjects, not to mention lawsuits).

When you're editing anything about anybody living that basically says that one or another of them is probably lying, CHECK SOURCES CAREFULLY before changing what the passage says. Yakushima (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As for leaving it with "The Washington Post says it did not," the problem is, you don't know what WaPo is saying now, or what it will say in the future. It's verified that WaPo issued a denial. So saying "has denied" is permanently factual, and preferred. Don't use the breathless movie-review style ("The Washington Post says 'Fascinating'!").

In fact, there's an interesting issue of what it means for WaPo to "have" (or have had) the unedited video. See here: [5]

Finkel was on book leave during the incident, and when he was writing his book. If he'd had possession of unedited video during that time, does that also make WaPo a possessor at that time? If Finkel was not, at that time, answerable to management at WaPo, and especially if WaPo was not (verifiably) privy to Finkel's sources, one might reasonably say they never had possession of the video.

Finkel and WaPo are being evasive, certainly, but at least they are being careful. I'm not so sure about Wikileaks on Twitter. Wikileaks Twitter is quoted in the above-cited blog post as saying "Washington Post had Collateral murder video for over a year but DID NOT RELEASE IT it to the public." Um, is this making any clear distinction between unedited video that Finkel might have seen and what Wikileaks released (which has been criticized for leaving out evidence that the situation was "hotter" than it looks in their version)? Is it saying that Wikileaks was in contact with Finkel, and had showed him their edited version a year before they released it themselves? It's muddy. This sort of sloppiness really puts Assange's credibility (if in fact he's the one twittering) in doubt. Yakushima (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you might need to look at my edit more closely. I didn't change it from "at least one" to "(exactly) "one". It was the other was around, which fits the cited source more accurately, so I count that as copyediting. I did not change the chronology either: I changed "denies having" to "says that he had not" and "asserts that" to "disputes this, saying". All of this is inline with WP:SAY and WP:NPOV. Apart from you ad hominem objections, your objections seem to be fair enough, but they are objections to the original material, not to my edits. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:SAY we should use "have said" rather than "have denied" but you are probably right that it should be changed to perfect past tense, rather than present tense.

In regards to the "unedited version". Wikileaks released both an "edited" 17 minute version and an "unedited" (or less edited) 40 minute version: [collateralmurder.com]. You can compare the to and see that Wikileaks did not cut anything out which particularly justifies the actions of the helicopter crews. If there were a longer version than the 40 minute version, showing the "context" that Finkel says is lacking from the Wikileaks videos, then US Army would have released that contextual video themselves. In fact, the Army say they have "lost" their copy of the video. The "context" which Fickel complains is missing is not referring to missing video, but rather, the military reports of fire fights earlier in the day. I believe that is what Finkel means when he says the enviornment was "hot". He is not alleging that Wikileaks had left out relevant contextual video. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"In fact, the Army say they have "lost" their copy of the video."

To your various points: you changed this wording

Finkel denies having seen the video before its Wikileaks release, however, Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange asserts that Finkel had seen the video ....

which locates neither statement in time, to this wording:

Finkel says he had not seen the video before its Wikileaks release. Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange disputes this, ....

which would suggest to the reader that it was Finkel saying something and then Assange "disputing" that statement (a dispute being a chronological series of conflicting statements between two or more people.) The source cited (in that version) supported no such chronology. If anything, from the date given for that source (April 5), and the sources I've since turned up for Finkel's statement (April 6th), your wording suggests a chronology that's exactly the reverse of a likelier chronology: Assange saying Finkel had seen the video, Finkel disputing Assange's assertion. To straighten this out, we might even need to look at the International Date Line (Australia being on one side of it, Finkel, I assume, on the other.)

Citing WP:SAY against my use of "denied" when that guideline doesn't even comment on the word "deny", well ... work it out for me, I certainly can't. If in fact a charge has been made, if someone then contradicts that charge, it's definitely a denial of the charge. If anybody crossed some WP:SAY line here, it might have been you, with your "Assange disputes" Finkel's statement (one that Finkel might not even have made yet, at that point; it's not clear.)

