Talk:Battle of Najaf (2007)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Army's Final Account[edit]

Is anyone still watching this page? I would like to update it based on the Army Center for Military History's account of the battle compiled as a chapter in: Tip of the Spear: U.S. Army Small-Unit Action in Iraq, 2004-2007.[1]

It's a bit of a personal thing for me. I was a combat medic with the US Army Stryker Infantry unit that fought there and I've got a lot of demons from that day. I don't want it to turn into an internet knife fight. I will also note the CMH text based on official after action reports, and their interviews with Americans Service members as well as Iraqi Army.

DocHellfish (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 199.47.118.237 (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was civilian paramedic contractor in the cache when the casualties came in from this fight to Ad Diwaniyah /Fob Echo at that time. Up for 3 days with the casualties coming in. 199.47.118.237 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Tip of the Spear: U.S. Army Small Unit Action in Iraq, 2004-2007" (PDF). United States Army Center of Military History. Retrieved 29 July 2014.

Here are some clearer sources[edit]

These two sources have more details regarding what happened, about how a group of pilgrims approached a checkpoint and what happened afterward. There is some background information on the various groups involved, plus quotes from various officials across the spectrum. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ -Tubby 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sources questioning the 'official account' here: http://scanlyze.wordpress.com/tag/najaf/

-Scanlyze 12:28, 09 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Cut from article:

The authorities may also have exaggerated their own military success. The signs are that they underestimated the strength of the Soldiers of Heaven and had to call for urgent American air support.[1]

It is always the viewpoint of insurgents that authorities lie and are weak. We should not "side" with the insurgents. Rather, report the news like this:

  • Insurgents disputed the authorities' account; or,
  • Source X disputed the authorities' account (if someone else is siding with the insurgents)

We should be neutral. --Uncle Ed 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was not "insurgents", it was BBC's Middle-East expert, you... damn, you can't even say "idiot" on Wikipedia. You American superpatriot, then. There was no statement from "we did this" guys whatsoever. BBC is British, and it was a British battle too (no, you can't bomb London). --HanzoHattori 14:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is one sides report more trustworthy than the other? Were the insurgents not also at the battle? Would their casualty estimates not be equally authoritative? How does relaying the casualties claimed by the insurgents qualify as "siding" with them? We should instead say:
  • Iraqi security forces claim X. Insurgents claim Y. Independent third parties (UN, Red Cross, etc) claim Z.
We should be neutral. Endomorphic 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rather good reason why some sources should be trusted more than others. Example: "There are no american tanks in Bahgdad". It is fine to say that insurgents claim Y, Iraqi security forces say X, etc, but we shouldn't persume the Iraqi insurgents to be credible just because they were there. 213.250.59.162 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source questioning the Iraqi casualty estimate is American, IIRC. I'd trust our troops who were actually bailing the Iraqis out versus whatever bizarro claims the Iraqis want to make.

"Among the troubling questions raised[citation needed] about the Iraqis' military ability is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 16 kilometers, or 10 miles, northeast of Najaf. The government knew that there was a camp set up in the area, but officials thought they were there to worship together.[citation needed]"

Citations can be found in today's issue of USA Today, I know. Kensai Max 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Agents kidnap and kill 5 US Soldiers, confirmed by NBC News. This gets no mention. Wikipedia = joke. Business as usual. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 06:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was this part of the battle of Najaf? If not, please take the discussion elsewhere on don't clutter up this discussion (for example, you could try making an article if you really feel one is merited) 203.109.240.93 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a river, μολὼν λαβέ. --HanzoHattori 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give numbers of all for each group in the X, Y, Z format as above -- Nbound 09:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Editorial paragraph[edit]

Among the troubling questions raised[citation needed] about the Iraqis' military ability is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 16 kilometers, or 10 miles, northeast of Najaf. The government knew that there was a camp set up in the area, but officials thought they were there to worship together.[citation needed]

I moved the above to here because its an editorial style. Such questioning style needs to be attributed to someone if its included in the article at all Brentt 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

believable?[edit]

did a force of 800 really get that obliterated, and only managed to kill a few of the american and iraqi forces? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.166.104.26 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Apperarently, the aircraft bombed the crap out of them while they were overhelming the government forces. --HanzoHattori 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be for the first time something like that happened, either. I imagine the final insurgent death toll and captured will be reduced significantly, since they were hiding among civilians, though. 213.250.59.162 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the militants are slightly more trained that the Somalians, but remember the battle in Mogadishu, which occured without fixed-wing air support, took out over 800 militants for the loss of 18 US soldiers, and Army techology has advanced greatly since then. So that accounts for US figures, and Hanzo's comment could explain the small amount of Iraqi casualties.--129.74.116.105 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You DON'T put ranks here[edit]

Randomly:

AM I CLEAR ENOUGH --HanzoHattori 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Mr. Retard, I am not. Too bad! (If someone see who keeps adding the rank to Mr. Iraqi Commander's name, post here his nickname, so I'll know who's THAT stupid.) --HanzoHattori 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's not a reason for personal attacks. Anyway, you can find him in history and address him on his talk page. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not yet edited a Wiki, but I believe these pro-U.S./U.K. official accounts must be questioned against the those of local Iraqis:

January 31, 2007 The Waco of Iraq? US "Victory" Against Cult Leader was a Massacre

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Baghdad.

There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement. The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf. They came from the Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah to the south, and arrived in the Zarga area, one mile from Najaf at about 6am on Sunday. Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, and his wife driving in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi, his wife and his driver, Jabar Ridha al-Hatemi. The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief.

Members of another tribe called Khaza'il living in Zarga tried to stop the fighting but they themselves came under fire. Meanwhile, the soldiers and police at the checkpoint called up their commanders saying they were under attack from al-Qai'da with advanced weapons. Reinforcements poured into the area and surrounded the Hawatim tribe in the nearby orchards. The tribesmen tried - in vain - to get their attackers to cease fire.

American helicopters then arrived and dropped leaflets saying: "To the terrorists, surrender before we bomb the area." The tribesmen went on firing and a US helicopter was hit and crashed killing two crewmen. The tribesmen say they do not know if they hit it or if it was brought down by friendly fire. The US aircraft launched an intense aerial bombardment in which 120 tribesmen and local residents were killed by 4am on Monday.

The messianic group led by Ahmad al-Hassani, which was already at odds with the Iraqi authorities in Najaf, was drawn into the fighting because it was based in Zarga and its presence provided a convenient excuse for what was in effect a massacre. The Hawatim and Khaza'il tribes are opposed to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party, who both control Najaf and make up the core of the Baghdad government.

This account cannot be substantiated and is drawn from the Healing Iraq website and the authoritative Baghdad daily Azzaman. But it would explain the disparity between the government casualties - less than 25 by one account - and the great number of their opponents killed and wounded. The Iraqi authorities have sealed the site and are not letting reporters talk to the wounded.

Sectarian killings across Iraq also marred the celebration of the Shia ritual of Ashura. A suicide bomber killed 23 worshippers and wounded 57 others in a Shia mosque in Balad Ruz. Not far away in Khanaqin, in Diyala, a bomb killed 13 people, including three women, and wounded 29 others. In east Baghdad mortar bombs killed 17 people.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006.

SOURCE: http://counterpunch.org/patrick01312007.html Mikymikeatl 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The writer of your source, Patrick Cockburn, is not an objective journalist.Applesanity 04:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is like using KCNA as a source about North Korean economy and calling it objective. Heck, they're promoting a book about an imperialist crusade in Yugoslavia. What's next, using Osamas' speeches as credible accounts of events? 213.250.59.162 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite sources showing that,"Patrick Cockburn, is not an objective journalist." Incorrect claims have been made about this article before. I assume good faith but I dont assume your claims are factual. Show me. SmithBlue 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted website is source enough, really. Just look at their front page: "WHAT DID ISRAEL KNOW IN ADVANCE OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS?" Followed up by them having the answers, no less. Avaliable at a subscription, of course. Next title? "Bush Surge Means More Horrors in Iraq" Next? "Charging Iran with "Genocide" Before Nuking It" Next? "Why Corporate Social Responsibility is Not Working for Workers". I won't even start noting the names of the books and publications they offer (primarily because I can't copy-paste them), look for yourself, they are worse than that. Not questioning a source like that is intellectualy dishonest, and dismissing it outright doesn't need any extra sources. It is clearly a publication that tries to be the judge, jury and executioner of a certain political spectrum and it does so in the open, with no pretense of objectivity whatsoever. I wouldn't trust the KKK homepage (www.kkk.bz) about racial relations either, even without a special source that would say they're asshats who shouldn't be trusted. I hope that calms you down. 193.77.9.151 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you dont like Counterpunch article titles. But what I asked for was something else: "sources showing that,"Patrick Cockburn, is not an objective journalist"." It would seem unbelievable that a journalist of Patrick Cockburn's fame would not have attracted published criticism if he is recognised as unreliable? SmithBlue 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the article titles, but the whole articles are a bit long to paste here. Besides, you asked for a source that he isn't an objective journalist, and I provided you one - the very site his writing is posted. There may or may not be articles about him, but I find it irrelevant. Were he objective, his writing would be on a web page that would at least attempt to appear objective, rather than a page that openly boasts about its' bias. Any actual journalist with a shred of professional pride would not agree to have his writing there in the first place. You're the one making a claim here - that the battle of Najaf was nothing more than a massacre of (mostly) civilians who got caught in the crossfire between Iraqi and US forces and a minor insurget group. Suerly if that is the truth, it will be reported in outlets other than the ones who openly express their hatred of USA, Bush, or anything unislamic, as has been the case thus far. "There are no american tanks in Baghdad" kind of thnig, really. 213.250.63.92 11:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My facts here are that Patrick Cockburn's article has been quoted by United Press International: Doubts over battle with messianic cult, and used in whole by Belfast Telegraph and The Independent. Are you seriously suggesting that these threee sources are also unreliable? Cause thats what it means if you continue with "Peter Cockburn is not an objective journalist". Collarorating Coburn's article is "Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily, Asia Times Pilgrims massacred in the 'battle' of Najaf. 2 February 2007", reference # 8 in this article.

I'm not claiming to know what happened. (If you want my theory contact me on my user page.) I see two accounts of conflict, (other sources suggest 3 versions - and with this event continuing for 7? days into Najaf city and this article only focussing on 2 days our account is very preliminary and incomplete), both published by reputable sources. And collaborated by other reports. Till we have clarity we include all reputable POVs. Unsubstantiated claims about reliability of Cockburn and Azzaman have been made. Substaintiate them. Or withdraw. Acceptance of reliability of Cockburns's report - and hence Cockburn's journalism - is shown by its use by a worldwide major news organisation and 2 reputable newspapers. I ask my fellow editors not to continue to offer opinions/interpretations/claims/beliefs unless you provide sources to back them up. SmithBlue 13:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia count as a reliable source? I'm asking because it says this about him: "He has consistently displayed a pessimistic outlook for Iraq's future and considers the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its aftermath as a catastophic failure." among other things. Remembering NYT scandals in this regard, it wouldn't be the first time the people from his spectrum would literary fabricate news stories to get popularity. Trusting him just because he is quoted by reputable media sources (in a manner: "he claims this and this"; an article less than two hundred words long on top of it all - they weren't even reporting his story, but that he reported on it in this manner; I imagine they had a good reason for that) is rather silly. I don't mind if his POV is in the article, or that the official viewpoint is questioned, however giving essentially free air time to someone just because he disputes it is not a job for Wikipedia, but for his secretary of public relations (or an Al-Queda in Iraq propaganda officer for that matter).
As a side note, I, for one, find Patrick Cockburns story rather silly. According to him, the Iraqi security forces manning a checkpoint killed a leader of armed pilgrims so they would have a justification to murder locals who are opposed to the Baghdad government. This would assume that:
a) security personnel manning the checkpoint positively identified the man in the car, at night, and killed him
b) they did so without killing his armed entourage, even though they too were their targets
c) pilgrims to a holy city were travelling by foot, at night, in Iraq
d) a local tribe tried to stop the fighting, but got caught in the crossfire (how exactly were they trying to stop the fighting? by jumping in the middle?)
e) US forces bombed the area to kill more opponents of the government
f) said opposition was unarmed and not planning any attacks (otherwise they weren't civilian targets as claimed, eh?), but were still important targets for elimination
g) The battle took two days, even though at least one side didn't want or intend to fight
h) Patrick Cockburn and his two Iraqi collegues were able to deduct this within two days after the battle
Do you still believe this story? Regardless of existance of Patrick Cockburn hate page, I do not. Not unless some serious explaining is done. 213.250.63.92 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly; you are equating his "pessimism and anti-Iraq war and aftermath stance" with "Cockburn is not objective". This is an interpretation. Please source it.

Secondly people on all sides "literary fabricate news stories to get popularity." Please show me, using sources, that Cockburn is considered to have done this.

Thirdly our readings of Cockburns report differ: The lead paragraph states "unpremeditated massacre". Your list of points does raise questions that I would like answers to. I dont have them. I'd also like answers to queries I have about the official Iraqi account. Do you suggest that both accounts should be rejected? Even if they are collaborated?

The Belfast Telegraph and The Independent used his report in toto. His authority as a journalist is good enough for them. Should the suitability of sources for Wikipedia be judged by the unsubstantiated opinions, beliefs and interpretations of editors? I think our belief of anyone's story is unimportant unless we have sourced material - we have reports from reputable sources, we include all significant POVs. SmithBlue 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the first interpretation, I don't get every opinion I have from someone else. People might disagree, but I don't see a justification for it.
Secondly, I nevery said "people on one side", I said "some people on his side", and specified the actual event which I - apperantly wrongly - persumed was common enough knowledge. Here, pick one of the first fifty or so results: [[2]]. I didn't say this was proof Cockburne was doing the same, but that it would be consistent with modus operandi of his side, at least to an extent. Circumstantial evidence, sure, but that is far more than his story, quoted above, has offered. It is an unsubstantiated statement, no less, but not more either.
I believe also made it quite clear that I didn't object to his POV being shown, but it has to be done so for what it is, not as evidence for what it claims.
As for newspapers using it for their reports, The Belfast Telegraph reported that "Richard Cockburne claims this", followed by an article of less than 200 words. It's a report about a report, which clearly shows they wanted to distance from it. This only leaves what amounts to an editorial in the Indenpendent, his primary employer I believe? I don't usually use editorials as sources of news, and I have no reason to believe I, or anyone else, should. Do you? 213.250.63.92 14:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda is done by any side in a conflict with intelligence and means. See [Pentagon Pays to Spread Propaganda and..]. It is consistent with using information in war. You have shown me no sources suggesting that Cockburn is engaged in this.

His report is substantiated by increasing number of other reports. (see article)

You claim "The Belfast Telegraph reported that "Richard Cockburne claims this". This is factually incorrect. They published his article with the heading: World News, US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre',Wednesday, January 31, 2007, By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad". Please explain your apparently misleading claim.

The Independent published his report with header: * Home> News > World> Middle East.

Which appears to have nothing to do with "editorial".

So far I understand that for you "Cockburn is not objective." You show that other people with similar views have fabricated news stories. And that Cockburn's reports feature on a website that you (and I too) find has a POV. You have not yet shown me that any published material on "Cockburn is not objective" exists. So for Wikipedia you are offering the equivalent of Original Research on Cockburn. I am open to the possibility of "Cockburn not objective" - just show me sources. I have shown you that he is acceptable to UPI, Belfast Telegraph and The Independent. Show me, with sources, that these organisations are in error. Or I conclude that you have a belief about Cockburn's journalism that no one has ever published. And then I weigh up - who is more likely to be incorrect User:213.250.63.92 or UPI,The Belfast Telegraph and The Independent? If you were in my position which side would you go with? SmithBlue 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best collaborating story you posted says "doubts are emerging, these sources say this". All of them are qoting Cockburne and that Azzbad (or whatever) newspaper as a source, and I have yet to see an article longer than a quarter of a page that isn't the original story yet. The original story doesn't appear to have any sources whatsoever, nor does it present any evidence, any witnesses, it doesn't even say how it got to the conclusion. He made a claim he can not or will not substantiate, and the best collaborating stories are the ones quoting him and a newspaper sided with the insurgents (and no one else, at least not in the articles I saw thus far). These aren't collaborating stories, these are reports about his report. The entire controversy is based, essentially, on the words of one journalist and his two Iraqi helpers, and the said journalist has been siding against the US/Iraqi forces for the past four years. Why does that make him instantly credible? 213.250.63.92 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ali al-Fadhily is IPS Baghdad correspondent. Dahr Jamail is IPS's specialist writer who has spent eight months reporting from inside Iraq and has been covering the Middle East for several years.(Inter Press Service)" from Asia Times article [[3]] cited in BoN2007 article. quote "Iraqi government statements over the killing of hundreds of Shi'ites ... stand exposed by independent investigations carried out by Inter Press Service (IPS)." They then have 3 eye -witness statements and a statement by a member of the local tribe.

