Collateral Murder

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 07:21:50 (UTC)

Reason

I have a hunch that this is going to be a controversial Featured Picture nomination, but I am nominating the footage taken from cameras of United States Army AH-64 Apache Helicopters released by the site WikiLeaks for Featured Picture status because I feel that the footage is both moving/disturbing and eye opening. The story, which is quite well known now, involves separate airstrikes by United States Army assault choppers on what was classified at the time as a group of armed Iraqi Insurgents. The attack footage shows the helicopters rather liberally engaging ground personnel with 30 mm cannons, and features uncensored radio chatter between the air units and their command which further provides a unique insight into this incident. Moreover, as was later determined, the incident was in fact a so called " friendly fire" attack since the alleged insurgents turned out to be civilians and a Reuters news team. For this unique perspective of the engagement - both the raw and uncensored radio chatter and the sheer brutality of the attack - I hereby nominate this footage for featured picture status on the English Wikipedia.

Articles in which this image appears

Namir Noor-Eldeen, July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike

FP category for this image

War

Creator

United States Army

• Support as nominator -- TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment Attacks during war, where the intention is to kill, almost always looks like “sheer brutality.” It only looks non-brutal on video games. Greg L ( talk) 11:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Interesting nomination. Ok, firstly, I'd want to see the file name changed- "CollateralMurder" is rather emotive, and suggests a very particular point of view. I appreciate that's what WikiLeaks called the video, but that doesn't mean we should call it that- it's not theirs to name anyway. (For instance, I'm sure this will have a name something along the lines of "AH-64 Apache109876432876507283" from the US military.) "July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike leaked video footage" or something may be better. Secondly, I'm not certain I like the fact this opens with a little advert for WikiLeaks- at the very least, the WikiLeaks logo slams another copyright on this (though I accept the logo is free). Thirdly, where's the sound? There obviously originally was sound. Fourthly, error at 2:00- "lets" instead of "let's". Fourthly, why does it suddenly go black at 3:30? I've just seen the part where they fire upon the van... If this was to be promoted, there would be no way it should go on the main page. Another error at 8:38, "crusing" should be "cruising", shouldn't it? Who added these subtitles? I am not loving the quote from the Army Chaplain... Or the emotive stuff about the children, or the doctored shot showing the body... If we're gonna feature something like this, we have to think about neutrality. If I'm honest, I'm not sure I even like the shaky labels added later. At about 12:25, what does "rusty" mean? That a name? Again, the quote about from the Military about how they didn't try to hurt anyone isn't balance, it's been deliberately chosen to make them look like liars, and that very last bit on the end is completely unnecessary- more of the same. I think there's parhaps an argument to be had about featuring this as the exact video released by WikiLeaks, but, right now, on its own merits, there is some sloppy text, clear doctoring and horrific POV issues. J Milburn ( talk) 11:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I had sound. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 13:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I must have plugin problems or something... J Milburn ( talk) 09:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support - @J Milburn: The name "Collateral murder" was given to it by Wikileaks or whoever leaked it, it's not TomStar's decision, plus it's famous for that name. If we're going to feature tragedies this is one I can get behind because it's recent and still fresh. Everyday people cheer for war and military and never think about innocent people just getting killed like this. Not sure what J Milburn means by doctoring and POV issues, but the video shows what it shows: A bunch of people being killed just for being there and a chopper pilot apparently getting aroused by their corpses, one of which was reporter that the military lied and said they had nothing to do with from what I hear. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 17:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I absolutely disagree with this it "shows what it shows" sentiment because it is simply untrue. The source has edited this video in a deliberate manner to twist the portrayal of the United States army in a manner that favored the source's agenda. Please read my vote below if you'd like details. Cowtowner ( talk) 04:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Cowturner's right, did you even watch it? This video has very clearly been edited and spliced with quotes for the sole purpose of making the US military look bad. Like I said, there could be an argument for promoting it as "the famous video that was released by WikiLeaks", but there certainly could not be to be "a video of the events of July 12, 2007". J Milburn ( talk) 09:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Replied throughout, and that pilot is still an elohssa. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strongest Oppose Let me see if I can very calmly lay out the reasoning here:

  Our Featured picture criteria doesn’t say things like “Featured Pictures should not be unnecessarily provocative and shall not cast Wikipedia in a poor light.” Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Of the thousands of candidates that have been awarded FP status, and of the 400+ that are awaiting in the queue to make their appearance on the Main Page, the editor responsible for one last sanity check for appropriateness has pulled out 16.

  We can not have Featured Picture Candidates being used as a soap box to POV-push on contemporary, highly polarizing, emotionally charged, “disturbing” (as the nom wrote) issues. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The title of this movie is “Collateral Murder”. I find that illuminating. Under the law, “homicide” is the killing of a human at the hand of another. Sometimes they are justified, sometimes not. Coroners make findings regarding homicide. That is distinct from “murder”, which is a finding that the killing was unjustified as a matter of law. Judges and juries make decisions regarding murder. The available evidence is that the pilots had incorrectly identified the journalist with a camera bag as being an armed insurgent. There are no criminal charges pending against the pilots. None are contemplated. The very nature of war results in accidental deaths; often those of other soldiers on the same side. The choice of the title used here suggests ignorance of what words like “homicide” and “murder” mean, a POV-pushing intent, or both.

  This movie is part of reams of classified information that was illegally leaked. I can see that the nominator here, TomStar81, expanded the hat statement on Talk:Afghan War Diary so it stated This is not a forum for general discussion of the war effort, the legality of the material released, the political implications of the leak, the potential national security risk… Moreover, this move was immediately after this “NPOV” thread (at the bottom) was started with an editor complaining This article reeks of bias. Our Main Page and the Featured Picture on it, again, should not be highjacked for POV-pushing on provocative and controversial issues.

  This is particularly important here because the 22-year-old soldier, Bradley Manning, who jeopardized national security and broke the law by illegally disseminating reams of classified materials—which this video is part of— was arrested for those actions. I find it highly inappropriate to make the well-regarded encyclopedia that is Wikipedia be a party-after-the-fact to this unfortunate and illegal act by further disseminating the information; it casts Wikipedia in a poor light.

  Even though all of these concerns (casting Wikipedia in a poor light and being a party to further disseminating (still)-classified materials and allowing FP to be used as a soapbox for POV-pushing) are not official FPC criteria, our criteria are not the product of official policy of Wikipedia; it is the product of a fewer than a dozen active FPC volunteer contributors where only a handful of like-minded individuals are required to amend and modify the criteria. The community had not, up to now anyway, considered it necessary to add criteria saying “Pictures of a topless model should not be awarded FP status as they unsuitable for the Main Page and will end up in the 16-item scrap pile.” Nor has the active band of editors here previously considered adding a FPC voting criteria stating that “FPC should not be used for POV-pushing”.

  However, I can still make a case for opposing based on an existing FPC voting criteria:

The title of the movie (murder) is wholly and profoundly inaccurate. The totality of the evidence is that this nom is all about POV pushing, which is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. Suggesting in any way that the pilots who mistakenly killed the civilians committed an act of murder is slanderous and amounts to, without any question whatsoever, “unpublished ideas or arguments”. Changing the title of this file will not overcome my objections; the damage is done and the intent here is abundantly clear and there are other reasons this nom fails in my judgement; all of which point to violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The Main Page of Wikipedia is not a town square for someone with a bullhorn to make anti-war statements; it is a place of learning and simply does not need polarizing and controversial content that will make it a battle ground for others to try to balance it with opposite POV-pushing. Just like when some editor nominated a Nazi flag, I suggest this one for speedy closure. Greg L ( talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• First of all, let's start with point one: The name of this video is "Collateral Murder," that was a choice made just like the naming of any other film. "Murder" is completely acceptable as defined by Dictionary.com: "Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder)" as was in this case. If you think someone is breaking into your house and find out you were wrong after you killed that person, is it still not killing? You type that whole diatribe as if you yourself aren't POV, but I see through that: You're siding with the military and sympathizing with them for being casted in a bad light, like your opinion that this video 'jeopardizes national security'. Your whole argument is slanted with points that only demonize this film and the people who made it publicly known, but what about my own lying eyes that see 13.5 minutes of clearly unarmed people being killed from above? BTW Julian Assange has some words for lawyering you used above:

The tone and language is all about trying to find an excuse for the activity... It’s very clear that that is the approach, to try and find any mechanism to excuse the behavior, and that is what ended up happening.

