Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Iraq War in Anbar Province/archive1

< Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Palm dogg in topic Resolved comments from Cryptic C62

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments3 people in discussion
  • I jumped down to this section before reading anything else, and I'm really confused by the quote from Col Cariker. While it might make more sense after having read the section, it seems somewhat mysterious when it is the very first thing presented.
  • He's talking about how finding large numbers of civilian dead had become almost routine by late 2005, in defense of why the Marines hadn't properly investigated the Haditha killings. Just rewrote to integrate it into the lead paragraph. Does it work now? Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • That definitely helps. I moved the quote to the right, which I think was a necessary step. Some editors might prefer to stagger multimedia left-right-left-right, but frankly it just doesn't make any sense to open a section with a block quote on the left. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "For the American forces, abuses were typically either a disproportionate use of firepower (Fallujah 2003)" In this constuction (which is used again later on), "Fallujah 2003" resembles a Harvard citation, which may be confusing for some readers.
  • There might be a better way to link to the relevant articles than "in April 2003", but I don't think it's a big deal. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "the use of which was not permitted in civilian areas." permitted by whom?
  • "Several Marines, all of them from the hard-hit 3rd Battalion 1st Marines, were later charged (but not convicted) with executing Iraqi prisoners" I'm not a fan of the phrase "hard-hit". Firstly, it's not a particularly encyclopedic phrase. Second, it almost implies that the executions were justified. I think the sentence would come across more neutrally if "hard-hit" were removed.
  • In the section on The Second Battle of Fallujah, I mentioned that one-third of all US casualties in that engagement also came from 3rd Battalion 1st Marines. Maybe it's just a coincidence that all the (known) extrajudicial killings also came from that unit, but I don't think so. One of the 3/1 Fallujah Marines was also a key player in the Haditha killings, but I think I left that one out. I'm open to suggestions on how to reword, though. Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm in favor of just dropping "hard-hit". Maybe the correlation is a coincidence, maybe not. Including "hard-hit" suggests one POV, while excluding it suggests neither. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Some British advisers also complained that the Marines had little regard for civilian casualties and had used munitions containing depleted uranium that caused birth defects for years after the battle. American forces also killed civilians through aerial bombing" Here we've got two sentences in a row with "also" near the beginning. I'm not a fan of the "Fact. Also, fact. Also, fact" construction. I would like to see some effort to weave this into a cohesive narrative rather than a list of facts. To this end, it might make sense to split the bombing information into a separate paragraph, but I leave that decision up to you.
  • "In late November former Iraqi general Abed Hamed Mowhoush died..." November of what year? The previous paragraph isn't in chronological order (and doesn't have to be, in my opinion), which leaves some ambiguity as to when this occurred.
  • This section provides a solid overview of the various forms of human rights abuse that occurred, but it leaves the reader wondering: then what? What was the reaction from other nations and human rights groups? How many soldiers and insurgents were ever put on trial or convicted because of their actions?
  • Added additional paragraph. Also, take a look at Iraq War in Anbar Province#Haditha killings and see if that helps. I originally had human rights abuses spread throughout the article, but thought that if I concentrated most of them (Fallujah & Haditha killings aside) in their own section, they would make more sense. Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Couple of issues here: first, one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. Second, this is a very long winding sentence that would benefit from being split up. Third, there definitely seems to be some room for elaboration here. My preference would be to see a small Reactions subsection, one that could cover abuses by both sides if possible/necessary. I do realize that you're trying to avoid redundancy with the Haditha section earlier, so I'm open to other ideas. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I've got the American part done, I'm just working on the Iraqi part. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Finished the Iraqi part. Palm_Dogg (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Awesome! This is exactly what I had in mind. I do have a few quibbles with the wording, which I will list below. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Quote: "people are wearing masks... cannot build the country." I have no issue with using an ellipsis in this quote, but I do think that the resulting phrase should be a grammatically correct sentence. Perhaps "people are wearing masks... [they] cannot build the country." or "people [who] are wearing masks... cannot build the country." would work better?
  • I tried this, feel free to revert: "and that people in disguise "cannot build the country"." - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Hrm, I don't know that "wearing a mask" and "in disguise" are really the same thing in this context. The first implies anonymity, while the second implies pseudonymity. Palm Dogg, your thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Quite right, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I went with "people [who] are wearing masks... cannot build the country", but no worries Dank. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "... AQI muscling in on the tribes' smuggling businesses, the belief that AQI was linked to Iran, and their general high-handed behavior." The first and third items in this list employ language that is somewhat ambiguous due to the somewhat informal choice of words. What does "muscling in" actually mean? What is "high-handed behavior"? If these are phrases used in the sources that you are unsure how to reword, I would be happy to see them placed in quotation marks.

This led to violence, as these things do: AQI killed a sheikh over his refusal to give daughters of his tribe to them in marriage, which created a revenge obligation (tha'r) on his people, who attacked AQI. The terrorists retaliated with immense brutality, killing the children of a prominent sheikh in a particularly gruesome manner, witnesses told us. This was the last straw, they said, and the tribes rose up. Neighboring clans joined the fight, which escalated as AQI (who had generally worn out their welcome through high-handedness) tried to crush the revolt through more atrocities. Soon the uprising took off, spreading along kinship lines through Anbar and into neighboring provinces.

Other tribesmen told me women weren't the only issue. The tribes run smuggling, import/export and construction businesses which AQI shut down, took over, or disrupted through violent disturbances that were "bad for business". Another factor was the belief, widespread among the tribes (and with at least some basis in fact) that AQI has links to, and has received funding and support from, Iran. In their view, women were simply the spark -- AQI already "had it coming". (Out in the wild western desert, things often tend to play out like The Sopranos... except that AQI changed the rules of the game by adding roadside bombs, beheadings, murder of children and death by torture. Eventually, enough was enough for the locals.)
Thanks for that, I really appreciate it. Here's my idea: Let's replace "muscling in on" with "disrupting", which is a pretty safe, neutral summary of the source. Let's also put "high-handed" in quotation marks. Does that work for you? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Iraq_War_in_Anbar_Province/archive1&oldid=490148868"