Talk:Improvised explosive device

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Related task forces...


	Weaponry task force

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

1 Graphic Photo
2 British Claims?
3 Landmines
4 Excessive Definitions
5 The US Experience?
6 Changed US Countermeasures to Countermeasures
7 Picture

[edit] Graphic Photo

Probably need to have some discussion of whether this pic (insurgent killed by IED) is appropriate. Is it just there for shock value or because people like to see dead insurgents? This article is about IEDs after all, not the trauma produced by explosions. Riddley 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd chime in here. I sometimes spend a fair bit of time following random links across wikipedia, or getting a basic overview of a topic with which I am unfamiliar. In doing so, I find that I occasionally stumble across some fairly graphic images.

Now, if there were an option to disable or enable these, I wouldn't mind so much, since I'd turn it off. However, there isn't, and as such, I for one would like to keep these to a minimum. I find them highly disturbing, making me not read the article, and I find that I am progressively desensitized by them, something which many studies bear out as a common trait in most humans.

I know full well that reality isn't all roses (e.g. I've seen a body crushed to a pulp not 10 feet from me), and I quite understand the realities of combat (e.g. a former friend of mine collected and sorted body parts after an explosive attack, and I've seen the result of being shot in the head).

However, "rubbing our noses in it" is not documentary. It has an agenda, as evidenced by the comments here, namely to "wake up" the general public to the horror of these events. That is not, or at least (IMO) should not be, the goal of an encyclopedia.

Does the article on child abuse show a prepubescent being molested? No. Does it show that same child slicing open their wrist when they grow up? No. Why, then, should this article about IEDs be any more explicit? Why should it need to provoke the viewer to elicit an emotional response? As an encyclopaedia, we should cater to the intellect. Besides, excessively pushing peoples buttons tend to numb them down further, which certainly cannot be congruent with the sentiment expressed in favour of these images.

I for one will be ecstatically happy if I never see (online or in the outside world) another life form get killed, tortured or mutilated. I know what all three look like, in various incarnations, and I'm in no hurry to see it again.

This has nothing to do with "rose colored mirrorshades". It has something to do with wanting to remain sensitive to these horrible events, wanting to continue to care, and wanting to avoid that exact detachment which some people seem to feel necessitates these images.

Feel free to put the image back in as a link with a warning caption. I'd prefer for it to be available, but I'd also very strongly prefer for it to be opt-in.

Zuiram 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I feel perfectly ok with a warning before displaying such images- I would go further and support PG etc. ratings for images. How I would implement the warning is a question, but opt in seems like a good idea to me.

To get at the issue, consider Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day#Wheatfield. It has a highly graphic image but it was greeted not only with no objection but not even a comment for over a month though there have been multiple edits by multiple folks..

As you see, it is a photo of a disembowelled soldier with a severed hand nearby. Ask yourself why there is controversy on one and not the other. If the civil war were just a decade in the past, would the reaction be the same?

What I'm trying to get my mind around is: What are the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of graphic images. If it has to do with some gauging whether people feel sufficient emotional distance to consider the images, versus the value of presenting them, it becomes very tricky. EG: Ok to show rows of skulls from the Pol Pot years on en:WP but not on the cambodian WP, etc.

"Agendas" A bit of a catch 22 I am put under here. If I do not provide a rationale, the images are deleted. If a rationale is provided, then an "agenda" is identified and the images are deleted. Let's be careful in labeling something as having an agenda. In particular I have no pro or anti war agenda. A large portion of the images I have uploaded to commons are typical military content photos- aircraft carriers, weapons, and so on. There are well over 400 of them, but I became aware of their peculiar quality- they were remarkably sanitized. There is some additional dimension there that I was not covering and I have noted that. I am interested in providing imagery that is fully representative of this subject matter.

Necessity In communication, we calibrate how much we say on each detail depending on the likelihood that the reader does not fully appreciate some portion of the subject. The horror of child abuse requires little amplification. Compare with this the fascinating articles on military hardware and tactics. Is the emotional impact of the underlying activity so uppermost in people's minds that it requires no further elaboration? Hardly. In fact, quite the opposite. It is a view from the cockpit of a bomber flying at 50,000 feet. Of course you know people are down there, but it is hardly even vaguely something one is aware of. Anyway, I am a contributor to many of these articles, and fully admit my interest and participation in them at that level. I am just questioning the validity of my practice. One can become immersed in the technology of the machines and become completely detached from their meaning- it becomes a form of entertainment. The publishers of military books know it only too well. Well, how entertaining is the video game if the look of pain and anguish is on the face of the person you just shot in your Dungeons game? By not showing the pain and anguish, is it because the game providers are motivated by a concern that this will desensitize their viewers to real pain and and anguish?

Certainly, it is fair to note the shut down factor. But this is a generic objection, is it not? If a person is so inclined, they will choose not to confront ideas that challenge theirs, and they will choose to be entertained over being confronted by that which is less than comfortable for them.

Your thoughts? -Mak 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"War is horror" is a platitude. Video game playing boys understand what the difference between a Chain gun, M60 Machine gun, and a Claymore.

But do they really? A pilot understands there are civilians down below. What form of understanding does he have. We "understand" from the article how an IED works, and how they are employed. But have we gotten closer to their nature, or have we clothed the horror in a grid of technical information so that we can put away in a tidy antiseptic place where it no longer can influence us?

The mechanism of not "shocking" the public was necessary to maintain the war effort in WWI. Returning veterns often complain bitterly that no one except those who have been "there", understand what it is really like.

Note that the Nazi concentration camps does not have a single picture of a camp. Instead it has pictures of people. A picture of piles of corpses. I could fairly ask your same questions. Is the article about concentration camps, or the trauma produced by extermination? What are we trying to do- shock people? Ok- let's take the position that such concentration camp shock value pictures really are just pandering to sensationalism. What happens when you show the empty stockades and barbed wire fences, but not what the camps did to people? Granted, it is much more comfortable for folks not to look at the pictures, and it is more difficult to think with the greatest clarity when one is overcome with the grim horror. But which approach gets people closer to the reality of what these things are?

The world is not so neat, antiseptic, and tidy as that portrayed in Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't see that Wikipedia needs to pander to middle class sensibilities, that greatly prefers the 50,000 foot view where we get a more comfortable understanding of things that don't go into too much inconvenient detail.

-Mak Thorpe 10:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two main reasons why this picture is not appropriate for use on wikipedia.

Firstly, it does not show the effect of a successful firing of an IED on their most common target: light to medium vehicles. A picture of a burnt-out Humvee with a close-up of the damaged cab would demonstrate the effects of IEDs much better.

Secondly, using what appears to be a touched-up photo from a militaristic snuff site (see the blood below the torso--it looks blurry and much too red), is a bad call. Apparently the image had to be edited to bring it within the boundary of good taste (I believe there was a caption of some kind?)

For these reasons, I am removing the picture. If Mak Thorpe can get a few votes other than his own for keeping it, we could bring in a mod and make it official.

Therealhazel 09:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Therealhazel, last thing first. First thing last. Your second point is without merit, and clearly without any effort of research on your part. May I recommend you investigate your statements before engaging in idle speculation? Presumably you have examined the image page. Did you read it? The source of the image is indicated, and you can verify it for yourself. Oddly you did not bother to do this. Militaristic snuff site? The site is so well known that there is a wiki article on it: Ogrish.com. Please show us where the article refers to it as a militaristic snuff site. Ogrish has a bad reputation for posting images that the pentagon does not want soldiers to release to the public. But it does not have the reputation of posting faked images. Ogrish sells themselves as dishing up reality. The moment it is proved that what they are dishing up is faked is the moment they are portrayed as a farce. Since there are so many lurid photos available, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by releasing one whose authenticity they have doubts about.

But perhaps you have some new information you would like to share concerning your speculations about the authenticity of the images they post on their site. Possibly you can compare it to the other pictures illustrating that a very sophisticated approach of photoshop editing is at work here, for the same shades of red, the same individuals and the same site from different angles, all corroborate this very clever and elaborate hoax. If your speculations are valid, then the wiki article should at least mention that the authenticity of the images on the site is disputed by some individuals.

So much for impuning reputation of the site as the source of the image. As for my personal motives, I personally have no agenda nor any specific interest in shock images. Of the several hundred images I have uploaded to Commons (feel free to browse), images that would offend are truly a rarity. The subject matter of my 10,000 edits stretch from art to geographic categorization to classifications of naval ships.

So let's cut behind Therealhazel's refusal to research his idle conjectures and get to the meat of his assertion. In my first note, I reviewed the reasons why such images are generally excluded from encyclopedias. I fully appreciate this is a controversial content question.

The substance of Therealhazel's first point is completely understandable. Were we trying to be Britannica, clearly we would shun such imagery. The safe approach tells the untruth that the objective of such antipersonel weapons is to destroy machines not human beings. Certainly, it is much more comfortable to consider the mechanics of the destruction of a machine than the destruction of a human being. Not just comfortable, but entertaining. People pay money for demolition derby and encyclopedias that pander to the same portrayal of warfare. Sure- the grisly reality is not fun, and the truth of what these weapons do involves more than simple mechanics. So is that what we are after? Is the measure of truth that which we feel will be most comfortable for our readers? Why do we view one as a "scientific" and dispassionate treatment whereas the other is "lurid" and pandering to coarseness? Therealhazel states that the image is only illustrative if we show what IEDs do to machines. On the contrary, IEDs would have no relevance if all they do is destroy machines. Insurgents would have zero interest in them if that were their objective. Is it more humane to refuse to portray the inhumane accurately?

I am of a different opinion. This is the real mechanics of war that militaries don't want the public to see. Very actively the pentagon in particular has been aggressively seeking to stop soldiers from sending images to Ogrish. But just as agressively mullahs are only interested in imagery that displays the inhumanity of their enemies, not the inhumanity of their means of resolving conflicts. But the complicity of silence stretches beyond. This same imagery does a poor job sell advertising time on network news. Am I proposing something so very radical? Should every article on weapons systems show what they do to human bodies? Of course not. But neither should it be possible to read hundreds of articles on weapons systems, but not come across a single image that displays the fundamental purpose of these weapons- that of killing human beings, oftentimes in extremely unpalatable ways.

In oppostion to the redacted version that traditional media portray, we understand that perpetuating the ignorance about the realities of warfare makes it simpler for individuals and groups make monumental miscalculations.

Which version does Wikipedia choose to portray? -Mak Thorpe 07:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we're not trying to "be the britannica," but there's still a big gap between meeting wikipedia standards and posting pictures from sites like ogrish. I grant that the site is not particularly miltaristic, but every other objection still stands. Here's a few of their picture/video titles for you: Image - Torture and murder-Brazil. - [08/ 7/06]

Image - Woman strangled by husband - [08/ 8/06]

And here are a few of their links: Goregasm: http://www.goregasm.com/ Sexy Celebs: http://www.freecelebritylessons.com/

We do NOT want to be associated with a site like this. For that reason, I'm deleting the picture, at least until someone else speaks up on this issue. If you want to have a picture that shows the effect of IEDs, you should _get a better one_ for 3 reasons:

Firstly: it doesn't show the effect of an IED attack, but an IED _accident_. Depending on the type of munition, the results might be quite different. Simply put, _any_ large explosion could have caused that poor man's wounds, so what's the point of having the image if it doesn't show the particular qualities of IEDs? A damaged armored vehicle would better show the effect of the shaped-charged munitions that are making these weapons so effective.

Secondly: The picture is very low quality. There are better ones available.

Thirdly: Right next to the picture is the text says: "Beginning in July 2003, the Iraqi insurgency used IEDs—more often referred to as roadside bombs by the press—to target American and Coalition vehicles." That's VEHICLES. For the most part, the bombs are placed near roads to hit _vehicles_. People can be killed by snipers, but IEDs or rockets are needed to attack IFVs, which is why they are the primary target.

Please do not repost the image, at least until more people have voiced their opinions.

Therealhazel 02:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the picture doesn't belong in the article. I like that Wikipedia is uncensored -- that pubic mound has a picture of a pubic mound, for instance. However, this does not mean that pistol should have a picture of a person shot by a pistol, let alone an accidental shooting, even though the purpose of a pistol is pretty much to kill people. I also like ogrish.com, but if you want to put a picture of "mutilated dead guy" on a wikipedia article, the image would have to be not just relevant, but downright iconic. So a picture of Kennedy's head exploding doesn't belong on John F. Kennedy, but does belong on the Zapruder film page.

I for one wouldn't have a problem with the ogrish images being linked to in External Links (preferably with a "warning! graphic images"), although you'll have almost as much trouble keeping that link in the article as you will including the photo directly. When you try to impose a taste upon the wikipedia that is outside the mainstream, you can get "your way" for a few edits, but in the long run, you'll get out-edited. Best of luck.--Parous 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to summarize the reasoning here:

Therealhazel:

The image violates Wikipedia standards.
The important thing to show in the article on IEDs is how well they defeat the protection of soldiers, not what happens to the human body when such protection is defeated.
The incident illustrated an IED misfire and so is not representative of how they behave when they perform as designed. The damage portrayed is fairly generic to any sort of close proximity explosion.
The low quality of the image is percievable in the thumbnail version that appears in the article and does not meet WP quality standards on images.

Parous:

It is insufficient that an image be relevant. The image must be "downright iconic" if an image is gruesome. The meaning of "downright iconic" is unclear, but what is clear is that there is a higher bar that such images must clear. The question is really not one of relevance but of taste.

-Is this an accurate encapsulation of your positions?

-Therealhazel- I'd be happy to oscillate the article between both versions until such time as it is clear that there is a general concensus that the image and those similar to it are not appropriate to this article. I have not heard back how Riddley felt after I made my case. So we have just you and Parous who feel strongly. If anyone has been lurking, and don't care to expound but don't mind weighing in with simple yeahs and nays, I think that would be helpful. Probably not helpful to my position, since I know this is not business as usual.

I've pretty much stated my position- without such information on at least one or two of the hundreds of weapons pages we really get a antiseptic video game view of reality. Ironically, by suppressing the gruesome reality of WWI, the media of the time perpetuated collective fantasies about war. The question is whether WP is complicit in that illusion or not. -Mak Thorpe 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's more or less my position. I'd say it's a combination of taste and relevance. I think the pictures are rather graphic, and only indirectly relevant. That's a double-whammy: they're not likely to remain in the article. I would support a version of the article which had the Ogrish images in External Links, which is an easier to defend position for them (to use the military metaphor).

On the subject of relevance, I've added a link to a video of an IED attack.--Parous 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. But a pile of random munitions not even plannned for IEDs, not even from Iraq is relevant to the article. Let's dispense with hiding behind this relevance assertion and get to the core of it. Can you imagine cases where a gruesome photo would be acceptable in a weapons article? If so, could you give some examples? When the reality is gruesome, is that a place where wikipedia just can't go? -Mak Thorpe 07:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should further clarify my stance. By iconic I mean (grisly) images that were widely circulated, and probably only then in the "mainstream media" -- and finally, only when centrally relevant to the article. There might be a judgement call as to what is and isn't widely circulated/mainstream media/relevant. A few examples of the judgement calls I'd make:

Kennedy's head exploding: no in John F. Kennedy, yes in Zapruder film.
Any of the images at Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse: yes there, one or two at torture as well.
The contractors hanging: possibly at Operation_Vigilant_Resolve, definitely at an article directly about their killings (which is absent from the encyclopedia at this time).
People jumping from the World Trade Center: no at WTC, yes at September_11,_2001_attacks.
Phan_Thị_Kim_Phúc, Nguyen_Van_Lem, and My_Lai_Massacre at Vietnam War: yes, because each were emblematic of the war, and widely circulated.
Any grisly image that hasn't been widely circulated in connection with a given subject: no.

What it comes down to is that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox -- for either side of contentious issues. By adhering to the principle that only pristinely-documented statements (or pictures) should appear in the wikipedia, along with trying to maintain a clear focus from article to article, I think the wikipedia serves all parties best.

As for the relevance of the munitions photo, maybe the Iraqi weapons cache on this page would be more suitable. May I ask you to upload it? I'm not experienced with image uploads to Wikipedia as yet.--Parous 08:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Better still: a "slam dunk".--Parous 09:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, that's pretty much my argument in 5 lines. Pity I can't be that concise when I'm writing them! :D Therealhazel 11:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox? What political/social point is being advocated here? Look. The reality of war is grisly. Period. WP may for "taste" reasons choose to shield their viewers from that reality.

The reality of what these weapon systems do is gruesome. I challenged you to state an instance where a gruesome picture might be included. You responded, only when it was iconic, but listed not a single gruesome picture. The closest was the My Lai picture- an image the military also did not want the public to see. The US Military provides huge numbers of images for free, and WP is flooded with them. I happily have uploaded many because they are in fact informative. But there should be balance. I think that WP should show all sides, and it is doing a pretty bad job of it on this score.

I have uploaded the Baghdad photo- it is PD so no problem using it widely on the WPs. In a bit of a rush now for a flight so maybe you can fix it. Be back in a week. Hopefully there will be more substantive responses on this issue by then. -Mak Thorpe 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the image. Does it need fixing? Looks okay to me.

I apologize for the use of the word "soapbox", it was a bit too strong. I sympathize with your desire to make the realities of war more vivid, but I don't agree that images of brutality in the body of articles is the right way to go about it. The fact that I couldn't cite many in-place examples of grisliness on Wikipedia suggests you are facing an uphill battle. Overall, Wikipedians seem (somewhat) more tolerant of nudity than of violence.--Parous 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the reality of the specific subject. The image is relevant to the article, and I propose as before that we oscilate the article with and without the image until such time there is a sufficient concensus that the image is or is not appropriate.

I appreciate the concern about the practicalities, however are they not generic to the general problem of majoritarianism on WPs? Say a wikipedia form of communication were available in the 17th century. Would your advice be the same? Hey- sure anyone can independently verify the observations Gallileo reported, but coverage of empirical science will be an uphill battle on the WPs?

How is it any different? All I see is a substitution of blind allegience to the authority of the church with blind acquiescence to the unreasoned concensus of the mob. -Mak Thorpe 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Claims?

"The British also accuse Iran and Hezbollah of teaching Iraqi fighters [...] Thus far the British have failed to present any evidence to substantiate their charges." - can we have a source to show by whom, and in what context, this claim has been made? --BarryNorton 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

they probably haven't produced any evidence to their claims as it's most likely classified, and you don't have a security clearance/need to know. it is a fact that the iranians have given efp technology to the insurgents.

"It is a fact"? and what exactly are your marvelous 'classified' sources for making that claim? Actually if you're talking about the comments made by Reid, In the same statement he said that there was no evidence that Iran was behind any IED attacks in Iraq and as for the claim the article gives that "Britain charged that Iran was supplying insurgents with the technological know-how to make shaped charges" he merely suggested that some of the devices had similarities to devices made by Hezbollah-trained soldiers and there 'may well be a connection' to criminal elements withing Iran and even that acknowledgement was only given when prompted...

While we're at it Is there any reasonable citation to back up "The British also accused Iran and Hezbollah of teaching Iraqi fighters to use infrared light beams to trigger IEDs. As the occupation forces become more sophisticated in interrupting radio signals around their convoys, the Iraqis adapt their triggering methods. Thus far the British have failed to present any evidence to substantiate their charges." If so then good, but If not I'm removing it. I'm totally opposed to the silly propaganda and accusations being thrown around about the "evil" Iran, but using unfounded statements and exaggerations of your own is not the way to oppose the manipulation of information and wikipedia is certainly not the place for it. 81.151.124.131 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Elmo

[edit] Landmines

How are IEDs different from land mines? I read a discussion of the failure in Vietnam and the use of "improvised landmines" was given as the reason for the great loss of life. Apparently the US landmines and other found explosives were found by the Vietnamese and rerigged to be far more lethal targetting US troops. Reading that description I immediately realized that the situation in Iraq is identical to Vietnam. And it seemed to me that the Army purposely invented a new name to avoid the spector of facing that old Vietnam menace for which no technology has been found to counter. Mulp 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

i would say it's not so much the avoidance of being compared to vietnam as much as it's the military's in general love of making new acronyms. road side bombs are now ied's, carbombs are now vbieds (vehicle borne ied), suicide bombers became pbieds (personnel-borne ied). everything gets an acronym. besides, there's a small difference between the old trip-wire rigged grenades of vietnam and the daisy-chained 155 rounds buried under the roads with an pir sensor attached to them.

[edit] Excessive Definitions

Due to the different meanings of the abbreviation IED, there are already four seperate links to other articles at the top of the page. They make the page look cluttered, and I recommend that a seperate IED disambiguation page be created. 204.245.115.59 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I am still too new to know all the ins and outs of creating such a page though.Sir hugo 20:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. I also did some copyediting. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The US Experience?

If the wiki is supposed to be non-POV then why is there a section here on the US experience but no section on the experience of any other country. Having a section on the US experience gives the whole article a US-centric POV. Given the British battled IEDs for 30+ years in Northern Ireland, arent they more deserving of a dedicated section than the US? Particularly as it was the British who invented the bomb-disposal robots "wheel barrows", one of which is pictured here? Arent the British also facing IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan? So why the "US experience"?!

I've changed the too-broad header "U.S. experience" to "U.S. countermeasures". As for the absence of a section on British countermeasures, feel free to rectify that oversight.--Parous 16:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Parous, and while I promise Im not just trying to be a difficult old so-and-so here, wouldnt a section on US countermeasures be better placed in the EOD article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_disposal)? If you think the current situation in Iraq warrants special attention then include it in a section on Iraq. Surely? Promise I'll get to work on the British countermeasures in the EOD article when I have the time.

Well, some transfusion between the articles might be warranted. The text in the countermeasures section right now is quite specific to IEDs and seems appropriate for this article. I wouldn't move it to the History->Iraq subsection because it isn't really historical in nature.

A couple of editing tips: intra-encyclopedia links are formed like so: [[Bomb_disposal]], and it is customary to sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes, like so: --~~~~.

Welcome to Wikipedia! I look forward to your additions. Citing sources for the information you add is the best way to ensure it remains in the article; this can be as simple as a web link in brackets: for instance, [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied-iraq.htm] produces [1].--Parous 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of "terrorists" in the beginning irks me. (One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and all that.) I'm removing the word altogether. 68.33.185.185 02:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)