Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:52, 29 April 2008

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

	Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 1, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War 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 Misplaced Pages? 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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War 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 Misplaced Pages? 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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

Image header discussions

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"War on Terror"

In my humble opinion, this article should be taken off the "War on Terror" list. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 or any other terrorist attack. The "war on terror" association is just Bush propaganda. Afganistan is the war on terror. Iraq is not. Dalebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The stated cause for invading Iraq was to remove WMD's that might be given to terrorists. This is Misplaced Pages, we don't give two shits about your oppinion, this place is for facts.

I think that at the top of the info box it should say "Part of the War on Terror" just as the article on Vietnam says "Part of the Cold War"

Dunnsworth (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush did not provide any evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", so you could basically say that he just made the whole thing up. Because of his actions, thousands of people in Iraq are dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.210.243 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that there was "evidence" -- see Iraq War#Authorization for the use of force. Listing Port (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of discredited studies to give body count

The information that the CIA and other intelegence agencies had were that the wmd programs were still possiably on going and that saddam was also very restrictive on what the UN inspectors could do and couldnt do. So when many people disagree why we went into iraq i find it very hard to belive that they think it is a bad idea. Saddam hussien was the first dictator in moderen times to use chemical weapons aginst his own people and was using acts of genocide in the early 90's and also in the iran iraq war. should we just have let hitler go free and unpunished for using genocide no its the same concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.85.66 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I know this issue brings up a lot of hot and partisan feelings, and as such it's difficult to be objective. However, at this point, this page is atrociously biased in favor of some discredited studies, mainly the Lancet study (yes, it is discredited: see this "data bomb" by the non-partisan albeit hard hitting National Journal: ). And, even if it weren't, how do we get off claiming that the Iraq Body Count project "has been criticized for counting only a small percentage" whereas other studies claiming ridiculous numbers like 1,000,000 deaths receive no such disclaimer? I'm not even sure that the Lancet study ought to be mentioned at all, let alone consistently held up in the article as the most reliable one (e.g., the infobox, which only lists this study for total deaths). As it stands (and I'm ready to get attacked for saying so), this article stands as one of the most egregious examples of biased reporting on a political issue that I have seen to date. I will not even get into the POV language elsewhere. The fact that is being quoted as a reliable source only illustrates my point. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that The Lancet is a scientific journal with a lot of credibility, so it would be biased not to include it in the article as a source for the estimated causalities, IBC acknowledges they are an undercount Shifthours (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This subject keeps popping up frequently in various Iraq war pages. Who says that the Lancet study is discredited? Lancet is a highly respected journal. The scientific community at large accepts the validity of this study. There have been no arguments about the statistical validity of the study (except the allegation of "main street bias", which was countered). The Lancent study is supported by the independent ORB surveys - held twice - that estimate deaths to be over 1 million. SDas (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

you forget the True Conservative's Three Articles of Faith: "Global Warming is a hoax, Guns Prevent Crime, and the 'Lancet Study' has been debunked". Gzuckier (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the criticism for the Lancet study has been political in nature and not from acedemic peers. Where the criticism has come from acedemic peers those peers have been ideologically opposed to the study and thus have a vested interest in discrediting it. However, the Iraq Body Count study has a clear systematic error because it fails to count many causalties.58.165.235.188 (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess that means the normally reserved BBC, which called it highly controversial (not a term it has used for other studies) would thus qualify as part of the "True Conservative" movement. However, I believe some of you are proving my point correct in simply acting as partisans rather than debating the content. Again, I will bring this up, and let's see if someone can respond to the content and avoid doing I as I asked earlier not be done: bringing political allegiances into this: why is it that we are ignoring the numbers being used by the mainstream media in favor of a report not used by the mainstream media? How can this be called NPOV? I'm not seeing how a study funded by a known anti-war activist and done in a highly questionable systematic way is being preferred over studies done by non-involved entities.

In response to the content responses I received: to the IP: the Iraq Body count is not the only study on a much lower level (e.g., the Washington Post's numbers). To SDas: there have been plenty of arguments as to the statistical validity (I can rehash them if you'd like: it relied on self-reporting for a small number of households in a higher casualty area, it used a former member member of the Ba'ath party to do all the questioning without any supervision, and it was funded and run by several anti-war activists - something which should give anyway pause). To Shifthours: why is it that this study in a reputable journal is being heeded, but even less controversial studies in equally reputable sources are not even being mentioned? Like it or not, we must abide by neutral point of view here, and unfortunatley neutral is not always our point of view. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But your original assertion is incorrect, the Lancet study is not discredited and none of the other studies even come close to their scientific data gathering methods used in the Lancet study it's funny that I didn't read about baath party members fudging statistics on the wikipedia page for that study maybe because your source for this information is not even a reliable source, as far as I know baath party members were thoroughly purged from the government after 2003, only later were a few even allowed any positions (with objections from the ruling government in Iraq), if Soros donated funds to The Lancet, that means the study must be biased? The scientists and researchers were bribed? None of these claims can be verified. Thisglad (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Evil Spartan, "self-reporting .... without any supervision" - Care to show me some quantitative studies? --SDas (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't just say, "it's discredited", and that's that. It's a valid POV, and it should be presented, along with other significant viewpoints. Superm401 - Talk 05:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

@Superm401: Along with other viewpoints - at least, thank you. And yet, the other viewpoints are not even mentioned in the infobox - the primary and only viewpoints in the infobox are the ones given by Lancet, despite the fact that the mainstream media and governmental organizations around the world are using much much lower figures. @SDas, I will again provide the source given before (at least I think I gave it): National Journal, a non-partisan magazine dedicated to analyzing political trends. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to cite the National Journal article and a sentence stating that the Lancet study has its critics. The article (by Neil Munro, who is hardly "nonpartisan") just came out a couple months ago, and it has been criticized heavily (see here for a sentence-by-sentence refutation). It is fine to state that right wing commentators have criticized the study, but the overwhelming consensus of experts and of the media has been that the study's methodology was valid and that its conclusions are compelling. We should not remove it from the infobox or make major changes in how it is cited just because one hack managed to publish an article in the National Journal a couple months ago. csloat (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say I am not to keen on including the Lancet survey in the infobox, simply due to the many many objections by governments of multiple countries, but if it is to stay, what do you guys think about identifying the numbers as they are...estimates. I think this is the least that can be done. What sayeth thee? Arkon (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Elephant

The big elephant being ignored in this room is that the ORB survey of Iraq War casualties, the largest house-to-house survey to date run by a professional scientific survey firm for the BBC, suggests even more deaths than the Lancet results. CKCortez (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Title of Article

It seems Americentric and vague to make "Iraq War" the title of the article. Wouldn't something along the lines of "2003 US-Iraq war" be more neutral? I know that my suggested title is kind of messy, but I basically think that anything would be better than "Iraq War".

Not seeing how it's Americentric, exactly. It was a multinational coalition which participated; granted this was spearheaded by the US, but Britain and others cannot be counted out, and the focal location is and always has been Iraq. No "official" name has been given to the conflict, major media refers to it as the "Iraq War" or "War in Iraq" almost universally, and it has been going on for more than five years now -- not limited to 2003 (unless Sino-European War of 1937 would also be appropriate). Considering all of these things, I see nothing wrong with leaving the title the way it is, unless someone can find a compelling reason to the contrary. ~ S0CO 09:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_8#Requested_move. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it less Americentric to say "2003 US-Iraq War", when there are many other countries and entities involved (Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, Iran, etc.)? I think the title "Iraq War" is fine. Superm401 - Talk 05:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You two bring up a good point about it being a multinational coalition(like I said, my proposed title kind of sucked), but when you say that "major media" outlets refer to it as the "Iraq war", you are referring to American/western news outlets. This isn't the only war that Iraq has been involved in. The title is comparable to Iraqis referring to it as the "America war".--68.149.181.145 (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the war is confined to Iraq and that the Iraqi combatants haven't set up a second front anywhere else, like the USA or UK or launched a submarine fleet to battle it out under the ocean waves (unless you know different...). Colin4C (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of a title change. Iraq has, as they say, been involved in a number of wars. I think "2003 Iraq War" would probably be sufficient, though "2003 US-Iraq war" would probably be better. Yes I know other countries were involved, but nobody doubts that the US was the prime mover here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But is is not the '2003' war anymore than the Second World War was the '1939' war. Everyone knows it as the 'Iraq War'. Mention the 'Iraq War' at a bus stop or a bar and everybody will immediately know what you are talking about. Iraq is the focus of the war, attacked by forces from many different nations and also attracting jihadists from several different countries as part of the defence and being the site of a civil war also. This latter involves Iraq vs Iraq. Therefore the 'Iraq War' is the most apt designation. Colin4C (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI for everyone, "official" names have been given to this conflict depending on the country you are in. In the American case, we call it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which I PROUDLY took part in. Call it Americentric. I don't care. Feral Mind (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The obvious previous equivalent of the term 'Iraq War' is the 'Vietnam War'. In theory the latter could have been called the US-Vietnam War but nobody ever did. As for 'Iraqi Freedom', history will judge... Colin4C (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, isn't Operation Iraqi Freedom a conflict? War was never formally declared; I disagree with the title being the "Iraq War" --Alpha Apache —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.119.80 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember this being addressed several times in the archives; per WP:NC, we use what the major media uses. Listing Port (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In respone to someone saying the Iraq War is not a war because it was never declared. Dictionary.com says War-a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air; says nothing about war having to be declared. Dunnsworth (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to realize, Dunnsworth, is that in the United States, war is to be declared by Congress. See Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. This is a matter under some debate, as the framers left the ability in the president's hands to fend off sudden attacks, etc, a scope that most would probably agree is there more for defense and retaliation than initiating a war. This, however, would make the "war" with Iraq unlawful, legally obscure at best, as it was never "truly" declared one to begin with. Calling it the Iraq Conflict would be the more neutral and politically correct terminology. 12.202.189.47 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Slanted

This article is why I do not allow my college students to use Misplaced Pages as a source.

The information is slanted and useless. The most recent example is the reference to Woods' and Lacey's report Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," vol. 1.

The Misplaced Pages article uses this paper to "prove" Saddam and Al Qaeda did not cooperate. In fact, the report states that Saddam DID cooperate with elements of Al Qaeda - just not the leadership. Read the abstract on Page 93 if you don't want to search the entire document. I know many of you will do as I ask because you appear incapable of reading the entire report.

There are several other references which are OPINION pieces rather than investigative reports. Poorly done, vapid, and slanted -- three things we should banish from Misplaced Pages entries.

Iraqi Perspectives Project. Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents. Volume 1 (Redacted)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas J. Mason (talk • contribs) March 22, 2008

Your profession and negative views towards wikipedia are rather irrelevant here, and please refrain from making personal attacks against wikipedia editors, anyway this information is irrelevant to this article, perhaps you should see the article Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline which discusses the alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda in detail and is well sourced (most of these allegations are debunked) Thisglad (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What? His negative views come as a result of what he sees as inaccuracy. He doesn't see it as an inaccuracy because of his negative views. Did you take the time to look into what he was saying, or did you just immediately avoid it? He's not saying that any allegations were debunked, he's saying that the information presented, which cite the report "Iraqi Perspectives Project" are improper due to the actual contents of said report. I think this is a very valid point, and that you shouldn't ignore it simply because of his profession or negative view of this article. Professor, go ahead and make the edit, you have my blessing. And I think the more views of professors the better! Beamathan (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Page 93 says, "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely." Do you believe that this is at odds with what the article says? ("Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had been cooperating, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found.") 12.7.175.2 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

IRAG R LOSING THE WAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.156.149 (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that President Bush speaking? Colin4C (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C: It's too bad that Bush didn't send troops to IRAG instead and left poor Iraq alone. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anonymous college professor that this Misplaced Pages sounds very slanted. The article minimizes the proven links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. To come back to the question by User: 12.7.175.2, yes, the report contradicts the sentence "Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had been cooperating, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found." The 2008 Pentagon report certainly proves that there were links. The only way you can deny such a link is if you very narrowly define "al-Qaeda" as the immediate group of terrorists around Osama bin Laden. That would be a misunderstanding of what al-Qaeda is. I don't have a link to the full report but a good argument is brought forward by Stephen Hayes in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp.

I am afraid some of the opinions here are either falling for the ambiguous and misleading use of language that was such a feature of the build up to war or are themselves indulging in purposeful use of such language. There is no evidence of any real "collaborative relationship" between al-Quaeda and Hussein. There were some contacts between Hussein and some members of al-Quaeda but then there have in the past been links between Donald Rumsfeld and Hussein, at which the US administration gave Hussein assistance, and members of the British Government and the IRA! "Links", as it is phrased somewhat ambiguously, are not the same as a "collaborative relationship" and any professor who elides the two is not worth his tenure. Let's take that sentence from page 93 again: "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely." We are obviously dealing with fine terminological distinctions here, but does that really conflict with a statement in the article saying there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship? Perhaps the sentence might be better phrased more fully: "...but, although some links between Hussein's government and members of al-Queda have been alleged, a sustained collaborative relationship between the two organisations has not been found".As it stands,however, it is not slanted nonsense but actually a rather fair, if brief summary of the current evidence. I think it is a pity that someone who seems unable to read his sources without getting his glasses steamed up with apparently partisan fury seems so quick to criticise others in such arrogant terms.Buyo (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the article mentions Saddam's support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Dream Academy (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sentence flow

From the article: The fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war on 20 March was marked by a speech by George Bush declaring that the surge strategy had been a success and that America was headed for victory. Other commentators were less optimistic.

The sentence "Other commentators were less optimistic." implies that George Bush is simply a commentator, which is misleading. He's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and by virtue of being in this role, his speech is more important than that of an ordinary commentator, regardless of the veracity of his assessment. I suggest that "Other commentators were less optimistic" be rewritten as something like "Commentators were less optimistic" or "Commentators have disagreed with Bush's claim of progress." Just get rid of the word "Other", basically. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bush is both actor and commentator and your suggested 'improvements' are even more awkward than the original IMHO. Colin4C (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't look now, but your blatant POV is showing. I am certain that we can improve this sentence in a neutral way. Ursasapien (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When someone comments on something, they are a commentator even if they have other roles. 12.7.175.2 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a wikipedia account, please could someone add a preposition to

"...along Afghan-Pakistani border" eg "...along the Afghan-Pakistani border" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.169.163 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Death toll reaches 4000

CBS's up-to-the-minute reports just announced that with a recent car bombing in Iraq, with the death of four, the number of US soldiers dead in Iraq just reached 4000. Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added this info to the article. Colin4C (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Did they have a daily "death toll" in WW2? star 22:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CIVILIAN DEATH TOLL

I wanted to recomend that we remove the Johns Hopkins (Lancet) casualty survey and replace it with the widely respected tally by Iraq Body Count of 82,349 to 89,867 Iraqi civilians killed. I have two reasons for this, the first one is that the current casualty estimate by them is out of date, almost two years old. And if the count was correct, which is not 100 percent certain, it was most probably already updated with the Opinion Research Business survey from August 2007. The second is that the Lancet survey included all deaths, including accidents and health which have nothing to do with the war. But mostly I want to remove it, again, because it is out of date. Does anyone have any objections to this.(Top Gun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to removing the study by The Lancet and you brought this up before and didn't get any support, who says IBC is more respected than the Lancet? The Lancet is a scientific journal founded in 1823, IBC is a website that tracks media reports and doesn't have access to any other data nor do they perform any research of their own, if you think the media reported every single excess death in Iraq you are mistaken and IBC admits they are a undercount. If anything IBC is far less credible than The Lancet, the reasoning for determining excess deaths from war is the same reasoning used for calculating the civilian cost of every other major war. Thisglad (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of a body count, period. I do not think it is useful information in analyzing any conflict. Nevertheless, regarding the issue at hand, it does not matter which source is used as long as it is qualified. If we use IBC, there should be an asterisk linked to the proper section in the article that describes how the data was collected. The same should be done if we continue to use the Lancet information. Perhaps both figures should be included to maintain balance and neutrality. By all means, we should not portray either estimate as 100% accurate. Ursasapien (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As the article says, the IBC admits that they are a substantial undercount. The Lancet survey did not count "all deaths," just "excess deaths" after the invasion. And the subsequent ORB survey is even larger. 12.7.175.2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect the IBC research, but I would rather support including something like between 100,000 an 1 million dead. The IBC number is a minimum--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The introduction already says that "estimates range from 150,000 and 1 million." I think that's more reasonable than "between" which is not what the sources say, it would be a synthesis. 12.7.175.2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq war is wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.145.50 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

64.8.145.50: Well, even though I agree with you, this is no soapbox. Start a website devoted to your meritorious statement, okay? 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including multiple estimates. The IBC number is strictly based on media reports, and Lancet is more of a casualty survey--which probably means the true number of civilian casualties is somewhere in the middle. Until more accurate numbers from official verifiable sources can be listed, there's no reason not to list Lancet and IBC. Publicus 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The IBC's method of counting is silly. You can't give a good estimation of the casualities from this kind of conflict based on media reports (the IBC project have acknowledged this themselves, saying that "maybe a majority of the deaths will go unnoticed", or something similar). So I believe there is a reason not to list the IBC numbers, because it would unjustly undermine the three serious surveys (ORB, Lancet, WHO). Check out other war articles with large numbers of casualities - the numbers are approximations, not "based on english language media reports." --82.183.224.40 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is why IBC appears in the section on estimates but not the infobox. Listing Port (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that the WHO survey is just as old as the Lancet's study. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Basra is underrepresented in the 2008 section

There's only one sentence about the recent conflagration in Basrah. This blogger has a fairly decent summary of some of the more interesting recent events. Listing Port (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apropos this just to say that a remarkably well timed book "Muqtada Al-Sadr and the Fall of Iraq" by Patrick Cockburn is being published in a couple of weeks from now. Colin4C (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Shit just hit the fan.

PKK in infobox??

I think it is very misleading to include anything about the PKK in the infobox for this article. PKK terrorists fighting for the creation of an independent Kurdistan has nothing to do with the Iraq War other than geographical proximity and the politics involved with Turkey entering Iraq after its destabilisation. Its position in the infobox implies that the PKK is fighting on the side of the Baath party and the insurgency against the Americans, which is totally false. I can understand a desire to mention the PKK in the article, but they are part of a very seperate conflict and placing them on such a simplified diagram is bound to mislead readers without prior knowledge. DJLayton4 (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I recall part of the justification for the American invasion in 2003 was how cruel Saddam had been to the Kurds. This conflict has a whole range of combatants differentiated by ethnicity and religion and politics and class, involved in shifting alliances with each other with both domestic and international ramifications. I agree with you that it isn't simple but I disagree that the conflicts are separate (just to add that the weird idea that the conflict represents Good versus Evil is only held by a few fundamentalist nutters in Washington and a Cave on the Pakistan/Afghanistan Border). Colin4C (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

PKK and Turkey should be included in the infobox. There are active military operations ongoing in Northern Iraq/Iraqi Kurdistan. As time has showed, the Iraq war is more than just coalition forces fighting Saddam's forces--it has evolved into Shia fighting Shia or Sunni fighting Shia or Shia fighting Sunni, etc. The PKK v Turkey conflict is also quite a significant due to the complicated alliances, since Turkey is a member of NATO and presumably an ally of the coalition members, US, UK--AND the Iraqi Kurds are also close allies of the coalition (no US troops have been killed in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2003). Publicus 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents

I have added "Blackwater Mercenaries" to the list of belligerents in this conflict. User Uga Man reverted the edit. I am under the impression that Coalition forces are supported by Blackwater Worldwide personnel, who engage deliberately in combat with the intent of projecting force into areas controlled by the military opponents of the Coalition or of frustrating the projection of force by said, making them a belligerent force in the ongoing conflict between the Coalition and opposition forces in Iraq. Unless someone can produce evidence to the contrary, I think I am justified in dereverting the page.

Certified: the above written by S. Martin at 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? It is up to the editor wishing to add information to provide references that verify said information. In other words, WP:PROVEIT. Show me a reliable source that calls Blackwater Worldwide personnel a military force in this conflict. Until then, discuss don't revert war. Ursasapien (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

we include turkey in the list and south korea and japan (non combat troops only) so why not blackwater, they clearly take a side in the conflict whether it be for monetary gain rather than diplomatic reasons like some countries, I think blackwater should included in the list with coalition countries, they qualify as a 'Belligerent' since their forces have participated in combat on numerous occasions, far more than Japan or South Korea for example Thisglad (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were reasonable to do this, since Blackwater and other contractors' presence is comprised of hundreds of detachments reporting to different U.S. government commands, it would not be practical to list their "commanders" as we do with all of the belligerents. Listing Port (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the commander of blackwater would be the CEO it seems, but that doesn't have to be listed in the commanders section, but even if it was, whats the problem with that? Iraqi Kurdistan and 'awakening councils' are also not countries, if blackwater can't be included then they shouldn't be either. Thisglad (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/washington/02blackwater.html " Blackwater has been involved in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005, according to a US Congress report" "he report cites two incidents in 2004 when Blackwater contractors joined in military actions, including a firefight in Najaf alongside US and Spanish forces, and another when a Blackwater helicopter team helped a US military unit take control of a mosque, firing at ground targets from the helicopter." they engaged in combat enough times to qualify as a belligerent Thisglad (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These contractors are NOT an independent force. They are always under the command and control of the U.S. DOD. Ursasapien (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the reference particulars, I think I'm okay with this.

According the congressional report Blackwater gunmen engaged in offensive operations alongside uniformed American military personnel in violation of their State Department contract. The report cites two instances in which Blackwater gunmen engaged in tactical military operations. One was a firefight in Najaf in 2004 during which Blackwater employees set up a machine gun alongside American and Spanish forces. Later that year, a Blackwater helicopter helped an American military squad secure a mosque from which sniper fire had been detected.

Is it a first in modern military history to use contractors in a forward offensive? CKCortez (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? The first time in history that mercenaries have been used in a military offensive? It is not even the first time in U.S. military history. Are you saying you are okay with including a summary of Blackwater's role in the text or are you speaking of including Blackwater as a seperate group of combatants in the "Beligerants" list? I think the former is appropriate and important but the latter is laughable. Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can provide reliable sources for your claim of a corporation providing combat troops in a U.S war. You say the DoD controls Blackwater, that's untrue, the U.S Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard are directly controlled and run by the DoD, Blackwater Worldwide is a independent corporation and works only on a contract, they are not even all American citizens (it just happens to be based in the U.S), if they engage in combat operations they should be listed separately as a belligerent, they are not members of the U.S military or U.S federal government employees. Thisglad (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically all Coalition forces are under controlled by co-operating allied commanders, nonetheless, each country is listed separately. Since blackwater has sent more troops there than anyone on the list expect the U.S., why not include them as well? Certified: the above written by S. Martin at 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater should not be listed as a separate combatant. Technically, they are private security contractors employed by the US government--which means they would fall under the list of US forces, not as an independent combatant. Unfortunately, the current US military system has six branches; Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Contractors. Publicus 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

that is original research on your part, contractors are not subject to U.S military law unlike department of defense employees Thisglad (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Black water is a contractor, primarily providing security services to the State Department. Are we going to list the State Department as an independent combatant? MWShort (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater engaging

