Talk:2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan

Missionaries or Aid workers?

All articles that I've seen say that they are aid workers. Yet an anonymous user 129.64.151.30 keeps changing it to missionaries. Are there any credible sources that they were proselytizing? Diophantus 16:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they were both at the same time, with more of a missionary interest. Jamesse 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything that I have read said that they were aid workers. The South Korean government stated many times that they were not trying to convert anyone while they were there. SU Linguist 04:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a credible source which mention that they are missionaries. There is nothing wrong with the fact that they are missionaries. I hope no one is trying to do some cover up and reframe them as merely aid workers. The difference between aid workers and missionaries is that aid workers are not missionaries. But missionaries can be at the same time play part as aid workers. 202.156.11.4 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why kidnap aid workers?

Man this is messed up. Why would they kidnap aid workers? I hate stupid people. -- 76.98.236.231 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• ummm ... for the same reason people have always kidnapped people: for ransom money, for publicity, to assert power/control, to define territory (i.e. as theirs)...the fact that they're aid workers likely doesn't make any difference to those doing the kidnapping. Hu Gadarn 22:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC, 26 July, 2007. 「But the Taleban's military commander Mansour Dadullah told Britain's Channel 4 television that kidnapping would continue. South Korean rallies have called for the release of the hostages "Of course, kidnapping is a very successful policy and I order all my mujahideen to kidnap foreigners of any nationality wherever they find them and then we should do the same kind of deal," he said. 」... -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

European and Asian nations have routinely given in to ransom demands, making hostage taking highly profitable. Slideshow Bob 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also the USA, let's not forget "arms for hostages" with Iran, recovery of Vietnam POWs, Somalia 1993, etc. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They aren't stupid, however, their sense of morality is non-existent.--Exander 07:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason Mansour Dadullah said that was to let the world blame South Korea, like Slideshow Bob did, and cause more disputes in an already pretty messy world. I have to say, though, this is a pretty stupid policy, as it will make future governments less wishing to give in. Aran|heru|nar 09:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

Is there a need to explicitly say "Taliban-seized"? When I read that it makes me wonder if there were other South Korean hostage criseses where they were seized by other people. hbdragon88 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it really ought to be at "2007 South Korean hostage crisis" or, if you want to be persnickety and include two country names in the title, "2007 Afghan South Korean hostage crisis". I'll move it to the former if there's no objection.-- The_socialist ^talk? 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of Christian S Koreans in Afghan.?

Why no mention of the purpose of this Christian group? Were they there to make converts to the Christian god, aid workers, both? Can someone add some detail? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Methinks the original editor wanna have some verified source for the purpose of the Christian group. As I heard from local TV news, South Korean (media or the relatives of the hostages) has stated the group was definitely not doing conversion / preaching in Afghanistan and its purely aid work. But recently Taliban has announced the opposite viewpoint and the goal seems to ignite the rage of Muslim. -- Sameboat - 同舟 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - you've gotten to the heart of my question. I think the fact is important to resolve for the completeness of the story. I thought it was odd that the group was led by a pastor, which is why i asked. Thanks again, Hu Gadarn 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They were a team sent by a church named Bundang Saemmul Church (분당샘물교회). So there must have been some intention of making converts. There have been many incidents where utterly stupid and arrogant (yeah, my POV) Korean churches sent clueless wannabe missionaries to Afghanistan, against S. Korean government's warning. In some cases the Afghan officials were able to kick them out before more nasty guys had a chance. Not so lucky this time. Many people in Korea think that this was an accident waiting to happen. :This is somewhat difficult to discuss right now because, obviously, further speaking of "missionary intention(?)" will make the hostages criminals under the local law, making the negotiation much more difficult. I think the article should be rewritten after the event is over, but now is not a good time for elaboration. Their lives are at stake. :( Yongjik 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But the current situation states that whether the foreigners have any religious background / intention or not. The terrorist will abduct them no matter what. They want some living hostage to bargain for their requests. Taliban is the terrorist who can even kill their compatriots. -- Sameboat - 同舟 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how the terrorists could have clearly known the intention of the South Koreans. They are most likely just kidnapping anyone with a potentially high value and even if the South Koreans were to be found to have no religious affinity, they definitely wouldn't release them without a good ransom and lots of publicity. Aran|heru|nar 09:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As a Korean working in the ME, I have met with many of these Christian missionaries and know fully well their style of aid work. You may not know but there was an incident last year where more than 2000 Christian missionary aid workers were forced to leave Afghanistan by the local government. They were clearly, based on video taped evidence, there to convert, as they were asking little children to sing Christian songs in Korean (???) and trading goodies and snacks in exchange for psalms and etc, again to little kids. Were this in a tribe in Africa where no form of religion exists, I can understand. But Afghanistan...they may be poor, but religious fulfillment they have enough, if not possibly more than our Christian Koreans. This is not only Christian arrogance but Christian business. And I'll explain further. This particular Saemmul Church in the Bundang area of satellite Seoul, earns more than a 10 Million dollars a month! I know this for a fact because the real estate development company I worked for facilitated many of their deals. In addition, their annual tax free 120+Million dollars is used to funnel campaigns that in turn allow them to acquire additional land properties and businesses, all under the guise of establishing the house of worship.

