Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike

Requested move 21 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

---

July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike → Collateral Murder – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name that WikiLeaks gave to this event is the most common one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

How did you determine that Collateral Murder is the common name? Cambial — foliar❧ 21:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

For example, when looking through Google Scholar, the results for "Baghdad airstrike" and "2007" or something results in < 100 results, "collateral murder" and "2007" results in > 1000 results. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That only indicates that there are more mentions of the the phrase “collateral murder”; it doesn’t mean that the phrase is being used to refer to the airstrike itself, rather than the leaked footage of the attack. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that you for real @Cambial Yellowing because we agree about a Wikileaks edit

And it doesnt mean its the right phrase for an encyclopedia entry or lookup. July 12 2007 Bagdad airtrike is exact, collateral murder could be anything

We dont name pages because of how popular the page name would be in search results Softlemonades (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The article appears to be about the strike itself, not the video. Calling the airstrike itself that would be applying a WP:UNDUE opinion to the incident. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  The title of the video is a metonymy of the airstrike, but is the common name for the airstrike as well. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with @Zxcvbnm Softlemonades (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overly long and complicated lead

I've just edited the lead [1] to remove several long and poorly written sentences. It was totally unclear what these sentences were meant to convey and they certainly don't belong in the lead. If the writing is improved and the relevance clear they can be in the article body. -Darouet (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Name discussion

Has there been a discussion of this article name? Wondering why it is called the date when it is far more noteworth under the name Collateral Murder. Has this been subject of an RM in the past? I would think we would use WP:COMMONNAME here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Scroll up ~ 3 inches ;) Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops, thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead: casualties

As per the first two citations to reliable scholarship, all the casualties were civilians. Please refrain from repeatedly removing content sourced from reliable scholarly sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

U.S. and several media outlet investigations state otherwise. With the wiki article itself quoting from the New York Times, "But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn't call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric Collateral Murder”, Assange himself said they were armed at a later date and that is also quoted in the wiki article. Also of note is the airstrike footage itself in which weapons are visible on the group and reports of those weapons being recovered later by U.S. forces. Ythough37 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, U.S. government and media outlet investigations. Ythough37 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of those on the ground likely had AK-47s. What is the relevance? The sources do not state the casualties were not civilians. Multiple reliable sources say they were civilians. So please stop removing reliably-sourced content for no reason. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If they had AKs then they are by definition not civilians. The relevance of the matter is to provide a clear picture of what actually occurred, not to mislead or lie. You keep saying reliable sources state they are civilians and yet several of the cited sources directly go against that notion. I will not stop until, at minimum, it is labeled that the initial group at the of this discourse are potential combatants. Ythough37 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You claim If they had AKs then they are by definition not civilians. That’s some mildly interesting – if comically poor – original research. We don’t do original research on this website. If sources said the casualties “are not civilians” that would weigh against the multiple sources which say they are. But the sources do not say that. So your argument, such as it is, is groundless. We’re not going to include unsourced claims about them being “combatants” based on one editor’s poorly informed opinion. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

“Poorly informed”, you are the one insulting me based on bias simply because you feel insulted that I pointed out how you yourself admitted that the group was armed making them combatants. Such a statement isn’t research it is common sense. Which attacking the character of someone is a logical fallacy and rather unbecoming of someone who seems so throughly invested in keeping articles “truthful”. My argument is based upon many of the sources cited by this article which you seem quite eager to ignore. Ythough37 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You’ve just admitted it’s based on what you characterise as “common sense”. It’s not based on the sources though: so what you inaccurately describe as “common sense” is in reality your original research. It’s not used on this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My common sense is based on your own admittance that they had firearms on their person which, big surprise, is backed up by a number of first and third person sources including Reuters. Ythough37 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a big surprise: everyone knows some of them had rifles. Your groundless supposition that they are therefore "by definition not civilians" is not only dumb but not supported by any secondary reliable sources nor by international law. A great many Swiss, Austrian and American people who have never been in the military would, under your ridiculous schema, suddenly be rendered military targets overnight. Luckily for them, no-one that matters agrees with you – most importantly for this website, no reliable sources. We're not going to include your original "research". Cambial — foliar❧ 14:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