These 2 journalists appear unrelated to Cockburn.

Azzaman (acknowledged as 1 of 2 sources in Cockburns article) appears reliable source - from below - "A quick Google (web and news) finds following using Azzaman in articles; Washington Post, UNHRC, Taipei Times, and NYT (which describes Azzaman as "a leading independent newspaper", and United Press International ("authoritative Baghdad daily")." - [Azzaman: Najaf battle sign of Iraq’s chaos and clash of loyalties] appears to be one of original sources. The latest cite from Azzaman is [The Najaf ‘massacre’ divides country. February 6, 2007]

What makes Cockburn "instantly credible" is his standing with major news organisations as a journalist and the lack of published material disputing his objectivity.

I have three questions for you:

  • 1. Who is more likely to be incorrect User:213.250.63.92 or UPI,The Belfast Telegraph and The Independent?
  • 2. If you were in my position which side would you go with?
  • 3. What would it take for you to change your mind?

Except for the answers to those 3 questions, this is as far as I am taking this discusion without seeking input from other editor/s of greater wisdom and experience than me. Thanks - it been very interesting. SmithBlue 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we pretty much covered the rest, I'll just go with the answers, as follows:
1. Irrelevant and loaded question, I'm afraid. The Belfast Telegraph reported on The Indenpendent reporting (which was correct, obviously - the said story was reported in the Indenpendent), while the Indenpendent didn't appear to require much in the way of proof, other than statement of 3 journalists, without providing much else. At best, this is poor journalism. At worst...
2. The side of user 213.250.63.92, of course. You haven't actually asked for it yet, but here it is: we should be sceptical of everything coming out of Iraq, especially if there is little evidence provided with the claim, and especially if there are outrageus claims of massacres and especially if they were made by reporters who (appear to) have an agenda. Unless supporting evidence becomes avaliable soon afterwards, dismissing the claims outright is acceptable. Stories reporting on the story with the claim and mearly repeating the stated, with attribution of the story to the reporter, are not evidence.
3. A stabilisation of Iraq lasting for 6 months and continuoing would. But then again, "my side" probably wasn't what you expected, huh. 213.250.63.92 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel leaders - need some good lynch... I mean, mergin'[edit]

Appearently different person:

They both have plenty of a different spellings as for now. --HanzoHattori 14:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pl added type of victory[edit]

pl elobrate the victoy.in the box User talk:Yousaf465

picture bias[edit]

Well.. I'd say it was more like 200. I was there actually and yes, all we had was crashed helicoptor. I was a medic and treated wounded from soon after the sun rose until the shortly before the sun set. DocHellfish (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

almost 300 enemy are killed with next to no allied losses, and the only picture around is one of smoke from a downed US helicopter?

any feedback ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.20.207.29 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's a picture of the event. It's relevant. I don't see why it should be a problem in any way. If there are other relevant pictures, then these would naturally be welcome additions. It is more biased to not include the picture just because it depicts a downed U.S. helicopter. --169.233.10.233 06:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent[edit]

I read the Independent story in my local paper and it says the story was emerging from Arabic news sources. If this is true, these sources should also be referenced... 203.109.240.93 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense[edit]

Why do you think Azzamman was banned in Iraq? It was actively trying to promote violence by fabricating stories. It was also shown to have ties to al Qaeda. As long as you try and present the most ludicrous conspiracy theories as though they were fact, the TotallyDisputed template will remain. KazakhPol 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you insane? Article on Azzaman (Independent calls it "authoritative Baghdad daily" in its article). --HanzoHattori 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am just better informed. Although I suppose it could be seen as insane to not take Al Qaeda at its word... but thats just me. KazakhPol 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pherphaps you are disinformed. --HanzoHattori 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps neither 'pherphaps' nor 'disinformed' are words. Who knows? KazakhPol 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply cite for claime in edit summ., "a paper that was banned in Iraq after it was found to be actively inciting violence by fabricating news." SmithBlue 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link that mentions that the televised version - Al-Sharqiya - was banned.[4] Please provide a single citation (preferably a source that is not banned in Iraq) that questions the Iraqi government's version of events. KazakhPol 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a source questioning the official Iraqi version is in the article, "One U.S. advisor to Iraqi security forces cautioned against exaggerated casualty reports from the Iraqi government, saying, ""There are rumors everywhere", "The whole situation is so bizarre."[1] The advisor also questioned how the Soldiers of Heaven force had grown and remained undetected until this conflict." We now have two sources offering a "pilgrims at checkpoint" start for the incident. [2] and [3]

The link you offered to indicate an Azzaman ban shows that no such ban was made. A TV station was banned. It has the same owner as Azzaman, which, the article shows, was not banned. Do you have another source relevant to your edit summ.? If not please remove the TotallyDisputed template. SmithBlue 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the newspaper is banned is irrelevant -> The article says "none of this can be substantiated." When you find me a single, reliable source that says it can be substantiated I will consider removing the template. Until then the template will remain on this page. I suggest you not make any attempt to remove it until then as this page is on my watchlist and I am watching very carefully. KazakhPol 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the basis of your edit summary is now described by you as "irrelevant". And that you offer no cite for any of your claims about Azzaman. Without any evidence to the contrary, Azzaman appears reliable. And yet you continue to reject it as a source. Why?

I have offered another source. [[5] We now appear to have 2 reliable sources. They substantiate eachother. SmithBlue 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Asia Times source appears reliable. If you use information only referenced to that, and not Al Qaeda run Azzaman, then you can remove the TotallyDisputed template. Azzaman is not a reliable source. Saying it's reliable is the equivalent of saying Al-Manar is reliable. KazakhPol 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Please give sources backing your statement, "Azzaman is not a reliable source". SmithBlue 05:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Very amusing. The source I already provided shows that Azzaman's televised version is banned and you continue to ask for a source. I assume then that the TD template will have to remain, yes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KazakhPol (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The fact that what you allege is the Azzaman's TV version is banned seems largely irrelevant since the newspaper itself isn't banned and is apparently a respected source in Iraq. The fact that other sources are reporting this source also gives it credibility until and unless these sources begin to question the story. Also, as I mentioned in your talk page, it is extremely misleading for you to suggest they're banned when they're not. 203.109.240.93 14:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB, while I don't agree there is any merit for the template, I do agree it has to remain for now since you have explained what you dispute 203.109.240.93 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add the fact that something is banned also doesn't mean it is automatically ruled out as a reliable source. There needs to be evidence it is not a reliable source first. The fact something is banned could just mean the people who have the power to ban don't like it which doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source 203.109.240.93 14:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understand that if you engage in sockpuppetry again and I catch you, you will be reported. I better not see anymore edits from 203.109.240.93. KazakhPol 05:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KazakhPol, who exactly are you accusing of sock puppetry? And why? SmithBlue 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not understand then you should not concern yourself. As to your "question" of why - asking patronizing rhetorical questions is immature and incivil. KazakhPol 02:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know so little that the question wasn't rhetorical. Everything that happens on this talk page concerns me to some extent; I'm editing here. If there are sock puppets operating I'd like to know who so I can watch.SmithBlue 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference LAT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Patrick Cockburn, The Independent newspaperUS 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'. 31 January 2007 retrieved 2007-02-02
  3. ^ Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily, Asia Times Pilgrims massacred in the 'battle' of Najaf. Feb 2, 2007 retrieved 2007-02-02

Gramatical Error[edit]

"At least six US and Iraqi troops reported having killed 263 and captured 502 rebels in the fierce fighting around the city.[4]" I don't understand this sentance. Is this a group of six guys that happen to be a mix of US and Iraqies? Can some one figure out how this is really suposed to be. thanks

Someone keeps eye on the KazakhPol guy[edit]

See above and article history. --HanzoHattori 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. He is a shifty character. --Anonymous

Iraqi Victory?[edit]

Should this really be labeled as an Iraqi victory, seeing that they were on the verge of annhiliation until the US and UK bailed them out. Maybe something more like "Iraqi/US/UK victory" Eightball 02:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Isael has been labelled as a sole victor, considering that it's war was primarily fought by U.S. and British naval forces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That comment has absolutely nothing to do with my suggestion. Please try to not make stupid political statements. Eightball 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the Iraq/UK/US forces then be referred to, at least in this article, as a coalition? Marjoriedawes 13:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fog of War contradiction[edit]

"There was much confusion after the battle who was the real leader of the group and who was the deputy. Nearly a week later, Iraqi officials said that the leader was Ahmed Ismail Katte, a Sunni from a Sunni stronghold of Zubayr near Basra in the south."

The battle was about 3 days ago as of now. It's nowhere near a week afterwards. I don't know the details, so I can't edit it correctly.--71.221.34.181 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...nevermind, it was just deleted. The whole section.--71.221.34.181 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Perspective[edit]

There are fundamentally different accounts of this incident, which can primarily be divided between the "western" (current article) and "Arab" (citation 9). Nobody contributing to the current article can make any authoritative statement about what happened, and it is reasonable to question both accounts. I can't form any view on which is right but I'm helping my daughter with her "History - Evidence" paper. If the present article was presented to her with a contemporary Christian account of a battle in the Crusades it might be hard to find too many differences, and I would tell her to be very sceptical of both.

I suggest that the article needs complete revision, into three sections. There are some facts which are broadly not in dispute, i.e., where, when and how many dead. I suggest that the rest, i.e., who, why, how, are not amenable to agreement or proof, and should simply be presented as opposing views, with citations to sources.

GBH 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV & undue weight.[edit]

At present there are two accounts of this event. The Iraqi army account, the accuracy of which is cautioned against by their allies and the account in the Independent, which claims the support of local sources. We have no way of knowing which is more accurate. The Iraqi army acount has all the space in this article except for 1 sentence referencing the Independents account. Why? SmithBlue 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split into two accounts. Official/"The Independent" weight ratio now approximately 67/33. SmithBlue 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath needs to be separated out into events and explanations? At present Iraqi official claims run though eyewitness accounts. SmithBlue 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Zarqa?[edit]

Anyone here know how to get a detailed map into this article? - preferable with lots of details of Zarqa and just the edge of Najaf. Roads, date groves, stronghold/compound, checkpoint would be perfect. SmithBlue 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Have a satelite image of Najaf and "Al Zargar water treatment plant" (Zarqa?) just to the north of Najaf - theres a river running northwest-southeast on the east side of Narjaf and desert to the northwest. Tree along the river. Lots of markers in Arabic on the photo - anyone here read Arabic? [6][reply]

commanders?[edit]

Someone needs to find out the real commanders in this battle...because I'm pretty sure the commanders for the U.S. and Britain weren't General Grevious and Jesus Christ, and that the commanders for the insurgents weren't Osama bin Laden and Josef Stalin.

--Blue403 04:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Suggest refresh your browser - you've got an older if more interesting version of page - mine says Othman al-Ghanemi and Ahmed Ismail Katte†,Dia Abdul-Zahra† SmithBlue 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was the commander for coalition forces Michael Jackson...but I see someone fixed it. Buckeye1921 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are most likely seeing is just the work of some random vandal. As Blue403 said, all you need to do is refresh the page. User talk:Fusion7

Feb 07 article concerns[edit]

"I still see attribution to Azzaman, which I regard as unreliable, if not banned in Iraq. I also see an instance of citation needed, and the second reference links to nothing. Several paragraphs do not have citation, though this may simply be an issue of adding the citations there. KazakhPol 04:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)" posted talkpage SmithBlue

I am concerned with timeframe given for battle. SmithBlue 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Why is this article not 2007 Battle of Najaf? The current title is not in keeping with Wikipedia's usual title style. I would change it but that page has already been established as a redirect. Theonlyedge 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC) This concern appaers dealt with. SmithBlue 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. The accepted style for military conflicts is, in fact, a parenthetical disambiguation; see WP:MILHIST#NAME. Kirill Lokshin 21:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of timeframe[edit]

