Talk:23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of views on politics or personal points of view.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


--Kumioko 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deadliest attacks ever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Little Spike (talk • contribs).

Unfortunatedly the last scores of deaths are 203, not 161.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.217.141.25 (talk • contribs).

Its actually 215.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.120.209 (talk • contribs).

The curfew is actually still on, although I can't locate a source that isn't a spoken one here. Gelston 07:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] USA-centrism

In the timing of the attack section, there was an (unsourced) comment about the US celebrating Thanksgiving on that day, directly followed by a (sourced) comment about people commemorating Al-Sadr on the day of the attack. I don't know if this idea has been proposed in the American media or something, but I don't think that the US is 'that' important to many Iraqis. "People are having a holiday in the US? Oh noes! Quick, I'll go and kill a bunch of completely unrelated people just to ruin their fun!". (The same happened during the Mid-term elections, when quite a few people suggested that the increased violence was caused by those elections, completely ignoring that the muslim holiday of Ramadan was also underway, a time when killing the 'infidels' is even better than normal). Right. The conclusion: don't just assume that minor events in the US are the reason that people go on a killing spree, unless you have evidence to that effect. -- Mystman666 (Talk) 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like an arrogant American, but Thanksgiving is one of our big national holidays, please don't call it a 'minor event'. BTW you are probably right about Thanksgiving being totally unrelated to these bombings.Cameron Nedland 14:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly not minor to the oil industry :P; yeah, completely unrelated to the attacks
No seriously, Thanksgiving is a big thing to many Americans.Cameron Nedland 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanksgiving in America may not be minor to Americans but it was probably a pretty minor event to Iraqi perpetrators

Mystman666 is correct. It is very unlikely that the US-only holiday had anything to do with the timing of the bombings. The 23rd November was *also* the official lighting ceremony of the Bond Street Christmas decorations in London England so it may be that there was some causal effect between the timings of the bombings in and the switching on of the Christmas lights...


I also doubt that the Thanksgiving holiday had anything to do with this attack. I'm the person who added the sourced information about the al Sadr commemoration and the Sunni leader's indictment. I don't understand why that information was deleted earlier today, so I reverted while maintaining the elimination of 2006 from the title.--Joseph.nobles 09:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Name

Considering it was a series of attacks shouldn't the page name be "2006 Sadr City bombings" rather than "bombing"? See: 7 July 2005 London bombings. If noone objects i'm going to go ahead and move the page. -- Thethinredline 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I think this page needs another name change, calling it "2006 Sadr City bombings" implies that these have been the only bombings in Sadr City in 2006, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Indeed has there not been almost continuous bombing campaigns all over Baghdad, Sadr city included, for the entire year?
I would suggest calling it the "November 2006 Sadr City bombings", though even that may not work as there may have been more attacks this month and could still be more. So perhaps "November 23, 2006 Sadr City bombings" would be the only applicable title. --Hibernian 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with adding the full date, the current title is misleading. -- Mystman666 (Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadr City has been the site of dozens of bombings each month for several months now. I agree with somehow reflecting the full date of this one attack: either November 23, 2006 Sadr City bombings or 2006 Sadr City bombings (November 23). Black Falcon 05:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamil Hussein as an uncredible source

Via centcom:

We at Multi-National Corps - Iraq made it known through MNC-I Press Release Number 20061125-09 and our conversations with your reporters that neither we nor Baghdad Police had any reports of such an incident after investigating it and could find no one to corroborate the story. A couple of hours ago, we learned something else very important. We can tell you definitively that the primary source of this story, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee. We verified this fact with the MOI through the Coalition Police Assistance Training Team.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/11/25/getting-the-news-from-the-enemies-mouth/


70.190.223.46 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Russ Dill Nov 27, 2006

The Associated Press is standing by Jamil Hussein as their source. They have also interviewed several eyewitnesses to the burnings.AP Defys Military, Bloggers on Story of 6 Iraqis Set On Fire--Joseph.nobles 09:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

This was such an unbelievably terrible incident, and it's important things aren't inflamed further. The unsourced 200 Sunnis also dead seems dangerous. Gwaka Lumpa 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced claim and corroborated what was left. Happy now? --81.79.29.103 02:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Happier - though could only be really happy if articles like this didn't need writing in the first place. Gwaka Lumpa 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article as currently written doesn't seem worthy of the Wikipedia neutrality tradition

Not only does it seem as though there are simple statements of inflammatory rhetoric, but a statement like "These attacks were a result of the Muslim's extremely violent mentality" seems, with respect to any and all writers involved, a blatantly opinionated statement. No statement such as that could be considered anything more than simple theory, because the fact is that it could never be truly proven. In fact, if one was to continue to make a similar comparison to Christians, one could easily state that Americans have been among the most violent countrymen in the past 300 years, considering the extreme number of deaths that took place on the battlefields of the U.S. Civil War.

[edit] Start Of Civil War

This event and the date November 23, 2006, should be considered the starting point of the Civil War in Iraq. It was not until this event that the current conflict in Iraq was being called a civil war.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Little Spike (talk • contribs).

By who? Ive heard people call it a civil war before Pogo 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh because all the media and top former officials and experts are calling it a civil war, only after the bombings occurred.

Civil war would be a POV term. See the article on it. its meets the requirements, but then again it fails others, depending on POV. Its mostly a politcally charged term, with one side that disagrees with the conflict calling it a civil war, and the side that agrees with it saying its not. If you had sourced quotes(Without a source it would be original research anyways), that could be added, but other than that, I don't think it belongs. Gelston 09:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Weapons

The State Department has released a report that cites the bombings of this day to include chemical attacks which "signaled a dangerous strategic shift in tactics" AP news article. The only mention of anything remotely chemical in nature in the Wiki article are the reports of dousing kerosene and lighting of people. Is the article missing some information or is the State Department choosing a very broad interpretation of chemical warfare?