As you can see from my strikeout correction and admission of error above (hm, admitting error: do you ever do that?), I did look at the edits more closely and corrected myself (and I did it before you submitted your comment immediately above, asking me too look more closely.) My apologies. Doing hard work on an article makes me tired sometimes. So does arguing with people who won't do hard work.

As for the various editions and copies of the original video, the article as it stands is all too often unclear about which is which. That is not a good thing. How many videos are there? Wikileaks' clearly opininonated "Collateral Murder", plus any other edit they offered (with chronology, if the releases of the two weren't simultaneous), plus whatever Finkel might have seen (which, if he saw it, might have been edited itself), and whatever else the U.S. military might have had themselves, should all be clearly distinguished copies to the reader until someone can show what was actually identical with what.

As for what you say here:

If there were a longer version than the 40 minute version, showing the "context" that Finkel says is lacking from the Wikileaks videos, then US Army would have released that contextual video themselves. In fact, the Army say they have "lost" their copy of the video.

If in fact the Army lost the video (not impossible, though admittedly unlikely), it cancels your first sentence: they'd have nothing to release. If they do still have the video still, they might not release it because, well -- obviously, they consider it still classified. I don't see any evidence that they're anywhere as inconsistent as you think.

And for all I know (you're not much of a reliable source, as I've documented several times now, on this Talk page and elsewhere), you're saying something here that does violence to the facts of what the Army has claimed about video evidence in this case. After all, if the Army had admitted to losing the videos, it seems that would be widely reported, and especially included in this WP article. But I see nothing in this article about them losing their copies. In fact, there's a well-cited statement in this article (well, OK, Reuters itself, and an anonymous military source, but anyway) that the Army confirmed the "authenticity" of the videos. I wonder how they could do that, if they'd lost their own copy? You're doing WP:SYNTH here (moreover, with non sequiturs, and without sources). You should be very careful to make sure you're not doing it in the article itself. Yakushima (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh... WP:SAY does list the word "deny" (it's the last word on the list) and it also includes the word "assert" which I removed. "Disputes" on the other hand is not listed, although if you think it should be you can mention it on the relevant talk page. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong (did a hasty search on "denied" and "denies", but missed "deny"), but you're still not correct: WP:SAY doesn't say flatly what you claim ("we should use "have said" rather than "have denied""), it says:

be judicious in the use of ... deny,

so the burden is on you to establish that I've used it injudiciously. In fact, as the statement is cited now, it's reporting a WaPo response to a charge made by Assange (and others). Why would that use of it be "injudicious"? Yakushima (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally I just prefer "says they did not" to "denies" because usually it avoids claims of POV, but I don't find it worth arguing over, which is why I have now left the part that says "The Washington Post denies..." as it is. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So far I have admitted that using "says" instead of "has said" was probably an error. I will also admit that "disputes" may have been a slight error, although I think that particular chronology was already implied by the order of the sentences, and using "disputes" just made it slightly more explicit. I'm not yet sure exactly what the chronology of the events was although Finkel made that statement only the day after the video release, whereas the interview with Assange on the Australian documentary was about a month later. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the video, if the Pentagon did really just "lose" it, then one claim that Wikileaks' is withholding material. On what basis would Finkel be making that claim. I don't believe that even Finkel is making that claim though. It is fairly clear from the video (have you watched it?) that this group of men was not a positively identified group (i.e. one they had encountered in an earlier gun fight). Finkel is merely claiming that Wikileaks should have emphasised the fact that the Army was at war, and that there were genuine insurgents in the area. I personally do not see why WIkileaks should emphasise what the Army were doing right. I'm sure there are lots of things that the Army does right, but focusing on those things does not help to initiate positive reform. But now we are getting into my personal opinions, which are not exactly relevant to the article.

