Talk:2007 Shinwar shooting

On the renaming to Shinwar Massacre

(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)

I agree with your changes; you've improved the page considerably. Benzocane 23:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

fair use images

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)

Title: Shinwar Massacre

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)

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)

Incorrect information

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.

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)) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 02:20, 9 November 2008 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) (6,101 bytes) (rv no legitimate legal body has yet ruled that this was either a deliberate killing of civilians or a technically war crime) (undo)

I therefore ask that this article be deleted. (Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Note: The attack took place in Bati Kot, Nangahar, Afghanistan. Shinwar refers to an area 20 miles from where this attack on the MarSOC Marines t took place.

--Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dead link

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)

Dead link 2

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)

Military Times

@BrownHairedGirl: Military Times is part of Gannett Government Media, please see its "About us page". I have corrected that error, which I am sure was not meant to add false information, but was a good faith mistake. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it necessary to specifically describe Military Times as an "American Journal", if a reader wants to read about the source, they just need to follow the wikilink.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Readers may not be familiar with the publication, so two words provide an initial explanation of the source. Readers can of course follow the link to learn more, but it is highly relevant to establish that this is an American publication commenting on an American inquiry into an incident involving American service personnel in another country, whose own officials have taken a different view. See also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RCLC, why beat around the bush? Where things are as controversial as this we should say what this source is and where it comes from. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We have said, by provided the wikilink, and stating where the series is published in, thus meeting ATTRIBUTEPOV. Many sources have their location in the citation, and not directly stated in the article. I don't see why the Military Times should be singled out as different, and I don't see why Channel 4 News needs to be explicitly stated as being in the United Kingdom.

If this is the case and all sources should be attributed POV, than Dawn.com needs to be specifically stated as being Pakistani, Al Jazeera should be stated as being from Qatar, and so on and so forth. IMHO, all that is unnecessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Label all the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

POV-section

I have tagged the Investigation and inquiry section as {{POV-section}}. It gives undue weight to the Military Times article, devoting 108 words to a pro-Marines critique of the US Court of Inquiry, complete with self-exculpatory quotes from one of the participants. That is balanced by only 13 words of criticism of the report from those who view it as too lenient on the Marines: a single sentence "This report was dismissed by those who view the event as a war crime" -- no names, no quotes.
The effect of this is to unbalance the article, and give the final word to direct quotes from one side which are nowhere matched by quotes from he other parties involved in the incident. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Even that sentence was found to be unsourced when I checked. One book did not even mention the court of inquiry verdict (let alone the report being dismissed by anybody), see link here; the other said only that it "infuriat[ed] Afghanistan's human rights commission", again with no mention of anybody "dismissing" the verdict (see link here). Have you come across any other sources we might use for balance? —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been looking for more sources myself, just trying to note the misuse of the existing sources. More sources are needed, but I don't have the time to search for them myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the new sources. They help a lot. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you think the POV banner is still merited, or can it come down now the section has been rebalanced somewhat? —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure. I'd like to come back to it in a few hours with fresher eyes, and see how it looks then.

What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I like your idea of cooling off for a few hours, then deciding. Let's do that. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I just took another look through it, and found some horrors.

1. First, I removed[1] the assertion in the lede that the unit was "cleared of any wrong-doing". The cited source ("walsh-2010-07-26") doesn't say that.
2. Having removed that misrepresentation of the report, I then added[2] a summary para to the lede about the condemnation on the Marines Inquiry by the AIHRC and the UN
3. I then added[3] a few lines to the "‎Investigation and inquiry" section, noting that the Inquiry a) didn't publish its report, b) classified all testminony, c) didn't receive any testimony from the 4 men who had fired their guns. Most importantly, I note Walsh's report that some men received an "administrative reprimand".

That last point -- the "administrative reprimand" -- concerns me the most, because it completely contradicts the unsourced assertion the unit was "cleared of any wrong-doing". The article needs a lot more checking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Good thing we went for the cooling-off period and found these problems—well done. "Administrative Reprimand" is a military term (in America), referring to a "letter of reprimand" from one's superior, which may be formal or informal. It is fairly light and "not considered 'punishment' in the strict sense of the word", but it can make it harder for one to advance in one's military career. See here for more info. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, Cliftonian. "Administrative Reprimand" appears to be a mark of "substandard personal conduct", and while it isn't labelled as a punishment in the military formalities, being found to have engaged in "substandard personal conduct" is not in any plain English sense a mark of being "cleared of any wrong-doing" :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I must admit that wording was added by me during my attempt to clean up the article. I'm sorry for the error. Reference should instead be made to the Marines being "cleared" with no charges brought against them. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

But, Cliftonian ... AFAICS, the sources do not say that they were cleared, merely that they were not charged ... and that some of them got an "Administrative Reprimand".

The current wording is "No criminal charges were brought, although some officers did receive an "administrative reprimand". Do you see any room for improvement? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, inasmuch as they were accused of war crimes, they were cleared. The tribunal said they'd acted "appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement". The Guardian source refers to some officers receiving administrative reprimands, but these are not necessarily the same people who were in the convoy (indeed I am fairly sure they are not as the men in the convoy would have been almost all enlisted personnel and not officers). The author of the Military Times articles seems to think the accused Marines were cleared (I recommend you read the entire series of articles as they cover the whole affair in much more detail. There's also footage of the battleground in part 4).

• Subtitle in part 1: "From honor to shame; 8 years ago, they were accused of killing innocent Afghans. Cleared of wrongdoing, the fight to clear their names goes on."
• Quote from part 3: "[O]ver the next year their lives would become a living hell as military investigators zeroed in on seven of these men, and prosecutors built a case to put them in prison for the alleged deaths of nearly two dozen innocent Afghans. Eventually they were cleared of wrongdoing during the ambush. No one went to prison. The Marine Corps convened a rare court of inquiry to fully examine why Fox Company's deployment was brought to such a quick and inglorious end. That court would determine that while the unit's leaders exhibited poor judgment in the days after the attack, the Marines responded correctly to the ambush and ultimately became victims of their higher headquarters' indifference, incompetence and impatience."
• Also from part 3: "[T]he officers presiding over the court of inquiry would conclude that the Marines' actions March 4 were 'appropriate and in accordance with the law and established procedures.' Fox Company's command climate, they said 'properly enforced the discriminate and proportional use of force.'"
• Quote from part 4: "All seven Marines ultimately were cleared of wrongdoing related to the March 4 attack—but at great cost to their reputations, physical health and emotional bearing, and that of their families."
• Quote from part 4, relevant for numbers: "The casualty count was a moving target. The UN concluded 13 Afghans were killed on March 4 and another 36 were wounded, according to court documents. The Afghan National Police tallied seven dead and 23 injured."
• Quote from part 5: "More than a year later, after a three-week military tribunal called a court of inquiry, [the commanding officer Major] Galvin and six of his Marines were cleared of all wrongdoing related to allegations they indiscriminately killed innocent Afghans when a suicide car bomber targeted their convoy."

I hope this is helpful. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with the POV-section tag given the undue weight inserted by BrownHairedGirl inserting heavy amounts of allegations against the Marines, and reducing the size of content which can be seen as pro-Marines. Perhaps a sub-section, "Reaction to Court of Inquiry" can be included. Awful to see individuals who have been cleared of charges be dragged through the mud. The court of public opinion I guess. But apparently there is a consensus of one that that is appropriate.
That being said I thank Cliftonian mediating this conversation, and attempting to achieve WP:NEU here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. The Military Times article is clearly a thoroughly partisan piece of cheerleading for the marines, and is a good source for evidence of how such support is cast. But there is no way that a piece so blatantly partisan as the MT article is reliable as a record of the facts of the inquiry's decison.

For the core facts, lets stick to the newswires rather than to a publication which describes itself as "serving all branches of the U.S. military, the global defense community, the U.S. federal government, and several special interest, defense-oriented industry sectors".

It also boasts that "Service Members and their families rely on the print edition of Military Times and MilitaryTimes.com as trusted, independent sources for news and information on the most important issues affecting their careers and personal lives"

A publication which explicitly boasts of "serving all branches of the U.S. military" is not an NPOV source on that military. A publication which boasts that "Service Members and their families rely" on it is not an NPOV source on those service members. Just no way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why the article's support for the Marines in question and the fact that Military Times caters primarily to US service personnel means that we should completely disregard its account of the tribunal's decision. In fact I would say that this, if anything, means it is more likely to properly report the decision of an internal Marine Corps court of inquiry like this one—their readership would certainly notice and complain if their journalist claimed the Marines had been "cleared of all wrongdoing" when they actually hadn't. Furthermore, given the noise the accused Marines make in the Military Times articles about still feeling ostracised despite having been cleared, it would be very odd if they hadn't actually been cleared at all.

In any case the Military Times articles are not the only ones saying the men were "cleared". The Los Angeles Times article we have as a source already actually uses the word in its headline—"Unit cleared in Afghan killings". —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Last point first: headlines are rarely written by journalists. They are usually written by sub-editors as a catchy summary, and should not be mistaken for the content of the article. If the LA Times journalist (David Zucchino) had intended to report that the officers were "cleared", he would have written that, but he didn't. Instead he reports the finding that the men "acted appropriately", which the article quotes in full.

As to the Military Times, it is hardly surprising that a publication which sets out to "serving all branches of the U.S. military" including "Service Members and their families" will try to present its own in the most positive light. There is a long history of US publications downplaying the role of US military personnel in controversial actions overseas (see e.g. My Lai Massacre#News_press and many more recent incidents), and it is an extraordinary leap of faith to suggest that the military trade press is a neutral source for interpretation of the inquiry's findings.

I am not suggesting that we disregard the MT articles; merely that we report them for what they are — a partisan defence of men who chose not testify at an inquiry into their own conduct but are now happy to speak at great length to their own trade press. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement that the tribunal ruled that the accused Marines "acted appropriately" in the situation. How can this not equate to being cleared of acting inappropriately? "Appropriate" and "inappropriate" are opposites, are they not? —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If BrownHairedGirl would read the source, there are excerpts of the unclassified report from the Board of Inquiry. I am trying to find if that unclassified report, can be found online, as I think it be an appropriate addition to a further reading section, just as a copy of the Afghanistan tribunal findings would be as well. But until both are side by side, including one and not the other, IMHO gives undue weight.

The distrust by BrownHairedGirl is troubling. Just cause a news paper serves a segment of the population, doesn't mean that it cannot be objective. It, and its affiliated publications (Army Times, Navy Times, etc.) have written articles about sexual assault in the military, and other non-flattering topics (example 1, example 2). Therefore, just serving a population doesn't make it non-objective. That is a fallacious argument. It would be like saying Los Angeles Times, which covers Southern California, cannot be object on stories that are local to its publication area.

I agree with the views expressed above in the 01:38 comment by Cliftonian.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you two find so hard to comprehend about the declared bias of a publication which explicitly dedicates itself to "serving" the US military? There is a huge difference between "covering" a topic area and "serving all branches of the U.S. military". Treating such a source as partisan is not "distrust"; it is simple acknowledgement of a declared bias.

In this particular case, the headlines makes the bias explicit: "the tragic betrayal of an elite" and "betrayed Marines fight to recapture their stolen honor" are clear declaration of support for one side.

The "non-flattering" topics listed by RCLC miss the point. None of those stories relates to allegations of war crimes, and the United States military takes an almost unique stance on war crimes by refusing the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

The text of is article also confirms the overt partisanship of the article. This article doesn't even mention the existence of critiques from Amnesty International, the AIHRC and the United Nations office in Afghanistan until part 4 of the 5-part series, where they get merely a brief mention in one paragraph. In contrast to the extraordinary detail in which the lives and views of the Marines are presented, there is absolutely no attempt at all to even summarise critiques from institutions outside the US military. That again, is blatant partisanship: it's the structure of a thoroughly one-sided article.

I agree that the unclassified portion of the report from the Board of Inquiry would be a very helpful find. But unless and until we find it, this explicitly partisan puff-piece is a not a reliable source for the inquiry's findings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I think we are now arguing over two different things. Let's take a deep breath and put the issue of Military Times to one side for now as I think it's confusing the issue. As I posted to you before: "We seem to be in agreement that the tribunal ruled that the accused Marines 'acted appropriately' in the situation." I thought we were in accord on this. The Marines had been accused of using excessive force, to the extent of committing war crimes; the tribunal found they had acted "appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement", and didn't bring any charges against them. The Guardian source says the Marine Corps tribunal "exonerated the marines". Is this not being "cleared"?

We have no evidence that these administrative reprimands were given to the same men who were accused of war crimes. Indeed, the Guardian source makes reference to "some officers" receiving these reprimands—not these accused Marines specifically (who in any case were one officer and six enlisted personnel, not "officers"). Even if these reprimands were given to some or all of the accused Marines, it is not clear from the Guardian article that this is related to the court of inquiry's report. These could have been action taken by their own superior officers separately.