Also, the investigation has been closed. Seems to me the military just wanted to find out who hurt their feelings for showing them with their pants down in yet another scandal, and now that they might have, don't really know for sure because Wikileaks doesn't keep record of their sources, of course they don't want to look through their ranks and find out who gave this inaccurate permission to fire again and again. Manning still hasn't been convicted of anything, they've just been detaining him for months. It would be a different story if the pilot had monitored them and actually saw them take weaponry to be used against civilians, military or whatever, but that wasn't case here. The real truth in this is that "Crazyhorse 18" is the one fick suck who got caught, no one will ever know how many similar things like this have happened to the countless casualties of the Iraq War, whichever side they fell on, and the military's obviously not gonna court martial him because they'd have to implicate someone higher up as well. If you want to talk about national security and breaking laws I hope you'll hold the military and the Iraq war itself to that same standard as you peruse your Geneva Convention documents. Greg, with your love of the F word it's funny you could have a problem with Wikipedia not being censored. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 19:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Go back and read what you just wrote about murder. Sorry, but you don’t have the foggiest idea what you are talking about regarding murder, killing, and homicide. Quoting you: If you think someone is breaking into your house and find out you were wrong after you killed that person, is it still not killing? Yes, it is. And it is often classified as “justifiable homicide” if it was not done recklessly and the homeowner had a well-founded fear; the litmus test varies by jurisdiction. That’s why I wrote above about homicide as follows: Sometimes they are justified, sometimes not. I’m not going to educate you on this stuff any further. But in a nutshell: the pilots killed people. That is homicide. Unless a crime is committed, that is not murder. It is just that simple and to allege so in a file name is slanderous. I can’t help it if you can’t understand these issues. Greg L ( talk) 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Point of clarification Being as how this is a point of controversy I wold like to clarify one little thing: In naming the nomination "Collateral Murder" I did not intend a political statement; I typically name the nominations after the name of the picture or video file uploaded if image/video in question already had a proper name. That was the case here, although I am all for changing the nomination name to "July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike" if it would help establish NPOV for the nomination. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It needs a new title to even exist on Wikipedia at all. There are abundant on-line encyclopedias you could have availed yourself of to look up what “murder” means before uploading stolen material to Wikipedia and giving it that title. Greg L ( talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • CM is the original name of the piece, not his pick, it was even uploaded by another user, SOURCE (recently edited I think). Anyway I really don't care for Greg's argument that the snitch is more guilty than the killer. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I see. I struck that bit. There are abundant on-line encyclopedias the original uploader could have availed him or herself of to look up what “murder” means before uploading stolen material to Wikipedia and giving it that title, which is slanderous.

        The rest of your post where you allege that my objection amounts to the “snitch is more guilty than the killer” is patent nonsense. You simply don’t understand one iota of what you wrote above and you appear uneducable when you get in these moods. You don’t appear to take disagreeing with you well and I suspect that equates to rejection in your mind.

        Your above rant, where you invite me to peruse the Geneva Conventions and accuse me of “siding” with the military with its concerns about hurting national security (which is something the president of the U.S. himself so stated), just proves my point that Wikipedia does not need polarizing and controversial content on the Main Page that will make it a battle ground for others to try to balance it with opposite POV-pushing. Thank you for that; your getting your hair on fire over this illustrated this point exceedingly well. You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. You might find that a disagreeable notion. Deal with it. There are millions of non-controversial issues on which to have Featured Pictures without turning it into a battle ground. Greg L ( talk) 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

  • I disagree with this being speedily closed; let it run its course. Unlike the Nazi flag nomination, I don't think that this was meant in a malicious and provocative manner (though I assume the nominator came prepared). I do however think that the discourse following Greg's vote should be collapsed. It's full of POV and half-truths. It adds nothing here except clutter and ill-contempt. Cowtowner ( talk) 04:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment/Question - Did any major news station, show this version in full? I think I remember seeing it on the News here in Sweden. Not sure if they showed the whole thing though. Since we can't really exercise editorial control ourselves, I think we need to "follow the sources" on this one. P. S. Burton ( talk) 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Response: Yes, it was thoroughly covered by the U.S. media (omitting the most gory stuff for the most part). And I agree 100% with you that we need to follow the (reliable) sources. And that would start right here in the “Afghan War Diary” article, where the body text calls this “the ‘Collateral Murder’ video” because the Wikileaks guy (hardly an RS) released it with that title. All major news organizations knew better than to use that as the proper-noun title.

