Talk:2025 Duhok axe attack/GA1

• Different sources give several different ages for the victims: the older woman was 60 (Rudaw), 65 (NPA, 965Media) or 75 (AP, Shafaq); the youngest victim was 17 (AP, Shafaq), 18 (other Shafaq source), 20 (Rudaw), or 25 (964Media). I'm not sure what to make of this.
• Only the AP seems to mention the 3rd victim? 964, NPA, Rudaw, Shafaq only mention two victims?
• Shafaq (citation 4) said over 5,000 took part in the news years celebration, but then Shafaq (citation 21) also said the procession was "30,000-strong". Any idea why both numbers are used?
• There are differences in reporting for what the attacker shouted. Compare what the AP reports versus what NPA reports. The AP is considered generally reliable (per WP:RSP). But I'm not familiar with NPA as a source — is it reliable?

• Per MOS:LAYOUT, "External links" should be at the bottom of the article, below references.
• The link to citation 8 is a 404 "not found" page. This seems like a mistake. I would update that path in the citation. And if the URL is dead, update the url status parameter so that the archive URL is first.
• I think that this phrase is very close the wording and sentence structure from the source (see WP:PARAPHRASE). So in my opinion, the bolded portion should be quoted or rephrased further to avoid close paraphrasing: "ADM urged the criminalization of hate speech and extremism in response to the attack" (versus the source: "The Assyrian Democratic Movement called for the criminalization of hate speech and extremism in response to the attack")

I think it would be best to request an official second opinion for this article. I think the variation between reporting from sources (i.e., the number of victims, the ages of the victims, and what the attacker shouted) needs to be examined further. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Chao Garden I have addressed the points of your review. Some notes:

• The majority of the sources state that the attacker was yelling 'Islamic State'. In Source 1, Shafaq News, there is an added video of him being pinned to the ground yelling 'Dawla Islam', which translates to Islamic State in English . The NPA is not unreliable, but it doesn't have unique information about the attack and it simultaneously misreported this fact, so I've chosen to remove it from the article.
• Citation 4 emphasizes that over 5,000 from the diaspora took part, whereas Citation 21 states the procession was 30,000 people. That accounts for the use of both numbers.
• Human Rights Without Frontiers International and a Shafaq News article (Citation 12) mentions that a security officer was injured, corroborating the third injury in the attack.
• I cannot account for the wide discrepancy in age estimates for the young man and woman injured. Consequently I have decided to relabel them as "young man" and "older woman", since those are about the only consistent details we have of their ages.

Let me know if anything else should be changed. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@PresentlySuraye3 Thank you for the updates. I agree with your decision to remove the NPA source. About the range of ages for the victims: I wonder if it would be a good idea to be transparent about the age ranges, maybe by saying something like: "In the aftermath of the attack, news outlets reported that the youngest victim was as young as 17 or possibly as old as 25." etc. What do you think? I don't think it's uncommon for outlets to get information wrong at first. Also, by the way, I noticed that the youngest victim is still referred to as a minor in the article.

Your explanations about the number of people in attendance (5,000 from the diaspora) and the security officer who was injured make sense. Other than questions about how to discuss the victims ages above, nothing specific stands out to me as needing to be addressed at this time. (EDIT: Actually, one source may be self-published. See below) — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 06:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Chao Garden I've simply changed the wording to this: Three people were injured in the attack, including a young man who was seen wiping blood off his head with the Assyrian flag. I don't think it's necessary to specify the age estimates here, it doesn't benefit nor hinder the article and it just seems to me as an unnecessary detail. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think the inclusion of wiping with Assyrian flag statement violates WP:NOTNEWS as the voice is less encyclopedic and more news driven. ABehjat (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ABehjat, I don't understand. The Assyrian flag being used to wipe the young man's blood is a significant detail. It should not be removed from the article. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@PresentlySuraye3:

I think @ABehjat brings up a good point actually. I'm not familiar with HRWF as an organization (where that information about the flag comes from), but I did notice that the HRWF site is a WordPress site, which is a blog. So the HRWF article may be a a self-published source, because the creator of the work and the publisher are the same person. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 15:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Chao Garden, the blood-stained flag is mentioned in the AP article, and it was also present in pictures found on social media . So HWRF is not the only source for the flag. I have added the citation to AP behind the sentence on the bloodied-flag to account for this. I can't speak to HRWF being a WordPress site, but the organization has presented at the United Nations as recently as March , so they appear reliable, and the use of WordPress is neutral to its use as a source. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@PresentlySuraye3 Let me clarify my concern:

First, I'm not disputing that it happened, and I'm not asking for the flag to come out. My concern is narrower and it's about voice: the phrase as a symbol of resilience and cultural pride asserts an interpretation in Wikipedia's own voice. That's a word choice point under criterion 1b and a neutrality point under criterion 4, which asks that an article not lead the reader to a conclusion through word choice. The same phrasing also sits unattributed in the lead.

The underlying fact of the _young man wiping blood from his head with the flag, and the bloodied flag being carried for the rest of the parade_ is in the AP report and belongs in the article.

What I'm asking is that the interpretation be attributed rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice, e.g. "...the bloodied flag was carried for the remainder of the parade, which the AP described as ...", using whatever framing the source actually uses. If AP or another reliable source calls it a symbol of resilience, say so with attribution and this is settled.

Separately, on HRWF: now that AP is cited for the flag, that sentence is fine regardless of how HRWF is classified. HRWF is still the sole source for the parade description and for the victim's condition (hemorrhage, stable, no surgery), which is where @Chao Garden's self-published question actually bites. Worth a second cite if one exists, but I'm not holding on it.

Thanks! - 22:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC) ABehjat (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ABehjat, I've just tackled both of these things. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ABehjat @Chao Garden, it's been almost a week. Is everything good for this article to be passed? PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey @PresentlySuraye3: I'm hoping that an another reviewer to step in as an official "second opinion". I'm personally not comfortable being that person, because I don't speak Arabic & am not familiar with the Arabic-language sources. And given the subject matter, I don't want to rely on machine translation. But for the English sources & citations, I don't have any additional concerns; thank you for addressing the comments above. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 02:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Chao Garden, I can speak Arabic, and I think I addressed concerns earlier with regards to utilization of social media as a new source and have recommended to use news website as a source instead (Shafaq News vs. Facebook, for example).

The only challenge I have is I cannot speak Kurdish which Rudaw Media news sources are written in. Though, all the Arabic sources so far convey the same points as written in the article, with no editorial language weaved into the article.

Other than that, I think @PresentlySuraye3 covered the article well and it's in a good state to proceed with GA if you think it's good to go. ABehjat (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply