Talk:2010 Baghdad church massacre: Difference between revisions
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
: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. [[Special:Contributions/173.23.8.168|173.23.8.168]] ([[User talk:173.23.8.168|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
: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. [[Special:Contributions/173.23.8.168|173.23.8.168]] ([[User talk:173.23.8.168|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::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.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 03:35, 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.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk: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. |
|||
==Target== |
==Target== |
Revision as of 19:18, 5 November 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 Baghdad church massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Arab world Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Iraq Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Terrorism Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving 2010 Baghdad church massacre was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 November 2010. | ![]() |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
which church?
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)
- 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.
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?
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)
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
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.
Target
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 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)
page move
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)
- 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)
Follow Up Section
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)
- 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"?)
Resolved
- 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
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)
Rating Review
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)
- Unassessed Arab world articles
- Unknown-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- Unassessed Catholicism articles
- Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- Unassessed Iraq articles
- Unknown-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs