Talk:Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre

message: We have to update this situation with facts, and try to limit the POV of supposed witnesses that saw everything at 3am in the morning (with no lights). And since the US uses night vision, you know they didnt light up there units.</br>
Obviously the loss of life is real, but pretty much everything else is in dispute.
Greroja 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: There is a serious POV issue here in that the opening sentence sites this as a massacre, while Mr. Kimmitt said fire from the ground was returned.  If the wedding party did indeed have weapons and were shooting at the Americans, this would not be a "massacre."  More facts are needed for this article to be kept.--Fresh 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also see no POV issue with the opening. There was a massacre, the only thing really disputed is if it was due to incompetance or straight up murder. The article certainly needs work, but what is currently there is good and NPOV.  81.151.124.255 19:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I removed the notability tag from this article for several reasons:
1) When adding this tag the least one could do is to have the due diligence to add to the talk page regarding why you feel this topic is not notable.
2) This article is at least as notable as the Columbine shootings.  It might not have been played out on CNN as much, but I argue that Wikipedia shouldn't take it's cues from the sensationalized US media as to what is notable.
3) I concede that the article might need some shoring up with respect to referencing published sources, but taken on it's face the article chronicles a notable event.Super j dynamite 05:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance Tag

message: The description I inserted earlier was an attempt to summarize the AP report of the footage. Removing "refutes" is justified, but the video does in fact show a wedding.
The video shows the bride arriving in a white pickup truck and quickly being ushered into a house by a group of women. Outside, men recline on brightly colored silk pillows, relaxing on the carpeted floor of a large goat-hair tent as boys dance to tribal songs.
The singing and dancing seems to go on forever at the all-male tent set up in the garden of the host, Rikad Nayef, for the wedding of his son, Azhad, and the bride Rutbah Sabah.
The men later move to the porch when darkness falls, apparently taking advantage of the cool night weather. Children, mainly boys, sit on their fathers' laps; men smoke an Arab water pipe (search), finger worry beads (search) and chat with one another. It looks like a typical, gender-segregated tribal desert wedding.
--Carwil (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The AP Video 

message: If it wasn't REALLY a scandal, then remove it. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I cartegorised it as "scandal" 

message: It's not clear what happened. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: I've added the POV check due to a clear violation of NPOV in this article.  Legitimate sources indicate that women and children were slaughtered indiscriminately. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check 

message: I redirected Wedding party massacre to this page for obvious reasons, and renamed it, using the Haditha killings as a guide. Uenm (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the histories. Be sure to use the "move" button whenever moving a page. –xenotalk 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page back to Wedding party massacre because it has more than 130 times as many Google search results as Mukaradeeb killings. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect