Talk:July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike at the Reference desk. Please do not discuss the air strikes, the conduct of the war, or anything else not directly related to the article.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 6, 2010.

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 12, 2013, and July 12, 2017.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraq Low‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

United States: Military history

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 92 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]