In any case, the military has definitely officially admitted (or claimed) that they lost the video. This is not just some fringe theory of mine. It was reported in Aljazeera and I'm sure you are correct that it ought to have been reported elsewhere. I'm sure Assange mentioned it in some of his interviews too. It is included in the article, right towards the bottom. Your are right that it should be more prominent in the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, in actual fact, they have said they can't find it. [6] Because I interpreted literally what you might have meant as scare quotes around "lost", I ended up searching Google News on the wrong word. And why can't they find it? Gosh, could it be that ... somebody planning to leak the video took it from them? Maybe all they did wrong here was deny FOIA requests on rather disingenuous grounds. Hey, look: the actual facts are already bad enough without your spin on them. Hang them on the facts, and you're the good guy in history. Railroad them, and you're just one of the less bad among the bad guys. OK, do that, if you want. But not here on Wikipedia, if you want Wikipedia to survive. Yakushima (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I generally equate "cant find" with "lost" in the sense of "I can't find my shoes" or "I've lost my shoes", the main difference being that the second implies that you are not getting it back. You ask "Gosh, could it be that ... somebody planning to leak the video took it from them?" The answer is no. When one "steals" a video one does not actually delete the original, one makes a copy. Deleting the original would leave an all-too-obvious trail. As Daniel Ellsberg has pointed it, this makes it not theft, but copyright infringement. However, in the case of Government documents, there is no copyright, because Government's are not allowed to hold copyrights, because their documents belong to the people. This is why Bradley Manning is being prosecuted under martial law, not Federal Law. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet more WP:SYNTH. One can steal a video by making a copy and deleting it from the source. In fact, the effect of theft is greater, if it incurs a loss for the victim of the theft. Whether and how it leaves a trace depends on the sophistication (or luck) of the person raiding the archive. Do you have the facts on how it was actually done? Does any RS have them? If not, you can't say it in the Wikipedia article.

The Al Jazeera story you cite actually says this:

Captain Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for US Central Command, said on Tuesday that the military has not been able to locate the video within its files after being asked to authenticate the version published by Wikileaks.

"We had no reason to hold the video at [Central Command], nor did the higher headquarters in Iraq," he said in an e-mailed statement to The Associated Press.

"We're attempting to retrieve the video from the unit who did the investigation."

There, they aren't saying they lost it. At most, they are saying there was no reason to look further in places (CentCom, Iraq HQ) where there was nobody directly responsible for filing the video, and are saying they are now looking in another place. And at that point, if you include "the unit that did the investigation" as "the military", then Al Jazeera was just making a logical error, by reporting that the military didn't have the video in its files when it might actually still have had it, in the files of that particular unit. Because of this possible contradiction of itself, if you're going to use that source, maybe you say it in the Wikipedia article as follows

Al Jazeera reported that the U.S. military has "not been able to locate the video in its files" but also quoted a source within the U.S. military saying it is "attempting to retrieve the video from the unit who did the investigation."

though a Wikipedia reader might be understandably confused at that. I'd go with a clearer source.

Read sources carefully. Apply a little logic. Twice, so that you're sure. Don't jump to conclusions, no matter how tempting. This is Wikipedia and it's about things that reflect very seriously on some living people's reputations, in a very large organization (the U.S. military), full of people with all kinds of motives, some of them good, some of them bad. It's not like it's about some shoes you can't find. Yakushima (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources say "the US military has said it cannot find its copy". There is no reason why we cannot include this in the article. They have also not come out since and said "OK, now we have found it". If they had, we could include that in the article too, but they have not. It of of my personal opinion that saying you "can't find" something is usually equivalent to saying that you have "lost" it, and I am free to state that opinion on the talk page, as long as I do not include it in the article, just are free to state that someone copying a video and hoping not to be traced would be likely delete the original, if that is your opinion, as long as you do not include it in the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)