Talk:Mahdi Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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. User:Colinrorr 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".

NPOV[edit]

"The Mahdi Army has allegedly participated in attacks allegedly murdering innocent civilians in hospitals." Allegedly twice in one sentence? Sounds like a retarded eight year old trying to write propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.144.113 (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of 160k?[edit]

I only bring this up because in the last paragraph here the Washington Post states their numbers around 50-60k.... 100k less. Surely that's an exaggerated number. If I don't see a more accurate (and referenced) strength number in a few days, I'll probably change it myself. J.A.McCoy 14:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

In the last section discussing the concept of the Mahdi, there are a few problems:

1) The transliteration scheme is all wrong. I have no idea why an apostrophe has been placed after the "h" in Mahdi; the h in Mahdi is a round ha and does not have any accent. There is no elongation over the i in jaish. 'Isa ibn Miryam should be 'Isa ibn Maryam, and there is no elongation over the dipthong "yaum", nor is there any elongation for the i in "qiyamah." Somebody seems to have gotten hyperactive with the transliteration here, and clearly did not know what they were doing. Furthermore, this transliteration system is not used anywhere else in the article, and so there is an inconstitency insofar as Mahdi is spelled without an elongation in the beginning of the article, and spelled with one at the end.

2) Imam az-Zaman was incorrectly spelled as Imam az-Ziman. I have changed that. The translation is also wrong; Imam az-Zaman does *not* mean "the Imam of all ages", quite the opposite; it means the Imam of the Present Age. The reference there is neither linguistically or theologically correct. Nor is that a "loose" translation; "Imam of the Age" is exactly what it means.

3) Strictly speaking, to say that the "Ja'fari" school of Shi'ism believes in the existence of the Twelfth Imam is not entirely correct, as Ismaili Shi'ites who believe in a different line of Imamate also refer to themselves as "Ja'fari" quite often. I have therefore changed it to Twelver. Sayfadeen 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Issue in intro[edit]

I just rolled back to the previous version of this page. A large part of the intro seemed snipped out mid-sentence.

Neutrality[edit]

I still have problems with the neutrality of this article. It seems to have a pro-insurgent slant.

-- Yeah, like the line about "dozens of Iraqis being killed" in a running battle with the Marines. Who were the dead Iraqis? If they were members of the Mahdi militia, the article needs to better explain this. If they were civilians, which side killed them? If I may permit myself some personal bias, I'd reckon they were killed in bombings by the mahdis, but the article makes it sound as though they were killed by the Coalition forces. RolandDeschain

-- I don't like the use of 'crackdown' - this is a propaganda word and has no exact meaning - it has no place here.

Fenton Robb (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RolandDeschain you said "I'd reckon they were killed in bombings by the mahdis". But the Mahdi Army doesn't do suicide bombings. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Spring Fighting of 2008[edit]

This article only mentions the Battle of Basra, shouldn't there also be a section about the entire Iraq Spring Fighting of 2008, which is as of 30 April 2008, still continuing? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The End of the Medhi Army?[edit]

According to a news article from Gulfnews.com, it stated that Iraqi intelligence reported that the number strength of the militia has severely downgraded from 60,000 to 150 - 200. Also, the news article said that an estimate of 1,300 Medhi members have fled to Iran for safe haven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.75.224 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Iraqi intelligence is actively fighting the Mahdi Army, their claims of MA strength are likely to be biased. The number in the infobox should be clearly indicated as being an Iraqi Intelligence claim. On the other hand, the estimate of 60,000 needs a citation as well.Lawrencema (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two estimates of strength have been given with citations. The unnamed Iraqi intelligence figure is giving a prediction about a separate group which doesn't exist yet; hence, the figure is not appropriate for this article's infobox.--76.214.153.11 (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added who estimated the strength to be 60000 and when. The claim of 100,000 needs a more verifiable citation. "Thought to number" doesn't say who made the estimate and when. I've commented out the 100000 claim, but it can be uncommented when a more verifiable citation is found.Lawrencema (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag?[edit]

Is there one? Could be useful. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is red 37.231.90.80 (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shia death squads (police infiltrated by Mahdi Army?)[edit]

I happened to stumble upon Deborah Davies's 2006 documentary Iraq's Death Squads (Channel 4 Dispatches) in which the Mahdi army was referenced quite a few times. You can view the documentary on Google Video.

The documentary talks about Shia death squads operating within the police department (under the control of then Minister of Interior Baqir Jabr al-Zubeidi, now Minister of Finance), however I cannot recall whether or not a direct connection was made with the Mahdi army.

However, in one scene a man is shown trying to arrange a driver to move his family's possessions from their house, his family has been threatened with death if they do not move out by people participating under the flag of the Mahdi army ("The Mahdi army has given his family two days to leave his home, or they'll be killed" -- 28:45).

I'd have to say I'm quite surprised that there is absolutely no mention of these actions in the article. The only thing I really see discussed here is the Mahdi army's role in the insurgency against the U.S. army. --Bruce (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Article[edit]

I still don't know whether the Mahdi Army exists or not. --91.10.14.247 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this page changed overnight[edit]

Hello, I'm an Iraq war veteran; 2005 and 2007-2008. I had just edited this page yesterday, and it was looking beautiful, It's definitely progressed in 24 hours...as it is more "reader friendly". I read much of the talk, I can say Yes Mahdi is what you are calling "Imam Mahdi", and secondly I do not know if there is a Mahdi flag, but there is a Mahdi dance...it consists of putting your "right"? hand in the air and stomping the same foot while spinning, like "Sufi meets Compton"...some lyrics too, forgot them. If anything Mahdi's do where GREEN AND BLACK, and that is important. Additionaly, I completed article about October 2006 battle...tried to relay it to Iraq Civil War...as you may see. Lastly, the section "2005" needs more politics and the section "Structure" needs less politics. Good Luck...hoping for an FA in military history.Wnicholas70 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ...and please remove that citation from "June truce" as I believe this is concerning or about the ban on the Mahdi colors GREEN and BLACK, I couldn't understand and I'm not good for citing.Wnicholas70 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under August Hostilities[edit]

"The fact that American troops surrounded the Shrine led to an impasse as the Mahdi army could not leave the shrine and US troops did not want to offend Islam by setting foot inside the shrine. The standoff did not end for three weeks until Sistani emerged from convalescence in London and brokered an agreement between the two forces."

According to Frontline's "Losing Iraq":

NARRATOR: The payoff to Sadr was substantial. Casey spent $1.2 million buying back some weapons and $330 million more in what were called “reconstruction funds.” They hoped they had bought some peace and quiet.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/transcript-66/ Video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/losing-iraq/

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Peace Companies. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Formal request has been received to merge the article James Brandon (journalist) into Peace Companies; dated: March 2018. Proposer's Rationale: This particular journalist has no notability besides his one-day kidnapping by the brigade, whose article already mentions this. His article had been deleted before via AfD, but recreated under a different name. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki[edit]

Should this article be linked to de:Mahdi-Armee etc.? As I understand it the articles are about the same organization. Only difference is if the article have the old name or the new name. --MGA73 (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I'm not sure how we would implement it. It gets messy because some Wikipedias (e.g. Arabic, French) have two articles, one for the Mahdi Army and one for the Peace Companies. If we linked de:Mahdi-Armee to this page, would it be de-linked from the Mahdi Army wikidata item? You can go ahead and link it if you want and see what happens. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

The Mahdi Army should have its own article because they and the Peace Companies are not the same group. They had different objectives and allegiances and since the Promised Day Brigade, another Muqtada al-Sadr-led "continuation" of the Mahdi Army has its own article then why should Peace Companies be treated any differently? Charles Essie (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. how to we get technical support for the move? I think we need to move this article history back to the 'Mahdi Army' location. Then the small amount of content here that pertains to the newer organization ('Peace Companies') can be moved to a new article. I'm gonna go request technical help for the move now. skakEL 14:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 October 2023[edit]

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) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Companies → Mahdi Army – The newer name is a less notable "successor organization" to the old title. Most content in the article pertains to the important historical events surrounding the old organization. The entire edit history should be moved to it's original title- the topic is about an notable organization that disbanded in 2008. The small amount of info about the new organization can be moved to it's own article called 'Peace_Companies'. This involves a few technical hurdles but shouldn't be very difficult. If what I've described is controversial, then let's open a discussion in the appropriate place. Thank you. skakEL 14:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC) skakEL 14:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). skakEL 14:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Seems pretty clear, it sounds like the modern state of the group under its current name is far less influential than the original incarnation. pluma♫ ♯ 23:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the split. They're two separate groups who play two separate roles under the same leadership. Gavv523 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahdi_Army&oldid=1215992991"