Talk:Battle of Abu Ghraib

message: I mean no disrespect to the people who fought and died in this battle, but it needs to be brought to the style of an encyclopedic description. Ashmoo 02:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The Battle of Abu Ghraib was the largest military action since the end of the war by anti-Coalition forces."
I believe this is incorrect.  Wasn't the battle for Fallujah larger?  --Vagodin  Talk 12:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: largest military action since the end of the war?

message: There are definite issues with POV here I edited an instance where it was stated that "an insurgent force of 200 - 300 armed insurgents..." this sort of constant reiteration of rhetorical political labels is quite distracting aside from the POV issues it portends, and is linguistically redundant and incorrect.
Those characterised as terrorists could also be characterised as guerrillas or resistance-fighters for instance.
eg.
"under which armed insurgents attacked with grenades, small arms, and two vehicle-born improvised explosive devices, or massive car bombs."
If attackers are said to be using: "grenades, small arms, and two vehicle-born improvised explosive devices, or massive car bombs" do they need to be refered to as "armed insurgents", isn't that obvoious?
Refering only to defenders dying when refering to US forces in a foreign land is plain confusing. I have changed this to clarify.
--Dananimal 01:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Are the two deaths in addition to the 44 casualties mentioned? --Dananimal 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: What references? --Dananimal 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: In addition to the numerous POV issues, some of which others have described above, I'm concerned about the title of this article.  I usually hate using Google searches as criteria, but they can be a handy metric for recent events like this one.  In this case, "battle of abu ghraib" doesn't bring up much, and, ominously, this article is the first hit.  Many of the other results appear to be from United States blogs, op-eds, and such, usually using "the Battle of Abu Ghraib" to refer to the political issues arising from the torture of prisoners by US forces at the prison there, not this specific shooting battle. At best, this term is used to describe the April 2005 fighting only by US military sources, which in this case is hardly a neutral source. So, what to do?  Along with a deep trim of all the unsourced POV-pushing, maybe it should be merged into Abu Ghraib or Abu Ghraib prison? Rename it? Other ideas?CDC (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: ===Support===
I support this merger. This incident cannot be compared to the Battle of Berlin etc. Lurker (said · done) 11:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion

message: I support this merger. This incident cannot be compared to the Battle of Berlin etc. Lurker (said · done) 11:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *I believe this article should be deleted on the basis that the dramatized events were neither a "Battle" nor a significant engagement, basing this soley on the author's "facts". However I have yet to see any evidence that this event occured at all.
*I believe this article warrants it's own article, as do all battles. --JAYMEDINC 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I notice that many of the comments relate to whether this happened or not, many are also asking for references.  I am a reference because I was there and I just did some editing to the article.  If you would like more concrete references, please annotate more thoroughly on the web site on how to tag references to an article.  I would like to tag video and spot reports to certain areas but do not know how.  Additonally, for those who question the statement about the "largest coordinated enemy attack since the end of major ground operations......" this statement was from press releases from the PAO of MNC-I and the Pentagon.  This phrase is also included in most if not all of the Combat Action Badge citations issued for thsi engagement.  
Balrog 64 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balrog64 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a matter of people's unwillingness to "deal with it" as you put it, but a matter of citing the information correctly in Wikipedia per its guidelines.  Editing Wikipedia isn't an inalienable right; Wikipedia belongs to a private organization that has set forth certain rules pertaining to what can be written here and what can't.  If you would like to edit information on Wikipedia, you are expected to follow its guidelines, and one of the major guidelines it asks its writers to follow is that of well cited secondary sources, not merely primary, original sources like yourselves.  Just because something is written in Wikipedia doesn't mean that's how it happened, nor does something that isn't in Wikipedia mean that it didn't happen.  If you want information to appear on the WP website, you have to follow the rules for putting it here; that's what the other editors here are trying to accomplish, not disproving you and your comrades' accounting of events.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Abu Ghraib 

message: I've been thinking of addressing some of the issues raised by the various tags attached to this article. 
Firstly, is it genuinely notable? Policy draws a line between events of short-term newsworthiness and long-term notability. This seems to fall into the former not latter group.
Secondly, it is written from a neutral point of view? Where is the balancing perspective from the non-American protagonists? Where is the political context? These are present in the cited Washington Post article but absent here. 
It also uses both weasel words and peacock terms to advance its point of view.
Thirdly, most of the detail is unsourced. While user:Balrog64 and others have vouched for its accuracy, this conflicts with the Wikipedia policy of no original research. A more appropriate home for this article might be Soldiers magazine
Fourthly, the repeated use of military acronyms makes it difficult to understand. 
Fifthly, this seems to me to be a battle only in the loosest sense of the word. In military terms, a 40-minute firefight involving relatively small numbers of combatants is either an "action" or an "incident". Describing it as the largest coordinated assault etc is extraordinary. What about the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, for instance? 
:It was alot more that 40 minutes... all told from the first mortar landing (how most of us knew whe were being hit) to the final stand down was roughly 7 hours. and Im not sure where you get the "relativly small numbers" from, at least on the US side basically all hands where involved to some degree between actual bullet tossing, support, supply, medical, etc. as far as insurgents? lets be honest, no one but the insurgents really know how many of them hit us. could have been 20, could have been 200. there was direct fire coming in from multiple points, on multiple side of the fob, as well as indirect fire and car bombs. the MNFI commander blanket authorized all soldiers present to recieve their CIB/CAB/CMBs and the other services to recieve their CARs. Was it a battle on the scale of Meuse-Argonne? no, but it was a battle. Will TALK 09:13, 09 November 09(UTC)
Any comments or reactions? ROGER TALK 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At present the article doesn't provide any justifications for this battle being notable to anyone other than its participants (what did the battle change? why was it special?). The claim that it's the "...the largest coordinated assault on a U.S. base since the Vietnam War" is both uncited and unlikely - and I'm not sure if the prison should even count as a 'base' as it was an objective being protected by US forces. Unless some evidence of notability can be provided the article should be merged into the Abu Ghraib prison article or just deleted. Despite what is raised above, there needs to be something more to a battle than for it to have occured for it to be notable - following that logic indicates that every single clash in every single war warrants an article. --Nick Dowling 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The prison wasn't a base.  It is within Forward Operating Base Abu Ghraib. --JAYMEDINC 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that it should reduced to a well-referenced paragraph or two and then merged into the Abu Ghraib prison article. ROGER TALK 10:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is merged into an article, it should be merged into Forward Operating Base Abu Ghraib. --JAYMEDINC 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, I run up against the English languages sources problem all the time. In this case though there is a remarkable degree of consensus in mainstream media reports (listed above), including Al-Jazeera ones. These broadly make an effort to provide balance. The issue here is the extent to which this article is one-sided and the degree to which it relies on anecdotal material. The Wikinews article is very different. ROGER TALK 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, this is the problem with this page.  I can attest because of personal knowledge that much of what is on the page is true from the standpoint of the American forces in Abu. I suspect therefore it has been written by people who were there from their experience, which of course violates the original research prohibition.  I've attempted to find references to back up those accounts, but  have failed so far only finding those news articles that say the battle took place.  I suspect that we won't have sources for much of what is on the page until the military releases after action reports. Hardnfast 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this article should be rewritten entirely, using the sources and references only.  Not first hand accounts. --JAYMEDINC 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On your fifth point of view, comparing this attack the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, I think the key word here is coordinated attack.  The attack on the Marine barracks was the act of suicide bombers in trucks acting somewhat independently not too dissimilar from the Khobar Towers bombing.  This attack was coordinated in the fact that they used indirect fire (rockets and mortars) against the base, used RPG's, crew served and small arms fire to suppress guard towers and drove a suicide VBIED into one of the towers.  They finally followed up the VBIED with a direct assault.  Additionally, blocking attacks were made along the MSR's to prevent reinforcement / relief of the defenders.  Hardnfast 16:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to start? 

message: The following paragraph seems to conflict with WP:No Original Research and WP:Verifiability:
While official U.S. military reports state only 40-60 insurgents were involved in the attack, anecdotal evidence suggests differently.  First, 58 bullet riddled bodies were discovered in a neighborhood mosque two days after the battle.  Second, 20 newly captured prisoners accused of participating in the attack were inprocessed into the detainee population within 10 days of the attack.  Third, the official estimate of 40-60 does not take into account the associated diversionary actions against Falluja, Camp Victory and the IED ambushes emplaced along the access roads.  Lastly, the first arriving helicopter pilot was heard to say that he estimated hundreds if not more muzzle flashes from around the entire FOB coming from the surrounding apartment buildings, villages and fields. 
ROGER TALK 10:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be deleted in its entirety either but I don't think it should stay as it is. I nominated it because consensus here seemed impossible. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Abu Ghraib. Please add your thoughts there. ROGER TALK 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdotal evidence paragraph 

message: Since people here seem to be pretty passionate about this article, I was wondering if anyone could help me track down the Zarqawi video made about the attack?  It's been long enough that the video is more of historical interest than propaganda.  I'm editing Iraq War in Anbar Province and would like to use the video if I can.  For reference, here's another insurgent video I've already used. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarqawi Video 

message: My platoon was leading a convoy along MSR Sword at the time of the attack. A camera in the 4th vehicle of our convoy shows a VBIED going off at 6:12 local time but I believe the camera clock was off by one hour. Our convoy was struck by 2 VBIED's causing 4 casualties and all were airlifted from the location to the 86th CSH. Two American casualties were airlifted out of the country while another American returned to duty the next week. The fourth casualty was an Iraqi Interpreter that was also later airlifted out of Iraq.
Our Platoon had air support from Apache helicopters within a few minutes of the blast. They provided suppression against a machine gunner on a bridge before leaving to support the prison before dark.
I'm looking for spot reports or radio logs from area units that would help provide a more accurate recollection of the events as I was one of those airlifted out. Can anyone point me in the right direction on how to get information on units involved. I'm really interested in the Apache unit that provided support. Any information would be appreciated
--Drail14me (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for spot reports or radio logs 

message: I was gonna start a rewrite of this, but seeing other talk page comments, it's worth asking first, should we even have an article on this? Is this a deletion candidate? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future for this article