Perhaps we could say that "according to Declan Walsh in the Guardian, the Marine Corps tribunal 'exonerated the marines'", naming the source directly inline and putting quotation marks around "exonerated the marines" as a direct quote? BrownHairedGirl, RightCowLeftCoast, is this satisfactory to you both as an NPOV solution? —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The article already reports the "acted appropriately" stuff, on which we are indeed agreeed. As to the reprimands, the sources are unclear who they were applied to, and while that uncertainty exists we cannot simply assume that they apply to someone else. In the absence of evidence, we should not make an assumption either way ... just use the language of the reliable sources.

That should of course include the Guardian report that the inquiry "exonerated the marines". Editors may choose to read that as meaning the same thing as "cleared", but there are important subtle differences between these terms and following the synonyms through a thesarus can make for some strange journeys. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you for this BrownHairedGirl. I am comfortable with this solution where the reference to the tribunal verdict is to the Guardian article with the wording that the Marines were "exonerated". Is this okay with you RightCowLeftCoast? —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)(talk) 22:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian, does state what Cliftonian says, we shouldn't have to come to an agreement on what it says, as it is already there, and thus should accept it at face value. We can, nay we should, quote The Guardian specifically, even if we have to attribute the quote in-line.

However, the fact that BrownHairedGirl does not view Military Times and by extension any of the Gannett Government Media publications as not being reliable sources goes into a deeper issue that I have experienced on Wikipedia. That is sources that do not agree with the POV of the editor are often blacklisted as being non-reliable. This goes into how in the past there were editors who have called for Fox News not to be taken as a reliable source (now something that is less often held publicly) as well as Breitbart, among others (which is more common now). It would be like saying that HuffingtonPost or Salon should not be considered reliable sources (which I do not support). But this is another topic, only tangentially related to this conversation.

I see there is a "by whom" tag in the article questioning who conducted the investigation. Read the non-reliable source, as BrownHairedGirl calls it:

As the months and years ticked by following their formal exoneration, the MARSOC 7, as they became known, found an unlikely advocate in Steve Morgan, one of those three officers who oversaw the court proceedings. A lieutenant colonel at the time, Morgan retired from the military in July 2008. He remains troubled by the flawed investigation, which was carried out by an Air Force colonel and endorsed by an Army general; by the shoddy staff work overseen by two Army officers in theater, which he believes precipitated Fox Company's ouster; by the overzealous attempt to put Galvin and his men in prison; and finally by what he considers the unconscionable disloyalty to those sent into harm's way.
Morgan said he began his service on the court of inquiry ready to nail fellow Marines if they had committed war crimes. But he quickly was convinced that Fox Company had done nothing wrong and was being unfairly targeted. Like Galvin, he continues to pursue justice for Fox Company though his days in the Marine Corps are over.
In mid-2009, he wrote to the Defense Department Inspector General. Months prior, the IG's office completed an investigation clearing Army Maj. Gen. Frank Kearney, who bounced Fox Company from Afghanistan, of misconduct claims made by another of the Marines' allies, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina. The court of inquiry concluded that Kearney potentially influenced the Air Force colonel who recommended the Marines be charged with negligent homicide.

Emphasis added is mine. I guess it doesn't matter that the source was later republished by USA Today.

But there are other sources that verify this, one of these is a source which was removed, Washington Free Beacon:

Following the events of March 4, the Army officer with overall responsibility for special operations in Afghanistan, Major General Frank Kearney, quickly ordered an investigation, and deputized an Air Force colonel, Patrick Pihanna to conduct it.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, @BrownHairedGirl: per approval from both of you above for the wording "exonerated the marines", as used in the Guardian source, I am implementing this solution regarding the tribunal decision. I am adding it with quotation marks within the body, but without in the lead as I worry these could be interpreted as "scare quotes". I hope this is okay with both of you.

RightCowLeftCoast: regarding the investigation "carried out by the Air Force colonel and endorsed by an Army general", why not add to the article who carried it out? I do not think BrownHairedGirl has issues with using this source to report who carried the investigation out; I think her reservations are about using it to report decisions, verdicts and so on. So I think she would be all right with using it to clarify who carried out this investigation, but not to support any assertion regarding the investigation's competence. Is this a correct evaluation, BrownHairedGirl? —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:, @RightCowLeftCoast: we have all had a couple of days to step back from this. Looking again now, are you both okay with the section-POV tag coming down, or is there more work to be done beforehand? —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the heavy weight of content in that section is weighted to provide a negative view of the "cleared" Marines. While it is the POV of many anti-war, anti-United States, individuals I believe that it can be trimmed down, and not go into excessive quoting as is currently seen in the section. All quotes from Gavin, and others that can be seen as generally pro-Marine were removed. Same can not be said of the opposite POV.

Therefore, I still back the POV tag, yet for an opposite reason than the editor who added it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay; BrownHairedGirl? —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast, I believe that the POV problems have been resolved as Cliftonian suggests, and that the removal of the tag would be justified. However, have no prob with the tag remaining in place, because your hysterically partisan comment about Amnesty International and the United Nations mission in Afghanistan being "anti-war, anti-United States, individuals" (rather than spokespeople for international organisations) is clearcut evidence of the Amerocentric bias you bring to your editing. So long as you remain a contributor to the page, the POV tag provides a healthy warning to readers that they should watch out for whether you have succeeded in your efforts to recast this article into the cheerleading tone of the Military Times puff-piece which prompted your involvement in the article, or the extremist and obscure American Conservative website which you tried using as a source.

The extraordinary extent of your partisan bias is evidenced in the fact that even though the article contains no comment from either the Afghan civilians or the Afghan fighters involved in the incident, you declare it to be biased because it does not include extensive quotes from American military personnel arguing that a wholly-American inquiry into the incident did not go far enough in clearing them.

I invite other readers and editors to consider the case of an incident where the incident had taken place in America, with American civilians and military personnel being shot after an attack on an Afghan force in the USA, while journalists threatened with death unless they deleted photos from their cameras. The inquiry into this event was held in Afghanistan, conducted under Afghan military law by Afghan military personnel, and having exonerated the Afghan soldiers who killed Americans those soldiers were treated to a 4-page puff-piece in the "Taliban Times" where they were given free rein to vent that they were insufficiently exonerated. Can you see how an editor determined to press the view of that "Taliban Times" article would look like a POV-warrior? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA

LOL, same can be said about the false claims being made by BrownHairedGirl and her anti-American partisanship being shown by the comment above leading to the reasoning why the tag should remain.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep it up, RightCowLeftCoast. You make my case brilliantly.

I simply suggest reversing a thought experiment of reversing the nationality of the parties, and you respond with a clichéed cry of "anti-Americanism". I am neither anti-American nor pro-American; however I am strongly against POV warriors who try to promote puff pieces in the in-house journals of a national military in which they have served. When you start denouncing the Amnesty International and the United Nations mission in Afghanistan being "anti-war, anti-United States, individuals", you have abandoned NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I will keep it up. This article is non-balanced and it's unfortunate that someone carrying the mop wants it to remain this way, and continues to hurl accusations and continues personal attacks. Should I applaud BrownHairedGirl for this? I guess the mop means that the editor doesn't have to comply with two pillars of our community?

I am not objecting to the content that is negative towards the Marines in this article, but the tone of this article is very much negative towards the Marines whose actions have been exonerated and acting within their rules of engagement due to the length that some sources are being focused on. The POV that is negative of the Marines is very well represented in this article, making up the vast majority of the content. The article before I began to work on it already had integrated into it significant content which had a POV which was not supportive of the Marines. My edits were an attempt to balance that, not removing any of the other verified content which had existed, which already did not provide a positive light of the Marines. Yet, an attempt to balance that POV has been opposed by the Administrator. It could even be argued that it is being suppressed.

Cliftonian on the other hand, as opposed to our esteemed Administrator, has been pleasantly civil and have been looking at the Military Times and other sources dispassionately.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, @BrownHairedGirl: I think we are going off topic again. RightCowLeftCoast: if you think the article is non-balanced enough to merit keeping the POV tag there, please suggest specific revisions that you think would help to remedy this. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that RightCowLeftCoast (RCLC) believes that the balance required is a balance between a) the POV of the marines and b) the POV of everyone else.

To promote this view, RCLC is trying to misrepresent the statements from bodies such as the Inter national Bar Association, Amnesty International, and the United Nations mission in Afghanistan as being "anti-war, anti-United States, individuals" rather than the reality of their role as spokespeople for international organisations.

Sure, the article does not at present include the extensive quotations from the US Marines which RCLC wants to include. But nor does it include any quotations fro the Afghan personnel involved in the incident -- nothing from Afghan combatants, nothing from Afghan civilians. It does include an acknowledgement of the views of the US Marines, but even that is not balanced by any similar acknowledgement of the views of Afghan civilians or combatants.

The fact that the US Marines views are handily available to English-speaking editors in a lengthy, online English-language puff should not obscure the systemic bias inherent in reliance on such sources. I ask again, where does the article set out the views of he Afghan civilians or combatants? A whole set of voices is completely missing from this article, yet RCLC wants to slant it even further by adding even greater weight to the voices of the US combatants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, RightCowLeftCoast: with all due respect to you both, the current line of conversation by both parties (alleging bad faith, denigrating sources and/or NGOs, etc) is not helping. BrownHairedGirl: I disagree with your assertion that the article does not set out the views of Afghan civilians or militants at all. So far as I can see the majority of the "Sequence of events" section deals with Afghan views. The "Afghan response" section does so entirely.

Regarding balance: the "Investigation and inquiry" section includes a paragraph about the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission being infuriated, a member of the Afghan House of Elders being angry and the UN mission in Afghanistan calling the verdict "disappointing", and another paragraph basically accusing the Marines of war crimes. There is then one sentence about the Military Times series of articles and one sentence summarising what Galvin (the Marine unit commander) says therein.

I personally am happy to see the article left as it is with the POV tag taken down. However as RCLC has expressed reservations I think the best way to move the conversation forward is to allow him to post some proposed revisions that he would like to see, which we can then judge together on their merits. The same goes, BrownHairedGirl, for any additions you may want to make regarding sourced views from Afghan militants or civilians or anybody else. RightCowLeftCoast: please make some specific proposals regarding what you would like to see added. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonoian: adding Afghan sources is difficult because they are both less likely to be online and less likely to be in English. We therefore have a systemic bias in favour of sources originating from English-speaking countries, which the article inevitably reflects. I personally have no expertise either in Afghan languages or Afghan media, so I am ill-equipped to find more sources from that angle. I don't know whether any other editors have access to such sources or the language skills to use them, but my point is that any assessment of the article should start with an acknowledgement of the systemic bias which that imposes on the article: one set of voices is available only when filtered through Western media. That is equivalnet to writing an article on the USA which relies overwhelmingly on non-American sources.

The "Sequence of events" section is not quite as you present it. None of the views reported are those of either the Afghan combatants or the Afghan civilians who allege that they were victims of the Afghan response. The reports are from local witnesses and the independent AIHRC, as reported by one Afghan journalist and the American news agency AP. If those same sources report American perspectives, why not propose some additions?

As to the "Investigation and inquiry" section, the first 4 paras consist solely of American perspectives on the American inquiry under American law. There is then 1 para of responses from a UN-affiliated Afghan NGO and an Afghan politician, 1 para of responses from international organisations and one para of response from the US Marines involved in the event. Nowhere in that section is there any response from the Afghan combatants or Afghan civilians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Marine perspective of the events in the tagged section is comprised of 362 characters, using the tool found at WP:DYK, including the footnotes and the discussion tag, which not counting comes to 340 characters. Non-Marine perspective views, the rest of that section, come up to 3089 characters! That's nearly 10 times more! Even excluding the reporting on the inquiry and the Commandant's quote, that's 2103 characters, that's 6 times more content than the Marine perspective.
Can the perspective of the groups who sent the VBIED and Afghan populace be included? Have I said they can't?
I am not the one saying to exclude material and sources, I am the one saying that material should be expanded.
I agree with Cliftonian, that the Afghan perspective is very well presented, including support from international NGOs and entire sections exclusive to their response.
I provided additional sources below. Perhaps BrownHairedGirl, our esteemed mop holder, can show us how to utilize those sources and write neutral content. Teach us oh Admin!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I think it would be helpful if you were to make some specific proposals regarding revisions you think might make the article more neutral. Making snarky comments about BrownHairedGirl is not productive. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

New content

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("No Charges for Two Marines in Deaths of Afghans". Washington Post. Associated Press. 24 May 2008. Retrieved 15 May 2015.) 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)

Court of inquiry

That being said, more can be written about the Court of Inquiry, including this Los Angeles Times report, that supports the allegedly non-reliable source Military Times statement regarding the actions of the initial investigation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source that could be useful from Marine Corps Times, one from Washington Post, one from New York Daily News, and one from USA Today. I was previously accused by another editor of "cherry picking". I will see if this occurs from the new sources I have provided. Lets see if anything positive is written about the accused Marines.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A determination to search for "anything positive" about one side to a conflict is not an NPOV approach to editing :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

What do you think about RCLC's proposed edits above under "New content", BrownHairedGirl? —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much there by way of proposed new edits. I see yet another plug for the Military Times puff-piece, but it is not clear what else is proposed.

The AP-sourced WashPo article of 2008-05-24 is interesting. It has a few facts which I think need incorporation in the here:

1. the Marine Corps Court of Inquiry considered only the actions of Maj. Fred C. Galvin and Capt. Vincent J. Noble.
2. The administrative actions were applied to both Galvin and Noble and a third officer, Capt. Robert Olsen
3. That Galvin and Noble "will not face criminal charges, but will be subjected to administrative actions"
4. Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission concluded that the Marines fired indiscriminately at vehicles and pedestrians in six locations on a 10-mile stretch of road. Nearly a dozen Marines told the court that they heard gunfire after the bombing and called the unit's fire a disciplined response to a well-planned ambush.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Only focusing on negative portrayal of the Marines, and continuing to refer to Military Times source(s) as puff-piece,is also not NPOV. So see WP:POTKETTLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: BrownHairedGirl has noted some things from the Washington Post article that she thinks should be incorporated. What do you think of her suggestions? —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would support the additions proposed by BHG if a neutrally worded well sourced sub-section about the Court of Inquiry were made, contingent on BHG's support of the edits I have proposed.

The article already presents living individuals in a negative light, bringing up WP:BLP concerns.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Which edits have you proposed, RightCowLeftCoast? I see some sources but I'm afraid I don't see any specific proposed revisions from you. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe I made several.

1. I stated that the 28 June 2008 article from Marine Times, and Chapter 3 of the 19 March 2015 article from Military Times should be used to expand on the findings of the Board of Inquiry. Specifically, that the actions of captains Noble and Olson could be included.
2. Additionally the Marine Times source could be used to verify the awarding of Combat Action Ribbons and a Purple Heart.
3. I stated that the 24 May 2008 WaPo article could be used to verify that Marines were fired upon after the VBIED detonation.
4. I also stated that the 27 January 2008 NYDN source and the Military Times source could be used to provide background on the deployment of the unit central to this article.

If we include the "administrative actions" regarding Galvin, as suggested by BHG, then the Military Times source gives further information on it and shows that those where challenged and removed, at least for Galvin, and how Galvin ended up finishing his career outside of MarSOC, and retiring honorably after commanding the FAST Marines who responded to the 2012 Benghazi attack.

Regarding the BHG suggestion about additional information of the Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission report. I believe that is already included in the "Afghan response" section. If not it can be added there.

Another source that could be used to expand on what happened with the "administrative actions", is this one, which states:

But claims the Marines were responsible for causing mass civilian casualties proved unfounded, and the two MARSOC officers whom the Marine Corps sought to hold accountable were ultimately cleared of wrongdoing.

Yes, there was a claim of wrong doing. Yes, there are those out there who still believe that is the fact. But to leave it at that, without providing the other perspective IMHO is not neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating, RightCowLeftCoast. This is helpful. However I think I have not been clear. Simply saying "X source could be used to expand Y" is useful but not specific enough for everyone to make a judgement on. Let me rephrase: could you please provide your specific proposed wording of these revisions you intend to make, where specifically in the article you envision these new additions going, and which sources would be used in support? For example:

• "Almost a dozen Marines testified to the tribunal that they had heard gunfire after the carbombing, characterized the militant attack as a "well-planned ambush" and said that the accused Marines had responded to the situation correctly." — source: Washington Post, 24 May 2008, to go in the article after "'because they had not been granted immunity from prosecution'.[4]"

Thanks, —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Presently the article has the following statement:

Testimony to the inquiry was classified and not released,[30] and 12,000-page report was also unpublished.[4]

While it is true that the full 12k pages were not published, we can verify that excerpts of the report were published by the Military Times.

Perhaps we can include after that statement "In March 2015, excerpts of the "key conclusions" were published in the Military Times."

The same source states

More than a year later, after Helland approved the court's recommendation to clear Fox Company of wrongdoing, the men on that patrol were awarded Combat Action Ribbons for their actions that day.

Henderson also received a Purple Heart for the wound he sustained in the bomb blast. He was the only Marine hurt that day.

Perhaps we can include a sentence after "No criminal charges were brought, although "some officers" did receive an "administrative reprimand".[4]" that reads "More than a year after the court of inquiry concluded, Marines involved received Combat Action Ribbons, and an injured turret gunner was awarded the Purple Heart."

Perhaps after the statement "No criminal charges were brought, although "some officers" did receive an "administrative reprimand".[4]", and after my proposed text of "More than a year after the court of inquiry concluded, Marines involved received Combat Action Ribbons, and an injured turret gunner was awarded the Purple Heart." we can include the following text:

The court of inquiry, recommended actions be taken upon two Marine captains, and two enlisted Marines.

This is verified from this 2008 Marine Times article.

This can be followed with the statement" Later the two Marine captains were "cleared of wrongdoing", according to the Marine Times."

This "cleared of wrongdoing" quote is taken from this source.

Therefore the text would read:

Testimony to the inquiry was classified and not released,[30] and 12,000-page report was also unpublished.[4] In March 2015, excerpts of the "key conclusions" were published in the Military Times.[4] No criminal charges were brought, although "some officers" did receive an "administrative reprimand".[4] The court of inquiry, recommended judicial and or administrative actions be taken upon two Marine captains, and two enlisted Marines.[5] Later the two Marine captains were "cleared of wrongdoing", according to the Marine Times.[6] More than a year after the court of inquiry concluded, Marines involved received Combat Action Ribbons, and an injured turret gunner was awarded the Purple Heart.[7]

Regarding the suggestion by Cliftonian, it is neutrally worded, and I would support its inclusion where suggested.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's great, thanks RightCowLeftCoast. This is very helpful. What do you think, BrownHairedGirl? —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, RightCowLeftCoast, we have had six days to cool off now. I think the best way for the article to move forward now would be for you to make some edits to the article along the lines you have suggested above. WP:BRD. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In the new info we say Task Force Spartan "was responsible for the area of the shooting". Was it the US Army task force responsible for the area, the US military force responsible, or the Coalition force responsible? (or something else?) —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: based on the sources that I have found the area which the shooting occurred on 4 March 2007 was the area of operations of 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, known as Task Force Spartan during its deployment. If there is a better way to word it, I am open to suggestions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: So as defined by the US military, then? —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. For instance, different provinces were assigned to different nations, and different units, as can be seen in this map from 2007.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: For example here is a map from WikiCommons depicting different areas of operation of different NATO forces several months prior to the event which is the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps clarify this in the article. ("Nicholson commanded Task Force Spartan, whose purview as defined by the US military included the area of the shooting" or something like that). Thanks for clearing this up. How do you feel about the section's neutrality now? —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We are definitely improving it, so it's getting there. Also TF Spartan appears to have been part of Combined Joint Task Force 76, which transitioned to become part of ISAF around the time of the event to become part of Regional Command East, which is now Train Advise Assist Command – East.

I will go ahead and modify the wording as suggested, or near that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What say ya'll about the article and Wikipedia:Overquoting? The second to last paragraph draws from a single source and provides long quotes from the two different individuals. Are there other sources that give detailed quotation of the representatives of the two organizations, that are not directly or indirectly connected to those organizations, that show that they should be given significant weight to include these long quotes?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think these quotes are too long. I think it's important to summarise briefly what they said, as we have here—we take a sentence or two from each person out of five or six paragraphs in the original source. They actually said very little, as you can see, apart from that they were angry at the Marine Corps tribunal for ruling the "wrong" way and that there is supposedly "prima facie evidence" of war crimes by nasty Americans. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. Both the LA Times & Marine Corps Times articles report that Marines testifying said that they were under a "complex ambush" should that be included?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not—source primarily to the Los Angeles Times. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Background section

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[8], a company of that new commands deployment and its issues it had (inter-service rivalry, lack of specific mission, etc.)[9][10][11]--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007 Shinwar shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)