Talk:2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack

Question
Was it a April Fool Joke ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.159.71 (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Worst of all, it wasn´t. 189.58.102.49 (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
I am adding a contradiction tag to this page because some of the info in the lead-in is not the same as or contradicts info in the article body. The problems are as follows:
 * The lead-in states that it was precipitated by Terry Jones' burning of an al-Quran, while the body states that an al-Quran was burned with Terry Jones as one of the participants (small semantic difference, but very important).
 * The lead-in states that two people were beheaded, while the body does not include this information.
 * The lead-in states that 14 were killed (without differentiating between protesters and UN staff), while the body states "between seven and ten" staff and 5 protesters, giving twelve to fifteen dead.

Many thanks to anyone who can fix this. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed these. Neither the lead nor body now states that Jones personally burned the Koran, only that he was involved in it, the body includes the bit on beheading (though the lead doesn't, I don't think it's that important) and the final death toll seems to be fourteen, going by the most recent source, the other numbers were when news reports were just coming out. C628 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the source cited (BBC), the figure of 14 dead was obtained when the death of three insurgents were killed when they attacked a NATO airbase. But that attack should be copnsidered a separate incident. --HYC (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Military advisor from Norwegian Air Force, working at UNAMA-office in Mazar-i Sharif.
Norway has chosen a side in the military conflict in Afghanistan. It does suprise me somewhat that the United Nations employs one or more NATO-officers that are not retired, as military advisors. Where there any, say, Taliban military advisors, in that same UNAMA office? --80.203.102.99 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Names of victims policy?
The Norwegian officer has been named. Wikipedia policy link to naming victims, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parjlarsson (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No link, unless a seperate article is created for the person in question, which in this case I think is unlikely. C628 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of content
User:Samdacruel recently reverted important information that was added, claiming it was unsourced and not useful. I have added it back in with sources, and I claim it is not just useful, it is the locus of the entire incident. This topic is about the murder of these individuals. I have invited Samdacruel (on his talk page) to discuss his edits here. 71.22.40.31 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well,I agree.But please cite sources in the future while making edits. Sam 07:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Why?
What the article fails to state is why these particular people were singled out for murder?

If someone in Tibet burns the US Constitution, and then an American mob murders some Tibetans they happen to run into, there is a certain presumption that the one precipitated the other. That the mob figured that "all Tibetans think this way and therefore it is 'okay' to kill any and all Tibetans." If, on the other hand, a mob catches up with (say) a group of Filipinos and kills them, an article might say that the American mob thought that the Filipinos were Tibetans and (therefore) killed them by mistake.

While the media (and everyone else) seems to have connected the dots here, the dots are connected rather sloppily IMO. What do UN Aid workers have to do with Americans and/or Terry Jones? Was the mob not able to distinguish Americans from (say) Italians? Did the Afghans think the Aid workers were Christian? Then what? The media reports seems sloppy as does the public acceptance of them. Student7 (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible irrelevant material
The article correctly reports that "Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus .... said, "That action was hateful; it was intolerant."[18]"

Nevertheless, this seems irrelevant. Neither Petraeus nor Obama is ressponsible for the activities, legal or illegal, of American citizens. Nor is Jones clearly responsible for what a group of murderers does in Pakistan. This activity was clearly legal. I realize that the media is connecting all the dots, but is Wikipedia required to report nonsense? Student7 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tends to be more of a pretense, isn't it? I, Obama, hold Terry Jones responsible for utilizing his rights under the First Amendment, which is otherwise sacrosanct if someone else did it for some other reason of which I approve. Free Speech is either Free, or it isn't. Pretending otherwise and quoting it here, does not seem helpful without putting it in context. But if the editors insist on quoting it, criticism of Obama/Petraus should be allowed as well. If we leave out the one, we can omit the other. Student7 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

New information
The following change was reverted and marked as conspiracy. This is not conspiracy, but a reference about documents made by the Swedish foreign ministry. Why is this marked as conspiracy?
 * On september 4'th 2012, a Norwegian journalist claimed to have discovered secret Swedish documents which proved that the masses were guided by Afghan agents, hired by the US military, to turn around and go in the direction of the UN headquarters to avert an attack on the American camp. This according to research done by the Swedish foreign ministry. This was broadcasted on the Norwegian television channel NRK

It was on Swedish public service news as well http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/usa-bidrog-till-fn-svenskens-dod This is important information about the event and should definitely be in the article. I'll just be bold and add it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.91.72 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Finland's national broadcaster YLE has also carried the report, sourced to a Swedish Foreign ministry report which revealed that American agents in the crowd redirected the route taken by the demonstrators. The claim is that this was done to ensure that the crowd passed the UN building, thus ensuring that the people in the UN building took the brunt of the anger and diverted it away from U.S. personnel. The national broadcaster is a respected source of news and the claim was certainly not labeled as a conspiracy unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the source was revealed and it is a Norwegian journalist who claims to have seen a copy of the report. Of course journalists have to rely on their sources but WP says we have to rely on published reliable sources. I would say the Norwegian journalist's claim has been lent credence by being recognized by the Nordic broadcasters NRK, SVT and YLE who have impeccable integrity and have all decided that the source is credible. Hence this is not really in the realm of "conspiracy theory". http://tv1.yle.fi/juttuarkisto/dokumentit/ulkolinja-kostoisku-ykta-vastaan (in Finnish but Google translation supports it http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://tv1.yle.fi/juttuarkisto/dokumentit/ulkolinja-kostoisku-ykta-vastaan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.105.147 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)