Talk:2006 al-Askari mosque bombing/Archive 1

2007 bombing - seperate article?

I have added info on the 2007 bombing, but as most of the page was about the 2006 event perhaps these events should be split to two seperate articles?

--Wowaconia 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and split this article into two. While the target was the same in both attacks, they were two different attacks and should have separate articles. Oh and the article is al-Askari Mosque bombing (2006). Sorry.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War

Why don't we include something like "the attack and the resulting reprisal strikes have heightened sectarian strife within Iraq, as well as raised fears of a civil war". I've been hearing from everybody that this, if anything, will lead to a civil war in Iraq.

No-one's preventing you from putting it there yourself. Sounds good to me. Grandmasterka 20:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article. Does it exist elsewhere under a different name?

This article did not exist before today, I created it a few hours after the bombing. I feel honored to have started what will now be one of the fastest-growing and most scrutinized articles on Wikipedia... Sorry, I just had to get that out. Grandmasterka 18:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Are we sure that an article elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't already exist under a slightly different name? And can any Arabic readers check out the Arabic Wikipedia to see what can be copied over here? Tempshill 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. I was shocked there wasn't already an article about it when I was searching before I created this thing. I haven't heard it under any name other than variants of "Al Askari". But I'm no Arabic speaker. Grandmasterka 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a request for Arabic translators to help with this article here. Grandmasterka 22:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mosque photo

can we put a better pic of the mosque in the article.. the existing one is too grainy Hellznrg 17:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's so poor that I included in its caption a link to the pictures hosted by the BBC. I also added this article to Wikipedia:Requested photos. Tempshill 20:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the damaged mosque can be uploaded, from BBC or another source, and tagged with {{HistoricPhotoRationale}}. I'm not sure about a photo of undamaged mosque though. Nikola 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP needs to demand that publications that cite WP as a source also release some of their pictures as open source --mitrebox 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. I like it :) Nikola 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Significance, history of the mosque

If this mosque is one of Islam's holiest sites, I think that a bit more about it needs to placed into the article, since it's obviously a notable topic in itself even before it was bombed - it would be a shame if its past as a holy site was to be forgotten and all the emphasis placed on it's destruction. XYaAsehShalomX 19:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damage, not destruction. I'd be willing to bet that within two years there will be a new dome on the mosque. Still, you are right, there needs to be more history. That's why I think an Arabic speaker needs to go over to the Arabic Wikipedia to see if more material is available over there. --StuffOfInterest 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam sure does have a lot of "holiest" sites. --mitrebox 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! :) Hellznrg 05:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Men

I removed the reference to the attackers being Sunni. This has not been confirmed, though it is likely. Just felt we should not make assumptions or editorialize. Windthorst 21:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF in Baghdad the INTERIM-gouvernment President Talabani was presented as Sunni THEN this is a factor for a full-fletched civil war.

Separate Bombing Article

The shrine is worth a significant article of its own, and the bombing is starting to look article-worthy as well. Perhaps we should split the two? SReynhout 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it's long enough. --cesarb 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until somebody blames American or Israel for this. oh wait already did that --mitrebox 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Reply to mitrebox 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden dome

Any word on looters taking pieces of the dome?--mitrebox 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If most of the dome was destroyed, I doubt there was any gold of substastial worth. Muslim are unlikely to loot from their holy site.

Is any one even dead?

--Greasysteve13 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand no, no one died in the blast. Except for the reprisals that is... AndrewRT 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The news reports which initially came out said that the authorities did not know whether there was anyone trapped under the rubble or not. I'm not sure whether this has changed or not yet. --HappyCamper 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reprisals over 100 deaths it seams.--Greasysteve13 02:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kept finding the number 170, so I added it. Rachel 12:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source, source, source.--Greasysteve13 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the attackers are sunnis

why would shias bomb their own mosque? it is always sunnis, there are no other factions, wahabis are sunnis too.

What do you know of the History of India and Northern Ireland? - The attackers might not even be Muslim.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on... You're only deluding yourself, if you think this wasn't a Sunni attack. Why would a Shiite group destroy its holiest site? And you're definitely deluding yourself if you think the attackers weren't even Muslim (And please, no conspiracy-theories about the American army doing this). What's India or Northern Ireland have to do with a country where there's almost zero Protestants, Catholics or Hindu?--BlueTruth 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the history fo the United States, too? Remember Oklahoma City? While most respectable news outlets didn't claim it, almost everyone was thinking WTC bombing and Islamist militants. --Windthorst 15:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

because this is not the first time sunnis targeted shia shrines, last year sunnis bombed the samara spiral building

Do you have a reference for this, say a statement reported in the news media? --HappyCamper 10:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the attackers are Sunnis or Americans or Jews or Kurds or Iranians is baseless speculation and vandalism to put in this article. Saying this ot that famous person has charged this or that group with being behind the attack is part of how politics plays out and if referenced can be part of this article. WAS 4.250 11:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent with the history of the insurgency that this attack was carried out by Sunnis, particularly the mostly non-Iraqi extremists who consider Shi'as as non-Moslems. Sunnis don't revere these imams like Shia do. AndrewRT 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it is consistent with human history for people to attack in a way that throws blame on their enemies - have two enemies fight each other if possible. It is also consistent with human history for people to inaccurately blame a group they hate for whatever goes wrong. I think the Sunnis did it; but there ARE other possibilities. WAS 4.250 14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Reichstag fire for the prime example of why jumping to conclusions can play into the hands of evil. Tempshill 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall hearing about a certain non-muslim group planning on doing something just like this in the past... But enough already. WAS 4.250 has the right idea. Grandmasterka 20:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes, I guess what you mean is something like this[1]. madyasiwi 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sunnis would have much to gain by bombing an islamic holy site even if it is most important to Shias. The group responsible would most likely be a third party who would want to throw Iraq into chaos, either because they want to make the Sunnis and Shias destroy each other, or to make both groups destroy the peace coalition forces have been working hard to maintain. I think Iran is pretty suspicious, how they cast the blame on America and Isrial. Their reason, "America and Isrial oppose god and justice", made no sense what so ever.

While discussion is fine, speculation, as WAS 4.250 pointed out, would be vandalism (because it goes against WP:NOR). KI 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can infer that it was most likely neither sunni nor shia responcible for the attack because if the attack was meant to be a message someone probably would have claimed responsibility therefore I believe the attack was by a third party who wanted to make sunnis and ahias fight each other or to place the blame on another group or country in order to cause muslims to attack that group or country. That narrowed the suspected groups down to those who where neither sunni nor shia and blamed another outside group. Iran blammed America and Isreal, both are countries that you could say Iran doesn't like and the explanation Iran gave for it's accusation was illogical (America and Coalition forces worked hard to maintain peace, making an act of terrorism out of the question) and made no sense. Iran is the most likely suspect, this is based on evedence it is not just speculation.

It strains credulity to an absurd degree to claim that that Iran, a Shia Islamic theocracy, would secretly bomb one of the most important sites to both Sunni and Shia Islam. It's equivalent to claiming that the Vatican secretly bombed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. There is little doubt the foreign actor most likely to bomb the mosque is Israel for any number of reasons, which is why most people in Iraq and the Middle East believe Israel is responsible. It is extremely unlikely that the US was involved in the bombing. It's possible the US covered-up Israeli involvement, but that's pretty unlikely too. Most of the investigation was done by the Iraqi government, which would have had very strong incentives to pin it on the Israelis. They instead pinned it on Al-Qaeda in Iraq. On the other hand, Israel is known to carry out "false flag" terrorist operations all over the Middle East, so this certainly meets their MO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.40.224 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'There is little doubt the foreign actor most likely to bomb the mosque is Israel for any number of reasons, which is why most people in Iraq and the Middle East believe Israel is responsible.' - just love the authoritative sound of this claim. I don't find that the assertion (even if it's true) that 'most people in the Middle East believe Israel is responsible' proves anything; I've heard of (and spoken to) a lot of Middle Easterners who state that 9/11 was carried out by Mossad/the CIA too, but that's not exactly evidence.--Lopakhin (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Would anyone oppose splitting this article into the current one and a page solely on the Al Askari mosque bombing? Seems to me it's important enough to stand on its own. KI 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely (I was thinking about it just a few minutes ago). This usually does not require a split request, so I'll make the move right now. joturner 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need to split the talk page as well moving almost all of the discussions their (archiveing them here) except for image and name. If there are no arguments I'll do so in approx 30 minutes --mitrebox 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone claim that "Iran is suspicious"? Iran consists of 90% shia population. So therefore they will bomb there own holy site. That is just ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a blog, but it is necessary to clear some things out. Why would they bomb one of the most important and revered sites of Shia Islam. The mosque in Samarra is where Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi (may Allah's peace be upon him) is known to have disappeared. He is the messiah of Shia Islam. Shias believe that they should strive to hasten his arrival every second of their lives in any way they can. Iran's government has even been criticized for striving for something that, in their opinion, is supersticious. It makes absolutely no sense for them therefore, to bomb Imam Mahdi's (AS) fathers shrine. That is considered an open war with him, and Iran most definately does not seek that.

CIA did it. Or maybe MOSAD... Nikola 12:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture?

anybody got a picture of the damaged mosque? it would be easier for the eyes. The pointer outer 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The or No The?

