Talk:Somalia affair

message: I have never been involved in editing, so forgive stupid questions, but I notice there is little information on the actual mission here. I was serving in CAR during this time and this is but one incident tarnishing a noble mission and it would be nice to have some mention of what we did while we were there other than these few psycho's that caused this uproar. I don't know how the rules apply to someone directly involved doing any of the editing, so am not going to touch it until I get clarification on that. Steveaustin1971 (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we have some positive material as well? 

message: *We need to find out what "the February 17 incident on the bailey bridge" is about
*I'm thinking of merging Clayton Matchee and Kyle Brown (Canadian soldier) into this article. I'm generally against merging, but both articles right now are just a sloppy re-telling of the story; often at odds with this article. Thoughts on a merge? Brown seems more legitimate to merge...Matchee, one could argue his suicide attempts and family's response would give WP:UNDUE to this article, and belong in one of his own. 
*Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued improvements

message: I noticed a single reference to a Captain Hillier in the last paragraph of the Death Shidane Arone section.  Can we get a first name attached to this?  Because as it stands, it would be easy to infer that this is Rick Hillier.  The book referenced for this information has a reference to a "Captain Hillier" but all other references seem to be for a sergeant identified as J.K. Hillier.
I'm changing it to Sgt J.K. Hiller. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capt Hillier? 

message: I've protected the article, but will lift it as soon as consensus is achieved. Recently there was a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard about this article, and ANI as well.  One idea to get more participants is to leave messages for everyone whose name already appears on this talk page. Compromise may be possible, even if no outside opinions can be found. Mediation may be considered if all else fails. Since this article  has caused so much trouble, I suggest that admins leave the protection in place until they are sure a stable solution has been found.  EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would propose this version as our version with the best consensus; but would suggest that we remove the term "nigger" from the "Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers"." and reduce it to "using racist language". This would reduce the use of the word from three times in the article, to two. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope other editors will comment on Sherurcij's proposed version of the article. If agreement is reached, the protection should be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a compromise at all, but simply the exact same version of the article that Sherurcij was reverting to and which we have been disputing over since the article was protected. I therefore reject the proposal for the reasons already explained in detail in the discussions above. Middayexpress (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's removing a third of the uses of the word to which you object, the third that I believe can be most easily lost without losing context in the article, and thus constitutes the most "extraneous" or "gratuitous" third. That would seem to be compromise. We can continue discussing ways to improve the article after protection is lifted, this is just a starting-ground so we now where the "default" lies, and move from there to build it into something better. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a "starting ground" much less compromise. It is literally the exact same version of the article you were reverting to before the article was locked and which has been discussed and dissected ad nauseam above (including the arguments you've just raised). Middayexpress (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my version at all, it is a compromised version that I tried to display and was removed because you preferred your own version. I am suggesting we take my version and remove some of the parts you find offensive. But not all of them, because I feel you are being over-sensitive and trying to sanitise history by removing the offensiveness and burying it in rows upon rows of footnotes. I am not suggesting my version, I am suggesting a version which contains the actual words spoken...but not repeated/quoted every time they were used. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  21:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is literally the exact same version of the article you were reverting to before the article was locked and which has been discussed and dissected ad nauseam above (including the arguments you've just raised). No amount of preposterously insisting otherwise on your part is going to change this  basic fact. Furthermore, if I am, as you say, "trying to sanitise history by removing the offensiveness and burying it in rows upon rows of footnotes" -- a charge you've already raised several times in the past on this talk page, always to be debunked -- well then so is WP:PROFANITY because, like it or not, this what that Wiki policy itself specifically instructs. It also stipulates that: "Discussions about whether to include an offensive image or profanity are often heated. As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties practice civility and assume good faith. Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided. Objective terminology is more helpful than subjective terminology." ...which of course you've just violated with your little atavistic ad hominem above. Middayexpress (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice how my version says "Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers"." and my proposed version says "Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation in racist terms"? Notice how clearly what I'm proposing is not "literally the exact same version", but I am trying to reach compromise? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice how the version of the article that you linked to above -- the one that reads: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sherurcij (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 15 October 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision." i.e. your version -- is the same exact version of the article you were reverting back to just before the article was protected some 36 hours later. Notice how your "proposed" version of the article -- the one that reads: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sherurcij (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 16 October 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision." -- is quite literally the last version of the article that you were championing when the article was protected some two hours after that edit. Hence, yes, I'm afraid both "your version" of the article and your "proposed" version of the article are both very much versions of the article that have been repeatedly analyzed/discredited in the discussions above that took place after the page was protected (about as far from a "compromise" as one can get). Middayexpress (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

text: If editors take an all-or-nothing approach, little progress will occur, and the article may remain protected for a long time. Since these events were so horrendous, some quoting of the soldiers' language seems necessary. Those who don't like Sherurcij's version should propose an alternative. Try to split the difference. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An all-or-nothing approach would be, on the one hand, to completely include or almost completely include the racist slurs, as Sherurcij is and has always advocated for, or, on the other hand, to not include the racist slurs at all, which no one is proposing. On the contrary, the direct quotes are still cited in the article and in their entirety; they have not been omitted. The racist slurs in them have just been replaced with more appropriate language in the body of the article, but footnoted in their entirety "if specificity is required", as WP:PROFANITY itself instructs. That is a compromise, and one supported by actual Wikipedia policies to boot. Sherurcij, however, has rejected this, alternately suggesting that it constitutes censorship (although this is what WP:PROFANITY itself instructs) and somehow also represents a loss of information (although the racist slurs are still included in the article, as just explained). Both WP:PROFANITY and WP:NOTCENSORED make it clear that "words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available". Since the gratuitous use of the word nigger that "would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if", among other criteria, "no equally suitable alternatives are available", the fact that suitable alternatives are indeed available and have already been provided (and can easily be re-factored) makes it clear that the word nigger should in this case at the very least be put in footnotes. So the onus is not, in fact, on us to make concessions. It is on Sherurcij and the other editors that believe that it is absolutely necessary to repeatedly include the racist term nigger in the article's body to explain 1) how replacing the racist words in the quotes with more appropriate language in the body of the article but footnoting them in their entirety "if specificity is required" would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate (although this is what WP:PROFANITY itself both instructs & even demonstrates with examples that closely parallel our present situation); 2) that no equally suitable alternatives are available (although suitable alternatives are indeed available and have already been provided & can easily be re-factored, as already demonstrated); and 3) which exact Wikipedia policy(s) ensures that racist language's inclusion (it sure isn't WP:UNCENSORED, as also already demonstrated). The forgoing has yet to be, and, in fact, cannot be done. Arguing that the pejorative term nigger is not actually racist and especially in the current context -- as some of these editors have actually suggested -- simply does not cut it. Middayexpress (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection 

message: The affair led to the creation of Military Police Complaints Commission.Stein, Janice Gross. & Eugene Lang. "The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar", 2007 Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: To add when protection is lifted

message: The photograph of Arone being tortured is included in the book "100 Photos That Changed Canada" by Mark Reid.  I think that makes this a more important article.114.161.229.100 (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia's own importance scale, an article's importance is not established by what photos are or are not featured in it but by the actual topic of the article. And the actual topic of this article is of course the Somalia Affair, not the "photograph of Arone being tortured". Middayexpress (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The photograph which shocked Canada and changed the nation was a photograph OF the Somalia Affair. It was judged to be one of the top 100 photos that shaped Canadian culture by the book's editors. If a photograph of a sailor kissing a woman in Times Square during the celebration of the end of WWII is a famous image in the U.S., that would lead one to believe that WWII was an important event in U.S. history.122.1.97.94 (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No... the photo is of a man beating another man to death. The Somalia Affair has to do with a lot more than that. And I'm afraid Wikipedia's importance scale does indeed make it clear that an article's importance is not established by what some random "book editors" think of photos that are (or, in this case, are not even) featured in it but by the actual topic of the article itself. An example, taken from the relevant "Criteria" column in the importance scale table: "The article is one of the core topics about Canada. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on Canada topics". Note how it says the article and not "the photo" (or rather, "the deleted photos" in this case), and that said "topics" are listed on a page of Wikipedia articles (i.e. "Canada topics"), not photos. There's a good reason for that. Middayexpress (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a "Low Importance" Article?

message: This is a to do list, since users can't edit until after protection is lifted.
Second paragraph: verb tense should be "marred"'
Third paragraph: Propose rewording to "It has been compared to 'a Canadian version of...the Pentagon Papers', and to My Lai" 
(currently, "or" suggests to readers w/o knowledge of Vietnam War that My Lai is just another way of referring to the Pentagon Papers; in fact, it's a separate historical event) NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Changes (to do, after protection lifted) 

message: Hi. I'd like to suggest the deletion of the photo depicting Clayton Matchee beating Shidane Arone.  I know that a discussion has already taken place on this and my reasons are as follows:
1. The photo is unnecessary as the text in the article is itself graphic and describes the crime in considerable detail;
2. The photo could add to the distress of the Arone family as it clearly identifies him (I would find it hurtful if the killing of a member of my family was publicly shown in this way, and we cannot second guess what they think);
3. Through my faith as a Christian, I think people (publishers included) should treat others as they would want to be treated themselves (the photo is humiliating and degrading to Shidane Arone as a human being);
4. Wikipedia can easily by viewed by children, for whom this photo is inappropriate.
I know that, judged on copyright and free speech grounds, there is no legal restriction on displaying the photo.  However, I think that there are more important moral factors (explained above) about how people should be treated when they are distressed, as he was at this moment, and how we respect people and their relatives when they have died violently. Looking forward to your suggestions and thanks for your time.
Gecko177 (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the photo should have been kept, since it was a historic image (and iconic and emblematic) of a seminal event in Canadian military history. WP:NOTCENSORED -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo deletion 

message: This last section reads a little like an extract from an essay (consider, "Canada never had a reputation for starting wars but instead was seen to come to the aid of war torn countries" and, "The Somalia Affair came as such as surprise to the Canadian public as no one would have thought Canada’s golden reputation for international peacekeeping could be tarnished", both largely subjective blanket statements sans any source). 
All of this is notwithstanding the fact that the whole text seems irrelevant to the rest of the article, perhaps with the exception of the explanations for the origin of the phrase "Somalia syndrome" and the demoralisation of combat soldiers on peacekeeping missions both of which could be drastically abridged. I wouldn't want to modify these details without consulting with other editors first, so - thoughts? ConorWilson (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Intervention in the wake of The Somalia Affair" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Somalia Affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323100350/http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c13ae.htm to http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c13ae.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.dcaf.ch/pcaf/ev_brussels_020712_winslow.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609182849/http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c14e.htm to http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c14e.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724092140/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/1995/950119.php to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/1995/950119.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002102401/http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/somaliae.htm to http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/somaliae.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified