A fact from 2004 church bombings in Baghdad and Mosul appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 November 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
1) I adressed the reference a few minutes after my first edit. 2) I tried to explain the reasons of my edit in the edit summary, but space was a bit to limited. I'll try to explain in more detail here: The sentence "In spite of all reassurances given by Muslim religious and Iraqi political leaders to the members of ancient (almost two thousands years old) Christian community, the exodus of Christians from Iraq has increased since the bombing." is not only tendencious, it is also unsupported by the reference. It makes a faulty interpretation of the reference. The reference does say "local Christians say security has continued to deteriorate" (bombings took place Aug 1, reference published Sep 27, so we can conclude that ppl interviewed by Time thought things were going the wrong way in the weeks after the bombings) . The article does not link emigration with these bombings. In fact emigration of Iraqi Christians was already rampant when the bombings took place, and form patter of a broader pattern of deterioration of living conditions and security under occupation. Also the quote is not encyclopedia, but news journalism, style. --Soman (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The passage "New tactics" is also highly problematic and without proper reference. The reference "Christians of Iraq" quoting a newspiece issued the same day as the attacks says that the attacks "The attacks on the churches signaled a vast change in tactics for insurgents", which is not at all the same as "attacks became the beginning of new tactics used by Islamic insurgents in order to drive coalition troops out of the country". Moreover, "It was also the first time since the fall of the regime of Saddam Husein, that peaceful citizens of Iraq were attacked" has no backing at all in the reference. --Soman (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before we proceed to content discussion I recommend you to preview your version and to see what you have done to the article's format. See what I mean? Please do not save your version even if you fix format before you gain the consensus on the talk page of the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd advise you to assume good faith and go easy on the vandalism accusations. I accidentally removed an extra '}}' when removing a reference, which caused the reference table to crash. Secondly, I'd advise you to re-read the references you are quoting and avoid inserting unsupported claims in the article. --Soman (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It simply seemed strange you did not see how the article looks after your edits, but you are right I will AGF. Now let's talk about content. You claim that the sources I used were published soon after attacks. Yes, they were, but it is news sources that always are published soon after the event. I clarified one point in accordance to the source.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But 20% refers to since the beginning of occupation, not the aftermath of the bombing on August 1. I certainly don't object to describing the bombings as part of a larger pattern and discussing Christian emigration from Iraq. But the wording in the wiki article are faulty, because it implies that the reference gives a direct linkage between increase in emigration and the attack. --Soman (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then please do change the wording of this part only in accordance with your comment above, but please make sure the references are not broken before you save the page.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bloc pasted above from Time supports in general the passage deleted from the article. Tweaking of the wording may be in order, but I don't see a valid based reason for the wholesale removal of content. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
.svg){kind=small}