Talk:2010 Baghdad church attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Assyria (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Iraq (Rated Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

which church?[edit]

chaldean catholic per the source on the page or syriac catholic?Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chaldean community in Detroit seems to think it was their community according to this. Confusion in the Western Press, who do not necessarily have their heads around the web of rites and affiliations in Eastern Christianity, could easily have been thrown by the fact that the Chaldean Catholic Church is part of the East Syrian Rite. Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
If its the same thing, then perhaps we can with either (with the other in "notes" or paranthesis on the first mention) and then head for ITN.
I've taken out the Chaldean part for the lead and suggest a "note" saying some sources attribute it to the Chaldean Church and some to the Syrica Church, using both cites.Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

From English Wiki both churches are in Communion with the Holy See of Rome, however, one is West Syriac Rite and the other is East Syriac Rite - So they are 'different'. It would be more in line with the Roman Catholic POV {I believe} to address this issue to the Syriac Church rather than the Chaldean. Other googling reveals that both groups in Baghdad use a "Lady of our Salvation" church - Who knows, they may just share the same building but do their particualr services at different times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.89.179 (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious tag?[edit]

Lihaas, would you explain why you think material reported by survivors and eyewitnesses and reported in reliable sources is dubious? Kenatipo (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kenatipol; looking at the sources, the information is not dubious. BBC (source for for first dubious-[1], and Guardian are reliable sources. SpencerT♦C 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Im not saying the source as is, but it is not verifiable. Like the first 2 sources mention text but also have a link off. these 2 that were tagged dont have something verify it and the contention is also controversial. Hence a double-reason to have it.
With a link then it can/should be taken off. (note- the content wasn't in order to give some reader the possibility to add a source to it)
Yes check.svg Done the first source, still pending 3 more. (Although the last one i added and im pretty sure i read it somewhere to copy the quote)Lihaas (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Background[edit]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to say the background section of this article is probably the most biased thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. Iraq was a wonderland of diversity and peaceful coexistence before the Iraq War? What? Alphabet55 (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it was no wonderland. But as bad as it was, at least Saddam's dictatorship was more of a secular one and kept in-fighting at a minimum. Now Iraq is a theocratic terrorist free-for-all. 173.23.8.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
If there is something to assert your statement is true and the article is false then cite that. currently, it is sourced to RS and even then with the requisite caveats.Lihaas (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What a weinie statement "It is said blah, blah, blah"... re: "It also said Iraq is now "defined more by war, occupation and deprivation. Identities have hardened; diversity has faded." Can't you be a little more creative in showing your bias? Wikipedia current events especially has become a laughing stock and many times I hear from others to be careful when using Wikipedia. A truly great idea being ruined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.113.201.240 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Target[edit]

not sure what it should be but Baghdad Stock Exchange doesnt seem right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.187.83 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement quoted on the page (and cited to RS) says the target was the Stock Exchange and a robbery gone bad where they then fled to the church.Lihaas (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The terrorists knew there were armed guards in front of the Iraq Stock Exchange right across the street, so they took them out first. The target was the cathedral. The terrorists did not "flee" to the cathedral -- it was their prime objective. Are there any reports of the attackers even entering the Stock Exchange? Kenatipo (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Your unsourced allegation and pov are not likely to pass through. My arguement is based on content already sourced on the page.
If however you do find a RS to say they knew the guards were there adn took them out so as to target the church, then cite it.Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The idea that the Stock Exchange was the primary target seems to be the opinion of Lt. Col. Bloom, an American advisor. A correspondent from the BBC, Jim Muir, seems to think the church (see text to left of maps) was the real target. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Col. Bloom also says that it was "a robbery gone wrong. . . . .a small petty crime" (to raise money). Is this how armed robbery is done in Iraq -- you send a squad of 5 to 12 men armed with grenades, machine guns and explosive vests ???? I don't believe the Stock Exchange would have cash lying around anyway; aren't transactions done electronically? Do you think it was accidental that the terrorists showed up during the regularly scheduled Sunday 5:00 pm Mass when they knew lots of people would be in the church? --Kenatipo (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I think with Jim Muir's statement, per the link above, we can add the church to the infobox as one of the targets. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
This article Ayatollah Sistani also suggests the church was the primary target and says the Iraq Stock Exchange guards were not killed but only injured. --Kenatipo (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The terrorists found out there were armed guards in front of the Stock Exchange the same way I did: a Google search for images of the Stock Exchange, and, voila, a picture of the front of it, with a light blue sign on it, "Iraq Stock Exchange" in English and the same in Arabic above it, with two uniformed men wearing black bullet-proof vests holding machine guns, standing in front of the building. --Kenatipo (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I cant see your bbc link for some reason, but if you quote the relevant portion you can analyze that. the Tehran times link, however, does add more plausability. Im adding that link to the page now, and pending the review of the bbc link i think the church targeting could then be sourced up.
Okay i saw it now. Though this was alleged by a reporter, the other was an official. The latter being more credible because he has a first hand links to the investigation and the reporter synthesising that "it seems"
If you want, you can cite tehran times for targeting. Although it would then be fair to say in line the differences of viewLihaas (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

page move[edit]

there was no consensus or ever a discussion note for a page move. While its all well and good to be WP:Bold, when reverted WP:BRD comes into play.Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

READ WP:TITLE (principal criteria): Conciseness – shorter titles are often preferred to longer ones. There is no other Baghdad church attack in 2010 (no ambiguity). There is only one church intsedent in 2010. No need to add a month or day of month in the title, making it more cumbersome for readers. The title must comply with these criteria in accordance with the guidelines. At first you must show that the inclusion of the month necessarily, according to the guidelines. Otherwise, do not behave contemptuously to the other editors, accusing them of something. — Al3xil  00:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary the onus was on the you who made the change after the edit was challenged, and you stilldidnt come to talk! So..."do not behave contemptuously to the other editors, accusing them of something"Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this was so obvious solution of the title, according to the guidelines (WP:TITLE). Honestly, did not think it would cause such controversy. You probably need to realize how important conciseness in the title, otherwise we would have seen article titles such as 11 September 2001 attacks, etc. It is a good title for a redirect, but unfortunately not for the article title. In conclusion, I would like to say that I just followed the rules of Wikipedia, so I apologize if this caused confusion. — Al3xil  10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
already put to your version while pending consensus, i think its resolved then?Lihaas (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow Up Section[edit]

It reads as if the bombings of Shia areas are somehow related/retalitory to the Church shootings, and whilst the reference given does mention the shootings, it gives no suggestion that the two events are in any way connected, so I'm going to be WP:Bold and take that out.. can't see how it adds anything to this specific incident of violence in what is effectively a warzone. BulbaThor (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
Its relations was sectarian in Baghdad, it was also a "follow up" to the background where said info couldnt go there as it happened after. (perhaps "aftermath"?)
but im fine with the removal, it seems theres already a page for it linked from the navbox.
I added a 1 line mention with the sourced parallels. If you feel otherwise, then remove the [ir]relevant section.Lihaas (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct names[edit]

Guys, I am an Assyrian (same people who are the victims of this terror act), me and many other of my colleagues from http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=39796.0 have huge coverage of this, and we are updating news all over the web about it, so we are very into this topic right now. I did some changing of names so that they are referred correct, but someone is changing it back all the time. Please stop that, I am not vandalising this page just adding some minor stuff to make it more correct.

Stuff that i changed: it is the "Syriac Catholic Church" Syriac or Syrian catholic church are the same. It is confirmed that it was a Syrian/syriac catholic church, but we should use "Syriac catholic church" since there is a topic of it here on wikipedia. In these churches we usually use the language, Syriac or Assyrian. Syriac is another name for Assyrian...

Also, make sure that the "target" stays as i edited it: the church was a target as well, not just the stock exchange...

Also this is being called a massacare from many official sources, and many of the Assyrian people, are calling this "Black Sunday"

I will tell you guys what needs to be added, if more is missing... thnxs for the topic. Thedavee (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it seems you have a WP:COI, but we also need sources NOT just an editor saying "hes from X and is an authority" Please consider WP:BRD when reverted, consensus is then required.
This is not to say your edits are invalid or in bad faith, but you would need a cite for the assertion (and if queried notability, which im not sure the other phrases are).
Specifically, for the target of the church there need to be more sources. As it stands the article mentions official sources saying otherwise.Lihaas (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Syriac catholic church? I do understand that a source is needed but these things are correct and so obvious its all over the news, I mean just look at the pictures of the church, http://img3.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/65991326-residents-carry.jpg it even says Syrian Catholic Church (damaged though) and that is de facto the same as Syriac Catholic church, so I don't see why that needs to be deleted. Don't these people and their church deserve to be mentioned?

About the "target" should the church not be included? Tell me why if so because it did happened in this church did it not?... Thedavee (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems like a plausability, but other RS' suggest some confusion. I think we need a WP:30 on that. (Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements)
For the targe see the "rescue" section.Lihaas (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am new to this, I actually just created an account, I usually write news and articles on Assyrian sites and forums (ex. the ones I mentioned, assyrianvoice.net and assyriantart.com) so I need some time to learn all the things. Until then, how about if I just send you info, sources and articles then you guys could edit the things I am asking, because you know it quite well, I will need some time before I add really big stuff myself. I wanted to create an article about this but I saw that one was already done, that was good. The reason to is because this was very urgent in the Assyrian community and we are having big campaigns for this so it won't be silent like many other things that has happened to our people and other Christians in Iraq (natural point of view of course). The public needs to know about this and what is happening to Christians in Iraq. I did not want to add bigger stuff before because I want to get familiar with the system, quoting, linking, correct facts, etc... Anyway ill just ask you guys for the editing for now if its ok from your side. I will however be off working until friday so i might be inactive for a while. Keep up the good work until then... Thedavee (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good, you dont seem to be a bad faith COI, hence your additions are welcome. Send me waht i have, adn discuss what you think is of value so i can guide you through wikipedia processes.
One piece of advice though, it could appear as WP:POV-pushing or even WP:COI to state that your are from the community and have an "urgent need" to add content.Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I added a reference from the Catholic News Agency reporting the message the Holy Father sent to the Syriac Catholic Archbishop of Baghdad about the terrorist massacre in his cathedral. (adding to the confusion about the name of the church is the sign, in English, on the front of the church: Syrian Catholic Church.) Kenatipo (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats fine, and usable. But just need an RS source that would not have a COI, which "catholic news agency" would be in this regard even if not otherwise. Something like an int'l press story or an iraqi govt official?Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you contending that the CNA is not an RS? or that the CNA has a COI whenever it reports on anything Catholic? --Kenatipo (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
In this circumstance yes. We also have other sources attribuite the church to 2 different denominations.Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of the RS and COI policies are substantially different from my understanding of them. I believe you are mistaken in both cases. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I never disputed RS, but i believe the cotnrary on COI.Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, are you confusing me with Thedavee, who may have a COI because he is a member of an Assyrian organization? COI has to do with the relationship between an individual wikieditor and the edits he makes which may promote his organization or himself. (By the way, did you look at the picture of the sign on the church that Thedavee referred you to? It clearly says, in English, "Syrian Catholic Church". That alone should have ended all this nonsense about whose church it is. I also pointed out the same thing to you, but is was water off a duck's back, apparently. I'll find you a clearer photo, hoping this 'Chaldean or Syrian' question can be finally put to rest). If you are accusing me of COI then you need to review the policy, because all my edits are only interested in the TRUTH, and COMMON SENSE should always trump Verifiable and Reliable Source. Did you notice how all the so-called Reliable Sources wrote stories that conflicted with other Reliable Sources? --Kenatipo (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thedavee, thanks for your input. I think you're right on just about everything you've said. But I do have a question for you: Isn't Assyrian a synonym for Chaldean when we're talking about Catholic rites? The Chaldean Catholic Church has a different hierarchy than the Syriac Catholic Church, I think. Also, what you will learn here at wikipedia is that what is obvious and common sense to you and me may not be to another editor. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a picture of the sign outside the church: Syrian Catholic Church --Kenatipo (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Allvoices is an RS? please! See my reponsude to thedavee, it also includes mention thereof in reply to his pic.(Lihaas (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)).
Lihass, the photos are for your own information. Do you still believe the church is not a Syrian Catholic Church? --Kenatipo (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's the church sign at Boston.com : baghdad_church_siege_ends_with_52_dead/ --Kenatipo (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Replaced with this source. Yes check.svg DoneLihaas (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, why the sneer at allvoices.com? It appears to me to be a wonderful resource for people editing current event articles for Wiki. It's a clearinghouse for hundreds of articles from hundreds of sources, mostly RS. --Kenatipo (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats the reason, the same reason the examiner.com (i beleive that one) is blocked here adn wikinews is not used as a source, wikipedia also cant be used to cite itself becasue its edited by anyone with editorial oversight.
But the relevantportion has beene added.Lihaas (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
edits explained
I just made some pretty uncontroversial edits, but to explain them. I moved the labeling for the church out of the infobox, it is in the lead and the article. Cathedral is also not a proper noun for this church as it doesnt seem to be called so even the in the pic affirming its Syro-catholic status. i also separated out the 2 notes as they are not the same entirely. and added some more condemnations from the new source (although as a "forum" im not sure it would be RS)Lihaas (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, cathedral and church are always capitalized when they're part of the name of the church or cathedral, just as you would see on a sign outside the church or cathedral identifying it. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree totally, when a part of the name'. In this case we havent seen the name folowed by cathedral. For example somethign like notre dame, but that doesnt mean every cathedral. eastern churches arent often explicitly named as such.
Also the brit quote mentions "their" and "our," a clear contradiction. which is it?Lihaas (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Archbishop Dawood's statement, I think it's tasteless to criticize the English of someone whose first language is not English. --Kenatipo (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of the statement is that he says "their" because he's referring to people still living in Iraq and he says "our" because he was born in Iraq. It's a little clumsy but there's no contradiction there. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
We have seen the cathedral name capitalized here: speroforum asia news article --Kenatipo (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Its not a criticism, the query is firstly a product of transltation (i doubt the original was in english in the first place), and secondly academically standard when there is some such "contradiction" in this case, we dont know which side was incorrect adn which side was the way intended. In Arabic it probs wont have that confusion. Unless we have clarification it would be sunthesis to state editor opinion.
As for the caps, the official name you cited, doesnt mention as such "cathedral"Lihaas (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you have eyes? It's in the speroforum article TWICE. Here's the beginning of the last paragraph: Christians in Baghdad yesterday held the first mass in the Syro-Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady of Salvation after the massacre of 31 October. (emphasis added for the visually impaired). --Kenatipo (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i have been away for a while. Kenatipo, to your question "Isn't Assyrian a synonym for Chaldean when we're talking about Catholic rites?" the Chaldeans are Assyrians yes. the speak the same language and have the same traditions, the church language is the same Aramaic or Assyrian neo-Aramaic as you can call it in modern times. The Syriac church is orthodox and the Chaldean is catholic, however the people of those churches are the same and come from the same ancestry... Thedavee (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Rating Review[edit]

I feel that the 2010 Baghdad Church Attack should be rated. I'm leaning more towards "Start" rating than a "Stub". How about the Importance rating? Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Start or perhaps even C. Importance for Iraq would be higher, but in each other one should lower.Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

NPR refs # 1 through # 4 --- problem[edit]

Lihaas, our first reference (NPR) has a problem. It no longer refers to the original article that we were referring to. In fact the NPR (AP) article changes almost every day. I'm having trouble finding NPR's archives, so I can't fix it. Can you help? Thanks. --Kenatipo (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on this. I found the older NPR AP articles, but the article only supports ONE of the four references. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's fixed now. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

More official document[edit]

Make sure to include the important stuff in it... http://seyfocenter.com/filer/Letter%20from%20House%20to%20Hillary%20Clinton-%20Nov-5-2010.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedavee (talkThedavee (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)contribs) 18:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Thedavee, for linking this letter. Frank Wolf is my representative and we just re-elected him. I think we should put this in the article as part of the reaction. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrations!, "Bagdhad church massacre" "black sunday" "black marches"![edit]

In all major cities, where Iraqi Christians (mostly assyrians) live, there has been major demonstrations and protest against this terror act. There are plenty of stuff about this on many major news agencies around the world. The Iraqi Christians are calling this "Black Sunday", many sources, both official and non official, are calling this "Baghdad Church massacre" and people who are involved in these demonstrations and protest call it "Black marches" and use the slogan "we will not forget, we will not be silent! */ . This has been going on for over 2 weeks, should it not bee written about? I think at least that this should be added after 2010 Baghdad church attack "(aka Baghdad church massacre or Black Sunday)" Thedavee (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need to add an Aftermath section describing the demonstrations. I'll look for some articles to cite. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
support the addition as necessary. If not in aftermath another bullet point under iraq (or elsewhere) would be appropriate.Lihaas (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

General Improvements to Article[edit]

If the article were my personal property: 1) the name of the cathedral church would be correct throughout, without explanatory footnotes; 2) the Background section wouldn't insinuate that Iraqi Christian problems started with the American occupation; 3) the opinion ("a robbery gone wrong") of an American Lt. Col. would not be given undue weight; 4) the Iraq Stock Exchange would be removed from the infobox as a target; 5) the (sic) would be removed from Archbishop Dawood's statement; 6) a new Aftermath section would note the wide-spread demonstrations protesting the massacre. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean? its a personal talk page conversation that gives not context. But anyhoo, the correct name is cited right in the lead, (as you wanted and sourced) to add the same content for evey mention of the page would be redundant, its not for for pov/controversial factors but for readability and cleaning up that its not done.
the background section is sourced to an RS that says so. If you have another source then go ahead and bring it up, but to suggest a government with Tareq Aziz amongst the highest members were persecuted for said reason would be quite dubious.
its mentioned as a response in the section and not asserted anywhere in the lead. Why is it undue? If you want to reword it im fine, but not for removing it alltogether. (maybe we can discuss changes here)
i digress, it was sourced as at least 1 of the targets. Although the globes assertion "Christians who cowered for hours inside the stone building that used to be their peaceful sanctuary wondered why they were yet again the target of violence" is hardly npov. but c'est la vie.
i explained already i dont mind taking it out but there was confusion as to "their" and then "our" in the same sentence. Did he say it in Arabic and it could be a mistranslation? Which one did he mean?
agreed, see above.Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, you accused me elsewhere of acting like this article was my own personal property, so, I'm telling you what the article would look like if I really thought it was my personal property -- I would have been relentless in making the changes listed. But, I haven't been relentless. I am able to compromise. I can just let it go. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay...so letting all that aside you didnt respond to my responses. are you game with what i just said above?Lihaas (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
At the moment I only intend to add something to Background indicating the problem didn't begin in 2003 and add some mention of the protests that followed the massacre. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That seems reasonable.(Lihaas (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)).

How many churches were attacked in August 2004?[edit]

Our reference from the NYT article says SIX churches were bombed in August 2004. The other reference from the AINA, on page 3 and 4 of the pdf file, says 5 churches were bombed, then on the next line it says 5 Assyrian churches and 1 Armenian church were bombed, then it lists all SIX churches, explaining that the car bomb at St. Mary's church was disarmed before it could explode. A bomb doesn't have to explode to achieve its aim of terrorism -- the targeted people only need to know it was there near their church to be terrorized. In conclusion, SIX churches were attacked and terrorized in August 2004 whether all the bombs exploded or not. --Kenatipo (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If it did not explode then how was it bombed? The phrase bombed means that it went off, the fact that there was a bomb is duly mentioned, nothing is removed or censored. As you already said one was disarmed that is not a bombing. We dont on wikipedia go around called failed attacks "2010 XXX bombing"Lihaas (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that isn't what the verb "bomb" means. According to merriam-webster.com, the transitive verb bomb means: to attack with or as if with bombs: BOMBARD. The bomb does NOT have to explode. I think of it like this: if a B-52 flew over your mud hut and dropped a 1,000 lb. bomb at it, you would have been bombed whether the bomb actually exploded or not. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Your allegory makes sense, but still that it wasnt "bombed" just by dropping something. it wasnt attacked thereof. the plane in MI last year wasnt bombed, Times Square wasnt bombed, the namibian plan wasnt bombed, etc, etc.Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read the merriam-webster definition again, more slowly and carefully this time. The bomb does not have to explode. That's why we call them "The Underwear Bomber" and "The Times Square Bomber". The definition also explains why the NYT said SIX churches were bombed -- because six churches were attacked with bombs. It makes no difference if the bombs explode or not. Well, you have convinced me of one thing: there's one person on the planet who is more stubborn than I am !!!! --Kenatipo (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Please your own source. I read the other source it says five were bombed, 1 failed and that is still mentioned on the page.Lihaas (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Attacks continue [[2]] Chaldean (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The "other source" says that 5 Assyrian churches and 1 Armenian church were bombed. 5 + 1 still = 6, doesn't it? --Kenatipo (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
"August 1, 2004. 5 churches bombed." from the 2nd source.(Lihaas (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)).

Lihaas, since you didn't read this before, I'll put it in here again: Our reference from the NYT article says SIX churches were bombed in August 2004. The other reference from the AINA, on page 3 and 4 of the pdf file, says 5 churches were bombed, then on the next line it says 5 Assyrian churches and 1 Armenian church were bombed, then it lists all SIX churches, explaining that the car bomb at St. Mary's church was disarmed before it could explode. A bomb doesn't have to explode to achieve its aim of terrorism -- the targeted people only need to know it was there near their church to be terrorized. In conclusion, SIX churches were attacked and terrorized in August 2004 whether all the bombs exploded or not. --Kenatipo (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC) --Kenatipo (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My text above was a verbatim quote from the the references which apparently explicitly said that. Go on and reach the source. Anyway, we need a WP:3O here.Lihaas (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know it was a verbatim quote, and on the very next line in the very same source it says 6 churches were bombed: 5 Assyrian and 1 Armenian. But, the article is OK the way it is. I don't intend to change that part. And, no, we don't need a third opinion. So, I've learned 2 things here: you have a harder head than mine, and, according to merriam-webster, the verb "bomb" means "to attack with a bomb" (whether the bomb explodes or not) -- this explains why the New York Times was correct when it reported 6 churches bombed on Aug. 1, 2004. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

I have made some edits to make it clear that:
1. this was a 'terrorist attack', not just an 'attack'.
2. make it clear that the attackers were foreigners and not Iraqis.
3. make it clear that Iraqi Muslim institutions strongly condemned the attack.
4. remove unrelated/outdated parts about Afghanistan/formation of Iraqi government.
5. remove erroneous anti-Iraqi sectarian narrative implying that Iraqis have turned on their own beloved Christian people.
6. correct the description from 'Iraq War' to 'occupation of Iraq'.
David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David3450 (talkcontribs) 12:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Firtly, Familiarise yourself with wikipedia guidelines first, you are a new editor engaging in an edit war. Read WP:NPA and see WP:BRD you were bold, you were reverted and you need to discuss. Failure to develop consensus for your edits are liable to get you a block. Also realise you don't WP:OWN articles.
1. Familiarise yourself with wikipedia guidelines first, you are a new editor engaging in an edit war. Read WP:NPA
2. If you want maek such an assertion you back it up with sources, which what you have deemed "foreign" is not sourced.
3. sourced statements are already in the article. WP:UNDUE would also equal WP:POV where "all muslim institutations" are not cited only Sistani's comment is sourced on this page.
4. the background section has already been deemed relevant to the background section, you may be warranted to remove it per WP:Consensus as WP:Consensus can change, but you havent got any just yet. As of now you have twice removed sourced info without gaining any support to justify your reasons thereof.
5. your assertions of Muslim condemnation were not sourced unlike the reactions which were.
6. that would be POV, although it could stand some relevant since an article of that nature does exist. I've done this, at least in the interim, as a show of good faith.
Your edits have thus been reverted per the WP:BRD criteria which would be obvious vandalism for an editor to readd when 1. uninformed of wikipedia guidelines (after nicely being told and welcomed), 2. without consensus. And hence liable for a block, which be unfortunate at this early stage.(Lihaas (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)).