There are problems all over Wikipedia with people coming with an agenda. There was an editor who went around from article to article revising links to Anwar al-Awlaki by referring to him as “a conservative Muslim scholar.” Then on the flip side of the coin, recently a Jewish group organized an effort to “educate and enable an 'army' of editors of Wikipedia, giving them the professional skills to write and edit the online encyclopedia's content in a manner which defends and promotes Israel's image.” Caught in the middle are editors who (*sigh*) and try to bring some balance to the POV-pushing. Next up in response to this garbage would be Michael Yon-like nominations along the lines of “Strength and Compassion” and “Valentine's Day Weekend, Afghanistan.” Wikipedia needs raging POV-battles encroaching into FPC like a hole in our heads.

TomStar81’s above suggestion that this nomination be titled “July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike” is one of the more thoughtful posts on this page today; that is mighty close to how the major media outlets described it. Closer yet, IMO, would be “Leaked July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike video”, which is more along the lines of how the major RSs described this and is what should be used for all references across Wikipedia.

But those issues are best dealt with elsewhere. The narrow focus here, IMO, should be in avoiding having polarizing and controversial content on the Main Page that will make it a battle ground for others to try to balance it with opposite POV-pushing. The passions evoked here provide more-than-ample evidence of the very reason for why we want to avoid this sort of thing. Merely re-titleing this nomination is like putting lipstick on a pig and trying to pass it off as a prom date. Greg L ( talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

While the raw material may be refereed to by several names. This particular edited video clip is titled Collateral Murder whether we like it or not. Just as Al Franken's book is titled Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations whether we like it or not. I think wp naming is pretty clear on this. What i meant with "following the sources," was more connected to whether this should be featured/POTD or not. P. S. Burton ( talk) 23:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Since Wikileaks is not an RS, the proper way Wikipedia should refer to it then is to give quoted attribution such as this:

…the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike video Wikileaks released as “Collateral Murder”.

Otherwise, we are just endorsing a non-RS’s editorializing and POV-pushing. It may take a while, but such a revision to the title will undoubtedly occur in due time.

