Talk:Maywand District murders

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)

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)

Sources

• Many, but not all of ‘kill team' files released The News Tribune 2011/01/16
• Key soldier reaches plea deal in Afghan murder case Reuters 2011/02/24

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)

Title

FOB Ramrod kill team → [[{{{1}}}]] — FOB Ramrod kill team is a colloquial term based on partly pending charges and assumptions not yet proven in court. It's also casts the entire subject and all its potentially involved persons in a pejorative light. This is worrisome considering WP:BLP guidelines, the contemporary nature of the subject and the fact the two principal persons involved have yet to be convicted or taken plea deals. The article needs to be renamed. My initial thoughts on acceptable names would be "2010 Kandahar killings" or "FOB Ramrod murder investigation". TomPointTwo (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo come one. The article is obviously behind the development. Do you follow the sources? [15], [16], [17]. Morlock has a nice smile and i think it made him pretty smile again to hear that he will be out of prison after 7 years for three separate cold blood murder and leave alone playing proudly around with the corpse and body parts of the victims. IQinn (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your personal feelings about the people involved they don't much matter. I wasn't aware that Morlock took a plea last week (we should update that) but that still leaves the "ring leader" pending trial. He's also the one which the most sensational claims center on. Even if they are all convicted or confess, which I assume will be the case, the title is still not appropriate in tone or encyclopedic in nature. There's nothing wrong with changing it to either of my above suggested titles that I can see, aside from a desire to editorialize. I hope that's not the case. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"La Mohammed Kalay Incident" would be in keeping with in keeping with other Wikipedia articles. Ie. Hamdania incident Haditha incidentV7-sport (talk)

It seems the investigation and coverage exceeds just activities at La Mohammed Kalay, is this incorrect? If so that's a superior title to the present title and either of the two I've suggested, although I'd says "killings" would be more descriptive than "incident" which isn't very descriptive. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal feelings? :) This is not about personal feelings and there are no personal feelings. The title is pretty neutral and the change to one of the suggested titles would be a white wash of one of the worst war crimes in recent history. "FOB Ramrod Death Squad" might actually also possible so the current tile is already pretty neutral. IQinn (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's obviously not true, your comments about Morlock were clear in tone. You seem to be rather heated over the whole topic actually, weren't you already blocked for disruptive editing over content associated with this page? You may want to consider taking a break from this topic altogether. Also, I'm unaware of a preponderance of reliable sources identify these men as a "death squad". Nobody has yet put forward any changes or removal to the body of the article which would imply a "whitewash". To say so is hyperbolic and not constructive. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not about personal feelings and there are no personal feelings. I am not heated at all and you might suggest to User:V7-sport that he takes a break after he has started an edit war. :) Let me repeat it here again. The title is pretty neutral and the change to one of the suggested titles would be a white wash of one of the worst war crimes in recent history. "FOB Ramrod Death Squad" might actually also possible so the current tile is already pretty neutral. TomPointTwo please do argue the content instead of wasting our time with ad hominem arguments. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re.TomPointTwo, Well, there were deaths/killings involved at the a fore mentioned incidents, Kandahar killings would be pretty ambiguous as there has been a long history of bloodshed in the provence. I do thnk "kill team" is prejoritive. V7-sport (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So "La Mohammed Kalay killings" is acceptable to you? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. V7-sport (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll wait for the article to get listed as being up for a move to get some additional input. I'd say it's a solid start. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not good. The current title is pretty neutral and the change to the new suggested title would be a white wash of one of the worst war crimes in recent history. IQinn (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The current title is pretty neutral and the change to the new suggested title would be a white wash of one of the worst war crimes in recent history. Kill team is also the term the secondary sources use. Just to name a few sources:

• U.S. soldiers formed a 'death squad' to randomly murder and mutilate Afghan civilians.[18]
• A U.S. soldier accused of being part of a squad that deliberately killed Afghan civilians ...[19]
• 'Death Squad': Full horror emerges of how rogue U.S. brigade murdered and mutilated innocent Afghan civilians - and kept their body parts as trophies [20]
• An Afghan Abu Ghraib? America shamed by 'kill squad' photo leak...[21]
• U.S. soldiers' 'kill team' killed Afghanis, used body parts in poker games [22]
• The Kill Team [23]
• US apologizes for more Afghan 'kill team' photos [24]
• Unit chiefs aware of 'kill team' [25]
• 'They Killed for Entertainment' - Afghan President Condemns Actions of 'Kill Team' [26]
• Behind the American 'Kill Team' in Afghanistan [27]
• US 'kill team' soldier who murdered unarmed Afghans escapes life sentence [28]
• Court Sentences 'Kill Team' Soldier to 24 Years in Prison [29]

We are talking about a large group of soldiers who formed a "team" or "squad" and randomly murdered Afghan civilians in cold blood on multiple separate occasions and places over an extended period of time. IQinn (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence colloquial, it was term they used themselves and was picked up by more tabloid style publications in the early days. You'll notice that most of those links are the dailymail, Guardian,NY Daily News, Rolling Stone, etc. I see one msnbc link. In more formal coverage by less sensational publications you'll see no independent use of the terms "death squad" or "kill team". Publications like the New York Times[30], or the Washington Post. It's a colloquial term, sensational term and it doesn't belong in the title of an encyclopedia article. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it is a descriptive title that tell the reader what happened in a neutral way. There is nothing "colloquial" at all and there is nothing sensational and the provided sources are not sensational "tabloid sources" :)) at all. They are all serious reliable sources. The forming of the kill team and the horrific killings are outstanding and that these group of U.S soldiers formed a kill team to murder Afghan civilians at random is just a verified encyclopedic fact. IQinn (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, ease off the editorial adjectives. I'm unaware of there being an official or commonly accepted definition of a "kill team". We'll also have to agree to disagree about the nature of those sources. Most importantly I'm unsure you're understanding my greater point and what the term "colloquial" means. I'm not arguing you can't find the term "kill team" in reliable sources, this is obviously true. My point is that it is used as a sensational headline technique in more tabloid style publications and/or referred to in quotes and identified as "so called" or "self identified". In high qulity, mainstream publications lie those I cited the term is avoided altogether. There simply isn't a good reason to retain it in the title when a more accurate, formal, encyclopedic and neutral description is available. I'm unsure why you're working so hard to keep it to be honest. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm unsure why you're working so hard to keep it to be honest." LOL, Ever try to clean up dog poop with flypaper? V7-sport (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully understood TomPointTwo. The point is you are wrong. This is overwhelming used in the secondary sources and that a few sources do not mention the term in every article is irrelevant. The term is used by high quality sources to describe that that these US soldiers formed a team/squad to randomly murder Afghan civilians. New York Times, The Guardian, MSNBC, Washington Post, Der Spiegel The Independent... That this group of U.S soldiers at the FOB Ramrod formed a team/squad to randomly murdered Afghan civilians in cold blood on multiple separate occasions during there service there is a simply encyclopedic fact. (what is one of the worst war crimes in recent history) The article is about this and the title now describes this encyclopedic fact in a descriptive and neutral way. Not saying it is the best title in the world but all suggested new titles leave out this fact and none of the new suggested title is descriptive enough nor better. IQinn (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I innocently wander in here from WP:RM, what strikes me is that the lead paragraph is quite awkward: "FOB Ramrod kill team refers to alleged events ... A 'kill team' may or may not have existed"— to paraphrase freely. If it is well established that there was a kill team, the lede ought to say "The FOB Ramrod kill team was a group of soldiers...." Otherwise, the article ought to be renamed, and that would also allow a better lede. —Tamfang (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have modified the lead so that it reads more naturally now. The FOB Ramrod kill team refers to a group of US soldiers involved in the ... ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Yachtsman1 wrote the following:

• • 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)

To add to the consensus to change the title.V7-sport (talk)

There is no consensus to change. Not at all this claim is rediculous. The title is not misleading at all. The title needs to be descriptive and the title needs to reflect that to repeat it here. That this group of U.S soldiers at the FOB Ramrod formed a team/squad to randomly murdered Afghan civilians in cold blood on multiple separate occasions during there service there is a simply encyclopedic fact. (what is one of the worst war crimes in recent history) The article is about this and the title now describes this encyclopedic fact in a descriptive and neutral way. Not saying it is the best title in the world but all suggested new titles leave out this fact and none of the new suggested title is descriptive enough nor better. IQinn (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. V7-sport (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right IQinn (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep it describes accurately what they (allegedly) did, and it is the name used by media, and by respectable outlets thereof:

• Daily Telegraph [31]
• The Guardian [32]
• Financial times [33]
• Der Spiegel' [34]
• Irish Times [35]
• The Independent [36]
• Slate [37]
• Times of India [38]
• Bangkok Post [39]
• LA Times [40]
• News Limited [41]
• Sydney Herald [42]
• [43] [44]
• Foreign Policy [45]
• [AFP http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22afp%22+%22kill+team%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=]
• [Yahoo news http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=kill+team+ramrod&fr=ush-news&ygmasrchbtn=Web+Search]

Keep in mind that I have restricted myself to multiple usage of the term in headlines mostly I think perhaps quotes should be in order, FOB Ramrod 'kill team', that's seems the usage by many news sourced, roughly half.
Also, breaking news: Donald Rumsfeld labels 'Kill Team' Afghan photos as 'much worse' than Iraq's Abu Ghraib. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because the press has called it such and such doesn't mean the term is encyclopedic or isn't pejorative. V7-sport (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that the term is used in the media. Again, that's not the point. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:33, 8 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)