Talk:25 August 2010 Iraq bombings

Refs
there are some (like al jazeera) that have 2 seperate refs to the same cite. maybe we can get a bot to consolidate and order the refs.

Also the last para in "background" seems a little less encyclopaedic and glorifying.Lihaas (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean but please feel free to edit or delete as you see fit. I believe the refs are better now. Thanks again for working on the article! Jusdafax  06:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Locations
[er this edit, can we get clarification as to where the attacks were. It would be nice to mention them since we brief it happened in 13 although we dont then show where.Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

pointed comment
per and the source that says [in the first paragraph] "offering their counterpoint to American aspirations of bringing the war in Iraq “to a responsible end.”" Now its not the exact phrase because that would be a copyright violation. The gist is that it was a political statementLihaas (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The reporter in that source interprets the attacks as a counterpoint to actions by the Americans.  You're taking that interpretation and stating it as a fact in this article.  There was no announcement or statement by the group responsible for the attacks (that I'm aware of) which states that the timing of the attacks was specifically intended to make a statement.  It is a reasonable way to interpret the attacks, but that's just it: it's only an interpretation.  You can't take an interpretation and turn it into a fact.  If you're hellbent on including some reference in this article that the timing of the attacks were intended to make a statement, then you'll need to present that as an interpretation, not a fact.  There's also no evidence that the insurgents can "hit wherever they wish".  This all seems like POV-pushing to puff up the insurgents' abilities.  I've edited the sentence again.    Snotty Wong   spill the beans 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now youre changing your whole arguement to assert your viewpoint. FIrst 2 time you said that is not what the source says (when it was in the top of the article), now you assert its opinion. per WP:RS the source fits in with what is reliable output.
 * There is no POV-pushing on anything, if you dispute the veracity of NYT then there is an WP:RS noticeboard to discuss that, no one is "inflating the ability of the insurgents" Its synthesis to make the statement you affirmed.
 * At any rate, since you want to change what is established you have to gain consensus first.(Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)).
 * My argument has not changed at all, it has always been that the source does not support that statement as written. Nowhere in that source does it say that the attackers made a statement which explicitly or implicitly said that their intention was to time the attacks such that they made a pointed comment.  This is what you are claiming in the sentence.  The source clearly provides a journalist's interpretation of the timing of the attacks, and the sentence needs to make that clear.
 * Also, the fact that you insist on using such a flashy verb like "showcase" instead of something more toned down like "demonstrate" implies to me that you are trying to artificially inflate the attackers' abilities. "Showcase" is not really an appropriate verb in this context.  It is generally used more in positive contents, i.e. you are showcasing something that is valuable, or just generally good.  Murdering innocent people is generally not regarded as good or positive, so using the word "showcase" is rather ironic and inappropriate.  "Demonstrate", however, is a much more neutral verb and doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
 * There is also nothing in the source which states that the insurgents can hit "wherever they wish". If they could really do that, they probably would have chosen to hit right in downtown Baghdad in the green zone, in Israel, or even in New York or London.  They do, however, clearly have the ability to make coordinated attacks across the country.
 * Finally, this article has existed for less than a week. I hardly think that anything in it can be described as "established".  Just because this is the initial wording of the sentence doesn't somehow grant it implicit consensus or "immunity" from being challenged and changed.  The changes I'm making are quite minor, and really not worth edit warring about.  I'm going to change them one more time, and I hope you will consider my arguments above before reverting.  If my edit is reverted again, I suppose I'll have to start an RFC or something similar (which seems rather silly, since we're essentially arguing over about half a dozen words).    Snotty Wong   gossip 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Flashy words? who thinks one is a flashy word instead of the other? seems like your pov. That is simply your opinion, certainly not any "common knowledge" as to what the word means
 * WP:BRD explicitly says the onus is on you to gain consensus before adding in your version again, which you hadn't instead of resorting to WP:Legal threats even without consensus gathering.Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for third opinion
I'd like to get a third opinion on a content dispute between myself and User:Lihaas. The dispute is over the wording of one sentence. Here is Lihaas' version of the sentence:

And, here is the version that I would like to change it to:

The sentence can be found in the Attacks section of this article. Our argument can be seen in the section above on this talk page, but to quickly summarize: I believe that the verb "showcase" is ironic in this context and is being used inappropriately. It is generally used in the context of positive or valuable things. To describe a mass murder using the verb "showcase" is not appropriate. My version of the sentence changes "showcase" to "demonstrate", a verb that means the same thing without the irony. Secondly, the source for this sentence (here) doesn't support the statement that the insurgents can strike "at will". If they could attack "at will", then they would be attacking Israel and the US right now. Nor does it support the statement that the insurgents timed the attack to make a "pointed comment". Instead, the source quotes a judge and former lawmaker's opinions about the message the attacks were meant to convey. Since the attackers never made a statement about the timing of the attacks, we can only write that they were widely interpreted to be a pointed comment. These are very minor changes to a single sentence, but Lihaas appears to be more interested in edit warring than attempting to come to an agreement of some kind. His insistence on the use of the verb "showcase" makes me think that he is trying to push a POV. In any case, I'm requesting a third opinion at WP:3O and I'm willing to abide by the decision, and Lihaas is more than welcome to add his perspective below. Snotty Wong  confer 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support snottywong's version. Clearly the insurgents did this for some reason, and the action itself could be interpreted in a sense as a "comment" about something.  But we should strive to neutrally summarize what can be found in well-cited reliable sources.  I do not see the "comment" interpretation as being especially important in the source cited for this.  It would seem the insurgents have so far left their action open to interpretation; if there is a RS for their statement of intention, that source should be cited and that statement reported as such.  "Widely" sounds weasily that way as it is.  "Showcase" is hardly an encyclopedic word to use here.    Wiki Dao  ☯  (talk)  00:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SnottyWong and the 3O. Clearly, SW's version is closer to the sources and NPOV. As an aside, Lihaas' interpretation of the suggestion of an RfC as a legal threat is, well, rather novel. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)