Talk:Halabja
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Kurdistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Kurdistan-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate.
Happy editing! |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
Halabja is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Iran?
registration required: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482 free reproduction: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm Should also attempt to get that mentioned DIA investigation. Please do not post propaganda pages here. Iran didn't even have chemical wepaons, and it has been proven. Besides they were allies with the kurds, suddently they decided to bomb the town? lol. This claim is often seen as the claim that the holocaust never happaned. --Spahbod ☼ 08:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] image caption
Not a big issue, but I think long picture captions - more than two or three lines - are unwieldy. Information about the producers of the poison gas belong in the main text, not in the picture caption. --Vindheim 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Halabja not part of the anfal campaign
The Halabja gas attack is usually not considered part of the al-anfal campaign, which was designed to empty the countryside of its kurdish population. However poison gas was widely used by the baathists throughout the anfal campaign proper, killing and maiming people of all ages in hundreds of villages. --Vindheim 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Vidheim please let the caption be, meaning of puting all that in is show the important part of the article. --Spahbod ☼ 08:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Allegations of weapon sourcing, and various unencyclopedic minutiae
1)Encyclopedias don't note "brutally repressing yet another" anything.
2)Why have you removed my sourced references to the chemicals themselves?
3)"The attack, said to have involved mustard gas, nerve agent and possibly cyanide." -- not a sentence.
4)Your "source" absolutely does not state or allege that the weapons used at Halabja originated in China, USA, Germany, anywhere. It states that a
newspaper (...) cited German assistance allegedly given to Iraq for the development of poison gas used in the 1988 massacre of Kurds in northern Iraq.
Not only is "assistance" not necessarily weapons materiel, nowhere is it alleged that the particular weapons used at Halabja originated in China, USA, etc. If it were possible to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that USA and China exported tons of Sarin, Tabun, and Mustard to Iraq, this STILL would not substantiate your statement that the ACTUAL weapons used at Halabja were those particular weapons.
But that's absurd anyway, because no one private company exists to simply ship Sarin to waiting customers. What you actually mean to allege by this article is that ingredients, precursors, and possibly even information were shipped to Iraq: not actual mustard gas. I really think you've misread the allegations of Western businesses selling equipment and chemicals to Iraq as Dupont sending nuclear weaponry to Iraq: and with that you've completely misread your own source.
http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Blister/HD.shtml
http://www.cbwinfo.com/General/Proliferation/Thiodiglycol.html DBaba 22:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Here are a couple of additional links from the third edit I made, removed by Spahbod. They include additional information on the attack and the chemicals used (including the Tabun/cyanide relationship).
http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Teasers/ChemIraq.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm http://www.mitretek.org/ChemistryOfGATabun.htm
Incidentally, this information appears to reinforce Spahbod's assertions regarding the DIA investigation, in showing how that investigation could have gone awry. (comments Spahbod makes above on this talk page)DBaba 18:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am saying this again, in your two first reverts you deleted sourced material completely, repeating that will get you blocked. In your third edit without any explanation here or on the edit summary you added some info.
In the future if you want to add info, make sure the source is reliable, and explain why you want to change or add anything new. Failure to do so, and keep reverting sourced material and waging revert wars will get you blocked, its very simple really. --Spahbod ☼ 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't engage in revert wars. I removed unsourced material: your assertion that American firms shipped chemical weapons to Iraq is completely unsourced fantasy... Have you even read what I've taken great pains to articulate to you? I've labored from a sense of respect, please don't flamebait me with empty threats that you're in no position to enforce. I've inserted sourced fact, you've inserted unsourced fiction justified by an article that apparently you still don't comprehend: let's stay away from threats and engage the issues rather than each other.
"chemical weapons Iraq used to bomb Halabja were delivered to Iraq" Source that for me, OK? Deliver me a quote from your articles, right here on the talk page. Show me that "chemical weapons" were delivered to Iraq, THEN show me that Chinese-delivered weapons were employed at Halabja!
And finally, fix your sentences! We should at least be able to agree on what a sentence is.DBaba 05:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Look here SG, Put POV on sourced material again=i report=block, i am sorry but thats the way it is ;). My revert stays. --Spahbod ☼ 10:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation concerning chemical bombing of Halabja
I have accepted this case in response to a mediation request made here. I come to this case with no prior opinion concerning the controversy, no prior involvement with the article in question, and without knowing or having conversed with any of the editors involved in the dispute. Mediation services provided by the Mediation Cabal and the editors who take on case requests are an informal mediation alternative, and the opinions I express are in no way binding. My job is to help the disputing editors (listed as DBaba and Spahbod) and other interested editors build consensus concerning the disputed content, and to direct editors' attention to relevant Wikipedia standards and policies toward that end.
To avert an endless revert war, I suggest that the editors leave the disputed section as is while we try to work toward consensus. The disputed section currently reads "According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in countries like the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China." A dispute tag might be appropriate, but please retain this text until consensus is reached.
At this stage, I am soliciting comments from the concerned parties regarding the nature of the dispute and ideas about how it might be resolved. I ask that editors make comments under their own heading, listed below. Also, please remember to keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks or accusations of bad faith. Please focus your statements on the content and the references, and do not direct them at fellow editors. This will help resolve the issue more quickly and amicably. Thank you. Rohirok 02:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments by DBaba
[edit] Comments by Spahbod
I do not even see what the problem is, everything i included here is sourced, user DBaba came and reverted 2 times claiming my source does not say chemical weapons etc, then he included something in the article without discussing it here or in summary. So did TomTheHand. Their statements are not true, as the source proves it. I don't see why the user that requested for mediation thinks by doing so he can remove backed material, but i do appreciate that, because now i don't have to revert his deletion of material every day :). --Spahbod ☼ 02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments by TomTheHand
As you can see in Spahbod's comments, I am involved in this as well. My involvement came initially when Spahbod made the edit seen here. He made similar edits to many related articles, like Halabja poison gas attack here, Iran-Iraq War here, and chemical warfare here.
The source cited in these captions is the LA Weekly, an alternative weekly which is not a reliable source. I removed the captions on this basis. Spahbod replaced the captions and added an additional source, The Independent. I have no problem with this source, but he continued to list LA Weekly, and the caption made statements that were not made by The Independent. I continued to remove the caption, stating that he needed to remove the unreliable source and rewrite the caption using solely information from the reliable one. He stated that since I was unhappy with the caption, it was my responsibility to edit it. I said that this contradicted WP:V. This went back and forth for a while, until he finally modified the caption.
I recently edited the caption here to more accurately reflect the content of the source, which states that the firms in the countries in question supplied aid but did not state that they supplied chemical weapons themselves. Spahbod reverted my edit, saying "i told you before about reverting sourced material, the source clearly states they delivered chemical wepoans and know how, do not remove sourced material again." Spahbod was then banned for being a sock puppet of a banned user. I reverted back to my version which more accurately reflects the source, and made similar edits to the captions on the other pages.
I was also recently involved in a dispute with Spahbod about the size of the Iranian flag on Iran-Iraq War. The Iranian flag uses a different, wider aspect ratio than the Iraqi flag. Some users were setting the flags to the same width, which made the Iranian flag less tall and smaller overall than the Iraqi flag. Spahbod was setting the flags to the same height, which made the Iranian flag wider and larger than the Iraqi flag. I calculated a width which would give the flags equal surface area and set the width accordingly. Spahbod edit warred with me, saying that he did not care if they were of equal area, because the Iranian flag didn't look big enough to him and it needed to be larger. See Talk:Iran-Iraq War#Size of flags.
All of this is kind of moot, as Spahbod has been banned indefinitely as a sock puppet of User:Darkred. TomTheHand 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comments by Rohirok (mediator)
Since Spahbod has been banned indefinitely, and since he was the one with whom the other involved editors disagreed, I will be closing this mediation. Thankyou. Rohirok 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
