Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
69.177.244.239 (talk)
No edit summary
M4-10 (talk | contribs)
Line 15: Line 15:


***How about "attackers" instead of [[terrorist]]s or [[insurgent]]s? That way it doesn't need to go back and forth. [[User:Glowimperial|Glowimperial]] 23:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
***How about "attackers" instead of [[terrorist]]s or [[insurgent]]s? That way it doesn't need to go back and forth. [[User:Glowimperial|Glowimperial]] 23:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

***Isn't the intentional targetting of civilians a cut and dry example of terrorism? Or is this word becoming [[newspeak|"double-plus ungood"]]? --[[User:M4-10|M4-10]] 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


== Encyclopedic? ==
== Encyclopedic? ==

Revision as of 01:14, 1 September 2005

bridge

It is said the bridge was 30 meters high over the river, so most people were killed instantly upon impact on water or the riverbed. User:195.70.32.136

Citation? Cite your sources. --Fighter 18:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article reports 30 feet, not meters -- Tyagi 20:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article to reflect this. The 30 foot figure sounds much more accurate - from the photos of the bridge, it is most *definitely* not a 295 foot high bridge. — ceejayoz .com 21:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, 30 meters is just under 100 feet, not 295. *g* CanSpice 22:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar Attack

  • The mortar attack is reported at The Guardian, as having killed 7 people, not 16. Al Jazeera also reports 7 dead and 36 injured. Furthermore, are we comfortable with the use of the word terrorists to describe those who carried out the mortar attack? Al Jazeera uses the term rebels and other sites may use the term insurgents. -- Tyagi 21:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't the intentional targetting of civilians a cut and dry example of terrorism? Or is this word becoming "double-plus ungood"? --M4-10 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic?

Isn't this a news story, better suited to Wikinews? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an accidental Mecca-type stampede, then it's not encyclopedic, but this has hints of terrorism, so it's worth including. 69.177.244.239 00:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Random Jabber

Hmm, the count seemed to have went up about 200 since my last visit to this page. This was a pretty interesting attack if you ask me. --Cyberman 23:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Change title to Baghdad bridge stampede

This bridge is not famous enough to be in the title, and from what I know, this is the only bridge stampede in Baghdad's history of encyclopedic merit. 69.177.244.239 00:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply