Jump to content

Talk:Maywand District murders/Archive 1

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

Title

The Title is misleading. Might I suggest the Title "FOB Ramrod murder incident"? The term "Kill Team" makes it almost sound like these soldiers were part of a unit designed for that purpose, which is completely off-base.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

the title should be changed, calling it a killteam is overkill. I couldn't find the listing here because of how it is titled. ~ ~ [[Special:Contributions) 22:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You said in your edit summary you could not log in. What is your user name? I would also like to ask you what key word you used to look for the article? "kill team" is used in almost all secondary sources to refer to the topic of the article so i just wonder. IQinn (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Links: this article would be much more useful if it had links to the der speg. photos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.138.103 (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos of the corpses

User Iqinn has repeatedly inserted language that is not sourced into this article, as in here: [1] V7-sport (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport is censoring Wikipedia. The information is perfectly sourced. What part you think is not verified by the references? IQinn (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) V7-sport, that appears to be a backed by the source:
"The other two photos show two soldiers, who are accused of killing an unarmed Afghan in January 2010, kneeling next to the body of the slain man, who is stretched out prone on the sand and grass. [...] The two soldiers depicted are: [...] Spc. Jeremy Morlock, of Wasilla, Alaska, who is accused of participating in the slaying of that man and two other unarmed Afghans in February and May 2010. He appears to be smiling and raising the head of the corpse on the ground. [...]" 2
In fact it's so close to the source that it needs to be written to avoid plagiarism/copyright issues. The only thing that isn't quite the same as in the source is "defenseless" vs. "unarmed" -- I agree that we should change that word accordingly.
What other parts do you disagree with? Amalthea 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Very well. I do however agree Amalthea Re "defenseless". Any objections at leaving the first sentence as "Der Spiegel published three photos of U.S. soldiers posing with dead bodies" ?V7-sport (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The sources has identified the corpse Morlock is playing with as the one of Gul Mudin [2], [3] one of the victims listed in the article. IQinn (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, that would lose us some relevant information, it's in my opinion very relevant that the dead people in the pictures were just those people referred to in the "Killing" section above.
It might be best to restructure the article a bit, by combining the sections with the pictures and the killings into one, and describe the incident there in prose (both the alleged murder and the posing). Amalthea 00:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there less inflammatory language then "defenseless victims they killed." The article makes no mention of who killed them, nor whether or not the bodies pictured were armed. Nor does it mention that the corpse is being "raised by the hair". V7-sport (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What's inflammatory about "defenseless"? IQinn (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The Seattle Times article? It says 'head' not 'hair' but other than that it sure does; read the part again that I quoted above, it mentions that they were unarmed, and that the soldiers are accused of killing just those depicted. Amalthea 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW I'll go to bed now, please try to work this out instead of continuing to revert once protection runs out, I'll be back tomorrow. Amalthea 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that it does refer to that specific body in question, my apologies. So we are now down to "defenseless". Any objection to losing that? (good night Amalthea , thanks for your help)V7-sport (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I guess the protection didn't stick, because Iqinn is already reverting and editing. V7-sport (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I am changing nothing that concerns the topic here. It is an article at it's early stages and we need to go ahead there are still a lot of information missing. Please raise further issues with the content here on the talk page and we will work it out. Please start new threads for different issues. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The protection was only for an hour, to try to get the two of you to calm down. I'm keeping an eye on it while Amalthea sleeps. When I looked over Iquinn's edits, they didn't seem like a continuation of the edit war. If you think they are, V7-sport, let me know why. I'll act if I'm convinced.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I would still like to see "defenseless victims" in this section replaced with something less inflamitory like "dead Afghans". Is there any agreement on that?V7-sport (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

BROKERING A DEAL - I will play mediator here. I have looked at the modified language of V7 to the "defenseless" portion of the article, and the edit is fine.[4] It does not breach neutrality, and it has no POV concerns. Let's make a deal - Keep the picture as advocated by Iqinn, and the change to the article by V7. Can you both agree to that so we can move on to more constructive pursuits? Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The file really was copyrighted, Yachtsman1. I suspect the trial will get plenty of photos released into the public domain though. V7-sport (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The file is in the public domain. Could you please explain who is holding the copyright? IQinn (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
V7-sport keeps removing public domain images from the article instead of providing evidence and reason for his false claim. IQinn (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The photo is copyrighted by the SPIEGEL-Gruppe. ("Unser Material ist urheberrechtlich geschützt"). It is not the work of "a federal employee made during the course of the person's official duties", it was made against DOD policy, standing orders and is being used as evidence in a trial. It was previously deleted from your sock account per WP:COPYVIO. How many times are you going to get banned for doing the same exact thing?V7-sport (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You may get banned for constant edit warring without engaging in civil discussion on the articles talk page. To many wrongs in your reply. 1) The photo has never been uploaded before. 2) This photo is not copyrighted. 3) It perfectly falls under "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It's difficult to remain civil when you simply refuse to get the point. The photo is most certainly not "made during the course of the person's official duties" (Obviously, as he is going to courts martial for it) and yes, this photo, or another in this series was previously deleted for copyright infringement. I've even posted the link to where you can license it.V7-sport (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You are certainly the one who refuses to get the point. The link you posted does not say that these images are copyrighted. These images have been leaked to The Spiegel. The are made by US soldiers during the their deployment to Afghanistan collected by the DoD and are part of the court case and they fall under "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." as the Abu Ghraib images. Stop edit warring and bring it to the relevant forum here at Wikipedia. So take the speedy deletion tag of the page that has never been discussed in the relevant forums at Wikipedia. That is censorship and not acceptable. 04:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This is precisely why I loathe dealing with you. Simply repeating the same thing over and over is not a counterargument. Taking photos of civilians you have just allegedly murdered is not a part of anyones "official duties" and yes, Spiegel is copyrighted. I'm not edit warring, you however have been banned twice. Next time you will have to use your sock account. V7-sport (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL - you just got banned for edit warring and their are at least 5 warnings on you talk page about edit warring that have you deleted from your talk page in the last weeks and month and you keep doing it in a way it borders vandalism.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhh... another uncivil response. Do you have any evidence that i have ever used a sock account? I have never done so. Calling people sock puppets or jihadist is surely not helpful. So please do stop attacking other editors whenever it comes to the point where you luck of good arguments regarding the content issue. Your personal attacks and incivility are a problem.
The Spiegel does not claim copyright for these images. No evidence for thathat was surely not one of the official duties to murder civilians but they took these photos during their tour in Afghanistan and they got paid a nice salary for that tour. Let me repeat: The are made by US soldiers during the their deployment to Afghanistan collected by the DoD and are part of the court case and they fall under "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." as the Abu Ghraib images. As said we have forums as Files for deletion where you should bring up the issue with the community. Your one man POV is not helpful. IQinn (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
"Unser Material ist urheberrechtlich geschützt" That's Spiegel claiming copyright and people don't go to Leavenworth for doing their "official duties". V7-sport (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of context. This sentence is not connected to the images and these images are not taken by der Spiegel. They do not claim copyright for these images. These images are in the public domain as the Abu Ghraib images are in the public domain taken by US soldier during their tour in Afghanistan and therefore there are DoD images and in the public domain. Read the sources the DoD tried to keep these images out of the public domain. But there are now in the public domain and nobody can and has claimed copyright for these images. IQinn (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,752996,00.html Notice

  • © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011
  • Alle Rechte vorbehalten
  • Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH

That translates into

  • © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011
  • All rights reserved
  • Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH V7-sport (talk)
Out of context. This does not concern the images, these images are not taken by der Spiegel. They do not claim copyright for these images. These images are in the public domain as the Abu Ghraib images are in the public domain taken by US soldier during their tour in Afghanistan and therefore there are DoD images and in the public domain. Read the sources the DoD tried to keep these images out of the public domain. But there are now in the public domain and nobody can claim copyright for these images. Iqinn (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Publicly available doesn't equal "public domain". I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. V7-sport (talk)
The DoD tried to keep the images out of the public domain that what the sources say. Demonstrably these images are in the public domain. Der Spiegel did not alter the images in any way that would give them copyright over these images and they have never claimed copyright for these images. They are in the public domain as shown. IQinn (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You are just repeating the same disproven thing over and over. Why don't you read what Public domain means before you repeat it over and over... that Speigal isn't claiming a copyright is simply a lie. V7-sport (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Your personal attacks and incivility like calling other editors jihadists, sockpuppets and liars will not solve the content issue and is highly disruptive.
I read already PD already long time ago and i stand by what i said. The DoD tried to keep the images out of the public domain that what the sources say. Demonstrably these images are in the public domain. Der Spiegel did not alter the images in any way that would give them copyright over these images and they have never claimed copyright for these images. They are in the public domain as shown. IQinn (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The sources(your web-blog and the article it cited) say "public view", not "public domain". Try the truth. Regardless, that's irrelevant to the fact that these are copyrighted. V7-sport (talk)
(my web-blog?) The sources say public domain [5], [6]... and the fact is that they are in the public domain. Demonstrably these images are in the public domain. Der Spiegel did not alter the images in any way that would give them copyright over these images and they have never claimed copyright for these images. They are in the public domain as shown. IQinn (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
They aren't using the definition of "public domain" as it applies to copyright law. Had you read the link I sent you you would have realized that. And yes, that piece of crap web blog that you cited used the phrase "public view" which was accurate. V7-sport (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I never cited this blog for "public domain". That can be found in many reliable sources as i provided [7], [8]... It also refers to copyright and we have already shown that these are images made by US soldiers during their tour in Afghanistan and then seized by the DoD and therefore in the public domain as the DoD is undoubted part of the federal government. IQinn (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
And again, these were NOT taken during the course of the person's official duties nor were they released by the DOD into the public domain. V7-sport (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and does not change the fact that these images are in the public domain. I think you are Wikipedia:Wikilawyering abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles. Yeah surely it was not their official duty to murder innocent civilians but that does not change the fact that they were deployed by the DoD to Afghanistan and that the DoD then seized the images and that they are in the public domain. IQinn (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You might try abiding by a policy or guideline here every once and a while.V7-sport (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Uuuuuuhhh....another personal attack? Another smear campain? :)) surely an Ad hominem and before you called me already jihadist, sockpuppet and liar. All absolutely wrong. Your incivility and personal attacks are becoming increasingly disruptive, be warned. No nothing in your reply seems to address the given arguments. IQinn (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I've addressed your arguments over and over. I'm sick of your tantrums. V7-sport (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
"your tantrum" :) I am discussion i a civil manner and it was you who called other editors jihadist, sockpuppet and liar and gave simply an Ad hominem response.
You did not address the arguments in your last reply and you failed to provide compelling counter arguments. Not my fault. The discussion has shown that the photo is indeed in the public domain. IQinn (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
When you stated "Yeah surely it was not their official duty" you effectively admitted it wasn't in public domain. With that, © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011 and with Speigel stating "All our material is copyright-protecteted" it's a done deal.V7-sport (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It is in the public domain. You are repeating yourself and quoting out of context. We had this already. Again, der Spiegel did not take these images nor do they gain ownership or copyright for material that is not theirs and has only been leak to them. This is not their material and they never claimed copyright nor blurring a face does grant them copyright. Yeah surely it was not their official duty to murder innocent civilians but that does not change the fact that they were deployed by the DoD to Afghanistan and that the DoD then seized the images and that they are in the public domain. These images are in the public domain as the DoD is undoubted part of the federal government and does not claim copyrights nor are the images classified. They are in the public domain as shown above and it is as important to have them on Wikipedia as to have the Abu Gharaib images.

Long discussion. I didn't read this all now, and I'm not a copyright lawyer. A couple of things though:

  • The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there.
  • "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties."[9] I have no idea how to interpret that. That soldier certainly is on duty while he's on a tour. Does that automatically equal "official duty"? I note that File:Abu-ghraib-leash.jpg has a notice saying: "Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright, unless the photographer successfully claims that the photographs were not taken as part of his or her official duties." If that is the case, and newspapers like Spiegel or Guardian have not been made to take them down, I assume that applies here as well.
  • If this can't be resolved here, go to WP:MCQ, you'll find the experts there
  • In any case, even if the image were copyrighted, I think that a claim of WP:fair use for this picture can be made.

Amalthea 09:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:MCQ#Work of the United States Government?. Amalthea 09:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian credits Speigel. The burden of proof isn't on spiegel to show there is no licensing, it's on Iqinn. I can assure you that the personal pictures of members of the US military are not property of the US government and that their "official duty" wasn't shooting unarmed civilians and posing with them. Indeed, this is against standing orders and DOD policy to take such photos. V7-sport (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work and summary. I think we should have these images considering their importance and it seems to be the case that they are in the public domain. IQinn (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Amalthea. The copyright notice at the Spiegel is a red herring – whatever their status, they are most certainly not copyright of that newspaper. I'm not sure about the legalese of "taken as part of official duties" versus "taken while on duty but doing something illegal". As Amalthea rightly says, the apparent practice of major news outlets implicitly supports the understanding that they're free, and we've taken the same route also with the Abu Ghraib pictures, as well as with items such as File:Aldo Moro br.jpg. According to the Aldo Moro file page, there is a rule in at least some jurisdictions that you cannot claim copyright for a work whose creation constituted participation in a crime. While I can't say whether that's formally true for the US, I also cannot, as a matter of common sense, imagine the photographer could ever seriously try to sue somebody for copyright compensation over this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
U.S. law generally prevents convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes (see Son of Sam law, although I couldn't tell you a specific statute here, nor have I read the article to know if anyone has actually been convicted/plea bargained/etc.), but I'm unaware of any application of that to copyright. There are other remedies for copyright violation besides monetary damages (e.g., an injunction), so I don't think it can be ruled out completely, and I'm unaware of any case law or statute which applies. Anyways, as I pointed out at WP:MCQ, it's only PD if it was created during the course of their official duties - if it was a personal camera and there was no orders which would include them taking pictures then it's probably copyrighted, if they were on recon and supposed to be taking photos of things then it's probably PD - I haven't read the background, so I couldn't say which this is more likely to fall under. Even if nobody would ever sue for copyright damages, we can't pretend that it's public domain if it isn't, but I haven't read about the situation to know if this particular image would be copyrighted or not. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your first point. There are countries were convicted criminals are banned from profiting from their crimes and it is almost ridiculous to think that these criminals ever would try to sue somebody for copyright compensation over images that show them posing with the dead bodies of their victims but they are in the public domain anyway as they were taken by US government employees during their official duties.
All of the sources state that the killing of Gul Mudin happened during the soldiers regular service [10], [11],[12], [13], [14]..., it all happened while these soldiers where on active duty patrolling the area what was there official duty at that time and they can not claim copyright for a work that was produced during their official duty. IQinn (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
My point was that during their official duty is not the same as as part of their official duties. If a government employee's job involves sitting at a computer all day, it does not automatically make everything that they type on that computer public domain. There is a difference. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The exact text on the tag says: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
If killing Gul Mudin was a part of their regular service they wouldn't be going to courts marshall for doing it. Further, taking personal photographs of enemy dead is against orders. So no, this was not a part of their official duties. And once again, der spiegel claims copyright. V7-sport (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
(your are repeating yourself we had this already) Der Spiegel does not claim copyright and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." These images are made by the soldiers during their official duty to patrol the area and the killings happen during their official duty. We had this also. The question is not if it was part of their official duties nor if they where ordered to do so is relevant for the copyright. The point is: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They state- © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011, All rights reserved, Reproduction only with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH, "All our material is copyright-protected and they provide a link where the images can be licensed. http://www.spiegelgruppe-nachdrucke.de/syndication/homeeng.nsf so they are claiming copyright. It isn't their official duty to shoot unarmed civilians or take photos of corpses against orders. Violating orders and the laws of war is not a part of their official duties. That isn't the work of the federal government and has been altered by SPIEGELnet GmbH. Repeating the same thing over and over to get the last word is not a compelling counterargument. V7-sport (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That was never an counterargument and the speedy deletion tag has already been removed from the image because the image is in the public domain. These are the compelling counterarguments and your refusal to get the point is not helpful: Der Spiegel does not claim copyright and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." If someone has the copyright than that would be the soldiers and that is the topic of the discussion. These images are made by the soldiers during their official duty to patrol the area and the killings happen during their official duty. The question is not if it was part of their official duties nor if they where ordered to do so is relevant for the copyright. The point is: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I know, you haven't offered a counterargument, just repeated the same thing over and over. Just because the "speedy deletion" tag was removed by an editor on this one ( a previous one from the series was speedily deleted) doesn't mean that it isn't copyrighted. And just because you state that it's a "standard copyright notice" doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. (obviously) They still have the © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011. You speak of "conclusive proof"? It's your obligation to provide conclusive proof to anything challenged here. Putting during the course in bold just goes to show that you aren't listening or that you don't understand what it means. The question IS whether or not killing unarmed civilians and taking photos of them against standing orders that can stupidly be used as evidence against them is a part of their "official duties ". Since the are being brought to courts marshall for dereliction of duty for doing this the obvious answer is no. Now write the same thing you wrote before... V7-sport (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
As you provide the same argument i am giving you the same counter argument. Your refusal to get the point is not helpful and ad hominem arguments are irrelevant and disruptive. Der Spiegel does not claim copyright and "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." If someone has the copyright than that would be the soldiers and that is the topic of the discussion. These images are made by the soldiers during their official duty to patrol the area and the killings happen during their official duty to patrol the area. The question is not if the killing was part of their official duties nor if they where ordered to do so is relevant for the copyright. The point is: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Saying that "Der Spiegel does not claim copyright " is a lie. They claim it all over the place. Parroting " "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." is ridicules because that was posted by an editor here and ignores the fact that the burden of proof is on you. " "These images are made by the soldiers during their official duty" is obviously wrong as murder and violating orders by taking prohibited photographs are not a part of their official duty. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE GOING TO JAIL. Repeating "made during the course is non sequitur as the relevant passage is "official duties". Unless you somehow think that the "course" of their official duties is murder, violating orders and the law of war. If that were the case everyone in the military would wind up in Leavenworth. You just had someone familier with copyright issues post you this on the other forum: "Somebody modified the image, (Spiegel) blurring the face of the victim. And that somebody (or his employer) (Spiegel) has copyright on the modified image. His copyright is automatic whether he claimed it or not.".... OK? I've been telling you that for days. Now post the same thing again. V7-sport (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be that you are turning to uncivil responses again. Calling other editors liar and shouting is not helpful and you have been warned already to stop these kind of negative behavior. I disagree blurring the face is not something that can be copyrighted and Der Spiegel has not claimed copyright for the image. It is all over the media and internet and it is in the public domain as taken by the soldier during their official duty in patrolling the area. But i agree that Fair use is certainly possible to do and it is obviously that the images is highly important to the article and it should be added to it as soon as possible. IQinn (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Start telling the truth then. Spegel is claiming copyright. © The manipulation of the photo imparts intellectual property to it, whether or not you agree. When other news outlets use the photo they credit Spiegel, and just because it has appeared on various web forums doesn't mean they are not infringing that.V7-sport (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Stop refusing to get the point. "The standard copyright notice shown on every page of spiegel.de is not conclusive proof that they own copyright of all content shown there." Blurring a face does not grant them copyright over the images taken by the soldiers. Nor does Der Spiegel claim copyright over these images. "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." IQinn (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys. V7-sport and Iqinn, you two have been exchanging the same arguments over and over multiple times now. You are clearly not going to persuade each other, and the sheer volume of discussion from the two of you is drowning out the contributions from everybody else. Can you both please take a step back and let others decide? You've both made your arguments heard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion here. V7-sport (talk)

For some clarification of what actually counts as part of "official duties" (and so would be PD content), you can see an FAQ about copyright by a federal agency and a law review paper it refers to, Copyright in Government Employee Works. The law review paper in turn quotes part of the text of the 1965 Report of the Register of Copyrights which states:

Government official or employee would not be prohibited from obtaining copyright protection for any work he produces in his private capacity outside the scope of his official duties. The use of Government time, material, or facilities would not, of itself, determine whether something is a "work of the United States Government," but the Government would then have the privilege of using the work in any event (28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)), and the unauthorized use of Government time, material, or facility could, of course, subject an employee to disciplinary action.

All of this supports what I said (somewhere) above that just doing something on the government's time and dime doesn't make it PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Verno. Applying this to the photo at hand, unless the US government will make use of it and implicitly declare it government work (which is unlikely) or the photographer says he was ordered to take those photographs (like happened with Abu Ghraib torture pictures) they are not public domain as government works.
I'll initiate a deletion discussion on commons and will upload & include a new one per fair use tomorrow. Amalthea 21:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I readded the photo to the article. It is a US Government, public domain photo. It was taken by a US Army soldier engaged in a US military operation. The photo is definitely relevant to this topic. Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on appropriateness of "FOB Ramrod kill team" as title

At issue is whether or not the title "FOB Ramrod kill team" is an appropriate title for the article surrounding the alleged killings of civilians and other activities by several US Army soldiers in Afghanistan. Also within the subject scope is the subsequent investigations and public reaction. This issue has been raised twice in the life of the article, most recently about ten days ago. An informal discussion of interested editors has been unable to reach a consensus on moving the article. One view is that the term title is informal and colloquial and possibly even a POV pejorative, too narrow in scope, fundamentally unencyclopedic and avoided by most mainstream articles written in formal tone such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. The other view is that the term is often the principle identifier used by multiple reliable sources such as Der Spiegel and The Guardian, is of an encyclopedic tone, is descriptive of the subject and to change the title would constitute a whitewashing of war crimes by Wikipedia editors. To be clear I am of the former position and this synopsis was written without the consultation of those holding the latter. The alternate title agreed upon by the two editors advocating a rename is "La Mohammed Kalay killings" after the town in which the killings took place. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Search compatibility is one one of several criteria. Are you advocating retaining the present title or simply unsatisfied with that proposed alternate title? TomPointTwo (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • TomPointTwo, you won't mind telling us why you thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread about a topic that is already well discussed in the "Title" thread? IQinn (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please assume good faith Victor. I think Yachtsman1 said it best: "The term "Kill Team" makes it almost sound like these soldiers were part of a unit designed for that purpose, which is completely off-base." If these charges are true they are criminals and murderers, not a part of any "kill team". V7-sport (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
See below. walk victor falk talk 01:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've decided to be wp:bold and move it to FOB Ramrod 'kill team'. I already suggested that in the discussion above, and when I made this edit[15] where I pipelinked "FOB Ramrod kill team" to "FOB Ramrod 'kill team'" I decided to change it. Seeing user:TwoPointTwo's question about an alternate title and user:V7-sport's comment about possible confusion only confirmed this decision. I think this is the most precise possible title per Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title criteria #3 "Precision". It clarifies it is moniker specifically coined for this incident. It also makes clear to readers with a minimum of military knowledge what it is about in the most concise manner: about an article a Forward Operating Base, an initialism strongly associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a non-standard term 'kill team', in strong contrast to standard miitary designations "squad", "platoon", "company", etc, and also differentiating from "death squad" and similar terms. As expressed in Wikipedia:Article titles, "an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic." It is also the term used by the military investigators. walk victor falk talk 01:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And none of that was with consensus... V7-sport (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
That is what wp:bold is for. People who think it is better without the quotes should argue for that. walk victor falk talk 01:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOLD is not for a move without consensus. In a situataion with obvious debate the abuse of BOLD is simply unilateral. Not constructive. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Process is secondary. Focus on refuting the point walk victor falk talk 06:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer you point, Victor, how ever despicable the alleged actions of certain individuals we should not use journalistic language in an encyclopedia especially as the events are still under investigation. If there are convictions in which the court describes a group as a 'kill team' then we would be justified in using that term here but until this happens we should use more neutral language in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that you are right, I know nothing about this subject except what is written in the article, where it says that judicial proceedings are in progress. Until the due legal process has been completed we should not say anything that might give the impression that WP supports any specific version of events, in particular that a team of soldiers was set up to intentionally kill civilians.
Remember, there are real people involved here, not only the people who have died but those accused of killing them. It is not up to us to come up with a verdict, however strong we might think the evidence is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Google results for "La Mohammed Kalay" have plenty in the news section. Indeed, more then FOB Ramrod... By the way, nice user name. V7-sport (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've opined on the merits of the name change below. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
La Mohammed KalayAbout 31 results (0.10 seconds) and FOB Ramrod7 results (0.15 seconds) None of which, of course, has any bearing as to whether or not the title is encyclopedic, accurate or pejorative. V7-sport (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
:)) Real research and sources that prove you wrong have been provided by multiple editors also to be found in my keep reply below this here. How about "La Mohammed Kalay kill team"? But wait actually only one of the murder happened in La Mohammed Kalay so that name would be almost misleading as it does not cover the whole story and all events. The story of a group of U.S soldiers at the FOB Ramrod who formed a team/squad to randomly murdered Afghan civilians in cold blood on multiple separate occasions and places during there service at the FOB Ramrod. The article is about this and the title now describes this encyclopedic fact in accordance with our policies for choosing a title. Not saying it is the best title in the world but all suggested new titles leave out the fact and none of the new suggested titles is descriptive enough, nor better.IQinn (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
What I provided you is "real research". Not cherry-picking. The term "kill team" is not encyclopedic, it's pejorative and is not accurate. Please, the judicial process hasn't played itself out so don't use terms like "encyclopedic fact" to push POV.V7-sport (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
:)) the one who was "cherry-picking" is obviously you. I and other editors have provided more that enough links to English-language reliable sources that most frequently used to refer to the subject of the article as "kill team" what makes it the WP:COMMONNAME.
:)) Repeating the same false "argument" over and over again seems to be POV pushing? "Unencyclopedic" has been rebutted by victor falk above. I have heard "unenceyclopedic" a lot from people in the past who tried to push their POV because they had simply no strong policy based arguments. "Unencyclopedic" in our terms and policies would be WP:NOT. Is it that what you mean? So please point us to the right section of that policy. (but please try to avoid Filibuster.) Thank you. IQinn (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
How is what I stated false? I provided the links. And no, the term is un-encyclopedic and more to the point, (per yachtsman) inaccurate. Look "Kill team" is a sensationalist term used in writing tabloid headlines, it isn't fit for something that supposedly gives a nod to WP:NPOV. Please, lets not have this be another Iquinn repeats what he just wrote until everyone projectile vomits session. You have expressed yourself, you want the title to stay, we get it.... V7-sport (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Not only that you don't have policy based arguments that would support your point you seems now to get angry that your POV is not supported by our policies. Attacking other editors with ad hominum arguments is always a bad idea and against our policies.
To prove that something is the common name you have to provide us a large number of links to English-language reliable sources that refer to the topic of the article as a whole to "La Mohammed Kalay killings". That has not been done. Not only that, multiple other editors have provided countless links to to English-language reliable sources (non "tabloid") that show that "kill team" is in fact the WP:COMMONNAME.
I asked you to point us to the relevant section in our policy WP:NOT to tell us what is "un-encyclopedic". That you could not do this shows us that you are wrong.
WP:NPOV has already been rebutted and there is nothing wrong in the use of "kill team". It might not be the best name in the world but is the preferred choice per our policies WP:POVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME.
Hope that will not end up in one of these debates where one editor repeats the same often non policy arguments that have already been rebutted ad nauseum. IQinn (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And again, same thing that you wrote before. "Kill team" is not a common name, it's a sensationalized headline. Not going to cut and paste the same thing over and over. Why don't you actually read some of those links you post as justification for doing what you do? Just below it is WP:POVTITLE and WP:NDESC.V7-sport (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"sensationalized headline" not true. The term was not created by the press and it is used in non "tabloid" reliable English-language sources.
You want to proof by assertion. :)) Thanks for admitting that you do not have links of a large number of English-language reliable sources that refer to the topic of the article as a whole to "La Mohammed Kalay killings". They don't do this. The majority of English-language reliable sources (non "tabloid") refer to the topic of the article as "kill team" what makes it in fact the WP:COMMONNAME.
Be assured i am familiar with the policies and i read them regularly. What seems not to be the case for you. WP:PRECISION, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE not only support the use of "kill team" they demand it. IQinn (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as per our policies WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME (most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources).
Daily Telegraph [16], The Guardian [17], Financial times [18], Der Spiegel' [19], Irish Times [20], The Independent [21], Slate [22], Times of India [23], Bangkok Post [24], LA Times [25], News Limited [26], Sydney Herald [27], [28] [29], Foreign Policy [30], AFP [31], Yahoo news [32], Daily Mail [33]... That goes on and on and there is not doubt that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. IQinn (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, you are just provably wrong and again, you are creating a straw-man argument that has nothing to do with whether or not the title is encyclopedic and concurrent with Wiki policies and again, it's probably a good idea to let some other editors comment on the subject rather then flooding the talk page with stating the same bullshit over and over again as if getting the last word was key to getting your way. V7-sport (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, V7-sport someone has to post you the link to Wikipedia:Civility seems to be that they are now quite a large number of other editors over a wide range of talk pages alone in the last month that said that your editing is disruptive and do not help us to build an enceclopedia.
The link you provide does not prove anything. Bad science. 31 results :)) how many of them are actually reliable English-language sources and how many of them actually refer to the topic of the article as a whole? Let me prove you wrong :)) Bad science. Seems to be that you want to create proof by assertion by repeating rebutted or invalid arguments over and over again but this is a logical fallacy and becomes disruptive WP:DE WP:GAME as done repeatedly.
Detailed links that prove that English-language reliable sources refer to the subject of the article as "kill team" have been provided by multiple editors what makes it the WP:COMMONNAME and together with WP:PRECISION the preferred choice. Regards IQinn (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible Compromise? I hate to muddy the waters here but as a compromise what about "FOB Ramrod Killings" as the title? That would get rid of the "kill team" portion that the majority of the editors who have expressed an opinion object to. V7-sport (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. It is not surprising to have editors who expressed an objection against the use of "kill team" but the fact is that their arguments were either not policy based or have been rebutted. The current name might not be the best name in the world but it is based on our policies for choosing a name. There is no policy based reason nor consensus to change the title to "FOB Ramrod Killings" or "La Mohammed Kalay killings" for the policy based given reasons. IQinn (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Stating that you disagree and posting some links to newspaper articles isn't a rebuttal of anything. As it stands now there are more people for changing the title then there are for keeping it. And no, policies for chosing article names specifically state that the title should be neutral, WP:POVTITLE and Non-judgmental WP:NDESC calling these idiots a "kill team" violates both of those policies. What I was trying to do is find a compromise that would enable you to keep most of your title and still maintain some nod to Wiki Policy. If you don't like it I'll be just as satisfied with "La Mohammed Kalay killings" as it's title is in keeping with the other incidents of the same nature in Wikipedia. V7-sport (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
"Stating that you disagree and posting some links to newspaper articles isn't a rebuttal of anything." That clearly shows that you did not read what other people wrote. The links to English-language reliable sources provided by multiple editors prove that "kill team" is the WP:COMMONNAME and therefore the preferred choice. (These links are the perfect rebuttal)
"As it stands now there are more people for changing the title then there are for keeping it." No that is false and their arguments were either not confirm with policy or have been rebutted.
"And no, policies for chosing article names specifically state that the title should be neutral," :}} Nope and i think you forget to mention that according to WP:POVTITLE "Non-neutral but common names" are the preferred choice over any neutral name invented or non invented name. "kill team" is the WP:COMMONNAME. (The "idiots" called themselves "kill team")
Morlock has been sentenced to 24 years in prison for 3 independent cold blood murder so could you please explain what you mean by WP:NDESC? We could name it "FOB Ramrod 'kill team' allegation" what i think would not be necessary as the title is non judgmental and Morlock has been sentenced in court. The term is also already placed in "" as "kill team". If you still think that is a problem than you need to explain in detail how this policy is violated in context of our article.
This incident does not compare to any other article you have pointed earlier and that we have seen. Rumsfeld called it even worst that Abu Ghraib. It needs an natural, recognizable and precise name and that is "kill team" what is also the WP:COMMONNAME most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. These are good policy based reasons in contrast to other stuff exist an argument that has been rebutted already: "WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, "kill team" is not pejorative. victor falk 10:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)". Or "un-encyclopedic" WP:NOT where? Regards IQinn (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Even by your own diva yardstick, you need more then one person to make a "team" so yeah, it's still inaccurate as well as POV pushing. Posting thousands of words that say the same thing that you just posted previously is an obvious attempt to derail the RFC.V7-sport (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing "inaccurate" and nobody is "POV pushing" and "derailing". If somebody is disruptive than that seems to be you who does not answer other editors questions and instead attacks them with ad hominem arguments or repeats the same non policy or rebutted arguments over and over. What is indeed highly WP:DE WP:GAME.
There is nothing inaccurate with "kill team" it originates from the soldiers and what is important it is the WP:COMMONNAME used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. The title needs to be an natural, recognizable and precise. As said you frequently do not answer other editors questions and you have not answered the questions regarding WP:NDESC. I possible could agree to change the title to "FOB Ramrod 'kill team' allegation"? to fix possible problems with WP:NDESC that you have not explained in detail. Although i do not think that would be necessary as "kill team" is non judgmental and has been put into " " and the first sentence clearly says "allegedly perpetrated". IQinn (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
So when you write "I possible could agree to change the title to "FOB Ramrod 'kill team' allegation"? to fix possible problems with .... "You acknowlage there's a problem with WP:NDESC... Very good, thank you. V7-sport (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope i did not "acknowlage" that there is a problem i said the opposite, there is no problem and it has never been shown that there is a problem. The word "possible" in this sentence, the reasons i gave why that is not the case and my comment as a whole do not leave any doubt that i said there is no problem. This is a misinterpretation of what i have stated. Be careful with quoting out of context what is a form of uncivil behaviors WP:CIVIL 2(e). You brought up this claim but you haven not explained nor proved that this would be the case and until you have not done so we can assume that this is not the case and that there is no problem with this policy. As said i would not have a problem to change the name to "FOB Ramrod 'kill team' allegation" if you would come up with compelling explanations and reason why that needs to be done in context of this policy. I personally think that is not necessary for the reasons that i have provided earlier. And thank you once again for not answering other editors questions. IQinn (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reality check It would seem that this RfC has deteriorated past the point of being useful. I've refrained from comment so far because I've made my initial position clear and I've been extremely busy in real life. I suspect this current, informal, discourse may not reach the finality we all desire. Shall we elevate this discusstion to a more binding enviromant or continue to seek a satisfactory resolution amoungst ourselves? TomPointTwo (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just ignore the attempt to derail the process. At this point it would appear that there is a clear consensus to change, we have
  • For:
TomPointTwo
V7-sport
Yachtsman1
Martin Hogbin
~ [[Special:Contributions) 22:50, 13 April 2011
  • Against:
IQinn
victor falk
With a 2 .5 to 1 majority I think you can go ahead and pull the trigger on this. V7-sport (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been shown already two times through policy based arguments that a title change is ill advised. It is also open at the moment to what name the article should be changed. We had the "title" thread where this is the result not to change. Than you start this new thread for and unexplained reason where we come to the same result after discussing all arguments and policies that a change is ill advised. Non of the listed people above could provide policy based arguments that would support a change or that have not been rebutted. The closure of these debates should also never been performed by an involved editor instead it should be performed as usual by an independent uninvolved admin. IQinn (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, your arguments have been answered in triplicate. The polices WP:NDESC and WP:POVTITLE have been outlined above. V7-sport (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Your reply does not make sense. All arguments that have been brought forward in support of a change by other editors were either non policy based or have been rebutted. On the other site multiple valid policy based arguments - against a move - were presented by multiple editors and proved through sources. A move would be ill advised and against our policies for choosing a title. IQinn (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
(addition - after V7-sport edited his comment) Yeah they have been outlined. So what?? WP:COMMONNAME has also been outlined and "kill team" is the WP:COMMONNAME what is the preferred choice according to WP:POVTITLE and you have never explained nor shown that there is any problem with WP:NDESC while other editors have provided good arguments and reason that there is no problem with WP:NDESC and that the problems that have never been shown could be solved with a move to "FOB Ramrod 'kill team' allegation" what i think would not be necessary for the stated reasons. IQinn (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think FOB Ramrod killings is a better title, but not the best title. Someday, FOB Ramrod will go away, but the location of the killings under the local name will continue. So, the town, municipality, or area name would be better, such as "Kandahar extra-judicial US military killings" or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually i also do not like FOB Ramrod but "kill team" is with no doubt the WP:COMMONNAME. and the name should also be natural, recognizable. There are many "killings" but there are not so many "kill teams". It would be difficult to find as it is not the name secondary sources refer to the topic of the article and it is neither natural nor recognizable. Anyway thank you for the suggestion. How about "Kandahar kill team" or "Kandahar kill team allegation" that would fix the problem with the location but keeps the name natural and recognizable and in line with the secondary sources we rely on. IQinn (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you like the name? It would seem you're keen to retain "kill team" but ambiguous about the locational identifier. Why? TomPointTwo (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
For almost the same reasons i just stated. "kill team" is the WP:COMMONNAME referred to the subject of the article by the majority of reliable English language sources. According to our policies the name needs to be precise, natural, recognizable and the name should follow the secondary sources what WP:COMMONNAME tells us. "kill team" has all this. For the location "FOB Ramrod" was never natural nor recognizable nor used in the sources. It is an invented name. "La Mohammed Kalay" has been mentioned in a few source but in these cases it refers only to one of the killings and it does not cover the whole story of the article that is a group/team of US soldier who murdered innocent civilians in cold blood on various occasions and places over an extended period of time. But it is the fact that this all took place in Kandahar and this is also reflected in the sources so that "Kandahar kill team" or "Kandahar kill team allegation" seems to be a good choice.
Well the term "extra judicial" is rather loaded and carries a subjective weight not really covered by the scope of this article. If you also wish to tie the article name to a geographic location do you have a more specific recommendation in mind? TomPointTwo (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
A couple of media articles, notably the Rolling Stone article which helped break the story into wide attention, have used the term "kill team", but I'm not sure if that will be the lasting title under which this event will be known. What is the smallest geopraphic area we can use which will encompass all the killings? Cla68 (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually the majority of reliable English language sources refer to the topic of the article as "kill team" :Daily Telegraph [34], The Guardian [35], Financial times [36], Der Spiegel [37], Irish Times [38], The Independent [39], Slate [40], Times of India [41], Bangkok Post [42], LA Times [43], News Limited [44], Sydney Herald [45], [46] [47], UPI, [48], Democracy Now, [49], New York Times [50], ABC [51], NPR [52], Irish Independent [53], Foreign Policy [54], AFP [55], Yahoo news [56], Daily Mail [57], CBS [58], MSNBC [59], Time (magazine) [60]... and there is absolute no sign that this would not be lasting. IQinn (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
RE: Cla68 the title La Mohammed Kalay killings has been proposed as that would have be in keeping with similar such incidents
RE:Iqinn, Thanks for posting the same thing again just in case someone didn't want to shift their glance an inch or so up the page. Whether or not the title "kill team" has been used in the press isn't being disputed, whether or not it is WP:POVTITLE and WP:NDESC is. Just because something has been used in the press doesn't make the term encyclopedic. V7-sport (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, there may be more to the events in question than just the small group of soldiers and their activities related solely to killing Afghan civilians. A more generic article title would thus be better in the long run. "La Mohammed Kalay" is the name of the place? Cla68 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
RE:V7-sport, Thanks for admitting that the majority of reliable English language newspaper refer to the subject of the article as "kill team" what makes it the WP:COMMONNAME. And thank you for repeating the same rebutted arguments over and over again. We use the WP:COMMONNAME according with WP policies for choosing a title and it is also the preferred choice according to WP:POVTITLE this policy even demands that we use the WP:COMMONNAME. Regarding WP:NDESC arguments have been provided that this is not a problem while you have never explained or proved that it is a problem. We could also change "FOB Ramrod 'kill team'" to "FOB Ramrod 'kill team' allegation" or "Kandahar kill team" to "Kandahar kill team allegation" what i think would not be necessary. Please stop repeating the same non policy or rebutted arguments over and over and over. "non-encyclopedic" :)) Where? show us here WP:NOT. You could not and therefore you are wrong. IQinn (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Iqinn, and I'm not saying that you're the only one to blame for this, why don't we make this talk page a Bickering Free Zone? You've made your point. Now, please just let the RfC run. It will take awhile to run its full course. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I know what you mean but if people keep gaming the system by repeating false or rebutted arguments Ad nauseam to create proof by assertion than i will reply to this and i will continue to provide more links that proof that "kill team" is the WP:COMMONNAME and i will continue to reply to all new arguments and suggestions. Regards IQinn (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have pointed out that some in the press uses the title, that isn't the issue. Wikipedia has to maintain a nod toward neutrality. The specific policies have been posted for you. WP:POVTITLE and WP:NDESC. Sensationalized press accounts aren't going to be adhering to those policies. There is a consensus around the fact that the title doesn't meet those criteria and you have acknowledged that the title is lacking. Please, stop confusing getting the last word with having something new to say. V7-sport (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a term used. Again, for what is probably at this point the 50th time, nobody is disputing its usage. You're missing the greater point being made about the appropriateness of the title in this venue. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Iquinn, I'm unsure you understand COMMONNAME. CN is written to dissuade editors from using extra-formal or overly technical titles and encourage editors to use more common usage phrases, esp with proper nouns. Examples are things like "Bill Clinton" instead of "William Jefferson Clinton" and "Caffine" instead of "1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione". What commonname is not designed to do is straight jacked editors into naming articles after whatever connected phrase lands the most Google hits, which seems essentially what you're arguing. Titles must abide by all policies. If that were not the case then Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges would be called Berlusconi bunga bunga parties because it's, by far, the most cited phrase (44k vs. 303k) in the media surrounding that event. CN does NOT say that Google hits equate to appropriate titles. I suggest you read WP:TITLE in its entirety. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of the article; you're totally missing the point. Feel free to start a Kill team article though. If you do, please try to make it less neologistic than that one. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:TomPointTwo, i am not sure you understand WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE and I suggest you read WP:TITLE in its entirety - you are totally missing the point here. Appropriateness seems to be the old unexplained rebutted "non-encyclopedic" argument. WP:NOT tell us where? why? I may also recommended you to read some basic papers about logic. That "Bunga Bunga" is inappropriate does not follow that "kill team" is. That is a classic Proof by example logical fallacy.

From WP:COMMONNAME:

Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic.

"Bunga Bunga" is vulgar and that is the reason why we do not use it for Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges despite the fact that it has more Google hits.

Rape of Belgium or "Kill team" are not vulgar.

Also from CN:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

That is "kill team".

RE:V7-sport, you are simply repeating the same old rebutted or invalid arguments. Ad nauseam Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. Sorry, but we can not assume good faith anymore because you have been warned. You are now disqualified and suspended from this discussion because you are WP:DE disrupting this discussion with Proof by assertion and Invincible ignorance fallacy. Thank you for your contribution and feel free to continue to work on other articles.

RE:V7-sport's mostly repeated, rebutted or invalid arguments: That the majority of reliable English-language refers to the topic of this article as "kill team" is exactly the point and therefore our policies WP:COMMONNAME demand that we use "kill team" and it does not matter that some people do not like the name for there personal reasons. Our policy WP:POVTITLE also clearly demands that we use "kill team" and there is no problem with neutrality at all because the possible non-neutrality is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. It has also never been shown nor explained why WP:NDESC could be possible a problem. It is not. "kill team" is non judgmental and has been put into " " and the lede clearly says what is an allegation and what not. That could also possible be fixed by changeing "FOB Ramrod 'kill team'" in "FOB Ramrod 'kill team' allegation" What i think is not necessary for the given reasons. No the title is not lacking, it is natural, recognizable, descriptive and precise and it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Non of the other alternative invented names has these properties. IQinn (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

When I read your replies I wonder if you even have the capacity to be embarrassed. V7-sport (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply what is a perfect example of a disruptive and uncivil response that shows that you do not have valid arguments. You are now disqualified and suspended from this discussion because you have been WP:DE disrupting this discussion through Proof by assertion, Invincible ignorance fallacy and uncivil comments WP:CIVIL. IQinn (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • You have been repeatedly asked not to flood the talk page with your verbiage with the obvious intention of derailing the RFC. You have also been asked to stop bickering. It's an insult to other editors intelligence to expect them to read the Manhattan phone book of arbitrary policy tags that have been repeatedly posted (without any understanding as to what they actually say) to disrupt the process and arguments that you have restated over and over to drown out the contributions from everybody else. Now you have just reverted 4 edits in a row and deleted the edit warring template. I'm shocked that you haven't been banned ages ago.
      • This exchange should be collapsed. I've put up the template 4 times but that doesn't fit with Iqinns agenda. If another editor wants to do they have my blessings. V7-sport (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a civil content focused reply that provides valid arguments and directly addresses the content issue and the comments and arguments of other editors. In contrast to you who keeps ad nauseum as Proof by assertion, Invincible ignorance fallacy repeating non policy or rebutted arguments. It also seems to be the case that you got angry after your arguments have been rebutted and you posted uncivil comments and started to remove other editors comments what was almost vandalism. Are you drunk? Keep content focused. Try to find valid arguments for your point or try to find valid counter arguments to the points other editor made and discuss them in a civil manner. Simply to repeat the same non policy or rebutted stuff over and over or not to address other editors arguments or questions is disruptive and could easily be seen as an attempt to derail the RFC. Regards IQinn (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - Iqinn and V7 both blocked for 6 hours for a lame edit war in collapsing and uncollapsing these boxes. Sleep on it for a day or two, guys; it will do you wonders. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Change Something that has been lost in the bickering is the fact that "Kill team" is always in quotation marks in the reliable sources. That either means they are quoting someone (most probably the group involved) or they do not accept the usage of the phrase. Until it is commonly used without the quotation marks we should avoid using kill team in our article title. AIRcorn (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Change to Ramrod civilian murders investigation, I can't believe the majority of reliable sources refer to this group under that name. I would look to what the most credible sources use and maybe have the top contenders listed; the best I can come up with is Ramrod civilian murders investigation. The investigation is what brought the story out and is what the media will follow - is anyone held accountable, what other information is brought out, what impact does this case have on morale, the overall Afghanistan war efforts and how killing and deaths are treated by the military - the investigation is what is notable. "Kill team" can be mentioned as used by some media but is certainly not an encyclopedic title, what credible source came up with the term? Attribute the title to them not Wikipedia. "Murder" should be emphasized because these are deaths outside their military job and this is what is most talked about. I have no investment in this at all so take my opinion however you wish. Jnast1 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The term "kill team" was a colloquial and informal title that the squad in question was referred to by some members of the unit and again in course of the Army's investigation. The media quickly picked up on the term and began to use in coverage of the incident. It's a sensational title and in the tabloid media age quite a few RS made sure to include it in their stories. Gotta move papers and stimulate ad traffic. That, in a nut shell, is how therm came to be used. Now, of course, we don't have an accepted definition of what a "kill team" is or is not, it's a colloquial neologism without definition.
I'm unsure I'd use the term "X civilian murders" because we're then getting into the weeds on war crimes law. Murder is murder under war crimes law and to imply otherwise is getting outside the scope of this article. The general practice to this point has been to refer to incidents like this by tying the killings to a geographical identifier. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If "kill team" came from the soldiers then state that and leave it out of the title altogether. Jnast1 (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the current "Mayward District killings" title is adequate. Most of the reliable sources using the term "kill team" use it in quotes, i.e. they are quoting the terminology used by the soldiers involved with the killings. The reason they are quoting this phrase is because it makes for an eye-catching headline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we are not here to report the news using sensational headlines. We are here to provide neutral, unbiased information on topics like this. It is appropriate for us to have a neutral article on this topic at a neutral title, like this one. That said, I wish TomPointTwo had waited until the RfC had attracted more participation before going ahead with this move. Ideally, someone uninvolved would have assessed the consensus here and executed the move. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

New article name

At this point the clear consensus that has emerged from the RfC is that FOB Ramrod kill team is not an appropriate title for this article. What has not yet been agreed upon by consensus is a new name. The initial name agreed upon by editors advocating change prior to the RfC was La Mohammed Kalay killings after precedent established by similar articles in the past. Since the RfC several new editors have put forth alternate ideas on the new name. I, and I beleive V7-Sport, are in favor of the aforementioned title. Those who oppose a name change have been noted. Please offer any ideas on the criteria or specifics of a new name here. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has a precedent for this then let's see what it is. Looking at Category:War crimes by country there are a few different approaches but I think using the date and location makes a lot of sense so would support 2010 La Mohammed Kalay killings or a variation if Maywand District is more accurate or if 2010 is unneeded. Jnast1 (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Initial looks at that your cited Cat is worrisome, it seems to have changed some since I last saw it and not for the better. Regardless, the principle events I had in mind for precedent are Haditha killings, Mahmudiyah killings, Blackwater Baghdad shootings, Ishaqi incident, etc. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

2010 La Mohammed Kalay killings is fine, Maywand District killings is fine as well.V7-sport (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

2010 La Mohammed Kalay killings seem appropriate to me as well. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you just say why this seems to be appropriate? Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose there seems to be no reason for the date 2010 as this is unique . Secondly only one of the three murder happened in "La Mohammed Kalay" the other two killings not. What me most concerns is that this suggestion misses completely out on Recognizability and Naturalness see WP:TITLE IQinn (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel Maywand District killings is probably better as the killings are not just confined to the one village and I see no reason to add the date unless another article with a similar title appears, although I won't oppose 2010 La Mohammed Kalay killings. AIRcorn (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Mayward District killings is acceptable, although it is not my first choice. Might we also consider identifiying the killings by the unit in some way? I'd venture that it may be more precise considering the local environment. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and make the move to 'Maywand District killings since the clear consensus has been to change the title and that is after some time the most broadly accepted alternative. I'm, of course, open to another move to a different title as long as it isn't back to the previously rejected one. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You might have wanted to wait for a third party to do that. Iqinn is gonna be raving mad. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure he will but, ultimately, it's not up to him. If he weren't blocked (yet again) for disruptive editing he would have the chance repeat himself and maybe start another edit war. Thankfully that's not on the table. I like to think I've been both patient and inclusive in this whole process but at some point somebody has to make it happen, squeaky wheels and all. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Adding "United States Army" to the beginning of the title would, in my opinion, be appropriate to narrow down the event a little more. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the United States Army didn't kill those men. I understand the impulse I'm not sure tying a government organization to a crime perpetration independent of its directives or goals is appropriate. Do you feel the title is too broad? TomPointTwo (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
"the United States Army didn't kill those men"? I thought those were US Army soldiers involved, not Marines, not Airmen, not Sailors. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the guys accused were in the Army but that doesn't mean the Army, as an organization, killed those men. The opposite in fact, it's why they're facing charges from the Army. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The US army is also sending them to courts-martial because they violated orders by (allegedly) committing these crimes. That the former soldier who pleaded guilty has been dishonorably discharged is a clear repudiation of these crimes by the US Army.
If we look at other incidents like Haditha or Mahmudiyah there's no mention of the branch of service in the title.V7-sport (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Have any US Army officers been charged or found to be complicit in any way in the killings? If so, then the idea that the US Army did not kill those men is even weaker. US officers and enlisted, wearing US Army uniforms, on a US Army mission, with US Army weapons, then charged and tried by US Army courts martial, with US Army prosecutors, judges, and jury members, and it wasn't the Army involved in the killing? I assume that there may have been other killings by other people in the Mayward District, so how do we differentiate these killings? Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that the only people charged were those listed here, the ones actually involved. I understand what you're saying but that an organization is tied to an event does not make it the perpetrator or responsible party to that event. These men were in the Army and basically "on the job" when they committed the crimes but that doesn't make it less of an individual act on their parts. I understand what you're saying about differentiation though. How do you feel about a more specific date in the title? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
There haven't been any commissioned officers charged as of yet and the Colonel (supposedly) in charge was cleared of responsibility. I'll submit that the Abu Ghraib article also doesn't mention branch of service. V7-sport (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maywand_District_murders/Archive_1&oldid=1090569876"