Hacker News Reader

Comment by manarth | Hacker News Reader

  The new bit was the video itself.

Saying "X happened", and offering "Here is video that demonstrates X happened" are very different things. A video of an event can be of such overwhelming significance that its importance is impossible to calculate.

View on HN

Not the case for this incident. You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page. For instance, a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the incident and write a book about it without seeing the video. 'Collateral murder' is much more notable for the Wikileaks editorializing than for its actual news value.

  You don't have to speculate, you can just read the wikipedia page.

Which page are you referring to? Could you please provide a link?

  a reporter for the Washington Post was able to reconstruct the
  incident and write a book about it without seeing the video.

Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source? If there is a verifiable video, shouldn't the journalist view the video (and decide whether it's verifiable or not), and include that in the article? To deliberately ignore a significant piece of evidence is a significant editorial decision.

Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source?

No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.

  As to the page, the page about the incident.

For my benefit, and the benefit of everyone reading this thread, hoping to gain a greater understanding of the issues, could you please provide the specific URL, rather than alluding elliptically to "the incident"?

You want to argue with me about something you're apparently unfamiliar with and also want me to direct you to basic information about it you can trivially look up yourself? Please, for your benefit and for the benefit of basic politeness, do a bit of the legwork.

I'm still unclear about which particular Wikipedia page you would like to direct me to.

You've posted:

  The incident had been reported and covered by the press, there was
  no 'government cover up'. The new bit was the video itself.

You've then stated:

  you can just read the wikipedia page

You've gone on to say:

  As to the page, the page about the incident.

You've then stated:

  You want me to direct you to basic information…you can trivially look up yourself

At no point have you given any source: neither primary, secondary, or other. It is hard to understand which material you are referring to, when you repeatedly will not source the material which you referring to. Your posts do not seem to contain any source material, so you seem to rely on third-party sources, but so far, you haven't identified any of those sources.

It would be great for everyone reading this thread, to understand the material on which you're basing these claims.

You should read the beginning of the thread. Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google. That's all that it would have taken instead of 19 different ways of telling me how you don't know anything about this but I should sort you out. Let's call it a day.

  You should read the beginning of the thread.
  Or type 'collateral murder incident' into google.

The beginning of the thread references https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/ which is a wiki leaks URL, rather than a wiki pedia URL, as you suggested when you said "you can just read the wikipedia page".

Googling "collateral murder incident" does give a number of results, which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one that has been referenced in this discussion.

It's important for honest, rational discussion, to cite sources - especially those sources you depend upon. Unless you specifically state your sources, it's hard to understand the argument you're presenting, and the basis for your argument. Without a citation, it's essentially arguing that the Emperor's new clothes really are golden, and we have to believe that, because they really are golden.

I typed "collateral murder incident" into google and it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return.

Further, when I type "Collateral Murder" into the Wikipedia search, it brings me directly to the page about the airstrike that pvg has repeatedly referenced, anchored at the section about the video.

Just what are you trying to pull here?

    which does include a Wikipedia page, but it's not one
    that has been referenced in this discussion.

It has been referenced multiple times in this thread by pvg. For someone who purportedly puts so much stock in honesty, this is incredibly dishonest of you.

  it returned the exact Wikipedia page that pvg told you it would return

Which particular wikipedia page is being so thoroughly referenced in this thread? Which particular post in this thread provides a URL?

Perhaps you could post the URL of that Wikipedia page?

Is it so terribly hard to copy and paste the URL of the page which is being cited?

After all, you have referred to this specific Wikipedia page in your comment, but you have still not provided the URL.

There has to be something seriously wrong with you to want to keep up this charade for so long. At best, you are pathologically dishonest.

It's interesting that your example is someone working for the Washington Post- that's enough for certain people to dismiss it out of hand as "fake news."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com