Talk:Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
Latest Information on the Barisha Raid
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 21 January 2020
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Barisha raid → Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – Per WP:COMMONNAME. This raid is not known for taking place in Barisha, it is known for leading to the death of Baghdadi. The current name is not a descriptive title, and hence appears to the reader as a common name, but it is not in any way. A Google search on news given me 9 hits. When you read the article you will notice that every part of it is about Baghdadi. It is about the search for Baghdadi, the raid itself including his death and identification, and the reactions and succession following his death. The only exception is the casualties section, as Baghdadi was not the only one killed. However, only one other casualty have been named, with the remaining being anonymous "ISIL members", and "non-ISIL militiants", making their deaths irrelevant with regards to naming. As Baghdadi blew himself up, "Killing" is not appropriate, and "Suicide" is misleading, as it took place during a military operation. "Death" is the most appropriate. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Support as proposer. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Strike following Dekimasu's comment, as nomination implies support. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support as both "Killing" and "Suicide" are inappropriate/misleading in this specific instance. I note that the title yields a large number of hits ( > 180) on Google to convince us that this is a COMMONNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Generally Support due to the article's undeniable similarities to the similarly and accurately-named Death of Osama bin Laden article. RopeTricks (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support well-argued original proposal. Koopinator (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Turkish support
User:A78dfas stop removing this from the article, its not just a claim like the sdf reference. First ref says capture of key bagdadi aide by Turkey paved way for the operation
- Do you have an wp:rs making this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also "sharing information" is support it's hard to see it as being a "combatant".Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
care to look at the article like I said?https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-baghdadi-capture-exclu-idUSKBN1X60SR and wtf has combatants has to do with it? its support like iraqi intelligence
- Then remove Iraq.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.50.211 (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Turkey did not actively tale part in the raid, this article is not about the war on terror as a whole or even about how they found baghdadi, this article is about the direct operation in which Turkey had no part in. A78dfas (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
right, neither did iraq or sdf
Yes, your point? I never disputed that.
US "casualties" is incorrect
The term "casualty" in military usage refers to those KIA or WIA to the degree they can no longer participate in the fight and who are not shortly able to return to duty. Two US servicemen, according to The NY Times, "were slightly wounded" and had "returned to duty" in less than a week. This simply does not meet any accepted military definition of "casualty"—and for that reason, I propose removing them from the "Casualties" cell in the infobox. Thanks—and please ping on reply! Ekpyros (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Do RS say they were casualties? Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- None cited in our article or that I'm able to find. Numerous sources state that there were no American casualties. Esper is quoted in the Times as saying there were "two minor casualties" but appears to immediately correct it to "two minor injuries"—and of course his direct quote does not qualify as an RS. Ekpyros (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)