As to “following the sources”, that’s entirely beside the point. Whether RSs carried a story at all or carried it often enough to be considered as notable has zero bearing on whether it is incumbent on Wikipedia to put it on the Main Page. If we “followed sources” in that regard, more than 90% of the stuff we award FP status to, like Focus stacking, would never qualify. Greg L ( talk) 23:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Again: While the raw video material shoot by the U.S. Army may be refereed to by several names. This particular video clip, edited (i.e. created by) Wikilieaks is titled Collateral Murder whether we like it or not. P. S. Burton ( talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Strong Oppose First off I highly endorse the death penalty for clear treason, and the release of this and other documents by Bradley Manning is a clear case of treason in my opinion. Such a release of classified documents in past periods like WW2, no one would doubt such a sentence. This release puts our heroes in harms way, the release of all the other documents that Manning is accused of puts many more people's lives at risk. I strongly oppose featuring anything remotely to do with this video or documents or Bradley Manning. —  raeky t 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I respectfully move that this oppose be struck on grounds that the opposition has not cited any grounds that may be justifiably addressed. While I concede that the rational is political and thus part of the controversy I cited in the nomination statement the fact remains that the video meets all applicable points for FP consideration, and Raeky has not cited anything that cam reasonably be addressed. I am willing to strike this comment when and if a actual point as defined by FPC criteria is brought up for opposition. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • There is no rule that you have to cite something that can be addressed. Are you new to FPC? —  raeky t 02:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • That's terrible. Someone shows the truth about what happens and you say "Kill them!" Want the sausage but don't want see how it's made? First of all, I disagree that this puts the people responsible in harm's way, no names were used in case the transmission got intercepted. Secondly, yes, it does say right under "How to comment:" If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 05:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Raeky, the exact same thing that you are saying about this video could be said about this picture Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Einsatzgruppen. It to was stolen (i. e. the transmission of it from Ukraine to Berlin was intercepted), and the Polish partisans who took it would have been executed if found. Whether the helicopter crew or the German execution squad were/are heroes or not is simply a matter of POV. What would you say if someone opposed the other picture because it was stolen and cast the German army in a bad light? Murder is always murder, no matter the perpetrator. P. S. Burton ( talk) 09:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Goodwin law already? I'm not just referring to this image, I'm referring also to the tens of thousands of other classified documents he allegedly disclosed. The penalty for treason is death, always has been, we've invoked it many times. As for IdLoveOne, if you can't see how this video puts American lives in danger then your either being deliberately fallacious or just ignorant. Just because we've not put anyone to death for treason for decades doesn't mean we abandon that law. Also doesn't mean we give treasonous vermin a free pass to leak classified documents. Whats the difference here and say nuclear secrets to Iran? Same law applies. —  raeky t 13:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strongly Oppose Where is the EV here? This is clearly an agenda pushing work that violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Why do I say that? Several reasons. Firstly, the video is cut. When the full footage of a controversial event is available, the whole video should be shown. We should not allow for a source to cut down to certain parts that they feel are best suited to garnering more attention for themselves and furthering their motives. Secondly, I note that the camera men are conveniently labeled but the men who are carrying rifles at the 1:00 mark are not (I also notice that they take every opportunity to point out Saeed's and Narmir's body. One wonders about the relevancy of this, it simply demonizes the US military). Thirdly, just before the four minute mark we see handy close up shots of the casualties; these seem to have been edited in after the fact. Fourthly, the quotes that have been inserted give a faux pas at NPOV but simply slander those who said them; same thing with the parts about the children. I also take issue with the apparent PD status of this. While I have no law to cite it makes no sense to me that these can go from being illegally leaked to being PD. Additionally why Wikileak's logo remains on this video is beyond me. We don't let photographers do that. Cowtowner ( talk) 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Actually there is very strong EV in the case of both articles linked above. If it wasn't for this video they wouldn't exist, nor would a whole series of events have happened that lead to an investigation, and a revelation of details, the creator of Wikileaks even appeared on the Colbert Report to discuss the video. Even if your principles lead to feel in opposition to the bad light this cast the military in (like it or not they have a history of heavy-handedness and all manners of inappropriate conduct we can't even begin to get into here), the positive for your side, I suppose, is that it lead to the discovery of one or more possible persons who might be leaking out even more stuff. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 05:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • What you say would sound like wisdom and championing of the free press but for the fact I have used my head. It is true, without this leak those articles would not have existed. However, some revelation of details did not occur and is certainly not available from these videos. If this were truly featured material, in a quality article, it would deal with the issue at hand in an objective manner. To deal with it objectively the issue obviously needs to be dealt with on both sides. I wonder then, how this video does that? Was the helicopter crew conveniently told, as the video does for us, with subtitles and arrows who the camera men were? Did they have the benefit of slow motion replay with extra zoom and circles to show that there were children in an unmarked ambulance (which, for your information, is not protected in the Geneva Convention)? Did they experience all 39 minutes of the firefight or were they only paying attention for the 13 minutes which have been conveniently shown here? At certain intervals were they shown 'unbiased' and 'encyclopedic' quotes? The answer to