Talk:Battle of Abu Ghraib
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
 |
It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality. Please use {{reqphoto}}, {{reqmap}}, {{reqdiagram}}, or {{reqimageother|type of request}} instead of this template to clearly identify the type of image requested. |
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)
Contents |
[edit] largest military action since the end of the war?
"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)
The contention that the war is over is widely held to be false, I would be more comfortable if the claim is true that it be stated as "since the announcement of the end of major combat operations by President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003." --Dananimal 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
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)
[edit] Casualties
Are the two deaths in addition to the 44 casualties mentioned? --Dananimal 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
What references? --Dananimal 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the claim : The attack, which has been called "...the largest coordinated assault on a US base since the Vietnam War" should be referenced. --Dananimal 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Claiming "Information compiled by the author from various U.S. Army and Marine Corps reports, News sources covering the story, and eyewitness accounts of the E 2/10 Marines." with no further information is enough for me to blatantly doubt the veracity of this article. —Dananimal 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article title
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)
[edit] Hoax?
Is there any reason that this article should be considered as non-fiction?
- No references
- No references
- No references
If it cannot be varified it is worthless.
Does anyone know if this actually happened? Can they please supply some refernces.—Dananimal 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7364844/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24808-2005Apr4.html http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9B58E3BD-ABF0-41B8-BC43-8E900EC2391E.htm http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2004/n09212004_2004092104.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1337134.htm http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/02/iraq.main/ okay?
- What is not okay is the lack of a signature on your addition to the talk page or the fact that you leave a bunch of links without incorperating them as references for the article.
- I found who you are through page history but leaving these links here is unconstructive.
- I came to this article to edit it's profound style issues, and found a complete lack of referencing. Maybe you would like to add these references apropriately, thanx. Dananimal 07:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is my belief that this person isn't very WikiExperienced and was hoping that someone like yourself would add these very good citations. He/she probably is only viewing this article because of first hand knowledge of the event, and maybe not interested in editing. I happend on this article because my unit, 102nd Field Artillery was there (we know it really happened). However, the NPOV that I question is the writing by the Marine who wrote the article. Obviously it is biased, and I don't believe a Marine Captain to be the commander in charge of this. After all, the 102 FA claims that their own Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ray was in charge of perimeter defense. I was at FOB Spartan with the majority of the 102nd, and not at Abu Ghraib, so I can't vouch for who was really in charge. I can say that we need some citations listed on this article. Maybe it should be re-written with the above citations as a source, because the Marine that wrote it definately doesn't have NPOV. --JAYMEDINC 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger discussion
[edit] Support
[edit] Oppose
- 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)
- I agree with JayMed, we don't merge Berlin and Battle of Berlin Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Abu Ghraib
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).
Concur with Balrog 64. I was stationed at Abu Ghraib during the attack, and, unless there are quite a few of us suffering under the same delusion, there are a number of us who recall that the event took place as stated on the page. The account is accurate. I don't recall the bar of proof for many other, accepted events in history being as high as that advocated by some of the comments. Think about that as you try to cast doubt on the contributions of a group of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who risked their lives and fought hard that evening. fdh
