The following is an archived discussion of Mukhtar Army's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 09:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mukhtar Army
edit- ... that the Iraqi government issued an arrest warrant for Wathiq al-Battat, the head of a new Shi'a Iraqi militia group called the Mukhtar Army?
Created/expanded by Plot Spoiler (talk). Self nominated at 23:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC).
Date, size, QPQ all done. However, the hook is not fully verifiable by the source. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry that the source is not available publicly. Accessed it through Lexis Nexis. Does this clearly enough constitute verifiability (from the given source)?
The Hezbollah Brigades' denial of links with Al-Battat was issued less than one hour after Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi prime minister and acting interior minister, called on citizens on Saturday, 9 February, to cooperate with the security forces in providing information on the whereabouts of Wathiq al-Battat, secretary general of the Hezbollah Brigades -Iraq Renaissance, in order to arrest him as soon as possible. Al-Maliki also accused Al-Battat of "inciting sectarian sedition" through the formation of the Al-Mukhtar Army. Al-Battat declared on Friday, 8 February, that he is still in Baghdad in spite of the arrest warrant issued against him by the prime minister and the threats by the Ministry of Interior. Al-Battat revealed that "large numbers" of the Al-Mahdi Army followers have joined the Al-Mukhtar Army, whereas the spokesman of the latter confirmed that "more than 800,000 people joined the army." Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
All set. I was looking at ref #1. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry that the source is not available publicly. Accessed it through Lexis Nexis. Does this clearly enough constitute verifiability (from the given source)?
