Comments:US military to carry out review following Wikileaks release of classified 2007 video

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Comments from feedback form - "great information!"017:26, 2 December 2010
Comments from feedback form500:06, 23 October 2010
Comments from feedback form017:27, 11 April 2010
Comments from feedback form014:05, 11 April 2010

Comments from feedback form - "great information!"

great information!

117.205.130.85 (talk)17:26, 2 December 2010

Comments from feedback form

This article simply discusses peoples perception of the footage but fails to ask about the results of the military investigation. I expected Wikinews to be a little more thorough than the Dollar Grabbing media but perhaps the truth is not what people want to hear? The article was written to conveniently take the focus off the fact that the strike was against insurgents and the crew were all cleared of wrong doing, as per the little link noted as a "2007 airstrike". At least that article is complete.

123.243.214.95 (talk)07:30, 11 April 2010

Thanks for your feed back, sometimes its difficult to avoid tunnel vision and miss points that seem obvious to other readers, the great thing about wikinews is unlike the "dollar media", wikinews is written by people like you and me. This article is still "alive" that is not yet archived and locked from editing, as such and you are more than welcome, in fact positively encouraged to, to edit the article to address any concerns or shortcomings you find. Sign up for an account (its free and easy), have a quick look at the how to write an article page, and Bob's your uncle.KTo288 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

KTo288 (talk)16:14, 11 April 2010

Sorry ignore my advice above as I seem to be out of datewith regards to current policy. seems like we are only meant to make minor changes to published articles, doesn't stop you from writing a new related article though.

KTo288 (talk)22:56, 12 April 2010
 

The reason why Wikinews failed to produce results about the military investigation and to be a bit more thorough is because the government itself doesn't tell any truth about it. The people has the right to hear about the truth or else we will be like monkeys that believes in everything the government says. I like what Wikileaks did, showing the people whats really going on.

Domeafavor (talk)20:50, 26 July 2010

We're not Wikileaks, just btw.

Mikemoral♪♫20:51, 26 July 2010

I know that. I'm just saying.

Domeafavor (talk)21:04, 26 July 2010
 
 
 

Comments from feedback form

The date of the article posting is helpful.

12.30.13.214 (talk)17:27, 11 April 2010

Comments from feedback form

as a still evolving story, there are many facets that have not been covered, ie: the Media Coverage itself has now become of interest and detailed analysis of the reactions and editorial stances taken have raised accusations of censorship, "spiking" of articles and of it being purposely dismissed, slowed down and buried away from main pages and sections.

124.170.19.127 (talk)14:05, 11 April 2010