Talk:United States raid on the Iranian Liaison Office in Erbil

Untitled

Does it actually classify as an attack? Raid seems to be a more accurate term. I don't see any indication any shots were fired... 70.113.127.196 19:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Name "Irbil"

On some or most maps, and Google news searches the name of the town is spelled "Irbil" instead of Arbil. Would this imped searching significantly if the article is not moved? Bob  uriel8  (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll add Irbil to the lead. But it seems the wiki title of the city remains Arbil--Gerash77 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I also noticed what you mentioned about the name of the Wiki article on "Arbil". Questionable, do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uriel8 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

NPOV

This article is non-neutral and is clearly biased. First, one sentence reads, "are said to be "interrogated" at a U.S. prison camp in Iraq." Thet fact that the word "interrogated" is in quote is meant to imply that they were not really being interrogated, maybe there were being mistreated or even tortured under the guise of the wink..wink "interrogation." In fact, we have prima facie evidence that they have been apprehended by the US, are being questioned. If you have any evidence that they are not being questioned or interrogated, then say so with cheap innuendos and implications that is expressed in your use of quotation marks. The same cheap propaganda tactic is taken in the next sentence when ti is reports the Americans saying the Iranians are "in good health." Once again, there is prima facie evidence that the are being taken care of my the International Red Cross but this article, without any counter evidence has to put quotes are it to call it into question. In both of these cases the quotes are meant to undermine the claim but what is the basis of undermining the claim? It is no cited footnote claim. One is left that it is the editors general bias. No evidence was cited that they were being so called "interrogated" and are so called "looking healthy: but since the editor has a bias against the US and put put in a NPOV and spin it. This is ver NPOB.

Second, the captives did not have official diplomatic passports and official diplomatic Visas, which is the standard for having diplomatic. Some Kurdish group may mahe want to work with them but approval goes through the foriegn office in Bagdahd not civic leaders in the provences.

There are so many other POV violation but I don;t have the time to continue. So I am slapping the NPOV violation tag on here intil it is cleaned up and made more objection.

I agree that the double-quoting was not a good idea, but the word interrogated is as used by News International's "The Times", hardly a bastion of left-wing anti-Americanism: "they are being held at a US prison camp in Iraq, and still being interrogated. There are no plans to free them while they are seen as a security risk in Iraq." The fact the first para mentions the ICRC visit, but not the lack of a consular visit after 3 months or that the employees were akin to diplomats in the Kurdish gov't view doesn't suggest pro-Iranian POV to me. The article represents the sources pretty faithfully AFAICS. Rwendland 10:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the quotations! they were there to represent this is what US claimed. We have used the same technique in the Royal navy incident. US says "they are being interrogated". Iran says "they are held hostage". The quotations must remain to identify that is one side's point of view, and not wikipedia's.

I try to make that more clear, but please say so if you still object with the neutrality.

Regarding the Kurdistan Regional Government statements, this is not some simple provincial governor's statement, but autonomous region with its own president, and its own foreign affairs and consular/official visit grantings. Since both Iran and Iraq state they were diplomat, I don't know how that word is POV! Nevertheless, we haven't used the word "diplomat", I try to find it and replace it to address your concern.--Gerash77 10:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The use of quotes is clearly meant to raise doubts about whether they are really being interrogated. You point out that you used quotes this way in other articles. So what? Just because you had an NPOV use of quotes elsewhere doesn't justify doing it here. In fact, maybe we should put an NPOV tag there as well.

The MLA Handbook makes this uses of quotes clear it states:

Place quotation marks around a word or phrase used in a special sense OR A PURPOSEFULLY MISUSED...[the MLA gives this example]: "Their 'friend' brought about their downfall."

The word "friend" is in quotes because it is being misused. It is a SO-CALLED "friend" who would bring about a downfall. Likewise, you are using quotes to raise doubts about whether they are really being interrogated. If you have evidence that they are not being interrogated, then cite it. Otherwise, the prima facia case is that they are begin interrogated (after all we have SOME testimony to that fact and it is footnoted; also usually captured people are interrogated for information)

To quote Gerash77: "There is a dispute regarding neutrality and factuality of this article. Hence, it will remain until the issue has been resolved." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.138.180 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Please pay attention to the changes made in the article. The quotation was removed from the word and put around the sentence per concerns raised by the user above. Also, it seems you are upset about the tags placed on Quds force article, and trying to "retaliate"?! I've noted your violation of 3RR and unless you change your behaviour and adhere to Wikipedia:Etiquette, you will be reported and blocked from further editing Wikipedia. Thank you.--Gerash77 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I read your contributions and noticed a pattern. When I read this article it was so obviously biased I could hardly believe it. You clearly have some sort of connection to Persia/Iran and have some agenda or interest in the topic. I have no opinion about Persia/Iran. I don;t systematically edit topics about Persia/Iran and have no axe to grind. Frankly, it is not a country I spend much time thinking about. You clearly do have an agenda and it comes out in this article. As per my message on your talk page, I will take a pause but lets work together on making this page a little less biased (and improve the writing style while we are at it). If you want to communicate on the talk page. If not I will try to improve the POV and the writing of this article in a day or so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.138.180 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

You must always WP:AGF. And please always explain on talk pages regarding why you have put the tags there. Saying because you have "some sort of connection to Persia/Iran and have some agenda" is not only a violation of the policies, but also not explanatory with regards to the tags put in place.--Gerash77 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the NPOV of this article comes through. The intro paragraph states that the raided offices were a liaison office, however when you look at the footnotes cited, one is paid content (the Economist) and can't be followed up. The Washington Post article says "One was carried out at 3 a.m. on the Iranian Liaison Office, which is used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a local headquarters" It is important that is a local HQ for the IRGC. Further, it the Washington Post article is authoritative enough source to cite it regarding the office being an liaison office, then it is good enough to also cite it being a local HQ of the IRGC.

Enough refs are provided about both sides POV. Furthermore, sign all of your posts Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. thanks.--Gerash77 03:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-English Sources

This is the English Language Wikipedia, non-English sources have no place here, unless you can find their material accurately translated. If the Information in the foreign source is vital and reputable then find it in an English language source.Rastov (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is using non-English sources prohibited? I don't think so !
  Please read Non-English sources. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Source you are fighting over is available in English from that very same website. The whole article needs a rewrite anyway, 1. to take out the blatant POV, it reads like a Pravda article. 2. Common English grammatical rules as it reads like what it is, an article cobbled together by largely non-native English speakers.Rastov (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on U.S. raid on the Iranian Liaison Office in Arbil. 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/20070406172103/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040934/http://www.alalam.ir/english/en-newspage.asp?newsid=009030120070404162240 to http://www.alalam.ir/english/en-newspage.asp?newsid=009030120070404162240

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)