Jump to content

Talk:Maywand District murders/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Deleted information

This information [1], [2] has been deleted twice by the same editor. The second time with the request for a citation. Any objection that i re-add this information with one of the numerous references? IQinn (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What was the url for the source? If it's pans out verbatim I don't see a problem with having it in the article as a quote in his section. TomPointTwo (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
AFP reprinted all over the world plus many other like latimes. Any problem to use the AFP link that i just posted? one IQinn (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. IQinn (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed the "without hesitation" portion, it was awkward and borderline editorializing. I also made a structural change by consolidating the Army's responses into 1 section. I changed the title of the section to reflect that.V7-sport (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

An editor removed parts of the information that was previously agreed on. He deleted the words "without any hesitation" with the justification that this was "awkward and borderline editorializing".

I disagree with that and think that this makes a big difference 1) vs 2).

1)

During his hearing he was ask by Judge Lieutenant Colonel Kwasi Hawks "Were you going to shoot at (civilians) to scare them and it got out of hand?". Morlock replied without any hesitation. "The plan was to kill people, sir".

2)

During his hearing he was ask by Judge Lieutenant Colonel Kwasi Hawks "Were you going to shoot at (civilians) to scare them and it got out of hand?". Morlock replied. "The plan was to kill people, sir"

I think that this is important fact to mention and that this belongs into the article. The input of other editors would we welcome. Cheers IQinn (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Would you accept "immediately" in lieu of "without any hesitation"? V7-sport (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Command responsibility

The section "Command Responsibility" has been removed (or renamed). I with no doubt believe that was a valid topic and i suggest we should recreate it and move related content into it. What do you think? IQinn (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I consolidated the Army/DOD statements. The title "command responsibility" was not representative of what was contained within the section. I don't think the various elements of the Army response should be distributed throughout the article. at least not until there is more to the story. V7-sport (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Army respond in general and "Command Responsibility" are two different things. This comment addresses also command responsibility and should be put into context there:

Morlock's mother accused the US government of scapegoating him: "I think the government is just playing these guys as scapegoats. The leaders dropped the ball. Who was watching over all this?" she said in a Seattle Times interview.

(Posted by Iqinn)
Indeed, Army response and command responsibility are 2 different things, the Army has evidentially cleared Colonel Tunnell of responsibility in the matter and the investigation was in response to the charges. Mrs.Morlock isn't an authority on the chain of command in the US armed forces. If her opinion belongs anywhere in the encyclopedia it should be attached to her sons section. V7-sport (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes the Army cleared Colonel Tunnel. That is perfectly fine. The point is that there are other voices out there that disagree with the Army on "Command Responsibility" so that it is best to present these opposing view in one section called "Command Responsibility". IQinn (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think we need a separate section for Morlocks mother to blame someone else for the actions of her son. Indeed, I don't think her opinion is sufficiently notable for inclusion.V7-sport (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Many of the parents have voiced similar opinions (see the Spiegel "kill team" documantary and Morlocks mothers statement is notable according to our guidelines. I think we would violate WP:NPOV if we only present the opinion of the US Army. Seems to be that conflict resolution is necessary to solve this issue as long discussion with you alone have been shown unproductive in the past. There are various options available for conflict resolution on WP. Are you ok with starting one of them? Regards IQinn (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if we must. I object to the statement that I have been "unproductive" but I wont bother posting the policy links... V7-sport (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
You have any preference or shall i just start one of the possible options for conflict resolution? IQinn (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're both planning on a lot of work on this article I say you're going to need to figure out a way to compromise on the little stuff without constant dispute resolution. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, but there has never been any conflict resolution at all so far. IQinn (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current article outline has a lot of issues. I would suggest the following outline:
  • Background- Why that Army unit was in Afghanistan and what operations they were participating in
  • Killings- A summary of the different killings covered under this incident
  • Response and legal proceedings- With subsections for each of the accused. A responses section at the end can summarize opinions given by Afghan citizens, Afghan government, US government, the Soldiers' parents, other Army members, journalists, etc. OK? Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::We can take this to the Mediation Cabal if you must, but TomPointTwo is correct. V7-sport (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I think that's an excelent start for an outline. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I could get behind that, could we have the responses section come after the legal proceedings?V7-sport (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest to have three subsection for the killings as there is a lot of information for each of them. Command Responsibility seems still a valid topic can we agree on that so i can start writing on it? IQinn (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that there should be a section entitled command responsibility. V7-sport (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If any investigations, either government or investigative journalism, have placed some blame on the Soldier's officers/chain of command, then there can be a section on that, and command responsibility is one of several possible titles for the section. I wouldn't try to have a section on it based on opinions from observers, such as the perpetrators family, however. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
My inclination is to say that an appropriate subsection could created for the family's response. That some, like Mrs. Morlock, believed that her son was improperly supervised (or something) and that makes the Colonel at least partly responsible would fit nicely there. Anything more official would probably fall under the "Investigations" portion. As for starting writing now I think all involved parties would be best served with an dedicated sandbox write up, initially, since we're talking about a complete article ovehaul. I can use one of mine or another editor can create one themselves, it doesn't matter to me. How does that sound? TomPointTwo (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that the families' opinions about the higher-ups relevant to this case do not merit an entire section of their own. They should be mentioned in the article, but only briefly. The families of the accused are biased observers, so naturally they will place an emphasis on command responsibility that unbiased investigators might not (and have not). Unless unbiased investigators do so, devoting an entire section to this topic would amount to giving it undue weight, in my opinion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Tom, a "Family response" section would probably be a good place to present this information. Perhaps it should be a subsection of a section detailing various responses to the case (e.g. "Media response" etc.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That was my thought but it hinged on there being more than just Mrs Morlock's comments out there which I'm feel pretty confidant about. If I remember correctly there were some comments by Calvin Gibbs brother on the NYT bio piece ref'd on his article. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I remember reading about other family reactions. I'll get around to searching for those in a bit. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Long NY Times Magazine article

There is a really good, long article in the New York Times Magazine, dated 1 May 2011, on this incident. I saw the article via a wire service so I don't know if it's available online or not. If anyone needs the article text, leave a note on my talk page and I'll email it to you. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a NYT subscription; do you have a link? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, found it. I don't think you need a subscription to read it, let me know if that's not the case. It look great, I'll read through it in the next couple days, I'm pretty busy right now. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Verbiage chopped from lede

The Maywand District killings refers to a series of killings which were allegedly perpetrated ...

A name refers to a thing, but a thing is not its name and does not refer to itself. Thus I change refers to to were, and get

The Maywand District killings were a series of killings which were allegedly perpetrated ...

But who needs to be told that killings are killings? I chop further:

The Maywand District killings were allegedly perpetrated ...

This result reads a bit oddly for a lede, but at least it reads more quickly. Comments? Suggestions? —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page was moved to Mayward District killings on 17 April 2011, but this discussion was still open after 54 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

FOB Ramrod kill team → ? — FOB Ramrod kill team is a colloquial term based on partly pending charges and assumptions not yet proven in court. It's also casts the entire subject and all its potentially involved persons in a pejorative light. This is worrisome considering WP:BLP guidelines, the contemporary nature of the subject and the fact the two principal persons involved have yet to be convicted or taken plea deals. The article needs to be renamed. My initial thoughts on acceptable names would be "2010 Kandahar killings" or "FOB Ramrod murder investigation". TomPointTwo (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo come one. The article is obviously behind the development. Do you follow the sources? [3], [4], [5]. Morlock has a nice smile and i think it made him pretty smile again to hear that he will be out of prison after 7 years for three separate cold blood murder and leave alone playing proudly around with the corpse and body parts of the victims. IQinn (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
While I sympathize with your personal feelings about the people involved they don't much matter. I wasn't aware that Morlock took a plea last week (we should update that) but that still leaves the "ring leader" pending trial. He's also the one which the most sensational claims center on. Even if they are all convicted or confess, which I assume will be the case, the title is still not appropriate in tone or encyclopedic in nature. There's nothing wrong with changing it to either of my above suggested titles that I can see, aside from a desire to editorialize. I hope that's not the case. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"La Mohammed Kalay Incident" would be in keeping with in keeping with other Wikipedia articles. Ie. Hamdania incident Haditha incidentV7-sport (talk)
It seems the investigation and coverage exceeds just activities at La Mohammed Kalay, is this incorrect? If so that's a superior title to the present title and either of the two I've suggested, although I'd says "killings" would be more descriptive than "incident" which isn't very descriptive. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal feelings? :) This is not about personal feelings and there are no personal feelings. The title is pretty neutral and the change to one of the suggested titles would be a white wash of one of the worst war crimes in recent history. "FOB Ramrod Death Squad" might actually also possible so the current tile is already pretty neutral. IQinn (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That's obviously not true, your comments about Morlock were clear in tone. You seem to be rather heated over the whole topic actually, weren't you already blocked for disruptive editing over content associated with this page? You may want to consider taking a break from this topic altogether. Also, I'm unaware of a preponderance of reliable sources identify these men as a "death squad". Nobody has yet put forward any changes or removal to the body of the article which would imply a "whitewash". To say so is hyperbolic and not constructive. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not about personal feelings and there are no personal feelings. I am not heated at all and you might suggest to User:V7-sport that he takes a break after he has started an edit war. :) Let me repeat it here again. The title is pretty neutral and the change to one of the suggested titles would be a white wash of one of the worst war crimes in recent history. "FOB Ramrod Death Squad" might actually also possible so the current tile is already pretty neutral. TomPointTwo please do argue the content instead of wasting our time with ad hominem arguments. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Re.TomPointTwo, Well, there were deaths/killings involved at the a fore mentioned incidents, Kandahar killings would be pretty ambiguous as there has been a long history of bloodshed in the provence. I do thnk "kill team" is prejoritive. V7-sport (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
So "La Mohammed Kalay killings" is acceptable to you? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. V7-sport (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll wait for the article to get listed as being up for a move to get some additional input. I'd say it's a solid start. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Not good. The current title is pretty neutral and the change to the new suggested title would be a white wash of one of the worst war crimes in recent history. IQinn (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Noted. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The current title is pretty neutral and the change to the new suggested title would be a white wash of one of the worst war crimes in recent history. Kill team is also the term the secondary sources use. Just to name a few sources:

  • U.S. soldiers formed a 'death squad' to randomly murder and mutilate Afghan civilians.[6]
  • A U.S. soldier accused of being part of a squad that deliberately killed Afghan civilians ...[7]
  • 'Death Squad': Full horror emerges of how rogue U.S. brigade murdered and mutilated innocent Afghan civilians - and kept their body parts as trophies [8]
  • An Afghan Abu Ghraib? America shamed by 'kill squad' photo leak...[9]
  • U.S. soldiers' 'kill team' killed Afghanis, used body parts in poker games [10]
  • The Kill Team [11]
  • US apologizes for more Afghan 'kill team' photos [12]
  • Unit chiefs aware of 'kill team' [13]
  • 'They Killed for Entertainment' - Afghan President Condemns Actions of 'Kill Team' [14]
  • Behind the American 'Kill Team' in Afghanistan [15]
  • US 'kill team' soldier who murdered unarmed Afghans escapes life sentence [16]
  • Court Sentences 'Kill Team' Soldier to 24 Years in Prison [17]

We are talking about a large group of soldiers who formed a "team" or "squad" and randomly murdered Afghan civilians in cold blood on multiple separate occasions and places over an extended period of time. IQinn (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence colloquial, it was term they used themselves and was picked up by more tabloid style publications in the early days. You'll notice that most of those links are the dailymail, Guardian,NY Daily News, Rolling Stone, etc. I see one msnbc link. In more formal coverage by less sensational publications you'll see no independent use of the terms "death squad" or "kill team". Publications like the New York Times[18], or the Washington Post. It's a colloquial term, sensational term and it doesn't belong in the title of an encyclopedia article. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope, it is a descriptive title that tell the reader what happened in a neutral way. There is nothing "colloquial" at all and there is nothing sensational and the provided sources are not sensational "tabloid sources" :)) at all. They are all serious reliable sources. The forming of the kill team and the horrific killings are outstanding and that these group of U.S soldiers formed a kill team to murder Afghan civilians at random is just a verified encyclopedic fact. IQinn (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, ease off the editorial adjectives. I'm unaware of there being an official or commonly accepted definition of a "kill team". We'll also have to agree to disagree about the nature of those sources. Most importantly I'm unsure you're understanding my greater point and what the term "colloquial" means. I'm not arguing you can't find the term "kill team" in reliable sources, this is obviously true. My point is that it is used as a sensational headline technique in more tabloid style publications and/or referred to in quotes and identified as "so called" or "self identified". In high qulity, mainstream publications lie those I cited the term is avoided altogether. There simply isn't a good reason to retain it in the title when a more accurate, formal, encyclopedic and neutral description is available. I'm unsure why you're working so hard to keep it to be honest. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"I'm unsure why you're working so hard to keep it to be honest." LOL, Ever try to clean up dog poop with flypaper? V7-sport (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Fully understood TomPointTwo. The point is you are wrong. This is overwhelming used in the secondary sources and that a few sources do not mention the term in every article is irrelevant. The term is used by high quality sources to describe that that these US soldiers formed a team/squad to randomly murder Afghan civilians. New York Times, The Guardian, MSNBC, Washington Post, Der Spiegel The Independent... That this group of U.S soldiers at the FOB Ramrod formed a team/squad to randomly murdered Afghan civilians in cold blood on multiple separate occasions during there service there is a simply encyclopedic fact. (what is one of the worst war crimes in recent history) The article is about this and the title now describes this encyclopedic fact in a descriptive and neutral way. Not saying it is the best title in the world but all suggested new titles leave out this fact and none of the new suggested title is descriptive enough nor better. IQinn (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I innocently wander in here from WP:RM, what strikes me is that the lead paragraph is quite awkward: "FOB Ramrod kill team refers to alleged events ... A 'kill team' may or may not have existed"— to paraphrase freely. If it is well established that there was a kill team, the lede ought to say "The FOB Ramrod kill team was a group of soldiers...." Otherwise, the article ought to be renamed, and that would also allow a better lede. —Tamfang (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Yachtsman1 wrote the following:
    • The Title is misleading. Might I suggest the Title "FOB Ramrod murder incident"? The term "Kill Team" makes it almost sound like these soldiers were part of a unit designed for that purpose, which is completely off-base.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
To add to the consensus to change the title.V7-sport (talk)

There is no consensus to change. Not at all this claim is rediculous. The title is not misleading at all. The title needs to be descriptive and the title needs to reflect that to repeat it here. That this group of U.S soldiers at the FOB Ramrod formed a team/squad to randomly murdered Afghan civilians in cold blood on multiple separate occasions during there service there is a simply encyclopedic fact. (what is one of the worst war crimes in recent history) The article is about this and the title now describes this encyclopedic fact in a descriptive and neutral way. Not saying it is the best title in the world but all suggested new titles leave out this fact and none of the new suggested title is descriptive enough nor better. IQinn (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. V7-sport (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Right IQinn (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep it describes accurately what they (allegedly) did, and it is the name used by media, and by respectable outlets thereof:

Keep in mind that I have restricted myself to multiple usage of the term in headlines mostly I think perhaps quotes should be in order, FOB Ramrod 'kill team', that's seems the usage by many news sourced, roughly half.
Also, breaking news: Donald Rumsfeld labels 'Kill Team' Afghan photos as 'much worse' than Iraq's Abu Ghraib. walk victor falk talk 09:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because the press has called it such and such doesn't mean the term is encyclopedic or isn't pejorative. V7-sport (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not in dispute that the term is used in the media. Again, that's not the point. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the title should contain words likely to be searched by readers by WP:COMMONAME walk victor falk talk 10:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead

I modified the wording in the Lead, pertaining to the 12th soldier's release. There seems to be a difference regarding interpretation of the source, but the US military stated that charges were dropped against the 12th soldier "in interest of justice"; this is the "reason" for the dropped charges. Until discovery of more specific information in reliable sources, wording should be left in the "lowest common denominator" language. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That is no reason and no explanation. Let's stick to the source. From the source:

"The Army did not say why it dropped the charges. Lewis-McChord senior commander Maj. Gen. Lloyd Miles chose to dismiss the case “in the interest of justice,” Army spokesman Lt. Col. Gary Dangerfield said in a written statement."[34]

It is a verified fact that the Army did not say why it dropped the charges. Why should the dismissal be “in the interest of justice,”? Do you have further sources? Patriotedlog (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, let's stick to the source. As it is now, I'm ok with the wording in the Lead. But in Wagnon's section, perhaps we should add other relevant information:

"The case against Wagnon appeared weaker than the others from the beginning. An Army investigating officer twice recommended that prosecutors dismiss the case after pretrial hearings over the past 15 months."

Without mentioning the prosecutor's recommendations, and just "the Army didn't say why", it carried the air of cover-up, conspiracy, etc. There was more information than the article was letting on. The prosecution's recommendations seems relevant, and reveals that they wanted to drop charges pretty early in the process. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, there is more work to do. Who says that? "The case against Wagnon appeared weaker than the others from the beginning." Seems to be an opinion and i think it would be the best to leave that out. For the rest i have added a sentence to Wagon's section. Article still needs further work in various sections. Will try to dig up more sources to fill in the gaps. Patriotedlog (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Glad we are in agreement. Keep up the good work. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, no objection to the change to "murders", cap variation matches Maywand District but if that page is moved to a different (better) title, this page can be moved to the matching caps variation as a housekeeping move or technical request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Maywand District killings → Maywand District murders – Relisted. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Now it is clear that it was premeditated murder, all the three victims were murdered. As for consistency i suggest the move. See also Cannock Chase murders, Brighton trunk murders or Bradford murders... The trials are over. Patriotedlog (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is it appropriate for such an article to include photos of the corpses of victims? Seems immoral to me...

as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.0.13 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED.Boneyard90 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Maywand District murders. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The first one is a useful archive. The other three are not. Thundermaker (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maywand_District_murders/Archive_2&oldid=1076536042"