Did this event end when the article says it did? When did it end? Is it ongoing? BBC had articles about continuing conflict in Najaf on ? 4th Feb. added template disputeabout|The topic of dispute SmithBlue 06:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is Azzaman( Iraqi newspaper) reliable?[edit]

Please post here material, with cites, relating directly to unreliability or reliablity of Azzaman(Iraq newspaper). SmithBlue 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Independent" newspaper is prepared to publish article[1], which includes the following statement, "This account cannot be substantiated and is drawn from the Healing Iraq website and the authoritative Baghdad daily Azzaman." (emphasis mine) SmithBlue 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... it cannot be substantiated... how authoritative. The television version of the paper has been banned - which you do not dispute. The newspaper version is at best hysterically anti-American and dubious in accuracy, if not already banned - which I believe it is. KazakhPol 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinions and beliefs, while vitally important, are, unless you supply referenced material to back them, irrelevant for establishing the un/reliablity of Azzaman. The sister TV station is banned - you have shown this with your cite [7] . Please show evidence for Azzaman being considered unreliable". SmithBlue 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. That last comment was a little arrogant. However, this is a poll on users opinions on whether it can be considered reliable - I say no. My lack of citation in my opposition my detract from the # of users who agree, but this is my position. KazakhPol 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No arrogance. I believe our beliefs and opinions are vitally important - just not relevant to encyclopedia without evidence. SmithBlue 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google (web and news) finds following using Azzaman in articles; Washington Post, UNHRC, Taipei Times, and NYT (which describes Azzaman as "a leading independent newspaper", and United Press International ("authoritative Baghdad daily"). Google for {azzaman "linked to al qaeda"} returns nothing indicating such links (least ways that I could see in search summaries). SmithBlue 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Patrick Cockburn, The Independent newspaperUS 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'. 31 January 2007 retrieved 2007-02-02

BBC source[edit]

why don't you use this as a source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6313433.stm The fact that Iraqi officials are now also saying it was a Shia Cult that was involved, shuld be in the Intro. Nobody disputes that it was a Shia sect now, NOT Sunni insurgents. I'm not sure, depending on accounts, if this hsould be under terrorim category either Aaliyah Stevens 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seeking to remedy dispute over Azzaman source? If so"The Independent" account(using Azzuman material) relates a very different beginning to this event - armed pilgrims being shot by a official checkpoint. This event then lead others in the immediate locale into battle. SmithBlue 13:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until this gets cleared up.[edit]

This looks quite new, obviously. We should wait until more sources come in and the full scope of casualties has happened (I really don't think two US soldiers died that day, that's impossible.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The velociraptor (talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RfC; Cockburn's article as source[edit]

Please add RfC contributions here. SmithBlue 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page name: 2007 Battle of Najaf vs. Battle of Najaf (2007) vs Battle of Zarqa (2007)[edit]

I've fixed the cut and paste move of this page. If you want the page elsewhere, please list the page at WP:RM and do it that way. Please don't cut and paste the page again. Thanks! Kyle Barbour 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article is problematic - the events described occured outside Najaf in Zarqa. There was much military action reported inside Najaf immediately following the Zarqa events and initially reported as linked to the Zarqa events. I suggest a name change to "Battle of Zarqa (2007) SmithBlue 03:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Information[edit]

Is this topic any closer to being resolved? At the moment it still looks like two totally different interpretations of one event. Do we actually know what happened here? Darkmind1970 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SoH leader(s) confusion[edit]

So, there are no articles on:

probably the same person (with MANY different names, including surnames ranging from Basri to Yemeni to Baghdadi for Ahmad Hassani alone, and each with few different spellings), AND who are/is also possibly related/mistaken with "Ahmed Ismail Katte" mentioned in the article as the leader. --HanzoHattori 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you, Wikipedia, for the great work everyone did on this subject. (yes, SARCASM) --HanzoHattori 12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I'd appreciate more information about the following: "The great monument and souk at Kifel, north of Najaf - reputedly the tomb of Ezekiel and once guarded by Iraqi Jews (mostly driven into exile by the occupation) - have been all but destroyed."[8] --Ghirla-трёп- 07:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.112.201 (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Najaf (2007). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Najaf (2007). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Najaf_(2007)&oldid=1206177073"