Talk:Battle of Najaf (2007)

message: 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. 
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)
replies: text: Yes 199.47.118.237 (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The United States Army's Final Account 

message: 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)
thread_title: Here are some clearer sources

message: Among the troubling questions raised 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.
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)
thread_title: Removed Editorial paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title:  believable? 

message: *Dia Abdul-Zahra
*Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim
Appearently different person:
*Ahmed al-Hassan
*Ahmed Hassani al-Yemeni
They both have plenty of a different spellings as for now. --HanzoHattori 14:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebel leaders - need some good lynch... I mean, mergin' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  picture bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Independent 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Pherphaps you are disinformed. --HanzoHattori 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps neither 'pherphaps' nor 'disinformed' are words. Who knows? KazakhPol 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a link that mentions that the televised version - Al-Sharqiya - was banned. 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: KazakhPol, who exactly are you accusing of sock puppetry? And why? SmithBlue 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Absolute nonsense

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Iraqi Victory? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Fog of War contradiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historical Perspective 

message: 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)
replies: text: Split into two accounts. Official/"The Independent" weight ratio now approximately 67/33. SmithBlue 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  POV & undue weight. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map of Zarqa? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  commanders?  

message: "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)
thread_title:  Feb 07 article concerns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accuracy of timeframe 

message: Please post here material, with cites, relating directly to unreliability or reliablity of Azzaman(Iraq newspaper). SmithBlue 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  . Please show evidence for Azzaman being considered unreliable". SmithBlue 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is Azzaman( Iraqi newspaper) reliable? 

message: 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)
thread_title: BBC source

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wait until this gets cleared up. 

message: Please add RfC contributions here. SmithBlue 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC; Cockburn's article as source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page name: 2007 Battle of Najaf vs. Battle of Najaf (2007) vs Battle of Zarqa (2007) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Further Information

message: So, there are no articles on:
*Ahmed Hassani al-Yemeni
*Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim
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)
thread_title:  SoH leader(s) confusion 

message: 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." --Ghirla-трёп- 07:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202022847/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece
*Added  tag to http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/NEWS01/711150348/1002/NEWS01
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220520/http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news%2F2007-02-06%2Fkurd.htm to http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news%2F2007-02-06%2Fkurd.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified