Talk:23 February 2012 Iraq attacks

Untitled

• I don't really see the need to delete the article as it is - there are a ton more even shorter than it in the little template box with the rest of the major Iraq war attacks. This one is actually significant, as it is the first coordinated assault across the country after the US withdrawal and just might signal the beginning of a shift in tactics for the insurgency. I don't realize why after so many articles written for this template and the almost monthly major attacks NOW this one gets proposed for deletion? I suggest that this gets reconsidered as I find no reason for it. Skycycle (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• At the very least, the article should be re-written to read less like a news paper article, or breaking news event. However, I really don't see the need for anything more than the passing reference line to the incident on Iraqi insurgency (post U.S. withdrawal). This looks like an unnecessary fork. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Re-writing the article is one thing but if you consider this irrelevant and out of place then we might as well delete all the other articles in the template box and waste several years of categorizing and researching? I believe this is a valuable list of the major attacks in the war and one which can be really useful - this is the 4th article about an attack in 2012, yet it is the first one that anyone has a problem with? I mean yeah, I will try and re-write and expand it a bit but I believe it definitely has a place here and all of this makes no sense. Skycycle (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• If anything, like I said it's place, as well as the place of the others, is as a line in the article Iraqi insurgency (post U.S. withdrawal). Remember we are not talking about an even being "irrelevant." We are talking about an event not qualifying for inclusion under WP:EFFECT and WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is about a notable event (60 people killed in coordinated attacks, one of the largest since US withdrawal), if it has to be rewritten, there is another template for that reason.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• My thoughts exactly. Skycycle (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 23 February 2012 Iraq attacks. 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/20120227014428/http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/iraq-says-arab-summit-to-be-held-on-schedule to http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/iraq-says-arab-summit-to-be-held-on-schedule/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)