Talk:Al-Askari Shrine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Al-Askari Shrine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why don't we include something like "the attack and the resulting reprisal strikes have heightened sectarian strife within Iraq, as well as raised fears of a civil war". I've been hearing from everybody that this, if anything, will lead to a civil war in Iraq.

No-one's preventing you from putting it there yourself. Sounds good to me. Grandmasterka 20:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information has already been elaborated on in the Al Askari Mosque bombing page.

This article did not exist before today, I created it a few hours after the bombing. I feel honored to have started what will now be one of the fastest-growing and most scrutinized articles on Wikipedia... Sorry, I just had to get that out. Grandmasterka 18:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Are we sure that an article elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't already exist under a slightly different name? And can any Arabic readers check out the Arabic Wikipedia to see what can be copied over here? Tempshill 20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. I was shocked there wasn't already an article about it when I was searching before I created this thing. I haven't heard it under any name other than variants of "Al Askari". But I'm no Arabic speaker. Grandmasterka 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a request for Arabic translators to help with this article here. Grandmasterka 22:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct terminology for the mosque? I have seen "Al Askari" and "Al Askariya" - someone told me that the difference is that the "ya" ending changes the noun into an adjective. Is this correct? And is the current spelling correct for the article? --HappyCamper 15:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "ah" is the feminine ending. "-iyy" is an adjectival ending, or strictly speaking a "nisbah" in Arabic grammatical terms - it is used to make a noun into an adjective, for example, "askar" means "the military, soldiers" as a noun; "askariyy" means having to do with the military, and by extension a member thereof, a soldier. "askariyyah" is the feminine form of "askariyy". So in this article, "hadhra" sounds like a feminine noun (though I don't know itmyself as a word for shrine) which would cause "askariyy" to become "askariyyah" if used attributively after it. Conversely, the two words for mosque - "masjid" and "jaami`" - are both masculine and therefore would be al-masjid al-`askariyy or al-jaami` al-`askariyy depending on which applies. Is that as clear as mud?

Looking at www.aljazeera.net, it refers to it as "mirqad al-imam `ali al-hadi" and "darih [mausoleum] al-imam `ali al-hadi" and doesn't mention it as the `askari anything. Palmiro | Talk 17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmiro is correct, I don't think this shrine is too widely known as the Askari Mosque in Arabic (see Cam's post below), but it is referred to as "Al-masjid al-Askari" by some sources and as 'Al-Rawda Al-Askariyah' in other writings. Rawda I think means 'under care' or 'sanctuary' or 'shrine' or something like that (we normally use it to refer to a kindergarten). As Palmiro said, Mirqad as probably a more popular name in Arabic. But 'Askariya' (fem) would follow 'Rawda' (fem), while 'Askari' (masc) follows 'Masjid' (masc). Ramallite ^(talk) 19:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what "hadhra" might be or might mean? Can't seem find it in the dictionaries I have in the house, though I may be missing something or just showing up the woeful state of my Arabic. Palmiro | Talk 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the same a Hazrat - an honorary title often translated as "holiness" which prefixes the name of prophets, imams etc. AndrewRT 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can we put a better pic of the mosque in the article.. the existing one is too grainy Hellznrg 17:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's so poor that I included in its caption a link to the pictures hosted by the BBC. I also added this article to Wikipedia:Requested photos. Tempshill 20:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the damaged mosque can be uploaded, from BBC or another source, and tagged with {{HistoricPhotoRationale}}. I'm not sure about a photo of undamaged mosque though. Nikola 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP needs to demand that publications that cite WP as a source also release some of their pictures as open source --mitrebox 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. I like it :) Nikola 06:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has added the transwiki link for German. Has anyone (who can read Arabic) checked through the Arabic or other wikis for the mosque article? --StuffOfInterest 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this mosque is one of Islam's holiest sites, I think that a bit more about it needs to placed into the article, since it's obviously a notable topic in itself even before it was bombed - it would be a shame if its past as a holy site was to be forgotten and all the emphasis placed on it's destruction. XYaAsehShalomX 19:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damage, not destruction. I'd be willing to bet that within two years there will be a new dome on the mosque. Still, you are right, there needs to be more history. That's why I think an Arabic speaker needs to go over to the Arabic Wikipedia to see if more material is available over there. --StuffOfInterest 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam sure does have a lot of "holiest" sites. --mitrebox 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to the attackers being Sunni. This has not been confirmed, though it is likely. Just felt we should not make assumptions or editorialize. Windthorst 21:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF in Baghdad the INTERIM-gouvernment President Talabani was presented as Sunni THEN this is a factor for a full-fletched civil war.

The attackers were Sunni because the attackers with Al-Qaeda, which is a Sunni Islamist organization. Armyrifle 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All we know from the source is that "The American authorities in Iraq said Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack." This is how the information should be reflected in the article. This is much different from saying that it is a hard fact that al Qaeda did this. Brjason (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the Arabic text in is frustrating me, right now as I put it it's backwards (It says Al-Askari mosque, but it's supposed to say mosque al-askari! close enough? (j/k) :o)

This is the link for the Arabic page. Not much info yet, but we should crosslink. http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A --GA

That's it?? That's a little disappointing... Grandmasterka 06:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi and Arabic classical pronounciation of the "The hidden Imam" .=. Machdi

The shrine is worth a significant article of its own, and the bombing is starting to look article-worthy as well. Perhaps we should split the two? SReynhout 00:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it's long enough. --cesarb 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until somebody blames American or Israel for this. oh wait already did that --mitrebox 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Reply to mitrebox 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any word on looters taking pieces of the dome?--mitrebox 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If most of the dome was destroyed, I doubt there was any gold of substastial worth. Muslim are unlikely to loot from their holy site.
  • Just like how their unlikely to use mosques as refuges from which to launch physical and social attacks? --mitrebox 23:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble finding evidence that this structure is a mosque, except in some media reports. It always seems to be called a shrine or a tomb/mausoleum in Muslim pages I am finding. I found this quote: "what their [U.S. forces'] spokesman called the 'Golden Mosque' which is, in fact, the magnificent shrine of two Shia Imams" (The Spectator, Dec. 6, 2003 [1]). Also see this page, which lists the mosques of Samarra without mentioning the golden-domed structure. The structure (the tomb of the two imams) is described in a separate section on tombs of Samarra. I'll keep googling … --Cam 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if this is technically a mosque (which, to the best of my understanding, would be a structure in which prayer services take place) but there was an excellent segment on NPR's All Things Considered today (Feb 22, 2006) about the structure. The shrine may be inside the mosque or may be the mosque proper. The shrine is one of 4 pilgrimage sites in Shia Islam in Iraq, and is the resting place of the 10th and 11th (of 12) Imams I think you've hit on an excellent point, however - is this structure a mosque or rather a housing place for the shrine? --ABQCat 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about this for quite some time...in fact, since the article was first created...this point seems to be a bit ambiguous at the moment. --HappyCamper 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With my crude searching and cruder Arabic skills, I could not find one Arabic name for this structure which is significantly more common than any other. I added an Arabic name for the building which appears several times in press releases at iraqigovernment.org and at arabic.cnn.com. Another common name I found is مرقد الامام علي الهادي (Marqad al-Imam `Ali al-Hadi, "Tomb of Imam Ali al-Hadi"). --Cam 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Greasysteve13 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand no, no one died in the blast. Except for the reprisals that is... AndrewRT 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The news reports which initially came out said that the authorities did not know whether there was anyone trapped under the rubble or not. I'm not sure whether this has changed or not yet. --HappyCamper 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why would shias bomb their own mosque? it is always sunnis, there are no other factions, wahabis are sunnis too.

What do you know of the History of India and Northern Ireland? - The attackers might not even be Muslim.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on... You're only deluding yourself, if you think this wasn't a Sunni attack. Why would a Shiite group destroy its holiest site? And you're definitely deluding yourself if you think the attackers weren't even Muslim (And please, no conspiracy-theories about the American army doing this). What's India or Northern Ireland have to do with a country where there's almost zero Protestants, Catholics or Hindu?--BlueTruth 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the history fo the United States, too? Remember Oklahoma City? While most respectable news outlets didn't claim it, almost everyone was thinking WTC bombing and Islamist militants. --Windthorst 15:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The United States are filled with different types of people; Iraq is not. Sure there are christian minoritys, but saying that they did it is buying what the terrorists are saying. Ore perhaps it was the JEWS and ZOG and ISRAEL. Ore perhaps the OIL COMPANYS, or the FREE MASONS. Come on, get real... / Carolus

because this is not the first time sunnis targeted shia shrines, last year sunnis bombed the samara spiral building

Do you have a reference for this, say a statement reported in the news media? --HappyCamper 10:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the attackers are Sunnis or Americans or Jews or Kurds or Iranians is baseless speculation and vandalism to put in this article. Saying this ot that famous person has charged this or that group with being behind the attack is part of how politics plays out and if referenced can be part of this article. WAS 4.250 11:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent with the history of the insurgency that this attack was carried out by Sunnis, particularly the mostly non-Iraqi extremists who consider Shi'as as non-Moslems. Sunnis don't revere these imams like Shia do. AndrewRT 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it is consistent with human history for people to attack in a way that throws blame on their enemies - have two enemies fight each other if possible. It is also consistent with human history for people to inaccurately blame a group they hate for whatever goes wrong. I think the Sunnis did it; but there ARE other possibilities. WAS 4.250 14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Reichstag fire for the prime example of why jumping to conclusions can play into the hands of evil. Tempshill 18:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall hearing about a certain non-muslim group planning on doing something just like this in the past... But enough already. WAS 4.250 has the right idea. Grandmasterka 20:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sunnis would have much to gain by bombing an islamic holy site even if it is most important to Shias. The group responsible would most likely be a third party who would want to throw Iraq into chaos, either because they want to make the Sunnis and Shias destroy each other, or to make both groups destroy the peace coalition forces have been working hard to maintain. I think Iran is pretty suspicious, how they cast the blame on America and Isrial. Their reason, "America and Isrial oppose god and justice", made no sense what so ever.

While discussion is fine, speculation, as WAS 4.250 pointed out, would be vandalism (because it goes against WP:NOR). KI 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is certain at this point: the perpetrators have not been definitively identified. It is therefore premature to ascribe the attack to "sectarian" violence. - Contributor

Would anyone oppose splitting this article into the current one and a page solely on the Al Askari mosque bombing? Seems to me it's important enough to stand on its own. KI 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely (I was thinking about it just a few minutes ago). This usually does not require a split request, so I'll make the move right now. joturner 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need to split the talk page as well moving almost all of the discussions their (archiveing them here) except for image and name. If there are no arguments I'll do so in approx 30 minutes --mitrebox 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the tenth and eleventh imams were poisoned is not supported. Unless I see some documentation I will delete it. J S Ayer 03:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular stance on the truth of this particular claim, but deleting information should be done if you can find credible information to the contrary or lack of substantiation. A simple google search for "ali al-hadi and poison" yields over 500 results. Many are mirrors of Wikipedia content, but there are several which are not including the citation I link here. http://www.islamicresearch.org/imamat_or_khilafat.htm. I think perhaps before deletion, you should work to substantiate the truth with a definitive citation. The mere speculation of poisoning should perhaps even be included in the article as "who may have been poisoned" or some such. Just a few ideas. --ABQCat 05:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... What? Who may or may not have been poisoned is not generally good content for an encyclopedia article. The burden of proof falls on whoever is adding content to an article to prove it is true. If no such proof can be found, then those things should not be stated as fact. And your link doesn't seem relevant at all to me. Grandmasterka 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that it's not worth including false or misleading facts or sheer speculation, however I know nothing about this subject except that the information was being purported false and I was able to do a search and at least find that it may not be as cut-and-dry as had been suggested. I don't know if there are groups of people who dogmatically consider him to have been poisoned, I don't know if it's considered blasphemous to say he may have been poisoned - in short, I know almost nothing on this subject except that I don't believe you should eliminate existing information from an article on the basis of lack of citation without even making a search for citation *yourself*. My link is certainly not very informative, but it suggests that there may (emphasis on MAY) be truth to the statement. At the very least, perhaps the person who added the information should be asked for a source? --ABQCat 07:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I added that - it is included in some of the sources cited as "references" -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Shia belief that Imam Hassan al-Askari (as) was poisoned. Armyrifle 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ran Google searches on the following at about 16:45 UTC today. Number of hits are shown; "with al" means including "al" in the quoted phrase, for example: "al askariya shrine" samarra.

If one wanted to go by commonness of usage, one would call this article "Golden Mosque" or perhaps "Golden Mosque of Samarra". However, this term may not be used in the Islamic world to refer to this structure (see my comment above), so perhaps "Askariya Shrine" would be better.

• "golden mosque" samarra: 106,000
• "askariya shrine" samarra: 62,600 (359 with al)
• "askari shrine" samarra: 23,100 (22,500 with al)
• "askariya mosque" samarra: 772 (206 with al)
• "askari mosque" samarra: 365 (302 with al)
• "askariyah shrine" samarra: 271 (32 with al)
• "golden shrine" samarra: 71
• "askariyah mosque" samarra: 14 (10 with al)
• "askariyya shrine" samarra: 5 (3 with al)
• "askariyya mosque" samarra: 0
• "askariyyah mosque" samarra: 0
• "askariyyah shrine" samarra: 0
  

--Cam 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated hits, 19:20 UTC today

• "golden mosque" samarra: 179,000
• "askariya shrine" samarra: 132,000 (12,200 with al)
• "askari shrine" samarra: 38,300 (35,700 with al)
• "askariya mosque" samarra: 33,800 (9,650 with al)
• "askari mosque" samarra: 11,600 (853 with al)
• "askariyah shrine" samarra: 921 (133 with al)
• "golden shrine" samarra: 133
• "askariyya mosque" samarra: 119 (117 with al)
• "askariyah mosque" samarra: 94 (73 with al)
• "askariyya shrine" samarra: 30 (21 with al)
• "askariyyah mosque" samarra: 0
• "askariyyah shrine" samarra: 0
  

--Cam 19:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone helpfully added pronunciation markers to the transliterations of Arabic words, but unfortunately they are not all rendered properly (for me, at least). To avoid ugly square boxes, I have besprinkled the article with {{IPA}} - the main problem seems to be the "ˤ" glyph - can this be written in another way that is more likely to be available in a standard character set? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your transliterations are not IPA really. Do you mean ISO? Unfortunately there is no official policy on dealing with Arabic transliteration in this Wikipedia. A possible way to render the letter you mention is with the backtick ` which is ASCII. Then the glottal stop can be the regular apostrophe ' . --Cam 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are not my translations, but I see what you mean. Arabic transliteration helps a little, but not a lot. I think the problem is transliterating ayin (ع, a pharyngeal consonant ([ʕ]) and hamza (ﺀ, a glottal stop, [ʔ]). In English, they both seem to become some sort of stop, so perhaps [‘] and [’] would be appropriate? Surely there must be a standard translitaration we can use? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, there is no standard English transliteration for Arabic, hence the complexity of Arabic transliteration and the associated Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Arabic). The latter suggests the [`], which is common in academic use, so I would recommend going with that unless you are going to use IPA forms systematically. In general, non-Arabic speaking anglophones are more likely to hear ع as a long vowel than as a stop, in my experience. Palmiro | Talk 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went with [‘], which looks better than the {{IPA}} version - but would [`] be better? As you may have noticed, I am awfully off-piste here - I am no no means an Arabist, so please let me know what would be best. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think "`" is better, though I'm not altogether convinced that we actually need either as it looks weird to the ordinary English-speaker as the first "letter" in a word. Palmiro | Talk 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are they going to rebuild it? --128.218.230.145 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in rebuilding info 198.160.96.25 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that any significant rebuilding will occur while people are still destroying parts of the mosque. However, I would like to see links to verified charities once that occurs...the loss of this beautiful structure is a terrible shame. Joel J. Rane 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link from a year after the bombing talking about how opposing political and religious concerns have prevented any rebuilding effort whatsoever. Perhaps some info from this could be included in the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/world/middleeast/13samarra.html?ei=5088&en=10bb52669d291914&ex=1329022800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

--Wowaconia 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture from bbc (here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/in_pictures_enl_1181729268/img/1.jpg) seems to show there is a bell in the center minaret, can it be mentionned somewhere (without the picture if it is not open source) ?

The Mosque is adjacent to the Golden shrine, hence seperate from it, no Salat prayers are done in the shrine. The shrine is only a Mausoleum dedicated to the dead. And all these attacks happened over the Shrines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldejung (talk • contribs) 07:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Askari Shrine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060306095818/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1632721%2C00050004.htm to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1632721,00050004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Askari Shrine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060304043720/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=11521 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=11521

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was not destroyed by 'extremists' - that is far too generic. It was destroyed by Sunni extremists. Just like virtually every terrorist attack carried out in Western Europe and the Middle East over the past years was carried out by Sunni extremists.

So, what good reason would one present to not be more specific and descriptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.170.194 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]