Talk:Dujail Massacre

Category

Can reprisals against 2% of the town’s population be classed as a collective punishment? Keeping in mind that the families of the convicted were penalised and that many RS do call it collective punishment, is the [[Category:Collective punishment]] appropriate or should it be removed? Comments welcome. Wayne (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Late attempt to restart the discussion:

This is a topic where I think we have to be very precise in how we're interpreting WP:RS. Say, a New York Times article in 1968 about the geopolitical threat posed by North Vietnam - the domino theory - would not be considered a reliable source about the actual intentions and policies of North Vietnam in 1968. Today, it would at best be a primary source of (largely) American perceptions of Vietnam, and should only be used when coupled with reliable secondary sources.

In our case, the Dujail Massacre happened in 1982. A NYT report about the massacre in 1982 would, obviously, not satisfy WP:RS standards due to the sheer passage of time. But a source from 2005-2010 would also be problematic; much of American public opinion - and political capital - at the time stood behind the trial of Saddam Hussein, which rested on establishing the case that crimes against humanity were committed in 1982. In terms of being able to accurately describe the event back in 1982, an American source of 2005-2010 would be even less reliable than a report from 1982. In fact, those are possibly the least reliable sources you can find, as this is precisely when the potential for conflict of interest and bias peaked.

Since then, there's been a significant amount of work by academics, along with both independent and corporate media, examining the media narratives surrounding the Iraq War, with the vast majority of it critical. In other words, reliable sources in the year 2022 consider the "reliable sources" in the 2000s to have erred significantly in covering the Iraq War and its aftermath. Yet an independent media report that pointed out an inconsistency from a 2005 NYT report was tagged by a user as "WP:OR"; this seems to be a gross misinterpretation of both WP:OR and WP:RS and I've removed the tags. But the bulk of this article is still based on "reliable sources" from 2005-2010 (namely, citations 6-13) when describing both the historical event in 1982 and the trial that began in 2005. I don't know enough about the rest of the topic and hopefully the article can be reworked by someone with better knowledge in this topic with contemporary reliable sources. Ceconhistorian (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dujail Massacre. 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/20070929120848/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=9229 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=9229
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/14/iraq.executions.ap/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Most were killed and several were captured

They were "up to a dozen". If they were twelve, it's sounds weird to say that most were killed and several were captured. This has to be rewritten. Calle Widmann (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)