Talk:2007 Shinwar shooting

message: (This is what I put in the change summary.  It should be displaying in the history page, but it got cut off there)
Moved Nangarhar Killings to Shinwar Massacre: Shinwar is the district; Nangarhar the province. Both names are used in the press, so better to err on the side of specificity here. As the investigation proceeds, the term massacre is looking more and more appropriate, as there is apparently no evidence that any of the casualties were "fighters." See article for details. Pladuk 18:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your changes; you've improved the page considerably. Benzocane 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the renaming to Shinwar Massacre

message: A quality control volunteer nominated both images on this page for deletion.
I think the nominator's explanation was very weak, because they seemed to be unwilling or unable to offer a civil meaningful reply to the uploader's good faith attempts to explain why the images qualify for fair use.
But, my understanding is that the wikipedia's rules for fair use don't allow an article to have more than one fair use image.  
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fair use images 

message: The  MSOC Marines were rammed by a suicide bomber in the village of  Bati Kot, Afghanistan in Nangahar Province in eastern Afghanistan.  Not in Shinwar which is the name of the tribe.
Feb 7, 2009 
Nahim Jan Shinwari, the district governor for Goshta district of eastern Nangarhar province and one of his bodyguards were killed when their vehicle was blown up by a roadside bomb in Bati Kot on Saturday. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1458140.php/Three_Afghan_officials_among_16_killed_in_latest_attacks
Massacre is incorrect and biased:
I ask that the article be renamed Nangahar  Shooting 
The Marines were exonerated at a court of Inquiry held in January 2008 at Camp Le Jeune. N.C.  [22] 
 
[22.] “Did Marines go wild, or simply follow the rules?”
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-warfog5feb05,0,2046631,print.story
By David Zucchino   Los Angeles Times February 5, 2008
The Court reviewed more than 12,000 pages of documents and heard testimony from more than 45 witnesses, including Afghan witnesses who testified via video teleconference. The Court was not a criminal proceeding, but was investigatory in nature.  [25]
[25.] http://courtofinquiry.encblogs.com/?p=8 Court of Inquiry Reporters blog  Jennifer Hlad May 23, 2008
May 23,  2007 Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland determined that the 30-man convoy “acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in response to a complex attack.  [23] 
The number of civilians killed during the incident has been in dispute, with Afghans citing up to 29 civilian deaths and convoy members claiming they were shooting at armed insurgents.  [23]
[23.]  “Marine Corps unit cleared in Afghan shootout”
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/24/nation/na-convoy24  By David Zucchino   Los Angeles Times May 24, 2008
Emckenny7 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: US soldiers cleared of any wrongdoing on the battlefield by US court. News at 11! 131.107.0.81 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title:  Shinwar Massacre 

message: This article is factually incorrect, defamatory, and libelous to the brave Marines of MarSOC-Fox company who were exonerated at a Court of Inquiry which found the Marines “acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in place at the time in response to a complex attack.”
The Court of Inquiry concluded that there was no evidence to suggest the level of force was unjustified and recommended everyone in the March 4, 2007 convoy be awarded the Combat Action Ribbon and that a sergeant injured during the blast receive the Purple Heart. 
 
