|
I have placed an NPOV disclaimer on this page, because it essentially repeats the same POV points that I am complaining about over on Talk:Muqtada_al-Sadr. It's very interesting to me to see how, in this case, our editing process has led us to a point where we blatantly contradict ourselves. In one section, we see that as a part of the June settlement agreement, the Mahdi Army was to be disbanded. And yet, in August, it is the United States which violated that settlement by attacking the very same people who we pretend al-Sadr honestly disbanded. Jimbo Wales 22:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I definitely agree. Although you could argue that the U.S was the one that started the August fighting, the way everything is phrased expresses a very strong bias. In addition, they don't give the U.S/Iraqi government side that Sadr's militia triggered the fighting by attacking a police station. The article should note that they're is a difference of opinion. 12:08, 7 Sept 2004 (UTC)
I also agree, there is definate bias when saying the US violated the truce with Muqtada Al Sadr. Many could say it was the Mahdi Army that violated the same truce by still attacking multinational forces after the truce, and not just the IP Station, there were many attacks after the so called "truce".
Name
Shouldn't this article be called "Mahdi Army" or "Mehdi Army", which seem much more common terms than "Jaish-i-Mahdi"? For example, a Google search for these names returns 63800, 50000, and 312 results, respectively. Wmahan. 00:41, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)
Curiosity
Perhaps some Islamic scholar can answer this. Is the Mahdi Army related at all to the Mahdi? If there is some connection through Islamic eschatology or some such, it should be noted here. Mashford 15:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
|
