Talk:Granai airstrike

Category:Massacres in Afghanistan

No reliable source calls this a massacre. They say that others (usually people sympathetic to the enemy) are calling it one.

The Sunday Times, for example, uses quotes around the word. It actually calls it "so-called 'Granai massacre'".

This Reuters article only used the word within a quote.

They do this because real massacres have an intent to shoot innocent civilians. In this case, it's obvious that they wanted to destroy the Taliban compound. No one doubts this.

The authorities in this case are the U.S. military and its courts. They've determined it's an error, which is not a massacre. There might be some officials at various international bodies that pretend to care about it, but we'd better at least wait until they file a claim that they're willing to put their names to.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of this content discussion to something neutral and i am going to check more sources and will then reply to your points. IQinn (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've checked the sources and I think you are right that they only include the word "massacre" in quotations, so you can remove it from the category "massacre" if you like. Sorry for reverting your edits. However, the fact that it is a "so-called" massacre is in itself worthy of a mention. I believe some people would say that any killing of this many children and women is a "massacre", even if the intention was to kill insurgents. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you both OK with my most recent edit? Gregcaletta (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to say that some people call it a massacre. That's why I didn't remove that part.

It would be better if we list names of some who call it that, but I expect we'll get some of those as time goes by.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Their are reliable sources that do not use quotes around the word massacre and i would say most people would call the Indiscriminate killing of a large number of children and women by blowing their bodies into small unrecognizable pieces with a 2000 pound bomb a massacre.

Just to mention one source. The journalist Guy Smallman Channel 4 News who visited the village and made himself a picture about the massacre calls it massacre.

I have no doubt that it would be the right think to change the lead back to the previous version and to re-add the category but i am not going to edit war over it. IQinn (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be a massacre if it was intended to be "indiscriminate." None of the serious sources make that claim. It's obvious that they had a legitimate target in mind.

Guy Smallman is or was a reporter with Indymedia. They're not unbiased.

Mistakes happen in war. That's why real armies are supposed to wear uniforms and separate themselves from civilians. Don't expect anyone at IndyMedia to demand that the Islamists do that. They simply don't care enough.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy Smallman story and information and images were published in Channel 4 News and was repeated by a wide range of other media outlets. Even you think that he is biased in your personal view the fact that the information was widely republished shows it might be not as biased as you think.

I have little doubt that they did not directly intended to massacre 50 - 100 children but they did. They did not take care or just did not make distinctions or were thoughtless and that's what "indiscriminate" means. Tons of source make that claim.

-- IQinn (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure about whether a "massacre" has to be intentional or not. I would personally refer to any killing of large numbers of children as a massacre, whether it is intentional or not. However, due to the fact that many of the reliable sources are careful to place the word "massacre" in quotation marks, I am willing not to include it in the category for massacres in Afghanistan, merely to avoid edit warring, as long as we can show in the lead that it is often called the Granai massacre. However, if Wikileaks do indeed have a video of the massacre or "airstrikes" and release it, then there will probably be a lot more reliable sources referring to it as a massacre, and we will have to include it again in the category. Randy, I also would like some clarifications from you out of curiosity, but I will put the questions on your talk page because they do not specifically refer to edits on this article. I hope you wouldn't mind taking a few seconds to respond. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm consistently amazed that some seem to believe that the label that we on Wikipedia slap on an event matters in the least. The facts are and the article plainly states that the US killed a large number of civilians in the village of Granai on May 4, 2009. What that event will eventually be called is a matter for history. Dlabtot (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be a massacre if it was truly indiscriminate, but that wasn't what happened. They did try to hit a proper target. Having failed at the attempt does not mean they were thoughtless. Otherwise we might call every plane crash a massacre when large numbers of passengers are killed.

Smallman was "reporting" from the field. He hasn't the slightest idea what went into the targeting decisions.

I don't see how Wikileaks could reveal anything that shows it to be a genuine massacre. But we'll see what they come up with.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you post this below my comment as if it were a reply? It seems completely unrelated to what I said. Dlabtot (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to your point, Dlabtot, I agree that the specific facts of what happened are more important than the labels. The fact that so many children were killed is terrible, even though it was an accident, and whether you believe the word "massacre" implies intentional or not is not really important. However, as an encyclopaedia we do need to use labels and when you say it is a "matter of history" you hit the nail on the head; how we choose to label these event will have an effect on how they are viewed by history, so we need to be considerate in which labels we choose. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"how we choose to label these event will have an effect on how they are viewed by history" - ideally, no, since we take our lead from sources, it's not really up to us to label it, we just call it what the sources call it. Dlabtot (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, so we need to be accurate in our evaluation of the sources and be neutral (by using due weight) in presenting sources when they disagree, and whether we do so well or badly will have an affect on history. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, we were discussing whether is belongs in the category "massacres in Afghanistan". I actually think the best solution would be to re-lable the category to something uncontroversial, such as "killings of large numbers of civilians in Afghanistan", which is a more useful title for anyone doing research, and then this article could be uncontroversially included in that category. What do you think of that, Randy? Gregcaletta (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea.

You're right that it's better for research. Most people will be interested in these killings regardless whether or not they were actual massacres. We'll ultimately get a more useful list.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously any "killing of a large number of ... civilians, mostly children" is a massacre. Any assertion to the contrary would be difficult to characterize as 'good-faith'. Dlabtot (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in the newest edition of the newspeak dictionary but in today's English accidents are not massacres.

If you really believe accidents and/or negligence counts then try adding the "massacre" category to the RMS Titanic and the 2010 West Bengal ferry sinking.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that nobody bombed Titanic or the ferry. That were accidents and/or disasters. When you launch a bomb over a village and you kill dozens, you have done a massacre. Obviously, USA government is not to call that event a massacre, they prefer to call it collateral damage. Additionally, we can create Category:Events named collateral damage by USA government if you want. emijrp (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In the other hand, what do you think about Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they "accidents" too? emijrp (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Granai airstrike could be compared to an accident because they did not intend to kill civilians, regardless whether or not they fully intended to kill real enemies. It's a matter of necessity under the laws of war. Killing Taliban forces would not be a massacre because a war with the Taliban requires killing them.

Collateral damage is when they intend to destroy a legitimate target while non-combatants are present at that location. It's sad that our enemies make no attempt to separate civilians. Clearly, the "human rights" organizations should have been strident in asking them to do so. People who claim to oppose war should ask any friends with sympathies for the enemy that they stop fighting. That they haven't done so in this war is, perhaps, extremely shameful but it's been ten years.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets that happened to have civilians living there. Leaflets had been dropped asking civilians to leave the cities but such was the nature of that war.

I've said before that I support creating new topics for those who wish to perform body counts. The "collateral damage" one may be the wrong name for this, though. I don't think an accident is collateral damage. But a suitable name can be found.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a few problems with categorising this event as a massacre. The first is that massacre is a highly emotive description. Encyclopaedias should use neutral language; "Aerial bombing of civilians" - this is done for WWII events. The second is that things seem to be added to the category which have no reliably sourced text describing the event as a massacre - adding it to a category describing as such just seems to be an unsourced method of getting the description in by the back door. The third is that massacres need to be intentionally targetted at their victims. (Hohum ^@) 22:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, to clarify something - the existing reference is fine to support that this event is sometimes "So called" the "Granai massacre", however an op-ed piece is not a reliable source to *classify* it as a massacre. (Hohum ^@) 22:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

question

Many of the references in this article represent authors names with the last name first. In most articles we don't do this, and I wonder why we are doing so here.

A half dozen or so of the authors here are Pullitzer Prize winners, or for some other reason, have articles about them. Having a link to the article about the author is not possible using the last name first format.

I suggest all the authors should be formatted using first name first format, and those who have articles should be wikilinked to those articles. Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)``

Granai additional spellings

WRT this recent edit

Yes you are right now i find these Google results: Gerani airstrike. My change was base on other misleading Google searches. No objection to keep this spelling now.

• Gharani airstrike had more than a thousand including highly important sources like the Lamo chat logs.

Shall we include "Gharani" as well? IQinn (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Large scale removal of notable information

Thank you for being bold in removing large portion of long standing well referenced content without prior discussion on the talk page. You have been reverted back per WP:BRD. Please do stop deleting the content until you found consensus on the talk page. It is long standing and well referenced please explain and find consensus here on the talk page instead of trying to discuss it through endless reverting. I do disagree with your explanations given in the edit summaries. I am looking forward to a constructive discussion with you. Thank you.Gaiisik (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gaiisik. The content is fairly well referenced, but it's not apparent to me how notable certain portions of the "Video of airstrike" section is. The subject of the article itself is the airstrike itself - in which 86-145 civilians were killed. The "Video of airstrike" portion seems to be about a different topic, namely whether or not Wikipedia was going to release it, then who did they get it from (Manning), then Manning being charged for espionage. That's fine, but all of that can be succinctly summed up in a few sentences; instead, the "Video of airstrike" portion of the article is actually longer than the article about the airstrike itself (a word count of 198 for the former; a word count of 283 for the latter). Seems a bit undue, and portions seem to more about presenting a particular point of view (I couldn't find the part about the "Red Scare" in the cited references, and Goodman-Ellsberg quote 1) seems like soapboxing, 2) is irrelevant since Wikileaks did indeed go ahead and post the video online, and 3) is cited to an online primary source video instead of a secondary source). Isn't that a bit undue? Can you lay out yout reasons for why you feel it's important, relevant, and notable for this article's subject? I've got a few more issues to discuss with some particulars but I'll pause there and give you a chance to respond; I too appreciate the constructive discussion approach. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi AzureCitizen, you say, "The "Video of airstrike" portion seems to be about a different topic, namely whether or not Wikipedia was going to release it,"

I personally disagree with that. Do you consider to start an additional article for the video of the airstrike? It is closely related to the airstrike, a notable well referenced story that i think should be presented in context.

The article is short even with the section about the video (with 283 words) it is not overly long. Does the fact that we do not know a lot about the strike itself (198 words) justify the removal of information we do know? The release of the video would show the world what happened during the airstrike. It is a big deal as people may face the death penalty for leaking it.

"Red Scare" I do not get that? How has that anything to do with that?

1) "soapboxing"? Daniel Ellsberg is notable and i do not think he was soapboxing.

3) there seems to be no question about WP:V the source is as reliable as Fox news.

2) ? Now you make me wonder. Are you confusing the video about the Granai airstrike with the video of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike? These are two different shoes. The video about the Granai airstrike has not been released. That is the story and that's why we have the section. I actually think the section is well written and might be even too short. You might check more about the video it has not been released and i guess you are right once it get's released we have to rewrite the section and article. I am now also going to read some additional sources.

I saw in the history of the article that the section was written by User:Gregcaletta and i am thinking about to involve him into this discussion. Is that fine with you? Gaiisik (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Next day here. It was my understanding that Wikileaks had posted the Granai airstrike video online; after doing some quick searches just now, I couldn't find anything to that effect and I realized I had that wrong, hence the angle at which I was viewing the section and why it seemed so undue (i.e., too much material over what should be a non-issue). Sorry for the confusion there! My only remaining key concern with that section is the Goodman-Ellsberg quote, and way it's been included. It's not WP:V - I have no doubt as to the authenticity - it's that it's from a primary source versus a secondary source and appears to have been cherry picked to present a point of view, i.e., Ellsberg redirecting Goodman's question and personally calling on the US President to release the video. This happens during an hour long web video clip from a "Democracy Now!" broadcast, rather than something that was widely reported in secondary sources and thus would have inherent notability from having been widely reported. Although you appear to have created a Wikipedia account to discuss this particular issue, I assume you're not a "new" editor and have been editing Wikipedia previously, so I assume you're also familiar with primary and secondary sourcing. Do you understand my concern with that quote now?

With regard to inviting User:Gregcaletta to discuss this, that's fine, I'm sure they are intimately familiar with the material if they wrote/inserted the text. On the "Red Scare" thing, I was talking about the text in the sentence that begins with "In the legal court martial case..." Are you able to discern anything in the sourcing that talks about the "Red Scare"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think i understand your concerns and i am still thinking...though at the moment i would prefer to keep the quote rather than deleting it.

I have read Wikipedia almost since the early days but staying on the passive side i have only made few edits without registering so you might be more familiar with policies. Though i have read the core policies. As i understand WP:V, Democracy Now should be seen as secondary source. It is journalism broadcasting on over 1000 station. You have not explained in detail why you think that it is a "primary source".

I guess your concern about "cherry picked to present a point of view" seems to be the real issue. Thank you for bringing that up. I am not sure about it but, let me think and i will give you my answer in 1-2 days. I have left a message on User:Gregcaletta as i think it would be important to here his opinion as it might help us to understand the context better. Regards, Gaiisik (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Been 3-4 days, so I assume you may have gotten busy and haven't circled back here yet. In the intervening period, it occurred to me that a reasonable compromise would be to retain the Ellsberg material, but reform it into a factual statement like the rest of the text (which would be one sentence, instead of seven). I also found a link on his site we can add so that readers can go straight to the text of his comments instead of having to sift through an hour-long video. I'll make the adjustment now, and if you don't agree, feel free to revert it and we can return to discussing it here. I'm also going to re-word the "Red Scare" sentence. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, i was pretty busy. Thank's for the civil discussion and good work i am fine with this version. Thank's again. Gaiisik (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Massacre and scandal, or not

Looking at the top of the discussion page I see that Randy2063 has written that "No reliable source calls this a massacre. They say that others (usually people sympathetic to the enemy) are calling it one... The authorities in this case are the U.S. military and its courts. They've determined it's an error, which is not a massacre. There might be some officials at various international bodies that pretend to care about it, but we'd better at least wait until they file a claim that they're willing to put their names to."

This reasoning constitutes some basis of changing the article's name, and removing it from categories dedicated to massacres in Afghanistan? First of all, this is an encyclopedia and an international one: we are not, here, at war with the Taliban but are rather describing a conflict between two belligerents. Randy2063's declaration implies that he is not a neutral observer but rather a supporter, or even party to the conflict. Furthermore, as far as "authorities" are concerned the U.S. military and courts actually have the least relevance because unlike Randy2063 their implication in this event is unambiguous: the military is actually the perpetrator, whether the event was accidental or not, and the idea that American courts would prosecute pilots for such a bombing is absurd.

Lastly, there's no evidence that these bombs somehow veered off course or end up in the wrong village. It may be called an "accident" by a U.S. military official, but most people in the would would view this, among other things, as a massacre. -Darouet (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, on a related note, anyone interested in studying massacres in Afghanistan will certainly want to know about this event among others. -Darouet (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

From the Asian Tribune, "In Afghanistan, meanwhile, U.S. soldiers and unpiloted drones have killed thousands of civilians over the last few years, including nearly a hundred people at Granai alone and another forty seven civilians at a wedding party in Deh Bala. As of yet, no one has been punished for any of these massacres."[1]

Variously reported: "Manning also found a video and an official report on American air strikes on the village of Granai in Afghanistan's Farah Province (also known as "the Granai massacre"). According to the Afghan government, 140 civilians, including women and a large number of children, died in those strikes."[2]

From the Hindustan Times: "Meanwhile, the whistleblower magnet WikiLeaks.org is releasing its second blockbuster video (NYSE:BBI) of the season - footage of the May 4, 2009, massacre in the Afghan village of Granai, where heavy bombing killed at least 100 civilians, most of them children." [3]

There are plenty of sources from American left publications calling it a massacre as well. -Darouet (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The international audience for Wikipedia is not an issue. Many people don't want to be told something that isn't true, regardless of whether or not they live in the U.S.

This is not a conflict between two belligerent nations. The Taliban were never recognized as a nation by the U.N., the U.S., or by the most other countries. In the sense of international law, this is more like a war with the KKK. Only the lawless can support them.

You're right that I'm not a "neutral observer," but it's irrelevant. NPOV is a standard for editing purposes. There are no neutral observers on this war. You're not neutral either. This is a war where one side has no restrictions on it whatsoever. They use children as human shields (and we're seeing that with this article). No reasonable person could be neutral to the Taliban. There are supporters and opponents. No neutrals.

Your contention that the military legal system is "the perpetrator" is what's absurd. Military law is the proper venue for this. Even the ICC (assuming anyone actually takes them seriously) leaves these things to national authorities until after they think it hasn't been handled -- and they expect military law for military matters.

As for "there's no evidence that these bombs somehow veered off course or end up in the wrong village," that statement is pretty far off the wall. If you had any military experience, you might then know how silly that sounds. Setting aside the graphic-novel worldview it takes to believe that pilots can drop bombs anywhere without paperwork to account for it, you're still missing the known fact that this aircraft had been tasked for a real mission by someone on the ground. They very much needed a bomb dropped on a real enemy.

The notion that pilots can set aside such an urgent request while a battle was raging to bomb an innocent village instead, and then not be held to account, would be laughable if it wasn't a serious matter. The movies and Star Trek episodes you've seen don't show the oversight and paperwork involved.

Like it or not, Wikileaks has actually shown that the U.S. military follows the laws of war. Yes, even the famous helicopter video, which is why no one could be charged. If you imagine there was something unlawful about it, I'll get to that shortly.

No, "anyone interested in studying massacres in Afghanistan" will *not* want to waste their time with this event. It's not a massacre. When readers want to read about mass civilian casualties then they can look at that category, which already has this listed. That's the reason the category is there. If they're only interested in genuine massacres, they'll want to focus on real, genuine massacres, and not be diverted by someone's POV.

"There are plenty of sources from American left publications calling it a massacre as well."

So? The American left is, by definition, not a neutral source. Opinions from people who support the use of children as human shields (and, yes, they all do) are not enough to make a category. If they cared at all about these horrific deaths then they'd have asked the Taliban to follow the laws of war. The far-left (including the previously-mentioned "Democracy Now") has regular contact with Islamists who support their side of the war. But after all that pompous talk about pretending to support the Geneva Conventions (remember that?), they dared not talk with them about it. They threw it all away.

And that's where I see a similarity to the Wikileaks helicopter video. Most civilian casualties in these wars could have been prevented. The laws of war do offer ways to protect civilians. But the people who pretend to care about these things simply chose not to speak out about not putting kids into the line of fire. The left's crocodile tears are no substitute for real compassion.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Randy2063, before we get to all of the important points you've made above, could you tell me what you think of the following definition of "massacre"? It's the first definition from the OED: 1. a. The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this. If we don't agree on what a massacre is we won't agree on anything else. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a good enough definition.

If the pilots intended to discriminate between innocents and jihadis, and believed there weren't any innocent civilians, then it's an error in observation -- not an indiscriminate act.

The word "indiscriminate" means they didn't care. It's a pretty safe bet that those pilots cared more about the civilians than the critics did.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. "Indiscriminately" (adv) is defined so: "In an indiscriminate manner; without distinction; promiscuously; without the exercise of discrimination." I'm not really sure who cares about the civilians more, as a whole. -Darouet (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There was an exercise of discrimination. They just didn't see them.

If the critics cared about innocent civilians, they'd have spoken to their friends who support that side of the war about separating civilians from jihadis. Maybe that happened, but nobody put it into the article.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the first time I disagree with you about definitions. I thought that discrimination was "the action of discriminating; the perceiving, noting, or making a distinction or difference between things; a distinction (made with the mind, or in action)," but you wrote that "they didn't see them." That's contradictory, because you can't perceive, note, or make a distinction or difference between things (or people) you don't see. -Darouet (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted Randy as the topic was under discussion and there was no consensus for the removal of these categories. I suggest you try some form of conflict resolution. Gaiisik (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Discriminating unsuccessfully is not the same as being indiscriminate and not discriminating at all. Intent matters. That's also evidenced by the fact that your definition says it's both "indiscriminate and brutal."

The ability to discriminate goes right to the core of the problem: If the critics really cared about pilots being able to discriminate 100% then why haven't they asked their friends in the jihad community to separate themselves from the civilians? That's the real scandal, and it can't be covered up by word play with definitions. Many of these tragedies, including this one, would not have happened.

It wasn't a massacre but there was a scandal. It just wasn't a scandal on the part of the military.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Randy2063: I'm having trouble understanding some of what you're writing, so I think that conflict resolution is probably the best method of resolving this. Hope you don't mind! -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Privacy Rights and WP:IUP

Another editor removed a victim photo from the article. He claims the photo does not comply with WP:WATERMARK. I think that is false and i do not see any evidence for this. Could you please explain. Tiana1987 (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tiana1987, thank you for posting here on the article's Talk Page. The image, "Bala baluk massacre victim in Farah.jpg", does not comply with WP:WATERMARK because it has a website URL (http://rawa.org) watermarked in the lower-right hand corner of the picture. Additionally, there is another more pressing problem with using this image... please take a look at the information provided under Wikipedia's policy on image use (WP:IUP) with regard to the guidance given in the section on Privacy Rights. The image contains a description saying "A victim of the Granai airstrike is lying in a hospital in Fararh city." The hospital in Fararh City is a medical facility, which is identified in the policy as a private place. The policy states that a subject's consent isn't needed for photographs taken in public places, but it is needed for photographs taken in private places. This type of consent is called a model release and it is unrelated to the photographer's copyright. Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should be sought before uploading any photograph featuring a private individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, Wikipedia considers it to be a moral obligation not to upload photographs which infringe a subject's reasonable expectation of privacy. Can you locate a source that indicates that the injured woman in the photograph gave consent for her picture to be used this way? Similarly, the photograph of the injured minor child, "Bala_Baluk_massacre_by_US_troops.jpg", has the same privacy rights problem, as the description for that photo also indicates she was in the same hospital. We should therefore remove both pictures from the article, unless you can locate sources indicating these subjects gave consent for their pictures to be used. If you feel this interpretation of WP:IUP policy is incorrect, please do not hesitate to post your concerns on a relevant noticeboard. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I suggest the following solution. I will edit out the "rawa.org" and i suggest you have a second look at the picture. I would say the person can not be identified so there is no problem with privacy. To be honest in my view the person in the photo could be my mother or any other person. Tiana1987 (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I went to bed last night after my last edit and returned just now in the morning, hence the delay in responding. On the watermark issue, I agree it's an easy fix and cropping the photo ever so slightly (removing about 5% of the bottom border) should fix it. I did that myself originally to fix the other image several months back. The "identifiable" issue is much more problematic. After looking at the Wikimedia Commons guideline on Photographs of identifiable people, and then reading threads on the guidelines Talk Page, it appears to me that both subjects (the injured woman and the injured girl) are conceptually "identifiable" because their face is included. If you ask me if it's likely that someone the victims know will actually happen to identify them from the picture, I'd say probably not, but that isn't how the guideline operates. If a picture contains someones face, even with injuries, they are potentially identifiable. At this point, this is what I would suggest: please read the same pages, including both the guideline and the relevant talk page, and let me know if you come to the same conclusion. If you do not, and you believe the victims here are actually "not identifiable" in the context of Wikipedia policy, then I'd suggest creating a new posting on that Talk Page, with both the images, and ask if other editors consider the victims to be identifiable in the context of the guideline. Does that sound like a good way to resolve the issue of whether or not they are identifiable? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

unexplained removal of categories

I was watching recent changes and saw that someone removed the "Obama administration controversies" category from the article without explanation. I reverted this change until someone explains to me how that incident suddenly does not fit this category. See also [4] and other sources. 212.39.121.134 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the category because it's not apparent why or how the Granai Airstrike is an "Obama Administration controversy". You're asserting that it is an "Obama Administration controversy", but you need to explain why it is. WP:BURDEN states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I took a careful look at the source article you've provided above, and I do not see any material therein stating or suggesting that this was an Obama Administration controversy. Would you please explain what the connection is here? You can cite from whichever sources you'd like to make your argument, as long as they meet the requires of WP:RS. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)