“Marine Corps unit cleared in Afghan shootout” http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/24/nation/na-convoy24
“Marines who killed civilians were attacked” http://www.examiner.com/a-744305~Marines_who_killed_civilians_were_attacked.html
“Secret Report Criticized Army General” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28460
“Lawmaker: Investigate general who booted MSOC” http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/10/marine_jones_msoc_071003/
“Marines were shot at, Army expert testifies” http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/26/nation/na-inquiry26
Witness: Casings Tossed in Afghan Deaths” http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan28/0,4670,AfghanMarineShooting,00.html
I have tried twice to correct this, but it reverts back to the original libelous copy, which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view.   
I see in history several others have attempted to correct the article:
(cur) (prev)  18:22, 18 May 2009 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) m (9,032 bytes) (moved Shinwar Massacre to March 4, 2007 Shooting in Shinwar, Afghanistan: NPOV -- not ruled to be a massacre) (undo) 
cur) (prev)  02:56, 6 July 2008 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) (6,014 bytes) (rv -- I did read it -- a "war crime" has to be intentional; I don't see a prosecution under the War Crimes Act) (undo)
(cur) (prev)  10:18, 12 May 2009 64.39.139.181 (talk) (9,043 bytes) (This so-called "massacre" was undisputably an accident. Does the author want to suggest that Marines are murderers? I changed the opening sentence; the entire article is hardly useful. Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial impression, looking at this for the first time, is that you're correct that important information has been left out, leaving the article with serious NPOV issues.  However, the edits you made turned the article into complete gibberish and left it with even more serious NPOV issues.  In short, the article absolutely needs to be fixed, but the edits you made didn't fix it, they made it impossible to understand. Looie496 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a paragraph about the court of inquiry based on the LA Times story, which seems like the best source, and done a general clean-up of the rest of the article.  If you still see problems, could you describe them?  It would also be useful, if there were later developments that were covered by reliable sources, to add an account of them. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I can only see two outcomes of this decision by US court. One, that US rules of engagement permit wholesale slaughter of civilians. The other is that US covers up war crimes committed by its soldiers. Which one do you prefer? 131.107.0.81 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An official whitewash that claimed that it was acceptable to kill random civilians doesn't mean that it is acceptable to kill civilians.  If Nazis committed war crimes by rounding up and shooting hostages as a deterrent, how much worse was it for marines to shoot random civilians for no purpose?  This was a war crime. Has there been any further progress with prosecution of those involved?101.98.175.68 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad analogy.  A better analogy would be if resistance fighters not wearing uniforms attacked German soldiers while surrounded by innocent civilians, and the Germans shot too many of those innocents while responding.  It's called the fog of war, and such a response is legal under the laws of war.  You're making the mistake of thinking the critics really cared about innocents being killed (they don't).  Note that insurgents still, even today, don't separate themselves from innocent civilians. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, right, the annihilation of the Warsaw Ghetto was legal because there were insurgents there. That's certainly a new take on things. You would have fit in well, with your readiness to excuse indescriminate butchery. But hey, we can't expect someone who takes it upon himself to smear amnesty international on his profile to have anything remotely resembling a moral compass. --95.90.157.85 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect information

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-04-voa5.cfm
** In 2007 Shinwar shooting on 2011-05-26 03:00:44, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Shinwar shooting on 2011-05-27 15:17:57, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Shinwar shooting on 2011-06-15 17:31:26, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/16/top12.htm
** In 2007 Shinwar shooting on 2011-05-26 03:00:51, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 2007 Shinwar shooting on 2011-05-27 15:18:08, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 2007 Shinwar shooting on 2011-06-15 17:31:49, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Let us look at the Marine Times source, it goes into great depth into the Court of Inquiry findings, and from what I can see, other than the excerpt scans (See chapter 3 "A sudden, unceremonious end") of the actual document in the Military Times source. This source can be integrated. It goes into depth about the actions of Cpt. Noble and Cpt. Olson which are not flattering. It also has an administrative note of Combat Action Ribbon and a single Purple Heart awarding. Perhaps the  WaPo source() can be used to verify that Marines believed that they were being fired upon after the detonation of the VBIED. The New York Daily News (NYDN) source, as well as the deGrandpre source can be used to give background as to the deployment and missions of the unit involved in the event which is the subject of the article; the NYDN source also shows the branch rivalry that existed that lead to the disconnect between MarSOC Marines and the Army.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New content

message: Should a new section be created providing the readers a background as to the event? It would summarize existing articles, and go into specific background about the unit involved in this event.
The Taliban taking over Afghanistan in 1996, per Taliban's rise to power, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan per War in Afghanistan (2001–present), the creation of MARSOC, a company of that new commands deployment and its issues it had (inter-service rivalry, lack of specific mission, etc.)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend resolving the existing issue of the section tagged as POV before attempting a major expansion like this. But in the long term, I don't see why not. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2007 Shinwar shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070415174226/http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/15/africa/afghan.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/15/africa/afghan.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2007 Shinwar shooting. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301721.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.currentargus.com/ci_5356692
*Added  tag to http://www.alaskareport/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116123210/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FBF1B06D-723D-4A91-BF4D-5B65984D9AB4.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FBF1B06D-723D-4A91-BF4D-5B65984D9AB4.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) 23:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2007 Shinwar shooting. 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://www.webcitation.org/5jkP2Uuyc?url=http://www.currentargus.com/ci_5356692 to http://www.currentargus.com/ci_5356692
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917133717/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152775203&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152775203&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528054051/http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3959 to http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3959
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) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified