Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kandahar massacre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Robert Bales Article
Should an article be made for him now seeing he has killed in excess of a dozen people and has recieved international coverage I think its a good idea. - 03:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't do that. This article can hold all the relevant details on his life. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, the new article is not warranted. Per WP:PERP:
VQuakr (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
- As of this moment, perhaps no separate article is needed. But we should be prepared to make one soon, for three reasons: first, there will be more information coming out, and adding it here could make this article bloated; second, "Robert Bales" is likely to become the search term people use to find information about this incident, and by making an article about him the general public is more likely to find this article, whose title is quite obscure (try getting to it on google without using the word "Panjwai"); third, although, as Cla68 and VQuakr point out, there is a strong presumption of not creating a second article (especially before conviction) there is precedent for doing so in the case of recent individual shootings that gained similar media attention. See 2011 Tucson shooting/Jared Lee Loughner and Fort Hood shooting/Nidal Malik Hasan; in neither case has the defendant been convicted. Erudy (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- My objection is for a specific reason. Until Wikipedia's administration and the Wikimedia Foundation get their act together on effectively governing biographies on living people articles to protect their subjects, I don't believe we should be creating any new ones unless the person is clearly notable, such as the head of state of a country. Cla68 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- With respect, Cla68, there's no "wikipedia adminstration" that governs wikipedia and can be blamed for failure. There's you, me, and all our fellow editors working in a community. I assume what you meant to say is that we have bad BLP policies, and/or we don't implement the ones we do have. Fair enough. But even if true, but I don't see how that matters for the creation of an article for Robert Bales. Presumably, bad information that "harms" Bales can be introduced in this article just as easily as in his own article. By its own terms, WP:BLP applies both to stand alone articles about a person, and material about that person in other articles. Surely you don't think we should get rid of the BLP information in this article, because of a flawed policy? As I suggested above, his own article will likely get more attention, and there is a better chance that mistakes would be challenged and corrected there. Erudy (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The argument presented by Cla68 is not connected to any policy or practice here, and represents no consensus that i am aware of. In any case, if they or anyone wants to oppose 90% of biographical articles (and, as Erudy points out, 90% of ALL biographical information in ANY article), this is not the place to take a stand. I would argue that we can create an article on Mr Bales as soon as we have enough information to be more than a small stub (any day now probably). An article on the events here, and on the person allegedly responsible, is quite appropriate considering the level of coverage its getting. WP:PERP doesnt apply. he has apparently admitted some degree of involvement, and even if this is not true, he is an object of intense public scrutiny, and regardless of his actual, or court proven, level of involvement, he is a permanent, well known public figure for the history books. all we need to do is not convict him on our pages of anything, only report what is being reported on significantly. I can guarantee that his name WILL be the search term used, not "Panjwai shooting spree" which is one of our lame but necessary efforts to be npov and encyclopedic in article titles, but is not what people will look for. PS, i removed his nickname from the lede, as there is no source for it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Cla68 has an interesting viewpoint here, but I agree that his/her reasoning is not supported by consensus or policy. WP:PERP I quoted is a content guideline however, and of course the redirect at Robert Bales is there to direct traffic to this location. VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- A redirect to this article is what we should probably have for the time being. Bales is only notable for being a primary suspect in these killings. I think that WP:BLP policies strongly support a conservative approach. -Darouet (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, according to WP:PERPETRATOR: "A person who is notable only for ... committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." So I suggest to continue with a development of the Bales' section in this article, as it would bring more readers here and there would be no need to duplicate edits in this section and a separate article about Bales. Later, maybe after his conviction, when this section grows considerable and becomes more stable, as no new information be added on a daily basis, a creation of a separate article about Bales would be more justified. --Potorochin (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- A redirect to this article is what we should probably have for the time being. Bales is only notable for being a primary suspect in these killings. I think that WP:BLP policies strongly support a conservative approach. -Darouet (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Cla68 has an interesting viewpoint here, but I agree that his/her reasoning is not supported by consensus or policy. WP:PERP I quoted is a content guideline however, and of course the redirect at Robert Bales is there to direct traffic to this location. VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The argument presented by Cla68 is not connected to any policy or practice here, and represents no consensus that i am aware of. In any case, if they or anyone wants to oppose 90% of biographical articles (and, as Erudy points out, 90% of ALL biographical information in ANY article), this is not the place to take a stand. I would argue that we can create an article on Mr Bales as soon as we have enough information to be more than a small stub (any day now probably). An article on the events here, and on the person allegedly responsible, is quite appropriate considering the level of coverage its getting. WP:PERP doesnt apply. he has apparently admitted some degree of involvement, and even if this is not true, he is an object of intense public scrutiny, and regardless of his actual, or court proven, level of involvement, he is a permanent, well known public figure for the history books. all we need to do is not convict him on our pages of anything, only report what is being reported on significantly. I can guarantee that his name WILL be the search term used, not "Panjwai shooting spree" which is one of our lame but necessary efforts to be npov and encyclopedic in article titles, but is not what people will look for. PS, i removed his nickname from the lede, as there is no source for it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- With respect, Cla68, there's no "wikipedia adminstration" that governs wikipedia and can be blamed for failure. There's you, me, and all our fellow editors working in a community. I assume what you meant to say is that we have bad BLP policies, and/or we don't implement the ones we do have. Fair enough. But even if true, but I don't see how that matters for the creation of an article for Robert Bales. Presumably, bad information that "harms" Bales can be introduced in this article just as easily as in his own article. By its own terms, WP:BLP applies both to stand alone articles about a person, and material about that person in other articles. Surely you don't think we should get rid of the BLP information in this article, because of a flawed policy? As I suggested above, his own article will likely get more attention, and there is a better chance that mistakes would be challenged and corrected there. Erudy (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- My objection is for a specific reason. Until Wikipedia's administration and the Wikimedia Foundation get their act together on effectively governing biographies on living people articles to protect their subjects, I don't believe we should be creating any new ones unless the person is clearly notable, such as the head of state of a country. Cla68 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- As of this moment, perhaps no separate article is needed. But we should be prepared to make one soon, for three reasons: first, there will be more information coming out, and adding it here could make this article bloated; second, "Robert Bales" is likely to become the search term people use to find information about this incident, and by making an article about him the general public is more likely to find this article, whose title is quite obscure (try getting to it on google without using the word "Panjwai"); third, although, as Cla68 and VQuakr point out, there is a strong presumption of not creating a second article (especially before conviction) there is precedent for doing so in the case of recent individual shootings that gained similar media attention. See 2011 Tucson shooting/Jared Lee Loughner and Fort Hood shooting/Nidal Malik Hasan; in neither case has the defendant been convicted. Erudy (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
There is more and more in depth reporting being done on Bales. For instance, this article from the New York Times. Additionally, we've begun to cut out information about Bales with edit summaries like "Is this level of detail necessary" [1][2]. Moreover, this article has woeful visibility: #100 when I search google. I think a seperate Bales article is warranted by the amount of information available (much of which wouldn't be appropriate here, but would be appropriate at his own article) and in an attempt to make this topic more visible, with hopefully the positive affects of more eyeballs. I'm being bold and starting the article.Erudy (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not a chance, it is way to flippin soon to declare this guy important enough for an article. Jump off the WP:RECENTISM bandwagon please, and at the very least allow for discussion of the matter to continue on this talk page. Tarc (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree, again, for the reasons above. Our article Nidal Malik Hasan was established within 3 days after the Fort Hood shooting. Bradley Manning was split off of the main wikileaks article on 10 June 2011, three days after he was first identified by Wired. Jared Lee Loughner was established within a day of his name being released. Bales' ("alleged") actions are just as notable, just as terrible, and just as newsworthy as all of those people's. A Robert Bales article will get more traffic, which means wikipedia will (1) be more useful and (2) be more accurate. It will even channel more traffic to this article. It will also contain information specific to Bales that would be inappropriate for this article, much of which was unceremoniously erased when Robert Bales was deleted (tell me, does this article tell where Bales went to high school? Does it list his military decorations? Does it provide a detailed summary of his military career? No. And I don't think this article would be an appropriate place for all that stuff. But such information is important and should be somewhere). I'm all for discussion, but at this point I think the appropriate discussion is an RFD at Robert Bales. I'm going to restart the page, put in the work to improve it and distinguish it even more.Erudy (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- As an editor that voiced a "wait" opinion earlier on starting Robert Bales, I want to say that I am more on the fence now that there has been such a large amount of media coverage of him over the last few days. It is probably reasonable for this discussion to be continued as a merge proposal at Talk:Robert Bales. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- He is only notable in context of the massacre. Most information about him seems to be covered in this article. What additional information about him are you talking about? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- For instance, military decorations, detailed military career, run-ins with law enforcement, details of early life (where he went to high school, his connection to Marc Edwards), details of his financial dealings.Erudy (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, Robert Bales has just been redirected again. I don't think the decision is right, but I won't engage in revert wars. I will merge everything from the stand alone article, and keep adding encyclopedic material on Bales directly to this article, and keep lobbying for a split.Erudy (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- An eventual split may be likely, but I think that's the right attitude, Erudy. At the present time, there is no real use for a separate article and the presumption, per WP:CRIME is against it. For the time being, it will be easier and no less useful to readers for us to maintain a single article. We should approach a splitting decision in the cold light of day. FormerIP (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, please explain where we put the information Erudy mentioned. ie, military decorations etc.--vvarkey (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- The subsection "army life" in this article would be my guess. FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the large table of decorations and the fact that there seems to be enough people who want to write that article. I give up my objection to an additional article. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, my question was rhetorical. putting military decorations on the "Kandahar Massacre" page is hilarious at best.--vvarkey (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is no table of decorations at the separate article about Timothy McVeigh, and he was awarded a Bronze Star. Do we really need such table for Robert Bales? --Potorochin (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Bales' service is very closely related to this incident--vvarkey (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and his awards were already mentioned in the text. I just wonder, is it really neccesary to provide the detailed list of all his military awards and decorations? He became publicly known not for his war merits, but for the murder of 17 civilians, including 9 children. He didn't receive a medal for this. --Potorochin (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Potorochin, I don't think that awards are appropriate on this page, but I do think they are encyclopedic and useful. To someone familiar with what awards mean, the awards table is a graphic summary of a career, important as much for what isn't there as what is there. For instance, the lack of a Purple Heart leaps out immediately. I think that's part of the reason awards are listed, for instance, in Nidal Malik Hasan. That's why I think it's useful to have a separate article for Bales.Erudy (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I see your point. --Potorochin (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Potorochin, I don't think that awards are appropriate on this page, but I do think they are encyclopedic and useful. To someone familiar with what awards mean, the awards table is a graphic summary of a career, important as much for what isn't there as what is there. For instance, the lack of a Purple Heart leaps out immediately. I think that's part of the reason awards are listed, for instance, in Nidal Malik Hasan. That's why I think it's useful to have a separate article for Bales.Erudy (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and his awards were already mentioned in the text. I just wonder, is it really neccesary to provide the detailed list of all his military awards and decorations? He became publicly known not for his war merits, but for the murder of 17 civilians, including 9 children. He didn't receive a medal for this. --Potorochin (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Bales' service is very closely related to this incident--vvarkey (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is no table of decorations at the separate article about Timothy McVeigh, and he was awarded a Bronze Star. Do we really need such table for Robert Bales? --Potorochin (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, my question was rhetorical. putting military decorations on the "Kandahar Massacre" page is hilarious at best.--vvarkey (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the large table of decorations and the fact that there seems to be enough people who want to write that article. I give up my objection to an additional article. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- The subsection "army life" in this article would be my guess. FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, please explain where we put the information Erudy mentioned. ie, military decorations etc.--vvarkey (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- An eventual split may be likely, but I think that's the right attitude, Erudy. At the present time, there is no real use for a separate article and the presumption, per WP:CRIME is against it. For the time being, it will be easier and no less useful to readers for us to maintain a single article. We should approach a splitting decision in the cold light of day. FormerIP (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, Robert Bales has just been redirected again. I don't think the decision is right, but I won't engage in revert wars. I will merge everything from the stand alone article, and keep adding encyclopedic material on Bales directly to this article, and keep lobbying for a split.Erudy (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- For instance, military decorations, detailed military career, run-ins with law enforcement, details of early life (where he went to high school, his connection to Marc Edwards), details of his financial dealings.Erudy (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- He is only notable in context of the massacre. Most information about him seems to be covered in this article. What additional information about him are you talking about? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- As an editor that voiced a "wait" opinion earlier on starting Robert Bales, I want to say that I am more on the fence now that there has been such a large amount of media coverage of him over the last few days. It is probably reasonable for this discussion to be continued as a merge proposal at Talk:Robert Bales. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree, again, for the reasons above. Our article Nidal Malik Hasan was established within 3 days after the Fort Hood shooting. Bradley Manning was split off of the main wikileaks article on 10 June 2011, three days after he was first identified by Wired. Jared Lee Loughner was established within a day of his name being released. Bales' ("alleged") actions are just as notable, just as terrible, and just as newsworthy as all of those people's. A Robert Bales article will get more traffic, which means wikipedia will (1) be more useful and (2) be more accurate. It will even channel more traffic to this article. It will also contain information specific to Bales that would be inappropriate for this article, much of which was unceremoniously erased when Robert Bales was deleted (tell me, does this article tell where Bales went to high school? Does it list his military decorations? Does it provide a detailed summary of his military career? No. And I don't think this article would be an appropriate place for all that stuff. But such information is important and should be somewhere). I'm all for discussion, but at this point I think the appropriate discussion is an RFD at Robert Bales. I'm going to restart the page, put in the work to improve it and distinguish it even more.Erudy (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
As regarding the poor visibility of this article at the Google search results. I think the main reason is that this article was named by the obscure title Panjwai shooting spree for most of its history. Now, when it was renamed into Kandahar massacre, it should go up in the search results pretty soon. --Potorochin (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we need an article on Robert. Per our rules. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please be more specific what rules you refer to. --Potorochin (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I see, you preferred not to discuss this question on this talk page and already went on with a creation of the separate Robert Bales article. --Potorochin (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"Highly decorated"
News articles mention that Bales was "highly decorated" but what were these decorations and what were they for? --This could provide some illumination as to what Bales had been through, his combat experiences, how he reacts under fire, etc. 209.77.231.132 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's just his atty talking and the media is parroting everything he said verbatim. Larson-USMC (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Investigators described his 10-year Army career as "unremarkable". --Potorochin (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now I've read that his attorney said Bales received 20 decorations but not a Purple Heart, despite part of his foot being blown off. :::: 209.77.231.132 (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Investigators described his 10-year Army career as "unremarkable". --Potorochin (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a full list of Bales' awards and decorations from his Army file (source 1, source 2):
- Army Good Conduct Medal (Three awarded) - awarded to any active-duty enlisted member of the United States military who completes three consecutive years of "honorable and faithful service" without any non-judicial punishments, disciplinary infractions, or court martial offenses
- Iraq Campaign Medal Campaign Star (Two awarded) - awarded to any member of the U.S. military who has performed duty within the borders of Iraq (or its territorial waters) for a period of thirty consecutive days or sixty non-consecutive days
- National Defense Service Medal - awarded to the member of the United States military who served on active duty during any time period since September 11, 2001
- Overseas Service Ribbon - awarded to the service members who have performed military tours of duty outside the borders of the United States of America
- Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal - awarded to the military service member who performed duty in a deployed status and participated in designated anti-terrorism operation for a period of either 30 consecutive or 60 non-consecutive days of duty
- Global War on Terrorism Service Medal - awarded to the military service members who performed duty in a designated anti-terrorism operation for a period of either 30 consecutive or 60 non-consecutive days of duty
- Combat Infantry Badge - awarded to the infantryman or Special Forces soldier for being personally present, and under hostile fire, while serving in assigned, primary infantry or special forces duty in a unit actively engaging the enemy in ground combat
- Expert Infantry Badge - awarded to the infantryman or Special Forces soldier for completion of a course of testing designed to demonstrate proficiency in infantry skills
- Army Commendation Medal (Six awarded) - awarded to the military personnel for distinguishing oneself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service
- Army Achievement Medal - awarded to the military personnel for outstanding achievement or meritorious service not of a nature that would otherwise warrant awarding the Commendation Medal
- Meritorious Unit Commendation (Two awarded) - awarded to the military units for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service, heroic deeds, or valorous actions
- Army Superior Unit Award - awarded to the military units for outstanding meritorious performance of a difficult and challenging mission carried out under extraordinary circumstances
This source also includes some other information from Bales' Army file, but it doesn't mention any wounds. --Potorochin (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Does this add up to "highly decorated"? Or is it average for someone with 11 years of service? I am not a military expert. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page at Talk:Commendation Medal seems to imply that the Army Commendation Medal is a fairly routine decoration for NCO's, though I would be interested to hear the opinion of someone with a better understanding of current US military decorations. The rest look pretty routine to me. Are there any examples of reliable sources calling him "highly decorated," that are based on a neutral source (as opposed to his attorney)? VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just added the description of these awards from the relevant Wikipedia articles. --Potorochin (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would not characterize this as "highly decorated"; these awards demonstrate very strong performance for an E6, but not valor. "Decorated" is perhaps a better phrasing. On a side note, this list of medals is exactly the type of thing that would reside well on a seperate Robert Bales article, rather than on this page. I believe we are getting closer to a split, although I recognize there might still be dissent.Erudy (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) is one of the most highly regarded decorations in the Army. I seem to recall in WWII if you got the CIB you automatically got the Bronze Star. Six Commendation Medals is unusual, that's a lot, and they can be awarded for heroism as well as merit. So he's seen action, maybe too much and that contributed to his "snapping". Or "Going postal". This seems to be very similar to job-stress related shootings such as we have here in the US. 209.77.231.132 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was awarded the Bronze Star. Does Wiki have a site on decorated veterans that have gone psycho? And let's not forget that Robert Bales was supposed to pay back $1.4 million that he had bilked, so Bales may lack empathy, he may have been a hustler with a sense of entitlement, thus he may be psychopathic. But we'll have to wait for the psychiatric evaluations. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) is one of the most highly regarded decorations in the Army. I seem to recall in WWII if you got the CIB you automatically got the Bronze Star. Six Commendation Medals is unusual, that's a lot, and they can be awarded for heroism as well as merit. So he's seen action, maybe too much and that contributed to his "snapping". Or "Going postal". This seems to be very similar to job-stress related shootings such as we have here in the US. 209.77.231.132 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page at Talk:Commendation Medal seems to imply that the Army Commendation Medal is a fairly routine decoration for NCO's, though I would be interested to hear the opinion of someone with a better understanding of current US military decorations. The rest look pretty routine to me. Are there any examples of reliable sources calling him "highly decorated," that are based on a neutral source (as opposed to his attorney)? VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Potential benzodiazepine induced fugue state / disinhibition / disorientation / amnesia
Many soldiers are prescribed benzodiazepines ("No Go Pills") to treat anxiety and insomnia. (It is also sometimes used (off-label) for symptom management in PTSD). Staff Sergeant Robert Bales may have suffered from an Adverse Drug Reaction to high dose benzodiazepines used to treat Anxiety/Insomnia - potentially resulting in a a fugue state / disinhibition / disorientation / amnesia if he were taking high doses of these medications and/or if he combined them with other medications or alcohol.
In such a state, he would not have necessarily known who or where he was, who he was shooting at or what he was doing. His ability to inhibit automatic (heavily trained) behavior might have been severely impaired. His ability to recognize his circumstances and even to assess the reality of the events around him might have been severely impaired. His memory and comprehension of the events around him and his understanding of his actions within them may have been substantially impaired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.128.55 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- It would be very interesting if the problems described above turned out to be a part of the background to this particular massacre. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if you have read about "fugue states" or amnesia in relation to Robert Bales or any other suspects in this massacre/shooting, you should cite the source you were reading: this way it can be consulted by other readers and editors. If you'd like to know more about this policy please read WP:NOR and WP:IRS; both will describe proper use of sources on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi 208.116.128.55, I've reverted your edits because the sources you used all describe the disorders mentioned in your text, but do not reference Bales. The reason why I or others will call this "original research" is that no respected or scholarly sources have been cited stating that Bales may have suffered from these problems. These sources may exist, however, and if you've read them or are able to find them, we can cite them here. I've also left a note on your talk page that could be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- 208.116.128.55, I suggest you forward the information about Benzodiazepine to John Henry Browne. Few days later you would be able to cite this information here from the RS. --Potorochin (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
SPREE is offensive!
Get the message! Change it NOW!
- I cannot comprehend the callousness, the lack of concern for the feelings of the grieving, for the entire population of Afghanistan who are mortally offended by the outrage.
- A Spree is something that one does for enjoyment. A "shooting spree" makes the shooter feel empowered. Right? This relates to how the perpetrator feels.
- Spree has nothing to do with how the families of the dead feel, how the wounded children feel and how the population of Afghanistan feels. For them it it MURDER, OUTRAGE, TRAGEDY
- As a human being who lives on this planet, as a mother and grandmother, I am outraged that you continue to discuss this matter for days and don't fix it.
I don't care what word you choose to use but for the sake of human dignity, remove the word SPREE!
Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
it's changed. the problem here is if you read massacre in the context of a longlasting conflict, it is not descriptive. spree shooting strongly suggest one or a few in an anomalous attack and reflects that a high nr. of ppl may have been victim. i really do not see the point. massacre to me strongly implies it was an army unit involved. now hat may be the case, we see karzai around the table with obama, so his commisions findings are apparently not in the way of diplomatics. his commision finds two helicopters and 20 soldiers involved. is that the idea? wiki actually reflects the army was 'in with it'? 62.163.248.127 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
- Thank you for your response, made only a week after the initial request. Can I point out that matters concerning:
- current news
- tragedy
- the currently living
- the recently dead
- the grieving
- sensitive political issues
- require a somewhat sharper and more sensitive response than an article concerning events that are not current.
- In the light of the fact that the first request to move this from "spree" to "massacre" came fully a week ago, I am utterly disgusted by the pedantic, argumentative, insensitive attitudes that have maintained this offence on a Wkipedia page, as if semantics were more important than real issues of humanity.
Amandajm (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Names of the victims
How about adding the names of the victims? They're in this article [3] in Al Jazeera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.116.125 (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- A box containing the names of the victims was already added to the article a couple of days previous to this request. Amandajm (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Box of military honours
This article is about a massacre. Graphics of US Military Awards are out of place in an article that ought to be showing the mutilated bodies of a eleven children. It is customary to strip people of honours that they have, by their own conduct, dishonoured. Consequently, I have removed the pretty picture box, because its presence represents a graphic image of gross insensitivity. Bales' three main decorations are now mentioned in the context of his military service. I have omitted the more general service and campaign medals, as relatively meaningless, given that the history of his service is stated elsewhere in the text of the article. Amandajm (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is a dispassionate encyclopedia article - you seem to be too "close" to this matter, perhaps you should edit another topic? Wiki is not censored, and looks for the most info from Reliable Sources "compacted" into article entries. 98.67.176.190 (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do appreciate the Amandajm's contribution to this article. And I do not think it is appropriate to tell anybody, who is showing a good faith in their edits, that they are not welcomed here. Even you, an anonym, who's only contribution to Wikipedia was a commentary above, is welcomed here. --Potorochin (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I want to emphasise that it is the graphics of ribbons, and the list of regular service medals (not honours) that have been removed. A statement of those awards that he received is sufficient to the biographical requirements in an article pertaining to a particular incident, not to the entire service history of a notable individual. It would seem to me that, within the context, the inclusion of a colourful box showing all the ribbons is anything but "dispassionate". It is disproportionate to the article. it doesn't create balance. There are no pictures of the event on this page about an event. Amandajm (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think putting a graphic of his ribbon rack under his picture is fine. There would still be plenty of room to put any pictures of the victims in the article if a public domain image is found. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is not a case of having enough space for other images. It is about "balance" of information. This subject of this article is not military awards, or Bales' "military service". Showing graphics of his ribbons doesn't add any information that is relevant to the actual subject of the article, the massacre. And because the graphics are not relevant to the subject, they then form a distraction. It is sufficient to note, within his brief biographical details, that he was the recipient of several awards. If the article was about military awards, then people would want to see the graphics. Amandajm (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think putting a graphic of his ribbon rack under his picture is fine. There would still be plenty of room to put any pictures of the victims in the article if a public domain image is found. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I want to emphasise that it is the graphics of ribbons, and the list of regular service medals (not honours) that have been removed. A statement of those awards that he received is sufficient to the biographical requirements in an article pertaining to a particular incident, not to the entire service history of a notable individual. It would seem to me that, within the context, the inclusion of a colourful box showing all the ribbons is anything but "dispassionate". It is disproportionate to the article. it doesn't create balance. There are no pictures of the event on this page about an event. Amandajm (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do appreciate the Amandajm's contribution to this article. And I do not think it is appropriate to tell anybody, who is showing a good faith in their edits, that they are not welcomed here. Even you, an anonym, who's only contribution to Wikipedia was a commentary above, is welcomed here. --Potorochin (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge Discussion
We've been creating, uncreating, merging, unmerging Robert Bales and Kandahar massacre for a while now. Right now, there is a Robert Bales article; I think this article should remain, but since I know others disagree, I put in the merge template so we can come to a consensus.
I understand that there is a certain reticence towards creating an article for a person notable only for crimes. However, this has been done numerous times in analogous situations when such a high profile crime is committed and the individuals are the focus of intense public scrutiny as Bales has been. See, for instance Lynndie England/Charles Graner/many others (Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse); Nidal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood Shooting); Jared Lee Loughner (2011 Tuscon shooting); John Allen Muhammad/Lee Boyd Malvo (Beltway sniper attacks), even Bradley Manning/(Iraq War documents leak). The New York Times is calling this "most likely the deadliest war crime by a single American soldier in the decade of war that has followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." This topic is likely to gather even more information as the days pass and more is reported on.
Moreover, as Amandajm has pointed out, some information, i.e. medals, is not appropriate here. I would go further: I don't believe much of the information about Bales' family life, financial dealings, and so forth is appropriate here. It's incongruous and inappropriate to go from listing the people killed to discussing what Bales' college major was. However, I do believe such information has a place in the encyclopedia and should be accessible to people who are looking for more information. I only introduced it because, without an article about Bales, there is no where to put such information. If we do separate the articles, I would reduce the coverage of Bales here.Erudy (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- He's going to have an article. The question is, do we create that article now, while people are interested in improving it, or later when there will be less activity. Since it's a BLP, we should do it now with the max number of eyeballs and people interested in summarizing reliable sources. Plus what Erudy says. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- On March 23, the first day of the split, Kandahar massacre received 3,000 hits. When I do a google search for "Kandahar massacre", it comes up #22. When I google "Robert Bales" our article is #1 after the news entries; Robert Bales received 9,000 hits yesterday.Erudy (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Unfortunately, Kandahar massacre article was named by the obsure title Panjwai shooting spree for most of its history. It was renamed only two days ago. Hopefully, it would be able to recover with time and would also end up at the top results of the Google search. Meanwhile, to get 3353 hits per day, despite being only # 22 in the search results, I consider not so bad too. --Potorochin (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
2 phases of killings
AP is reporting that according to government officials with knowledge of the investigation, the killings were carried out in 2 phases, and the killer returned to the base in between.
so the killings may have actually begun at around midnight, rather than 3 am
--vvarkey (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had already added this information to a different place in the article [4]. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
interview with soldiers wife.
aljazeera english transcribes an (nbc) interview with the soldiers wife: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/03/201232614833794338.html she says he was late in telling her that in irak 'they had been blown up' (the car"accident"). the detail is even more interesting because there was originally a discussion on this page about whether it could really be an accident. do we change or at least mention such a thing?62.163.248.127 (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
At some point, we might want to mention the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Afghanistan, which establishes the rights and privileges of foreign personnel. I only bring this up in reference to the parliamentary demand for a trial in Afghan (civilian?) courts, and America's quick refusal.
I daresay many of our readers, being unfamiliar with SOFA agreements, might assume that if a crime is "bad" enough, America would cut its soldier loose and let local authorities deal with him. That has not generally been the case. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Standards of justice
- We seriously demand and expect that the government of the United States punish the culprits and try them in a public trial before the people of Afghanistan
In a related point, we might want to describe differences in legal customs between the USA - such as innocent until proven guilty - and other ideas such as mob justice or "hang him first, then give him a trial" (see Vigilantism). The American notion of establishing guilt "beyond any reasonable doubt" first, and only then deciding to punish may seem puzzling to those who assume he is guilty.
A similar thing happened in Florida this year, when the parents of Tayvon Martin wanted the security guard he tussled with to be "arrested, tried and convicted" (which contains the assumption that Martin was an innocent victim and the guard a murderer). There was very little discussion in US news media about conducting an inquest; rather, coverage quickly polarized into (a) let the guard remain free (he's innocent) vs. (b) arrest him (because he's guilty).
As encyclopedia writers, we ought to be concerned with the process more (see Jurisprudence) and be careful to avoid taking sides or even letting the article degenerate into presenting only the controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Recent page move to "Panjwai Massacre"
This article was just moved from "Kandahar massacre" to "Panjwai Massacre". I did not notice any discussion of that idea before it happened, and my initial reaction to the move is negative. My impression is that this event is better known as the "Kandahar massacre". What do others think about this? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. Just dropped by to see if it had been discussed. Google searches indicate 'Kandahar massacre' as more common. RashersTierney (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since the only reaction that has been expressed has been negative and since the person who made the page move did not provide any explanation (whether on the Talk page before the move, in an edit summary when making the move, or after-the-fact on the Talk page to defend the move), I have reverted the move. If someone thinks "Panjwai Massacre" (or something else) is more appropriate, they should submit a formal page move request and establish consensus first. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kandahar massacre is misleading because the incident occurred in the village of Panjwayi, not in the city of Kandahar which is a different place.--Fareed30 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that in the Talk page archive at Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archive 1, there is a record of a prior move request discussion that resulted in a page move from "Panjwai shooting spree" to "Kandahar massacre". It particularly includes a discussion section called "Kandahar vs Panjwai" that is relevant here. At the time, it seemed that "Kandahar" was used much more commonly than "Panjwai" in reliable sources that discussed the topic, although it was acknowledged that "Panjwai" is much more specific (and perhaps more correct) than "Kandahar". If you want us to reconsider your page move suggestion, please submit a formal move request using the instructions found at WP:RM, and it will be discussed and considered. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it seems that Panjwai is in the Kandahar province, so it is not wrong to refer to it as being in Kandahar in that sense – it is just a less specific identification of the location (like referring to something that happens in Manhattan as happening in New York). It is also common to associate events with a nearby city that may not exactly include the location within its official boundary – apparently, the Panjwai district is not so far from Kandahar city either. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The previous discussion didn't address the issue clearly. If you're not familiar with Afghanistan or Kandahar province, killings or massacres of people happen almost on daily bases due to wars. All of these can be called Kandahar massacre. To distinguish it we should choose Panjwai massacre. A good example is the Columbine High School massacre. People who write news stories choose their own titles, often they are not familiar with Afghanistan, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning the editors are more experts, and just like Britannica we can choose a more suitable name for these type of events. I know that Panjwai is in Kandahar province but in most cases people relate Kandahar with the city of Kandahar.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's actually a pretty good argument. However, on Wikipedia, we generally name articles based on principles of finding the WP:COMMONNAME, determining needs for WP:DISAMBIGUATION, and identification of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please see MOS:TITLE. Unless there are other articles on Wikipedia about other massacres in Kandahar, this event is probably the primary topic for the term "Kandahar massacre", and this name seems to be the common name for it.
- Rather than continue to discuss the merits of the article title suggestion, I suggest to submit the question for broader discussion as a formal move request. You can find the instructions for submitting a move request at WP:RM.
- Note that a "redirect" already exists with the alternative name, so this article will be found by anyone searching Wikipedia using the other term.
- —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't mean that much to me so I'll leave it alone. I came across this [5] and then decided to move this article to clear up the confusion. The "redirect" works both ways.--Fareed30 (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The previous discussion didn't address the issue clearly. If you're not familiar with Afghanistan or Kandahar province, killings or massacres of people happen almost on daily bases due to wars. All of these can be called Kandahar massacre. To distinguish it we should choose Panjwai massacre. A good example is the Columbine High School massacre. People who write news stories choose their own titles, often they are not familiar with Afghanistan, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning the editors are more experts, and just like Britannica we can choose a more suitable name for these type of events. I know that Panjwai is in Kandahar province but in most cases people relate Kandahar with the city of Kandahar.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it seems that Panjwai is in the Kandahar province, so it is not wrong to refer to it as being in Kandahar in that sense – it is just a less specific identification of the location (like referring to something that happens in Manhattan as happening in New York). It is also common to associate events with a nearby city that may not exactly include the location within its official boundary – apparently, the Panjwai district is not so far from Kandahar city either. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that in the Talk page archive at Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archive 1, there is a record of a prior move request discussion that resulted in a page move from "Panjwai shooting spree" to "Kandahar massacre". It particularly includes a discussion section called "Kandahar vs Panjwai" that is relevant here. At the time, it seemed that "Kandahar" was used much more commonly than "Panjwai" in reliable sources that discussed the topic, although it was acknowledged that "Panjwai" is much more specific (and perhaps more correct) than "Kandahar". If you want us to reconsider your page move suggestion, please submit a formal move request using the instructions found at WP:RM, and it will be discussed and considered. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kandahar massacre is misleading because the incident occurred in the village of Panjwayi, not in the city of Kandahar which is a different place.--Fareed30 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since the only reaction that has been expressed has been negative and since the person who made the page move did not provide any explanation (whether on the Talk page before the move, in an edit summary when making the move, or after-the-fact on the Talk page to defend the move), I have reverted the move. If someone thinks "Panjwai Massacre" (or something else) is more appropriate, they should submit a formal page move request and establish consensus first. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk page archiving problems
There are some problems with the archiving of this page.
- There is an archive guide at the top of the page, but it does not list all of the archives.
- There seems to be two archives for March 2012, and one of them is oddly named.
- Monthly archiving is probably too frequent. It is chopping up the archives into such small pieces that it is difficult to find them. I suggest using an annual or 90-day archiving period.
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with how to fix these problems. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I reviewed the history, and found (only) four archives:
- Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archives/2012/March
- Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archives/2012/March/Archives/2012/March (strangely named; I suggest at least performing a history merge with the other one for the same month)
- Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archives/2012/May
- Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archives/2013/June (not listed in the archive guidebox at the top of the Talk page)
- Specific problems (other than the apparent excess frequency of archiving) are noted in parentheses in the above list. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I since noticed that Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archives/2012/May contained only discussions that were duplicate copies of discussions already archived in Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archives/2012/March and Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archives/2012/March/Archives/2012/March. After removing the duplicate information, the archive Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archives/2012/May is effectively empty. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Number of victims
There are following data in infobox: "Deaths 16 civilians Injured (non-fatal) 6 civilians Victims Four men, four women, nine children" 4 men + 4 women + 9 children = 17 victims not 16. --Piotr967 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible Inconsistencies
In one paragraph of the "Killings" subsection, Mohammad Dawood is said to be the first victim in Najiban, and in the other it is said that a Mohammad Dawoud was killed after the Samad family in the same village. Are these two different persons ? zubrowka74 16:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- In my 7th-grade class of thirty people, there were two "Mohammed Mohammed"s, an "Ahmed Ahmed", an "Ahmed Mohammed" and one Mohammed with another surname. Not sure of the English spelling each used or any of the middle names, but fortunately, they looked different. My point is, there's not a lot of variety in Islamic names. If one is spelled differently and reported in another situation, it's probably safer to assume they're different people than assume a factual error. Not saying an error is impossible (or nearly), just less likely. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Then again, in our victim listbox, we have sixteen names and only one Dawood/Dawoud. That's a bit fishy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can't access the first source (for "first victim"), but the second doesn't specify first, last or anything. Just that it happened. Appparently the "Dawoud" family was one that claimed multiple soliders were involved, which isn't mentioned in "Dawood"'s bit here (but might be in the source). I'll check Google News. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- All I found in News Archives for "Dawoud" were 404ed, and nothing revealing in the two for "Dawood" which worked. Although one of them was this a CNN piece on a mysterious 17th victim (though the faint bit of evidence suggests it was a woman). I'm leaning toward thinking Dawood is Dawoud. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)