Setting aside the question of whether they should be in the infobox, why don't we have anything about the fact that they have been violating their State Department contract by engaging in tactical military operations? 76.225.156.160 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The source for that is in italics under "Belligerents" above. Dream Academy (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Graph

Is it time to update this graph? It stops last September, but the graph's upward trendline for casualties is no longer valid when the lull since September is accounted for. Art LaPella (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what an up-to-date graph looks like. Art LaPella (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are some nice graphs! But they don't show the recent uptick, and they do show a lot of stuff that the graph you are proposing to replace doesn't. Here is a similar graph with the uptick. Listing Port (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find the uptick. Did you mean the uptick in the total number of troops, or did you mean the uptick from December to January? Actually, my second graph, which shows US deaths, does show the uptick from December to January, although it looks more like a little bounce in a larger move downhill. More importantly, don't you agree that the existing graph's red line sloping upwards, which says that casualties are increasing, is now false? Do we really want that false assertion in a Misplaced Pages article? Art LaPella (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant the uptick in the past 30 days, but I see yours does indeed show an uptick to "3/2008". Looking at that graph, I can not say for sure because I haven't asked a regression program, but I would venture to guess that the trend line for the entire war is still sloped upward. The vast confidence interval is so large, though, that the trend line serves little purpose. Do you intend to trace a new graph? Tracing public data points from a graph is not against copyright law. Listing Port (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the main point that the trend line serves little purpose. I have no experience with uploading Misplaced Pages images at all, so I was just commenting, not contributing a graph. Art LaPella (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Operations != War ??

Should Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation TELIC have their own articles? For example, Operation Iraqi Freedom is an administrative term describing the U.S. contribution to the war, not the war as a whole, and its article would focus on U.S. troop deployments, funding, etc. Note that there are separate articles for Operation Enduring Freedom and the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). David (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War Religious Aspects

I am not finding any discussion of religious aspects of Iraq War in the article. Certainly there are enough religious aspects as a casual search on google and youtube would reveal. Shouldn't there be some appropriate text in the article discussing this? Desione (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

References for Iraq war as a "religious war":

• Howard's End: The History Of Christianity Vs Islam http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0109/S00176.htm
• General Casts War in Religious Terms http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm
• Rebuild with Iraq religious assets http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0519/p09s02-coop.html
• Radical Christian Missionaries in Iraq http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owCXbDVTLRE
• From Cold War to Holy War http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE13Ak02.html
• http://www.gwu.edu/~history/directory/ribuffo.leo/Bush.ja.doc
• http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/blogger/archive/2004_03_17_archive

Why don't you post something here on the talkpage first. Then we can see what you were thinking about. Ursasapien (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

However, despite the ceasefire order militiamen kept their weapons and blended back into the population leaving Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki politically defeated. Also the Iraqi security forces performed poorly against the militia during the fighting which raised questions again if the Iraqi military and police are still not ready to assume security operations in the country.

This is hardly fair. Its much too early to declare Mailiki politically defeated. The offensive against the Mahdi Army left inconclusive results-no one achieved total victory, and neither side capitulated. This paragraph suggests that Sadr and his militia dealt a complete and total defeat to the Iraqi and Coalition security forces, which isn't true. Misplaced Pages's own article on the anti-Mahdi Army offensive declares the fighting inconclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabravo11 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also not fair to say the ISF performed poorly. They did very well in Najaf, Karbala, Al Kut and the other cities in south center Iraq. The reason they did poorly in Basra is because Maliki forced the operation to start before the Iraqi army was fully in position and before they had the food, water and ammunition they needed for the fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbini (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No formal 'Declaration of War'

We didn't declare war. Congress passed a bill authorizing the President to use force against Iraq. I find it troubling that it's not mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightskye (talk • contribs) 04:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War#Authorization for the use of force. It might sound like a big deal if you're new to it, but Congress has essentially offered carte blanche to the President as far as military action goes for something like 2 weeks or 90 days, ever since the advent of the atomic ICBM. The Supreme Court says that's an okay reason. Listing Port (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the recent history is in the US, but here in the UK the last armed conflict in which there was a formal declaration of war was WWII. We didn't even declare war with Argentina in the Falklands. Mayalld (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

no mention of international law?