By international law they are combatants this is sourced directly from the Red Cross. Not only are you lying, you are doing it poorly. Ythough37 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Got a link to this Red Cross source that you say states the civilians killed in the July 2007 Baghdad airstrike were actually combatants, not civilians? Cambial — foliar❧ 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

In referring to this particular incident, no. In referring to what constitutes a combatant then yes. Also I would like point out an inconsistency in your argument, you agree that they are armed, I kept editing it to say they are armed. What is the issue with edit if you keep changing it? Ythough37 (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Does the silence mean you concede your useless point? Ythough37 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

No. It means you’ve failed to make any kind of argument for changing the article. As you concede above, you have no reliable source that contradicts what multiple highly reliable sources say – that the casualties were civilians. And as you see below, at least one other editor opposes your proposed change. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I never said I have no reliable source, you simply put words into my mouth. Besides you never did answer my question of why you keep changing it to all casualties were civilians when I am attempting to edit the article to say that some were armed which you yourself agreed with. Ythough37 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

You claim "I never said I have no reliable source". Your words: "In referring to this particular incident, no." You typed these words yourself, so no-one has "put words into [your] mouth". You removed that these are civilians without any reason, thus your change was opposed and reverted. It doesn't seem important that a couple of people had AK-47s: if the security infrastructure of your country is destroyed, everyone starts carrying a weapon, and you'd be an idiot not to. What do you think Jtbobwaysf? Cambial — foliar❧ 14:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The basis of the logic there is flawed. I was saying that since they had firearms they are combatants which can be backed up by a wide variety of sources. I was never referring to sources stating that this specific group were combatants. As I have asked many times previously what is your issue with me editing it to say they were armed when they outright were per your own admission and a wealth of evidence? Ythough37 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've answered that question in the post to which you replied. There is no point posing the question again because you dislike the answer. I know you were saying that since they had firearms they are combatants, the problem is that's a. bullshit and more importantly b. not supported by reliable sources, as you know. If you believe the notion that the casualties in this case were combatants, not civilians, is supported by reliable sources, post a link to them here. Failing that, regarding your desire to remove content based on reliable scholarship and journalism, there is little to discuss. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ythough37: you are obligated to provide sources and attempting to WP:BLUDGEON in your proposed change is not going to work, nor is it acceptable. Even if you are able to find a source or two, it will still likely be a WP:FRINGE POV and thus it will still be excluded from the WP:LEAD. If you want to add something, you must start with adding content to the article body, and then subsequently come back and try to convince other editors that it isn't fringe for the lead. At this point in time this banter is excessive. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the other editors own admission my edit is correct and back able by many sources. My edit states that a number of them were armed which is undeniably true per many sources and Cambial. Therefore it is not a fringe theory nor bludgeoning if neither of you are willing to accept that I simply wish to state that this group had weapons. Since the article in it’s current state makes it sound as though U.S. forces gunned down unarmed individuals which is not true. I am not trying to assert that it was a legal strike in my edit. I am simply clarifying the article so as to not give the wrong impression. Ythough37 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You claim the article text makes it sound as though U.S. forces gunned down unarmed individuals. At most, 2 or 3 of those killed had weapons. The remainder did not. Therefore it is a fact that U.S. forces gunned down unarmed individuals, and it's appropriate that the article lead reflect that. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct, editors are not required to keep responding to banter. Please provide sources for your claim or drop it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is a genuine question regarding their stance then it is not banter. Ythough37 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, we are not going to answer more general questions about why you want to change the lead in this article. I suggest you consider WP:DR if you think that we are not being fair with you or you want to seek another opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I too do not support the unqualified "civilians" position as well. Its well known that many were armed. The concept of civilian in Iraq is an odd POV anyhow, it was not a uniformed opponent. Its now known and there are sources for it that some were armed, so we should not be summarizing pretending they were joe blow civilians. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  That’s what reliable sources say. See the citations. Have you seen a reliable secondary source that says they were a. not civilians and b. military combatants? Cambial — foliar❧ 02:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused. I thought this was the blackwater incident. I have struck my comments. I do support unarmed in this. Apologies for the confusion Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)