This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2007 Shinwar shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
Hmm. I just took another look through it, and found some horrors.
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)
(
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)
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)
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.
-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
Testimony to the inquiry was classified and not released,[30] and 12,000-page report was also unpublished.[4]
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.
The court of inquiry, recommended actions be taken upon two Marine captains, and two enlisted Marines.
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.alaskareport/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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2007 Shinwar shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
Hmm. I just took another look through it, and found some horrors.
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)
(
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)
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)
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.
-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
Testimony to the inquiry was classified and not released,[30] and 12,000-page report was also unpublished.[4]
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.
The court of inquiry, recommended actions be taken upon two Marine captains, and two enlisted Marines.
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.alaskareport/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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)