Talk:2005 Al-Aimmah Bridge disaster

message: What are the revenue shares for mobile TV?
It is said the bridge was 30 meters high over the river, so most people were killed instantly upon impact on water or the riverbed.
User:195.70.32.136
:Citation? Cite your sources. --Fighter 18:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian article reports 30 feet, not meters -- Tyagi 20:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the article to reflect this.  The 30 foot figure sounds much more accurate - from the photos of the bridge, it is most *definitely* not a 295 foot high bridge. — ceejayoz ★ 21:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, 30 meters is just under 100 feet, not 295. *g* CanSpice 22:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Preceding unsigned comment from  --Irishpunktom\talk 18:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridge

message: * The mortar attack is reported at The Guardian, as having killed 7 people, not 16. Al Jazeera also reports 7 dead and 36 injured. Furthermore, are we comfortable with the use of the word terrorists to describe those who carried out the mortar attack? Al Jazeera uses the term rebels and other sites may use the term insurgents. -- Tyagi 21:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the long run, the facts are far more convincing than any amount of purple prose. Aquillion 04:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plain langauge is nice too. Klonimus 05:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Unnecessary rhetorical flourishes are better reserved for yellow journalism, cable news, or vapid political bloggery; an encyclopedia article should simply state the facts in the plainest language possible. Aquillion 05:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good changes. Thanks Aquillion. Glowimperial 13:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortar Attack 

message: Hmm, the count seemed to have went up about 200 since my last visit to this page. This was a pretty interesting attack if you ask me. --Cyberman 23:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
* No evidence has yet been noted to indicate that the stampede was the result of any attack. -- Tyagi 01:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Jabber 

message: Can we get any references for the International responses? If reputable organsations are saying that this is an act of terrorism, then it would be good to back that up with quotes or links. -- Tyagi 02:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --ThomasK 07:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
The section on "World reaction" adds nothing encyclopedic… just totally predictable almost ceremonial expressions of sorrow, condolence and/or condemnation. Unless the "world" reacts in some surprising or effective manner, this section should be deleted. Myron 08:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Effect 

message: "The European Union, NATO, and Iran all condemned the stampede as an act of terrorism."  Ahem, maybe they said it was the result of acts of terrorism, but I don't think the EU, Nato, or Iran accused all those thousands of panicking people of being terrorists.  Someone familiar with what those bodies actually said please change it.  --Zero 04:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of words 

message: Twice something like "It was the biggest loss of life in Iraq in one day since the US-led invasion of 2003. " has been removed.  I would have thought this quite important, and worthy of inclusion on the opening paragraph.. why am I wrong? --Irishpunktom\talk 10:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
: Right then.. I'll re-add it. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. It should not have been re-added. No one responded to the question about being "wrong" because the issue was already discussed on this talk page. Please refer to the postings on this page under "Encyclopedic". Wikipedia eschews sensationalism in favor of a "long" historical perspective. The count of other deaths possibly attributable to the latest invasion of Iraq is not relevant to this stampede, so no comparison is appropriate. Whether a stampede occurs in a large, tightly-packed crowd is a stochastic process; i.e., the event is not wholly determined by the environment even if the catastrophe had a known "trigger". The crowd in question may have been particularly edgy, government preparations for the pilgrimage may have been inadequate, and passage across the bridge may have been constricted because of US military actitivies, so that discussion of the pre-conditions—the context of the stampede—is cogent in the Wikipedia article. Similarly, the earlier explosions near the destination mosque, the rumors of poisoned water and food being offered by people in the neighborhood before the the stampede, and the efforts by neighborhood people to rescue the pilgrims are an important part of the history both of the stampede and of the invasion. However, contrasting the stampede death toll with statistics of other events occurring since an arbitrary date (the start of the current invasion) fails to provide useful perspective and certainly does not belong in the opening paragraph of the article. Out it goes (again). Myron 16:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this not relevant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2005 Al-Aaimmah bridge stampede. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060112093523/http://www.forbes.com:80/work/feeds/afx/2005/08/31/afx2199216.html to http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/08/31/afx2199216.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views