The reason they are in Afghanistan is simple: marketing. Churches like Saemmul are constantly in competition with other major churches (yes, there are churches that earn far more than Saemmul). They need to expand their resumes to include "missionary trips to DIFFICULT-NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE-AREAS like Afghanistan" and in turn, believers and funding roll in. And with such marketing, and subsequent cash flows, major politicians flock to pledge allegiance to their church, in return for votes. And these churches can get you a lot of votes. The victims in this case, are indeed the hostages. The head of this Church, entitled Chairman (!) of some nonprofit organization, convinced these innocent believers to do God's calling in Afghanistan. I believe, in seeing the missionary workers that pass through this region, that these workers, as misguided as most of them are with respect to the region, culture, and degree of belief in Allah, are for the most part sincere in their wish to help...whether that is physically or spiritually. However, as an organization they did indeed violate and impose themselves upon the beliefs of the people of Afghanistan, since the sole intention however good was driven by greed for money and power. The arrogance of the church continues, as the head of that Saemmul church came out on tv to claim that they will not stop their Missionary work in the Arab/Central Asian region. TazmanianD 09:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear TazmanianD, i'd like to explain the biblical perspective on what you've described as marketing. i hope this will give everyone a more accurate understanding of what it is Christians like the South Koreans do, and why they do it. firstly, the Bible teaches in Matthew 28:19 that believers are to go make disciples of Christ in all nations. spreading the gospel of Christ's salvation for mankind is key in the Christian faith. thus when Christians become missionaries or engage in missionary work it is not "marketing" their particular church but actually obeying the Great Commission that Christ gave. secondly, it is true that many churches are prosperous. part of the money comes from the generosity of believers, part comes from the tithes given. tithing (i.e. giving 10% of whatever you own) is another important teaching in the Bible (reference: Leviticus 27:30-32). this money is set aside for God, in thanksgiving as well as acknowledgement that all we have comes from God. hence the prosperity of the church is not from greed or extortion but from biblical foundations. finally, it is inaccurate to divorce humanitarian deeds from missionary work. Christians are commanded in the Bible to care for widows and orphans, as well as show compassion to the needy (reference: Malachi 3:5), hence all these are integral in missionary work. Christians are also taught that the soul is more important than the body (reference: Matthew 10:28) and without salvation, man is lost eternally (reference: John 3:16). hence, conversion is also integral to missionary work. this is expressed differently in different places according to the laws and environment of the place. for example, many missionaries in troubled areas involve themselves in rebuilding homes, educating children, caring for the orphans etc instead of only preaching because of that area's great need and of the Bible's commandments in doing this. it is therefore inaccurate to call this "disguised marketing" or such - Christians do not use humanitarian deeds as a cloak to cover the spreading of the gospel but rather do so in complementary partnership to the spreading of the gospel. i hope this explanation is helpful in clarifying what Christian missionary work means and the deeper foundations behind what you see. i will be glad to add further clarifications if anyone has more questions regarding Christian missions and/or the Christian faith. God bless us, JT.

Religion

Why is that so important? Tons of South Koreans are Protestant. Big whoop. -- Arthurian Legend (talk · contribs · logs) 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Two female hostages released

Somebody should add this to the article. -- 162.83.202.191 (talk · contribs · logs) 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete

This is racist anti Muslim propaganda and must be deleted. -- 213.186.35.21 (talk · contribs · logs) 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't, It pictures a current event and isn't propaganda, it's truth.K14 12:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should keep this. This is a neutral documentation of an ongoing event. Waycool27 01:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it's propoganda? Can you share your reasoning? It's difficult to understand your comment without any other info. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with Islam. Any criticism is viewed as "racist anti muslim propaganda" even when you're talking about terrorists and murderers. 150.113.7.99 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem with the world in general. A comment by one person who may or may not be a Muslim somehow comes to represent Islam as a whole... The same as a comment or the actions of one Christian somehow come to represent Christianity as a whole. Nil Einne 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

150.113.7.99, your viewpoint is based on fundamental biases. What a single user said about a single article which mentions what some believes of Islam are doing does not represent the situation with Islam as a whole. Aran|heru|nar 12:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Although you're an unregistered user, you can still bring up a consensus. (But sign up is recommended if you want to keep discussing or even contributing something for WP.) Accoriding to the curent WP policy, this article will most likely be kept, granted that was elected to deletion IMHO. And I see nothing in this article to be opposing the ordinary (innocent) Muslims except the Taliban. -- Sameboat - 同舟 13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Response in South Korea

The section says "Many Koreans nevertheless held numerous protests and demonstrations outside mosques in Seoul.[16]" The actual Al-Jazeera article only reports that small protests were held outside some mosques in Seoul. The apparent exaggeration must be corrected. Or, the entire sentence must be deleted since it is apparent that the sentence is insignificant without the exaggeration.Storian 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

This article could use a little expanding. Like international responses to it (or is it too early for that?). I am sure that there is some politician out there that has/will criticize how South Korea is the latest govurnment to comply to terrorism, making the world a more dangerous place (the more people comply with death threats, the more death threats are made). Contralya 08:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Not only that, but a section detailing what exactly was agreed to would be nice. (As far as I can see, it is a small section in the timeline ATM). What did they negotiate? And does this, as you say, set a precedent for dealing with terrorists? Iorek85 10:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems the responses section is too short. Hostages' relatives begged US to help negotiate with Taliban is worth a mention. -- Sameboat - 同舟 10:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A Canadian minister recently criticised the S. Koreans for "cooperating with terrorists" I believe was the wording. Was in the Ottawa Citizen just yesterday or the day before; perhaps it's on their site as well. I believe it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. PheonixSong 11:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What caused the upset?

A previous commenter asked about the objective of Christian aid workers; I think equally important is the question of exactly what the Taliban took offense with, or whether they captured the Koreans as random representatives of foreign involvement in Afghanistan. Was there a prior incident involving the Koreans? The "timeline" begins at the kidnapping, which I find a bit strange - usually the events leading up to a kidnapping would also be mentioned - why were they travelling from Kandahar to Kabul? 82.71.48.158 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Error detected

The withdrawing of S. Koreas 200 non-combat troops was not part of the agreement with the kidnappers. It was decided a while ago and has no conectin to the hostage crisis what so ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.87.188 (talk) 18:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation? :) SGGH ^speak! 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Will try, i heard it on cnn first and then on the NRK tv and radio news(norwegian national brodcasting nettwork) I'm trying to find exact sitation now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.87.188 (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I have one here: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/1.3341037 but it is in norwegian, i'm looking for an english sitation now. What's written in that the hostages were released after S. Korea agreed to pull-out troops but that thay have been planning to do that for a long time so S. korea can't be critisiced for giving in to hostagtakers demands on that point. Here's one from cnn: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/31/afghan.hostages.ap/index.html "Under the terms of the agreement, Seoul repeated a pledge it had made long before the kidnappings to withdraw its 200 troops in Afghanistan before year's end and vowed to prevent missionaries from traveling to the country" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.87.188 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It says "repeated a pledge." That would count as part of the agreement - whether or not it would actually be carried out, this time or the last time, is of no relevance. Aran|heru|nar 12:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal

I've just read in The Economist that these 200 troops were scheduled to leave by the end of the year; the "agreement" between the kidnappers and the S.Korean government is merely that this schedule will be honoured (and that missionary activities must cease). Toby Douglass 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response in South Korea (2)

Are there any sources about how the S Korean people felt about the government's yielding to the demands of the terrorists (and also possibly paying them $20M)? This kind of thing generally results in more future hostage-taking, since the terrorists consider it a win. The article mentions Koreans being critical of the Taliban, but it doesn't say anything about their being critical of, or supporting, the Korean government's actions. — Loadmaster 15:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Status of dead hostages

Can we change the status of the dead hostages to murdered? Currently they're listed as killed but killed doesn't necessarily translate to murder. - Throw 22:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To the person who added the name list to the Japanese article

As this edit was made by an anonymous user, I'm posting here as a way of making sure that this message is read, or at least aware to fellow wikipedians. From the edit and IP address(from Malaysia), I have a feeling that this edit was made by a Chinese speaker (a rather obvious from the use of non-Japanese standard Chinese characters).

Please note that Japanese Wikipedia does not welcome the posting of names of non-public figures in articles. This policy is a result of debate on likely application of privacy laws in Japan. Repeated violations could lead to the broad banning of IP address from Malaysia, which no one wishes. Thank you for reading and sorry for intrusion here. --Revth 09:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel sorry of your feeling. (I'm not responsible to that list in Ja Wikipedia.) I'm not going to investigate what nationality the anonym is. But your guess is highly reputable. Since Korean Hanja is completely borrowed from Chinese without major modification such as Japanese Kanji. No surprise it is typed in Chinese character as seen in Ja history. It is a mystery why the anonym didn't copy the complete list from neither En nor Zh WP. And no nationality should be concluded. -- Sameboat - 同舟 11:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

MURDER

I am going to echo what user Throw|Throw commented on earlier which was not replied to. I did not think about this really until I read this suggestions and I COMPLETELY AGREE. These acts were pre-meditated and were against the will of those who had their lives tragically cut short. This is a fact and in no way shows opinion. These HUMAN BEINGS were MURDERED. When one commits the act of homocide, it is synonymous with murder. To refer to these people as simply "being killed" is shameful. These were people, not insects. One can call a pest control service to kill pests, not murder them. If you are worried that reporting the facts, that innocent people were MURDERED, will ostracize terrorists and make them feel unsure about why they ended the lives of their fellow man, well, fear not for their acts were biased and you are reporting the cold, hard facts. Perhaps "murdered in cold blood" is taking it to an opinionated level, but reporting the fact of MURDER is in no way biased. Similarly, when US troops go into Iraq and murder/rape an innocent woman (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5545121) she was MURDERED not killed. As an American, I am saying that ANYONE who murders a person, should be recorded in history as a MURDERER. I move to replace all "killed" will "murdered" on this page. 74.243.81.189 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First, as a sidenote, could you register an account? It would make the discussion much more convenient and less confusing. Other users who are viewing this, note that User:74.243.81.189 was previously User:68.47.102.75 when the discussion began.

Second, another note. You mentioned that "Hitler" was a murderer, which is not true. To my knowledge, Hitler had not killed any single person with his hands except when he was a soldier serving in World War I. Creating an ideology where Jews should be exterminated and beginning World War II makes him a war criminal, not a murderer.

Third, the subject: Your concerns are very much understandable, but before we go on to discuss what exactly is a murder and whether or not the current case consists of murders, could you please answer a question? - What makes you disagree with the use of the term "executed", which I have suggested, and which, I believe, is not a lesser crime than a "murder"?

Fourth, I stress again - I am not "worried about reporting the facts." Before you make a claim like that, I suggest we define what exactly are the facts. I say again that I do not feel that reporting the victims as "executed" is any softer than reporting them as "murdered."

And Fifth. I believe you have a misunderstanding over the word "murdered". It is not as simple as 'killing are for insects and murders are for humans.' I am quite certain that humans who are killed can be called killed, and do not see a strong reason why they should be called 'murdered' instead of 'killed'. Of course, this is a difference of understanding in words, and I would not make the claim that my language skills is better than yours. However, a third-party view is available in the article murder, which defines it as "homicide...[with] the elements of malice and the lack of justification." I have already explained on your talk page why these two killings (let's simply call them "killings" at the moment) do not qualify as murder. The simplest reason is the lack of malice - the terrorists have no personal grudge against the South Koreans - instead, their resentment is against the South Korean government as a whole. Moreover, the South Korean hostages were valueless to them but valuable as a bargaining tool with the South Korean government. In the case of the American soldiers' rape, however, it was a form of malice as the soldier wished to harm the victim and to gain satisfication in the process. That said, I do not feel the case is as simple as a "murder", rather an "execution". Again, it has been discussed in your talk page. Please consider it carefully. Aran|heru|nar 16:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In response.... First: Execution, has an ambiguity in its meaning. People can be executed for just or unjust reasoning. A serial killer, for example, will be executed for his/her crimes. A MURDER implies that the perpetrator is completely unjust in their actions and is subject to punishment for their act. It defines their act as morally wrong. Thus:

A serial killer MURDERS his victims. In turn, the serial killer is then EXECUTED as a punishment.

These South Koreans did nothing wrong justifying the ending of their lives. Thus, the people who ended their lives MURDERED THEM. They were NOT executed. They were MURDERED. Murdered implies that a crime was committed. An executioner does not commit crimes by ending the lives of the condemned.

Second: Lets look at your definition which you choose to use: "homicide...[with] the elements of malice and the lack of justification." Homicide = that was done in this case

Elements of malice = did they do it out of elements of benevolence? No, I think not. Now lets look at the definition of malice: (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malice) Malice, noun, "desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness..." Hmm....sounds like they desired to (and did) inflict injury and harm and suffering to others Hostile impulse, this act does seem to be hostile and impulsive Deep-seated meanness, well this is subjective, but I would say yes, that ending someone's life against their will without justification is an example of deep-seated meanness

Lack of Justification: this seems obvious to me, but lets see how you can argue this one. So far, you have said: They were not angry at the South Korean people, but at their government. Therefore, by your justification: I am angry at the X government, therefore, I am justified to kill whoever I want that is a citizen of X government? Pardon the rudeness, but that is a very very poor logical justification.

Thus, according to your previous post, this act DOES indeed fall under the jurisdiction of murder.

As for making an account, well I would prefer not to on this one, because if being angry is their justification to kill, why would I want to publicize my criticism against them? The point of reporting the facts anonymously to the general public is to make the public aware of the facts and in doing so, appeal to their reason, rationality and logic. Any logical person can see how this act is MURDER and completely lacks justification.

74.243.81.189 16:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, you cannot edit the article to match you POV because you THINK that should be this way. A good Wikipedian should always be using neutral wording. In other words, "kill" is better than "murder". We're no judge, we cannot judge the terrorist because the Koreans died bloodly. If you insist to go on, the eternal reversion awaits until the protection. -- Sameboat - 同舟 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sameboat,

Please explain to me how it is NPOV to call a murder a killing? As far as I can see, it does not matter to you wiki-police anyway as you are not making a distinction behind the true meanings of these words. Nonetheless, I would describe utter refusal to call a crime by what it is as PRO-TERRORIST and that your POV is not neutral. I nominate putting up the neutrality tag for this article as I feel that you all are being pro-terrorist in the way that you write the POV of this article. As is being implied by both you and the above, you feel this is not murder because they are justified. There is no justification for this crime. Thus, you should call it by its crime. If someone steals something, you do not call it taking, you call it stealing. That is a crime and so you call it that. This is a crime and it is called murder. Nomination Neutrality Dispute Tag. 74.243.81.189 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Please register an account first.) Don't you understand? The terrorist responsible to this case not yet has been sued by anyone and put into a court. They are not judged officially so the jural term "murder" is still inappropreiate. -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, murder implies that the murdered should not have been killed or that the murderer was morally wrong. I am ambivalent on the missionaries' work in Afghanistan, but the point is that IT IS NOT FOR US TO JUDGE whether or not they were, as you recently posted, 'Christian martyrs'. Neither is that for YOU to judge. Until you can offer some proof that your POV is somehow 'better' than the Afghanis' POV, it will remain 'killed'. Extrema 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(Please put all discussion related to this talk page, for convenience.) Aran|heru|nar 09:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this discussion as peaceful as possible. Okay, here's what I've seen from this discussion: One side, including me, is arguing that by definition and law and for the sake of NPOV the term should not be "murdered." My summarization of the other side, which at this moment is User:74.243.81.189 (or his other IPs), argues that "killing a human being against his will" should be termed "murder" ethically, and that this is a "fact" NPOV should be based on, and that by using "killed" we are "refusing to report the crimes as what it is."

I as a participant of the discussion itself could not possibly judge which side is correct or wrong, and I would not make any attempt to do so. The following suggestions are made because I believe I am more experienced in the process of discussions - First, I'm sure we all agree that the discussion will be made in a peaceful manner and nothing personal should be included. On top of this, it is better not to accuse other of personal attacks lightly, and if you find a comment offensive, forgive.

User:74.243.81.189, first, I have to insist on you creating an account. I assure you that creating an account has no foreseeable disadvantage at all - your discussion would almost be completely be within the circle of contributors to Wikipedia, and would not publicized. Moreover, I do not see why an IP address is any more anonymous than an online alias - in fact, an IP address could be used to identify you, while the user behind the online alias is completely secret, unless if you create sockpuppets to break the rules in Wikipedia.

Second, I have to remind you to assume good faith. We are all trying to contribute here, not intentionally creating an argument with you or being "pro-terrorist" (this is a serious accusation for some, so please avoid the term unless you feel absolutely certain). Most of the users here are not any kind of "wiki-police" - we simply point out a potential mistake when we find one while reading.

Third, and very importantly, please do not edit the article while the discussion is in progress. This is a good-faith rule that many, many Wikipedians fail to comply to and get banned for, and I hope you are not one of them. Think for the other users - if you make the edits, what stops the other users from reverting the edits, causing an endless revert war? I would not be putting the article to its former status (and I urge other users not to do so either) but it is my wishes that you would revert your own edits to the status quo ante as a sign of willing to discuss. Communication is absolutely important in Wikipedia, since we are a community as a whole, and I urge you to learn to respect other users' decisions as much as yours.

Fourth, since you appear to be a new user, you may not have understood the rules in Wikipedia completely, as is seen by some of your comments - I am not saying that you are making mistakes; in reality, some of your contributions awe me. However, we were all new once, and I recommend you to read some of the helpful guidelines available in Wikipedia. Specifically, please make sure you understand WP:NPOV (IMHO it is an impossible policy to uphold perfectly, but do not wander from it too far), WP:AGF, and WP:OR. These are helpful policies on editing Wikipedia that may aid you greatly in the rest of your time on Wikipedia. You are not obliged to do so, however, and I understand quite a few people are bored with my long, dull style of writing and tends to be in a bad mood after reading them.

So here's the last suggestion: It is a waste of time for numerous users (especially new users) to argue consistently over a few points - one of the great problems in Wikipedia. There are many, many articles in need of contribution in Wikipedia, and I'm sure you could help greatly. For me, this discussion is getting a bit monotonous too. At this moment, I could say, the consensus is against you. However, that does not mean you are wrong. I suggest you to simply walk away from this discussion - browse around Wikipedia, find something interesting to contribute to, and when you feel like it, you could always come back and tell your idea again. However, again, you are not obliged to do so. As a last note, if you wish to continue the discussion, third-party sources are generally called upon to resolve a dispution. I have cited mine, and so far you did not seem to have taken any regard of them; you have also cited one dictionary entry, but I have to say the interpretation of the words are completely your own, and therefore it does not qualify as a valuable citation. It would be better if you can cite more neutral third-party sources which will make your argument much more convincing. Aran|heru|nar 09:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem - I just took a look at the edits and found that you have actually changed the words from the title of the citations, from "killed" to "murdered" - I do not feel it is rational in any way to change the quotations of actual titles of third-party sources, like the heading of the newspaper article. I hope it is a mistake, and please do change them back yourself - again, I would not be making the reverts out of respect. Aran|heru|nar 09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this in a peaceful manner despite my condescending dialog. That said, here are my issues: 1. You and one other person do not make a consensus 2. It just so happens that I did not even think about the meaning of these words until it was suggested by another user on this talk page (also not a consensus, but a tie nonetheless) 3. I did respond to your "citations" in a logical manner and because you do not agree personally with them does not mean they are right 4. Just because you say that you are right does not mean your way of describing these crimes should be the default on the page until the debate is finished 5. Language is based on what is used by the people. Words come into existence (such as the verb to google something) because there is a general public consensus. That said, there should be some sort of manner to settle this. Pulling in citations and arguing the interpretations of these citations does not prove anything. As you said, we are not judges. Therefore, the general population should make decisions such as this. Therefore, there should be a forum of some sort where either people can be informed about the debate and chime in their thoughts, OR there should be a poll to represent the general populations view on the matter at hand. You and your friend do not have the right(nor do I and my friend) to dictate truth here to the general public (who would be the audience to this article). 68.47.102.75 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have echo 68.47.102.75's view that the status of the dead hostages should be listed as murdered. The hostages were kidnapped and their lives publicly threatened several times. Two ended up dead and it wasn't accidental. It was clear pre-meditated murder and it would not be encyclopedic and disrespectful to the deceased if we didn't acknowledge that their lives were maliciously taken by no fault of their own. - Throw 21:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Christian aid

Were the workers aid workers who were Christian, or Christian Aid workers? Rich Farmbrough, 15:09 11 September 2007 (GMT).

Aid workers. Thoes Koreans seemingly do not relate to the Christian Aid. -- Sameboat - 同舟 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Murder Follow-up

Sameboat, I noticed that you saw the note written by another wikipedia contributor who agrees that the wording should be murder and not kill or execute. This debate is not over and if you choose to ignore it, than I will assume you agree and will change it back to murder.

68.47.102.75 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I would vote for "Kill" or "Execute" in a poll. My reason is the same and agree with Aran and Extrema. I consider the use of "Murder" is too sentimental for such article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, hi, I was reading this article and have to agree with what was previously said about the whole murder versus kill thing. I think that the fact remains that a crime was committed and it should be written in the history books that way. It is disrespectful to the people who lost their loved ones to describe it as anything less than murder. Just my two cents. 158.93.190.42 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your personal views on ethics have no place in a factual account of the event, 68.47.102.75. If you would like authority in here, I can ask an admin to please clarify WP:NPOV for you, which I can assure you will result in the use of 'killed' in this article. Extrema 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Extrema, not a matter of personal ethics. Simply reporting facts. They were murdered. Stop pushing your personal views on others. I dont care what you think NPOV is, these people were murdered as they were killed in a deliberate, malicious, brutal way against their wills and without reason (these South Koreans committed no crime warranting the forceful ends of their lives). Again, just because you have personal views does not mean you can call your views NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.94.231 (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon user, please try actually READING WP:NPOV. You have been arguing that murder is wrong, but as is clearly stated in WP:NPOV: "By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute..." By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute..." That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion." This is relevant because NPOV requires us to: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." That the hostages were killed is not disputed. That they were murdered is.

Thus, the only solution I can come up with is this: the hostages should be listed as killed or executed in the article, with a paragraph asserting that although this is generally in line with Taliban military aims, it is largely condemned by members of other countries where such an act is considered murder. I think that's fair enough. What do you all think? Extrema 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote: Murder or Kill

This vote refers to the dispute, which word is more acceptable regarding the death of 2 Korean males in this incident. I don't call it a consensus because both sides have already given out enough points and seemingly none of us was successful to reason with the opposition. I can stress it no more, to make a voting you MUST register and login an account. Otherwise anonym's vote will not be counted. 1 person 1 vote. -- Sameboat - 同舟 10:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kill

• Murder is a jural term and should not be applied before the killer and the group is judged by official court. -- Sameboat - 同舟 10:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Murder is a heavily connotated term, and therefore is not in line with WP:NPOV. 'Kill' should be preferred for the purposes of this article. See my suggestion. Extrema 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Murder is what it was. It's NPOV bc it's a factual statement.melonbarmonster 23:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Murder

• Murder. It was a crime and should be reported in history as that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.106.69 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This ballot is invalid because of anonymity. -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is that user invalid because they choose to be one of the many anonymous wikipedia users? Is that not the catch phrase of Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Why do they have to declare who they are to be valid? Anyway, add me as another vote for murder. Oh and adding to the debate, I want to post here what I said to you. If you need to define murder in a universal definitive manner, than I think you should also define the "justification" that you seem to think the terrorists had in murdering these innocent people (loaded, yes please). 68.47.102.75 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC) PS: I am still choosing to remain anonymous as I feel safer that way. That is my choice.

WP does allow anonymous edit. But login an account is the basic manner especially while editing such disputed article. Your IP is varying, maybe proxy or others. It confuses many users here that that one opinion is held by multiple people. In the end we concluded that those IPs here is only 1 person, you. Your anonymity creats inconvenience to us. It doesn't cost your life to have an WP account, right? -- Sameboat - 同舟 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In a court of law, since you seem to be so concerned with justice, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. It is up to you to prove your statements, I am merely asserting the fact that they were killed. That the hostages were killed is not in dispute. That they were murdered is in dispute and thus you must prove your standards the correct ones. Also, User:Sameboat is perfectly within his rights to request that you register. There is no reason whatsoever not to have a Wikipedia account if you are not afraid of being identified with your contributions. Extrema 04:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, a response to "define the "justification" that you seem to think the terrorists had in murdering these innocent people." Fundamentalist Muslims are required by Sharia, or Islamic law to expel foreigners from their countries and holy lands, and death is proscribed if they are 'advocates of false gods.' This is all the justification that they needed. Now, since the point is to write the article from neither our standpoint nor theirs in any sense, I'm sure you would be quite upset if I was going around revising articles about Afghanistan to talk about the brave Muslim martyrs and how courageously they died fighting their imperialist, evil foes. To assert that the mujahideen did not deserve to be killed (that they were 'murdered' by the coalition forces) would be logically the same position you are in. To you, the mujahideen have committed crimes, but to this hypothetical me, it is the aid workers and the Coalition soldiers who are committing crimes by violating Muslim land and sovereignty. Murder and its complex implications of guilt and innocence are the result of whatever particular cultural standpoint you abide by, and we are attempting to avoid these standpoints by reporting absolute facts. You are reporting the facts as they appear to you through your filters of your personal morality. =Extrema 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)=

I can see that we are not going to agree on this no matter what and somehow, you both have defined your viewpoints to be default correct until I can prove mine, wherein, you do not have to provide proof for yours. The majority of the world would say that this is an unjust killing and if one were to really take on a literal meaning of religious writings, perhaps you are indicating that all Muslims would like to wage a worldwide war against non-Muslims in an attempt to kill them all? many Muslims say that they are peaceful people and do not support such extremist view points. This just goes to show that you default argument about justification does not even hold true for the majority of Muslims and that in fact, these view points are outliers. Yet, you seem to think that the outlier viewpoint is the default correct one. I can not see why you feel that your view, that of the extremists who do NOT represent the majority of Islam, is correct. Indeed, you are pushing a minority viewpoint in your refusal to accept a crime here as a crime and push your POV, one which is not neutral according to the majority.

You're wrong with our statement in the first place. 1, we are not refusing to accept this is a crime but we are AVOIDING to imply whether this is a crime. As you judge that this is a crime in the first place so we don't expect you to accept the word "Kill" and then start this poll. But I still have to write this. The principle of neutrality includes that not to feel speaking of majority. -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of remaining anonymous, I will say there there is another vote who was not anonymous, so that at least makes 2 since you do not believe any other anonymous write could be anyone but me. That makes 2-2. That also said, if their justification for killing is as you say, then my public speaking out against them makes me an enemy to them and endangers my safety. I truly feel compelled to speak out, but fear for my safety because of the state of the world caused by these people. 68.47.102.75 19:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't explain it anymore. Excluding anonymous vote bases on the policy of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you're aware of personal safety you should not be here in the first place. Anyway your vote is invalid unless you make it with an account. -- Sameboat - 同舟 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sameboat, even if I am anon, there is another user, Throw, with an account who voted that is clearly not me as he/she is in California and I am in Ga. Clearly, those IP addresses can be looked up. That said, there are two distinct, non "sock puppets" who feel that the action was murder. I dont care if you do or dont want to explain why your Non-neutral POV is better than mine, perhaps you can put a vote on the main page to see what users really think. Until I see a vote from many people, I dont buy it. 68.47.102.75 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, who are you to tell me to not use wikipedia if I do not feel safe making up an account? That is how I feel and being that these South Koreans were killed for something as trivial as mission work in an Islamic nation, well why should I feel safe revealing who I am with crazies like that out there? That is the beauty of the internet and of being anonymous. Perhaps you should go into South Korean or the country in Texas perhaps and tell them about how you think the terrorist were "justified" in their "killings." I am sure you will want to be anonymous then, too. 68.47.102.75 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny. Shall I include Aran in this poll without his permission? It would be 3:1 (excluding YOU.) I'm tired of your pettifogging. And I can say it's even more easy for people to check your location by exposing the IP. Only Wikipedia administrators have the right to check the logged account IP. -- Sameboat - 同舟 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

68.47.102.75, you are ignoring crucial Wikipedia standards, such as Wikipedia:Sock Puppetry and WP:NPOV in order to support your personal view that this is a crime. As we have been unable to resolve this dispute and you continue to revert the article to your version without discussion, I will be submitting templates for mediation and an edit lock on this page. Extrema 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ill tell you what, you can check on the IP if you want. Throw and I are NOT the same person. The fact that it is 2 people is irrelevant though as that does not make up a general consensus. That said, I am trying to have discussion, you are the one who said in a totalitarian, dictator like manner - and I quote - "I won't explain it anymore." I am more than willing to discuss how your view, the view of the terrorists, not held by the rest of the Western world, nor the majority of Muslims worldwide, is the minority viewpoint and thus, a non-neutral, minority, extremist point of view. If you were to do a poll with a large enough n to show statistical significance, I am sure you would see that you are in the minority. The fact that other Muslim nations have condemned these murders just argues my point - NOT YOURS. You may be the wikipedia nazi that you are, abusing your knowledge of the system and bullying less knowledgeable people, but I can wait until this is not protected. I will then revert it to what I believe should be the default point of view, since it is that held by the majority of people worldwide. Just because you feel you are more knowledgeable in Wiki law, does not make your POV the default correct one. The burden of proof actually lies on you in this case of semantics as the majority of the world, as seen by the condemnation of these crimes by Muslim nations, lies with you and your minority opinion. Again, my desire to not make a profile attachment to this is mine, not yours. I feel unsafe in attaching a profile to it, and therefore I will remain an IP number and nothing more. 158.93.190.42 16:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So It would be 3:2 even you throw Throw in and counting you. Again it's a dull idea to start a poll like this. Essentially fake democracy. But your attitude leaves us no choice. Obviously that your "majority" are not concerned about this issue so only 5 people had joined this discussion. No matter how whether your POV or our POV is righteous. -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have recommended this article for informal mediation. If you are unwilling to participate in mediation, anon user, I will request arbitration instead. =Extrema 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)=

Ok, not sure where we stand on the votes. I don't know if Anons are from Korea, but I am and it sickens me that the hostages had to die like that. And yes, in my mind it is cold blooded. But are any of the Iraqi casualties by American guns considered murder? No because that is in context of war. And to the Taliban, they are at war with us Koreans...i mean we do have our soldiers there, regardless of the peaceful intentions - we are there at America's request. And despite numerous attempts by the Korean government to stop this group from going, they still managed to illegally enter Afghanistan and into their own demise. From the Taliban POV, they are at war with us, and this group, whom the Taliban have known (maybe not specifically but these Korean civilian groups in general) have Missionary intentions enters the country despite Taliban's warnings to all - missionary to a Muslim fundamentalist means you are there to kill off their next generation of Muslims. If you are in the mentality of serious warfare, would taking hostages and killing your enemy not be justified? Again, as a Korean I appreciate the two Anons' perspectives on the matter. However, this is a neutral site and for Wiki to state murder, would only imply that at some level, Wiki is judging. And Wiki cannot judge. Wiki must not judge. TazmanianD 09:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts:

• Registering requires no private information. It doesn't even require an email address. Editing with a username is no less safe than editing anonymously.
• The difference between kill and murder is that murder implies intentional killing without excuse (e.g., not self-defense). So "murder" naturally carries some POV.
• If we said "killed" and "murdered" are equally valid, that would give "murdered" the benefit of the doubt. Yet, since they would be considered equally valid, a vote would be appropriate. So even giving "murdered" the benefit of the doubt, the result is that the vote should decide.
• The anonymous IP's repeated reverts and threat to continue reverting are disruptive and a violation of Wikipedia policy.Bsharvy 10:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree - in the context of this article 'killing' is less sensationalist than 'murdering'. Addhoc 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation / Arbitrary section break

Hello all! I'm Shadow1, the mediator who will be assisting everyone involved in this case.

From what I've looked at so far, the main dispute is whether the term "killed" should be removed in favor of "murdered." Anonymous editor, could you please briefly summarize your opinion on why this should be?

I hope that we can all come to a peaceful result on this issue. Shadow1 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Shadow1's talkpage

Hi, this is the anon person. I feel that kill is not NPOV. The argument has been made that murder must be malicious and unjustified. The opposition believes that the killings were justified according to Islamic law and to say that the killings were un-justified shows bias and does not report the facts as should be reported in history. However, considering the fact that many Islamic nations have condemned these acts, it is clear that the majority of the Islamic community does not share the viewpoint that these people deserved to be killed (hence, lack of justification). The fact the people are saying that these killings were justified according to Islamic law is offensive to the Muslim community. These people are extremists who do not represent the view point of the majority. Furthermore, the South Korean government clearly did not think that this was a justified act nor did many other Western nations. To call these acts justified and killings or executions implies that these South Koreans committed crimes worthy of the punishment of death (by definition, execution is a punishment and killing does not completely and accurately describe the act of forcibly taking a human life against the victim's will). Killing is an all inclusive word to describe the two kinds of killing of a human being, murder (without justification) and execution (with justification). Again, to summarize, if one were to say execute, it implies they terrorists were justified and therefore represents the terrorist POV and not the majority's POV. To say killed is incomplete and dishonors the people who had their lives taken from them and reports to the world that this act may have been justified.

Yes, this is a semantic thing, but in order to report the facts as they occurs while representing the POV of the majority and not the minority, murder is the only way to describe this act without being offensive to the general public and those who lost their lives.

- Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.190.42 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, you have some very valid points. "Killed" does tend to connote a sense of justification. However, I'd like to point out the following paragraph from Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy:

“ NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. ”

I'm certainly not trying to fault your point of view in this issue, but I think that we can both agree that you're biased against the word "killed" as opposed to "murdered." We're only human; I have biases myself.

Now, I do not have any sort of formal writing or editing experience; I'm just a volunteer here. But based on what I've personally seen and experienced, both in other encyclopedias and other areas of the Internet, and in real life, the term "murdered" usually carries a very strong emotional response with it. "Killed," on the other hand, is a more neutral word. Let me quote from the Wikipedia tone guidelines for a moment:

“ Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining understandable to the educated layman. Formal tone does not mean the article should be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. ”

To bring this to a close, please read the following CNN article: [1]. As you read, pay close attention to how many times the word "killed" is used over "murdered." CNN is probably one of the most reliable sources in the world, and they adhere to the same formal tone as we try to. Using "murdered" rather than "killed" would, as you pointed out, suggest that the deaths were unjustified. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to tell this to the reader. It is the reader's job to determine whether the deaths were unjustified for themselves. Shadow1 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking the Mediation in this section. Just a response to Anon about his comment of us The opposition believes that the killings were justified according to Islamic law and to say that the killings were un-justified shows bias and does not report the facts as should be reported in history. This is highly impolite to assume that people are holding one particular point which Extrema suggests that "the false god" belief is only 1 possibility. Apparently the Anon is still ignoring our intention to avoid implying any indefinite idea which is the Anon fails to comply according to NPOV policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not suggest that the killings were justified, I was merely trying to point out that the view that the hostages were "murdered" is not NPOV. Thanks for taking the case Shadow1. Hope we can resolve this quickly and politely. =Extrema 02:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)=

Sameboat,
I am sorry but I am not able to follow what you are trying to say. In response to Shadow, I see your point about the word kill versus murder and that the second one is charged more. Obviously, you are correct in that I have a bias as does anyone who says anything short of "I dont care" regarding this matter. Now, I will attempt to break down my philosophical point one last time and then will not speak of this matter again.

1. To say kill or murder shows a point of view. In reality, neither are neutral.
2. To execute implies the justified ending of a human's life against their will as a penalty for crime committed by the subject in question, not the executioner.
3. Murder implies the ending of a human life against their will without justification where the executioner is the criminal.
4. Killing implies there may or may not have been justification (execution) OR no-justification (murder).
5. The majority of the world, both Islamic and not, condemned these actions.
6. Condemnation implies a crime.
7. Thus the crime was not committed by the one who lost his life, but by the one who took his life.
8. To accurately represent an event viewed by the majority of the world as a crime, one should use the word that implies its criminal activity. (EX Hitler's holocaust is viewed as a crime against humanity by the majority of the world and so it is written with that tone. This is despite the fact that there is a minority of people who deny the Holocaust ever happened. Still, we report that the Holocaust took place (a non-NPOV) and that it was a crime (again, a non-NPOV))

Signing off,
Anonymous

Not to bring this issue onto another article, but if you'll notice, The Holocaust also uses "killed" over "murdered."

I realize, Anonymous, that the deaths were not justified from the world's point of view. However, it is the reader's responsibility to come to any conclusions about the executions; we shouldn't tell them that ourselves.

As for the NPOV part of both words, using "murdered" would seem to connote to the reader that Wikipedia itself condemns the executions, which we aren't in any position to actually do. If you couple that with the problem that "murdered" is more emotionally charged, wouldn't this make it less NPOV? Shadow1 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Killed" seems to have less implication of who is responsible but that the victims are dead, execution seems justified OR murdered seems unjustifed with emotional connation but we want NPOV. Murder by definition is an illegal killing of another human being, yet legality and being considered criminals implies both sides are/were tried in a reputable court, such as UN's Court, etc (doubt these organization will respect a subpoena, or had a legal defense/the right to counsel, or even brought to a court). However, they are considered terrorist (by a majority of the world) for their actions of killing people.

For your information, the Holocaust is a well-documented event by respected researchers and even by Nazi Germany themselves, who were tried with lengthy legal actions and apolgies were given from Germany after the Third Reich fell. Hardly a non-NPOV because the majority conseus agrees except for the fring extremist, which unfortunatly you will find everywhere, who believe everything from the belief that sky is orange and that supersonic cows exsist in outer space. Furthermore I agree with the mediatator's suggestion.

Also for anon user, making an account can be made anon like mine with the IP address restricted from normal users, only for admin. and Foundation purposes (who might be able to backtrack location either way, anon or account). On the other hand by not registering your IP address is displayed could be uniquely tracked by anyone. Just a little hint about computer security. I am sorry to hear you refuse to continue to advance your opinion.

Keep in mind, that I am also only a person and not by all means perfect. Cheers. Janus8463 00:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a month, and discussion on this issue has halted in its tracks. Since both parties seem to have deadlocked over this, or the anonymous editor has simply lost interest, I will unprotect the article and see what the results are. Hopefully we won't see any more edit wars over this in the future. Shadow1 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone. After unprotecting the page, our anonymous user decided to continue making the same changes that we saw prior to mediation. This has led me to conclude that the user does not wish to cooperate with mediation, nor do they want to refrain from inserting biased opinions into articles. As a result of this, I am marking the case as closed. If further edit warring continues, I will reprotect the page. I regret that the mediation had to end this way, and hopefully we will not see this issue come up again in the future. Shadow1 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow, I am not sure who you are talking to when you refer to "everyone." You and maybe 3 other people ever come on here to involve yourself in the discussion and I am wondering just how popular this article is anyway. I love how you speak so condescendingly, but I will say that you are incredibly lame and need to get a life. There is more to volunteering to patrol an online encyclopedia. Go outside, do something. Have a nice day! Love, your anon buddy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.17.231 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to use more of my "condescending" attitude, but you're arguing with people over the wording of a sentence in an online encyclopedia, and you have been for at least a month. I'll leave it at that. If you want to make any more edits, make them constructive. We're here to build an encyclopedia (or some of us anyway), and can do without this sort of thing. Shadow1 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[2] You're unwelcome for your vandalic edits. Please go somewhere outside of Wikipedia to express your hatred and don't contaminate the public place. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{editprotected}} Please remove the following section from the Response section:

It should be noted, however, that the Taliban, in kidnapping and killing hostages, is acting within the boundaries of local and sharia law, both of which advocate death for worshippers of 'false gods.'

as this inaccurate. Sharia does not say to kill non-believers, that is something spread by islamophobic people. It does not allow for killing of civilians whatever their religion. The part about killing pagans in the Quran is to be taken in historical context, in that the pagans where actually Meccans who killed and persecuted muslims of old hence God revealed that muslims can fight back against them.

People who go around saying muslims are allowed to kill all non-believers are usually anti-muslim people trying to spread hate by misinforming people using misquotes or misinterpretations - this is very dangerous for muslims and non-muslims. For more detail please read a translation of the Quran WITH commentary/annotations. This will explain various verses which you need historical references for hence only Islamic scholars usually explain to people - but there are Quran translations which commentary which deal with this quite well. -xad

 Done ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not anti-Muslim, but as you say "The part about killing pagans in the Quran is to be taken in historical context..." The whole point of fundamentalist Islam is that it considers the Quran to be completely true, and thus the verses are to be considered without the benefit of historical perspective. I have no problem with the removal of this line, which I added as an attempted compromise with the anon user. Considering s/he has stated s/he will not be returning, however, I believe we can safely remove the editprotect and npov templates, unless anyone disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extrema (talk • contribs) 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I need to add an interwiki

I need to add an interwiki, es:Crisis de los rehenes surcoreanos en Afganistán de 2007. Excuse me, but I can't speak Engish very well.--Kevin17^{talk me} 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/29/taliban_to_free_19_s_korean_hostages/
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:02, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:13, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:57:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-07-31T070339Z_01_ISL42047_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AFGHAN-HOSTAGES-COL.XML
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:01, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:12, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:58:01, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AFGHANISTAN?SITE=LYCOS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-08-10-11-55-17
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:17, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:58:14, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708030011.html
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:11, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:18, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:58:27, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708240010.html
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-26 03:01:08, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-05-27 15:18:18, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan on 2011-06-15 17:58:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070909072337/http://www.boston.com:80/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/29/taliban_to_free_19_s_korean_hostages/ to http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/29/taliban_to_free_19_s_korean_hostages/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090603154223/http://english.chosun.com:80/w21data/html/news/200708/200708030011.html to http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708030011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

19 or 23?

The photo appears to show 19 people, not 23. Polygnotus (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)