all that is no. How then, can this video be considered NPOV and amongst our finest work? It quite simply cannot be. There is no EV in a propaganda piece which deals with an issue so lopsidedly. As for the Colbert Report, have you watched that interview? I'd direct you to one common sense quote "you have edited this tape and you have given it a title. Called Collateral Murder. That's not leaking, that's pure editorial." When asked about the title of the video Collateral Murder Assange answered that "Yes, absolutely" it was to get maximum political impact. How do you feel about this piece now? Consider, as Colbert says, the "emotional manipulation" of this. How can we have an objective article when we call our videos by such connotative words? Puh-lease. Give me a break. This is not encyclopedic. This is not valuable. As for casting the military in a bad light, that's not what we're here to do but you agree that that's what's happening. We've got a one sided video that fails to note the presence of AK-47 rifles, RPGs and the significance of unmarked cameramen and ambulances. If you want to dispute the actual content of the video and actions of the military take it to my talk page. Cowtowner ( talk) 08:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I find your reasoning, Cowtowner, to be very thoughtful and compelling. Greg L ( talk) 15:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• On the matter of the leaked material: ALL works created by the United States government are automatically released into the public domain, regardless of when they were created, how they were created, or the circumstances surrounding there creation. Even if the material is classfied, as this was, it comes from a video camera used by the United States Army, which automatically makes the material gathered by the camera released into the public domain. In this sense if in no other the material is legally eligible for a Featured Picture star. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Understood. However, I think this is still bad policy. By even having this kind of video on the site it says, not tacitly but explicitly, that the curators of Wikipedia believe if you steal it, it's theirs. That is, for me, unacceptable. Cowtowner ( talk) 08:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• This gets into the distinction of copyright restrictions and other restrictions. Copyright-wise, this doesn't belong to anyone. We are allowed to do what we want with it. It does, of course, have some other, more grisly laws attached to it. J Milburn ( talk) 09:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I grew bored of this argument and abandoned it days ago, but if Cowtowner considers this propaganda and thinks it bad policy to feature propaganda, why didn't you oppose this recently promoted picture? -- I'ḏ ♥ One 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• You're twisting things. The difference between that image and this video is that the article treats this video as a factual, accurate and neutral record. Obviously, as I showed in my post above, it is not. Unless you can address all of the arguments laid out above as to why this kind of video is unencyclopedic (which you are yet to do) then it has no place amongst our best work, and arguably has no place here at all. Cowtowner ( talk) 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• No, I already explained why this should stay: Without the video the articles, which contain the views of both sides, wouldn't exist. If we lose the video we may as well delete the articles and pretend a whole ethical and international controversy didn't happen, which I'm sure is what POV supporters of classification at all costs would like. Not to seem anti-military but I do feel that some people here have exaggerated the 'unfairness toward the military,' downplayed the killings and their possible corruption (I wonder if we ever would've even found out about this in 50 years when it might have officially been de-classifed), but that's the thing about Wikipedia: You can notarize and source things so all perspectives can be accounted for. If you or someone else has truthful points and observations about this to contribute that aren't original research there's nothing stopping you from doing so on the articles or adding notes on the video or the video description itself. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 08:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• I almost wish the people killed actually were terrorists, the authorizer and the shooter would be heroes and I wonder if the opposed would still feel the same. -- I'ḏ ♥ One 05:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Presented in the biased manner it is now? Yes, I would. See my above post. (edited this one because my late-night reading comprehension is poor) Cowtowner ( talk) 08:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • “I almost wish the people killed actually were terrorists”(?) The photographer was in the crowd for a reason. It’s not too hard to figure out what was going on here; the photographer was going where the action was. In this video, the *thoughtfully* unlabeled individuals with the RPG and the AK-47s (“oh, those silly things”) weren’t workers at the local baby-food factory. The photographer thought he was in the right place at the right time to capture shots like this. Though a perilous activity even under the best of circumstances (where all you have is combatants on both sides of the street armed with rockets, grenades, and rifles), it’s a winning strategy most of the time and brings home a few hundred dollars for bacon—at least until unseen individuals with a 30 mm cannon and low-res B&W gunsight video who don’t like insurgents and have an assignment to carry out arrive.

    I think this unfortunate incident was similar to the experiment where one had to figure out whether the players wearing white shirts passed their basketball 14 times or 15 times, which takes extreme attention to get it right and is very challenging. Greg L ( talk) 15:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose due to Wikileaks advert, subtitle typos, and POV issues. The 40 minute unedited footage (parts 1 and 2) would be a better candidate, but still not really Wikipedia FP material IMO. It might be better suited to Wikisource; for instance, they featured s:Transcript_of_the_'friendly_fire'_incident_video_(28_March_2003) in March 2009. -- Avenue ( talk) 12:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Mild oppose per Avenue. P. S. Burton ( talk) 13:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Avenue. This video is highly edited, POV, and advertisement for Wikileaks, right down to the very name. Honestly, this thing should be put up for deletion, not feature. Lastly, I'm pretty sure that classified material does not qualify for public domain, so I don't think it's free content; the folks who are better expert at copyright law should be debating this. bahamut0013 ^words _deeds 18:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Not promoted -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply