Jump to content

Talk:Marco Kroon

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

Kicking bodies etc

[edit]

This page contained a paragraph referring to Kroon's men "kicking bodies and firing rounds at wounded enemies". This has been removed by Yintan with edit summary "Can't find ANY sources for this accusation. Removing it per WP:BLP". I too have failed to find any source for this. Does anyone know of any? If not then the paragraph cannot be reinstated. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has just been put back in by IP 193.173.87.100 and I've removed it again. The IP provided a link to a forum as a source, but that forum says that when things got dangerous some of his men became agitated and "That's quite normal but I wanted to prevent we'd end up in a kind of bad film. Shooting wounded, kicking corpses. So as a precaution I had some very firm talks with a few of the men." (Dat is een normale reactie, maar ik wilde voorkomen dat we in een slechte film terecht kwamen. Schieten op gewonden, trappen tegen lijken. Ik heb toen voor de zekerheid een paar kerels heel stevig toegesproken.) So it didn't happen, it's mentioned as an example of the kind of thing he wanted to PREVENT from happening. Yintaɳ  12:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yinta the article by the NRC has been misinterpretted by the original article writer. I could not find this original NRC article but the forum entry stated it as well. The forum entry also points out the article was misinterpretted, so with a forum being not a hard source of information, it points to the events not having occurred. The text however should be re-written, not simply removed. 193.173.87.100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.87.100 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unsourced accusation of something that didn't happen. There's nothing to rewrite. Yintaɳ  12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia verifiability policy clearly states that forum postings are "are largely not acceptable", and I can see no reason why this case should be considered an exception. Therefore the material must go unless someone can produce a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fireing at enemy was one thing in a larger body of text. Here: "During daylight Kroon and his men emerged to retrieve intelligence from the deceased Taliban soldiers to establish their identity. Kroon's men, very agitated and full of adrenaline, started acting unprofessionally. Kroon straightened his men out and ordered the wounded to be treated and the dead to be covered. Kroon later said in an interview to understand the behaviour of his men but he, as a leader, was making sure the platoon acted professionally. The leadership and ability to correct his battle-hardened group of commandos was later commended by his superiors." I just removed the text " kicking bodies and firing rounds at wounded enemies". And, by all sources, including the dutch article the rest is true.
I'm all for correcting information. Just not weeding it out regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.87.100 (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try once more: The material cannot remain in the article unless you can find a reliable source. A forum posting is not regarded by Wikipedia as a reliable source. It is not enough for you to say "by all sources": you have to show us where the reliable sources are. If you don't fully understand that, please tell us what your difficulty is so that we can explain it more clearly.
For what it's worth, there is a very simple reason why forum postings are not accepted as reliable: anyone can create a forum posting, and many people do make totally unsubstantiated claims in forum postings, so the existence of such a posting is not reliable evidence. Whether you agree with this argument or not is irrelevant, because we have to follow Wikipedia policy anyway, but I thought it might help to clarify matters.
JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no need to be condescending. It is, after all, a discussion. I found the original NRC article. http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2149132.ece/Ridder_na_strijd_in_vallei_tegen_Talibaan. It talks about the "Normvervaging". This seems to be the exact source for the Dutch version of the article and states everything which was said in the body of text which was completely removed MINUS the UNFAIR accusation of the treatment of enemy. That was a clear misinterpretation of the interview with Kroon. The rest seems not to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.87.100 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I seemed condescending: I had no intention of doing so. I think the tone which came over as condescending was a result of a feeling of frustration at failing to get over the fact that the source given was not adequate. Anyway, congratulations on finding a reliable source for at least some of the material: perhaps now you would like to reinsert that part of the material which is justified by the source. Unfortunately my understanding of Dutch is nowhere near good enough for me to be sure, but it looks to me as though what the source justifies is a good deal more limited than even the "censored" version that you gave above. However, I will try to get the opinion of a native Dutch speaker on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say much more than that Kroon insisted his men behaved in a proper fashion, despite the stress mentioned above, and that he made sure they took care of the wounded and "at least" covered the dead. It again says he understands the hostile feelings some of his men had after the fights but that he would not tolerate any misbehaviour against the captured Taliban. ("Hij zag erop toe dat gewonde Talibaan werden verzorgd en gaf het bevel de gedode Talibaan op zijn minst toe te dekken. De „antipathie” na deze nacht noemt Kroon begrijpelijk."). In short, the guy behaved like any decent soldier should and nothing happened. Yintaɳ  13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been made more compliant with the sentence "Er dreigde ‘normvervaging’ onder de militairen, aldus Kroon." and the sentence "Ook al is de antipathie na gebeurtenissen zoals zojuist verteld begrijpelijk, toch zul je als commandant op zulke momenten krachtig moeten optreden." from the "Leiderschap onder extreme omstandigheden" reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.87.100 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's MUCH better. Yintaɳ  14:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful also with this accusation: according to art. 143 of the Dutch Wetboek van Militair Strafrecht (Military Criminal Code), acts of violence against the dead, ill or wounded combatants are a crime, even punishible with a lifelong imprisonment (in previous editions of the law, before adjustment to the current Dutch constitution in which article 114 since 1983 prohibits capital punishment, even with the death penalty?): "Hij, die geweld pleegt tegen een dode , zieke of gewonde, behorende tot de krijgsmacht van een der strijdende partijen, wordt gestraft met levenslange gevangenisstraf of tijdelijke van ten hoogste twintig jaren of geldboete van de vijfde categorie." --JanDeFietser (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military William Order

[edit]

I have inserted the French Légion d’Honneur as a more appropriate comparison to the Military William Order. I have deleted reference to the US Medal of Honor and the British Victoria Cross since they are single class awards only granted for gallantry in action unlike the French Légion d’Honneur or the Military William Order which are multi class awards for meritorious and distinguished service including gallantry. Marco Kroon is a Knight 4th class of the Military William Order. This is the fifth level of the Military William Order and is comparable to the Chevalier or Knight of the French Légion d’Honneur. However, the Military William Order is issued more rarely than the Légion d’Honneur. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order reversed

[edit]

At this moment the text on the current criminal investigation on the page of Marco Kroon precedes the text on his military reputation. This order has, in spite of the fact that Kroon is only a suspect, somehow a negative marking effect. I suggest to change this order the other way round, reflecting my personal view on the priorities: first the part on Kroons military reputation, second the criminal investigation. Other opinions? --JanDeFietser (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change of order performed to diminish the possible negative marking effect of the mentioning of the current criminal investigation. --JanDeFietser (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marco Kroon. 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 to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Marco Kroon. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marco_Kroon&oldid=1199653887"