Talk:Yusufiyah

Iraq Low‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Warcrime section needed?

I've had this discussion over at the Abbottabad article. This should be about the area, and not about what happened there, but I do think the incident is notable enough to be included in other articles or even have its own article. A mention of any previous battles there, would be appropriate, but only if they are linked to the main articles. If no one objects in the next 24-48 hrs, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. --Hourick (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one objected, I took action and deleted a significant amount of unreferenced war details. Will put up a tag later asking that some references be put because there are none in this article. --Hourick (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why the warcrimes should be mentioned on this article about the city. As I have stated before, it should be linked to other articles that are relevant to this issue. --Hourick (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the location of the crime and you will find that in many sources about the crime and therefore it is relevant and therefore there should be a link to the main article about the crime. Please stop deletion it. IQinn (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly reason to include it in the body of the article. King County, Washington doesn't mention anything about the Green river killer, nor is John Wayne Gacy mentioned in Waterloo, Iowa. A city, township, county, state, principality, or country article doesn't necessitate or warrant the mention of a major crime. If anything it should only be mentioned in a "history" article related to the location. Now if the military forces from either side of that war (terrorist, US, or Iraqi) wiped that town off the map, THEN it might be relevant.

My argument is strong and you on the other hand are Affirming the consequent what is a Fallacy with examples that are not even good.

Haditha mentions and links to Haditha killings
My Lai, Vietnam mentions and links to My Lai Massacre
Abu Ghraib mentions and links to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

And so should Yusufiyah mention and link to Mahmudiyah killings.

- :) IQinn (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your argument is strong, but it shows that there needs to be more than a few articles that need to be trimmed. While I believe it should be linked in a "see also" section, it hardly needs an entire section devoted to it. Perhaps the other articles listed above need to be edited appropriately. --Hourick (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No i do not think there is a need to change other articles and you may have a look a WP:POINT in this regard. Nobody said that this information needs it's own section but i think the Iraq war section where it was is the right place. You removed it from there (i full agree with you that it was too long in it's original form) and i re-added only a very short version with the link to the main article. Can we agree that i re-add a few sentences about it to the Iraq war section including a link to the main article? I will try to cut it down further. How about that? IQinn (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine indeed. It is a pet peeve of mine when I see a city article being taken over by recent events and then abandoned with, what I would call, "intellectual graffiti" of previous editors that don't take the time to look at the article as a whole. Then again, I don't make it my sole mission on wiki to hunt down these articles for this sole purpose(which some people take quite seriously), but when I run across it my Wiki-OCD probably kicks in. --Hourick (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]