Kinda surprised not to find the terms "international law" or "war crime" in the article... google gives 217,000 results for the search: "iraq war" "interational law" and more for "war crime" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlevitt (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a quote from Kofi Annan under "Opposition to the invasion" and if you click through the see-alsos at the top of that section (supersection) maybe there is something there. Listing Port (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added

but those last two articles should probably be merged(?) Listing Port (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Liberation

It was also named this for a brief period, no? The story was that the White House was surprised once the acronym was discovered . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.40.237 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Source please. This seems like silly urban legend. Ursasapien (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is already referenced in 2003 invasion of Iraq. The source is a primary one (a White House Press Briefing), however, and it's not clear to me that it is a good source on which to draw the conclusion that article does. For all we know Ari Fleischer may have misspoke. Anyhow, the reference is there, maybe I'll toodle off to question the veracity of the reference on that page. Debate (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

We'll need a new section here on Rumsfeld von Goebbels and his propaganda machine.

Are there any editors who are active, someone who would be willing to participate in crating such section?

Any help would be appreciated, here is initial source (probably the best reference)>

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

However, the tarnishing facts entered the mainstream and initial report will probably be extended, so there is lot of ground to cover. Please, share your thoughts. Tachyonbursts (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be much more neutral in order to have an article like that on Misplaced Pages. Comparing Rummy to a nazi is not encyclopedic (and I personally can't stand the man). Czolgolz (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're not in the article main space and I have no intention at all to call Rummy Goebbels there (although we could easily draw some historical parabolas and we wouldn’t miss the point). Anyway, I'd say we can be a bit more relaxed here at the backstage, so please, just focus on the provided source, all I'm saying is that we should carry it and reference it here. Although propaganda at the time of war is not uncommon, NYT expose really showed the size of that thing, and these new revelations definitely deserve some space. That said, I'm all for NPOV, and I have no intention at all to let my personal view spill out of the talk-pages…

So, to clear things up a bit, I'd suggest we call this new section 'Run-up to Iraq' or 'Pentagon propaganda program', or something along those lines… That first sentence above was to serve as descriptor, nothing more. Please keep in mind that we're dealing with the developing, or rather current event.

Here is a pretty good summary for those who prefer quick scan on the issue>

Pentagon Propaganda: So Much Worse Than We Thought, any thoughts? Tachyonbursts (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think the link you posted is anywhere in the galaxy of neutral, all hope is lost. The NYT is not neutral, but alternet.org is left wing propaganda that should not be considered reliable. Your bias is clearly showing in your Reductio ad Hitlerum. Perhaps, Rumsfeld would be better compared to Henry L. Stimson who facilitated the necessary propaganda to sell WWII.

If you would like to have a paragraph that states that there was an organized campaign to ramp up support for the Iraq War, then write one on this page. Other editors can tweak it and we can build consensus before moving it to the main article. However, find good sources and avoid kooky conspiracy theories (and tone down the unecessarily inflamatory rhetoric). Ursasapien (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, this is developing issue which entered the mainstream, , . It seems to me that it is maturing nicely; there will be no need for alternative or biased references. Please, consider carefully what's been written so far, and no, I don't think that particular reductio is applicable on the issue. There are some serious flaws here, but we'll get them in due time. One such flaw is lack of 9/11-Iraq link which is already recognized within Misplaced Pages. If no one is willing to participate in this effort I'll take upon your advice, as soon as time allows.

'Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.' Tachyonbursts (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Former good article nominees