Talk:2010 Badakhshan massacre

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

Article title[edit]

Should this be called a 'massacre'? I agree it was dreadful, but NPOV applies: if ten Afghanis had been killed, would it have been called a 'massacre'? Aa42john (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Came here solely to point that out. Should be renamed to "2010 Badakhshan incident". It's not necessarily a POV to claim it was a massacre, however; I believe there is a threshold for what is deemed what. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 13:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the RS are calling it a 'massacre'.[1] and yes if 10 afghan , unarmed civilian aid workers had been lined up and shot in cold blood it should be called a massacre. 2 of the victims were Afghan. any thresholds anybody has would necessarily be arbitrary.see Munich massacre for example and precedent.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also find "massacre" to be rather provocatively POV, as well as inaccurate and support changing the title to "2010 Badakhshan incident". Doc Tropics 17:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that "massacre" is the correct terminology in this instance. Massacre is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people", which seems to accurately describe what took place, regardless of political perspective. The problem with "incident" is that the term implies a relative insignificant occurrence, and could be perceived as minimising the importance of what took place. City of Destruction 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NATO kills civilians accidently not on purpose, but these guys killed on purpose.. And you are accually POV. NATO is not there to kill civilians.. Is it difficult to understand? In which world do you live? But I understand you because your holy book Quran says :"Muslims and Christians can not be friend." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.183.218 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt seem to be indiscriminate ("2.Random; haphazard") if the Taliban explicitly said why it was a target. Why not call the Iraq and Afghan wars massacres then?Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
does look haphazard/ indiscriminate. why kill 2 Afghans if motive was to kill proselytizing Christians. Besides New York Times [2] describes it as a massacre.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're asking the Taliban to be logical by demanding why they killed two of their own in addition to killing 8 Christians; the fact that they're justifying 9/11, attempting to kill or maim fleeing women (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1299799/Mutilated-Taliban-The-girl-18-nose-ears-hacked-trying-flee-cruel-laws.html) and so forth means we can expect at least a little illogic on their part. But just a little! Furthermore, it's been made very explicit by the Taliban, such as this recent release: (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/07/mullah_omar_orders_t.php) that the Taliban consider any collaborating Afghani to be a traitor. And Islam demands the death of Apostates (Qur'an (4:89)) (Qur'an (9:11-12)) So to answer all of your politically correct attempts to cover up the Islamic and discriminatory nature of the attack, here is my final piece of evidence:


Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said bibles translated into Dari had been found. "Yesterday at around 0800 (0330 GMT), one of our patrols confronted a group of foreigners. They were Christian missionaries and we killed them all," he told the AFP news agency.

Source for above: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10900338

68.42.250.113 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And on another point, the Iraq war and the Afghan wars are not called massacres, because equating the military performance of the US (where at least soldiers have orders not to harm civilians as the rules of war dictate) with the performance of the Taliban, who as I have already shown above, are not above killing women for fleeing their husbands or offering medical aid is ridiculous.68.42.250.113 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use that logic, then i suppose raping and killing girls (that doesnt include women, or even premeditated murder of men) is the mandate of the usa govt/military too as per the Rules of war?Lihaas (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No because those aren't the actions of US soldiers or by any within the rules of war. You're not referring to any logic I have used there buddy. The US army does not rape anyone. It also has orders not to kill civilians. A massacre and a war are two different things, that was the only logic implied. 68.42.250.113 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A specific mass killing of civilians by US forces, such as the My Lai Massacre, can be described as a massacre. A conflict in which the US is involved, including Vietnam and Afghanistan, cannot. City of Destruction 15:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because one of them is a war, and the other is a specific event in war that is against the rules of war. 68.42.250.113 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Woo[edit]

She is becoming the focus of separate and extensive attention. I think based on other articles, she should get her own page. Proven81 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is getting far, far more coverage than anyone else. Maybe it's her looks. Paris Hilton gets far more coverage than her acting career would suggest and Anna Chapman got far more coverage than the other Russian spies. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
or maybe the fact she is a young woman surgeon who gave up a lucrative career to work for the poor in a dangerous country and was to marry in 2 weeks. regardless of the reason she is getting a lot of coverage in the RS's and would merit her own article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An admirable person certainly. Not so sure she is notable enough for her own article. At least a re-direct from Karen Woo to this article seems a good idea. (Done I see! & Tom Little) Same for the other named persons involved too? Glen D. Lapp, Thomas Grams? 220.101 talk\Contribs 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News[edit]

Should every piece of news really be turned into an encyclopedia article? The word massacre as was stated before: "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people." It wasn't indiscriminate from the accounts of what happened that appear in the news. FYI: indiscriminate: Done at random or without careful judgment

The reaction section is just there for emotional effect. Remember to include reaction statements from the belligerents. Unless you enjoy bias.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.192.38 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, and Said the same above.
Also need a "responsibility" section for why Talib did so and their claim thereof,.Lihaas (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement from Taliban spokesman was part of the article from the beginning. i doubt very much that we will get many statements sympathetic to the Taliban here. but if we do they should be included as long as they come from prominent sources. --Wikireader41 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Little[edit]

If he does not get his own page (along with each of the victims) should this link to pictures of one of his eye camps be added to the end? http://globalphotographer.wordpress.com/afghanistan/afghanistan-2004/noor-eye-project/ Proepro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Be bold! 220.101 talk\Contribs 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

Info on all 10 killed:

220.101 talk\Contribs 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial[edit]

the "Victoms" section and documentation of each victim is completely memorialising and does not further this article. The list at the top of the 10 victims is brief and notable to this, but the lifestory of some such as "engaged to be married in two weeks" is complete nonsense for an encyclopaediaLihaas (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nothing is nonsense here. People reading about this incident would be interested in some detail about the victims and this info is very useful. especially so if we are not going to have separate articles for the victim especially Woo. The RS's are replete with details of her life. if we do end up having separate articles for the victims then maybe we can move some info there. Till then we need to add further detail about the victims and expand the section. this is all very encyclopedic info which definitely belongs.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just keep in mind Encyclopaedia, RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. The article looks alright. After the furor dies down, investigations are made and the facts (hopefully) come out, then culling of some details may be in order, IMHO. Regards, 220.101talk\Contribs 03:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article or section is written like a memorial. Please help rewrite it from a neutral point of view to establish the notability of the subject.

NPOV? Are you kidding me? From who's point of view? The benefiting Grim Reaper or the Taliban's? 68.42.250.113 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update of the killing[edit]

The section on what actually happened reflects first reports. The sole survivor has now provided his detailed version Terri Judd, 'The death of Karen Woo – by the man who survived,' The Independent, 16 August 2010, which should be edited in.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Hamid Karzai] statement?[edit]

Does anyone have a statement from Karzai about this? Proepro (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Badakhshan massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Badakhshan_massacre&oldid=1208743795"