Given that al means the in Arabic, should we refer to the mosque as just "Al Askari Mosque" or "The Al Askari Mosque?" I don't know if there is a convention on this, but in my opinion the former works better, especially because it doesn't result in a bad translation. Not trying to make a big deal over it; just trying to get it clarified in case I need to stop calling it simply "Al Askari Mosque" and start calling it "The Al Askari Mosque." joturner 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

use "Al Askari Mosque" Yahussain 04:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is "The Al Askari Mosque bombing occured on February 22" a good way to say it or is it ignorant because it translates as "The the Askari Mosque"? (The river Rio Grande or the Rio Grande.) WAS 4.250

The first "the" refers to "bombing". And since "al" is part of the name, you can't really change it, thus "The Al Askari Mosque bombing" should stay as it is. Secondly, it's the Rio Grande River, not the River Rio Grande.

Cut-and-paste pagemove?

I wonder if this article should be temporarily deleted so that the page history from the original Al Askari Mosque can be merged with this one. However, since it's quite an active article at the moment, I think I'll hold off doing this, because it would probably be too disruptive. --HappyCamper 04:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move the history at all. The original article still exists. This was not the move of an entire article, merely the budding off of a subsection of the article. WAS 4.250 04:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...okay. Just wanted to double check. --HappyCamper 05:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP POSTING PROPAGANDA

the iraqi defence minister (aldulaimi) just appear live in a press conference saying only 21 mosques were attacked, wikipedia mention it is 60! stop posting propaganda please and update it now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.1.154.191 (talk • contribs)

If you can cite the source, no-one's stopping you from changing it yourself... Grandmasterka 12:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on conflict coverage

It is usual for the sides of a conflict to make statements for their benefit. IMO, all that can be done is making all POVs as clear as possible. Also, I added some details of expert assessment from Ipsnews. They look very helpful. Occuserpens 12:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on <ref> tag

As I found out, when <ref> tag is used multiple times with the same reference, it produces multiple same entries in the Reference section. It is easy to get around this glitch using []. Still, could be better :-) Occuserpens 12:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References are combined if given the same "name" attribute such as "<ref name="ref-newsweek">". --StuffOfInterest 11:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on news links

In "Responsibility and accusations" section, there is an entry: "Iraqi President Jalal Talabani stated that the bombing was the work of takfiri groups seeking to stir up "sectarian strife" (Al-Hayat, 23 February 2006)". This info is very omportant, but the problem is, it is linked to the Wiki entry on Feb 23!

IMHO, it is much better to link to concrete articles because then it is possible to check and update info in the Wiki entry. Reference "Al-Hayat, 23 February 2006" looks great in print, but not in online document. It would be great if links to concrete news stories will not get edited out.

Just a thought. Occuserpens 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unconfirmed accusations info. Google does not show anything believable on this subject. Occuserpens 23:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence

The accusations about the U.S. seem somewhat lengthy, but they have no evidence. Shouldn't this be reduced?

Now that it's been a year, hopefully we can write this article without suffering from recentism. I don't know anyone credible that blames the US or Israel for the bombing, it's most likely an international terror group (al-qaeda) or sunni insurgents. I left the Iran one in there because I guess it's notable. Monkeyman334 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The minarets are gone

[4] So sad to see such historical building is being torn apart. __earth ^(Talk) 11:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOCleft

I removed the TOCleft tag. It's always better to start the article with the lead section on the upper left, as this is where the user's eye gravitates. The lead is short enough (perhaps too short per guidelines) that the TOC is not "buried" beneath the bottom bar of the browser. There is a small amount of whitespace before the first section, which is good. In particular, the article flunked the guidelines for a floating TOC, in that it takes up more than 30% of the screen width for an average user and the text column crushed between the left and right matter was less than 30% of the average screen width (closer to 15%, which makes for a very ragged right-edge). --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

us navy

Carrier strike group 7, an aircraft from cvn 76 the uss ronald reagan dropped it's first peice of ordinance on 22 feb 2006. To boast; the video of a laser guided bomb impacting a building which i thought was oddly shaped like a mosque. I later read about this incident in Time I found it to be far to coincidental to continue serving in the armed forces. Lukeyerk (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "2006 al-Askari Mosque bombing"?

Since this was the only 2006 bombing of said mosque, why the "22 February"? The 2007 article just has the year, I submit this article should follow the same format. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's 'cause the article was hastily assembled before there was a solid naming standard for current events (as I recall) and then largely abandoned after the bombing didn't have as much impact on the larger war as I thought it would. The move sounds like a good idea. Grand master ka 08:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind... I don't know why it was moved to this title. Grand master ka 08:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no other bombing in 2006, the article was moved to a title more consistent with the one about the 2007 bombing. KimChee (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]