Talk:Iraq War

Baghdad

US Forces are still in Baghdad. I know because I have been there.205.110.156.226 (talk)

Commanders

Can someone answer why George W Bush and Obama are listed as commanders in the war? I thought the title of CIC is just a title and doesn't give jurisdiction over the armed forces? If anything, the commanders are the ones that plan the strategic elements in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.252.33 (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a title. The President of the United States is the highest commander of the US military. They literally have direct command over the entire military. The president commands the generals.--Abusing (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

US Coalition Victory?

The main info box accompanying this article includes the following phrase: "US Coalition Victory." Huh? Then why does the U.S. still have hundreds of thousands of troops and contractors in Iraq? And if the war is over, why are our troops still getting shot and blown up? It's true: the current war is not "classic" military textbook-style war; the U.S. is facing asymmetric warfare. But asymmetric warfare is war, nonetheless. Respected military writers like Thomas Ricks have documented how, not only is the war still ongoing, but it will likely last many more years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to mention Tom Fox in the list of people killed alongside Margaret Hassan in the section entitled Insurgent groups. Is there any objection? Thank you. 86.203.17.169 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the surge

One of the things on the to-do list is to provide more information on the success of the surge. The surge as a turning point in the war has been widely acknowledged across media and policy sources, but this article mostly seems to avoid the issue, instead focusing on failures to draw down troops as promised and more violence in the section about the troop surge. This section seems particularly biased by specifically ignoring much information, including information that is by now the accepted consensus. For this article as a whole to read in a neutral manner (which it doesn't really right now) this section definitely needs to be fixed first. Bonus Onus (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Title

I am proposing a change of title to Occupation of Iraq because this would be a more accurate title than "Iraq War". Izzedine (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. "Iraq War" is the only term I have heard for the entire conflict so I believe that is the most appropriate name for the article. Andy120290 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• This article describes the occupation of Iraq, not an "Iraq War"
• There would not be a "France War" or an "Italy War" or a "Turkey War".
• Occupation of Poland
• Occupation of Japan
• Occupation of Denmark
• Occupation of Norway
• Occupation of Nicaragua
• Occupation of Czechoslovakia
• Occupation of France
• Occupation of Lebanon
• Occupation of Lithuania
• Occupation of Luxembourg
• Occupation of the Channel Islands
• Occupation of Mongolia
• Occupation of Araucanía. Izzedine (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point, but the article does describe the background leading up to, the invasion of, and the occupation of Iraq. Simply calling the whole article "Occupation of Iraq" would be kind of a misnomer. Especially when there already exists an article dealing solely with the occupation period (Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present). Andy120290 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So we have 2003 invasion of Iraq and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present. In that case, we don't need [Iraq War]. I propose we make it a disambig page to the invasion and occupation articles. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with proposed change. every occupation starts with an invasion, so calling it occupation is not a misnomer. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't just an occupation. There was an invasion and occupation, but unlike the invasion of Panama or the occupation of Japan, the occupation included a large scale conflict -- a war -- in addition to the occupation. The invasion, the occupation, and the war are not the same thing. The conflict is certainly notable enough for its own article, without question. However, I do think the sections that cover the invasion and the occupation need to be greatly shortened, with more emphasis placed on their respective main articles. The Iraq war covers all of the topics we're discussing, but this article doesn't need to give complete coverage of something that has its own article.--Abusing (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on this leaves the impression that the occupation was intentional or @least part of the original warplan. It was not.

But as too often happens in govt. & industry, tactics were heavily revised without regard to strategy or to a timetable (which was originally 6 wk or March 20 thru May 1, 2003; as in "Mission Accomplished"). Am. forces occupied mainly Baghdad, then Iraq, because of a series of tactical blunders (e.g., allowing unimpeded looting & chaos for the first month, moving 10s of thousands of troops back to Kuwait) that culminated with our guys battling insurgents. "Occupation Iraq" implies intentionality: the war was intentional; the occupation was not; altho for the honchos to deny it would mean 'fessing to the tactical blunders, which's happened but so gradually that no one's noticed. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "occupation":

1. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory.

7. the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces

Definition of "war":

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Occupation is clearly the more appropriate, since conflict in Iraq involves foreign forces vs. indigenous forces. The term "Iraq War", in the context of the "war" definition, almost implies a civil war where all parties are Iraqi, which isn't the case. Of course, it is called this to give the impression that the state of Iraq is fighting the war, which is not the case. I'm voting for a change of title to "Occupation of Iraq". 82.0.220.117 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

British commanders

Such as HM Queen Elizabeth II and Major General Andy Salmon?

They should be on the commanders list, should they not? Flosssock1 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrible POV in intro, rewrite needed?

The information in the introduction pretty much consists of the following, in order:

• see also link to legality of the war in Iraq
• Definition of "Iraq War"
• War casualties
• Number of oprphans
• Number of uprooted Iraqis
• Opinions of illegality of the war and war crimes
• The UN had no evidence of WMD but "the US government announced that "diplomacy has failed", abruptly advised the UN weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Iraq and decided to wage war on Iraq."
• No evidence supporting the reasons for invasion was found
• Other reasons for the invasion
• Occupation
• Sectarian violence and insurgency
• Civilians killed in 2007
• One vague sentence on improvements
• Failed state index
• Coalition withdrawl
• Relevant government agreements
• US withdrawl

Does that really look like a neutral presentation of information to anyone? Not only is the information presented in a negative way, the style and tone of the introduction seem to be negatively biased. I think a rewrite is needed, or at the very least, some of the more specific information needs to be removed from the introduction. The intro is too long as it is; it should be shortened to a brief background and outline of the conflict, and it's current status, what it's accomplished, etc. There's no need for statistics such as the number of orphans caused by the war to be presented in the first paragraph of the introduction. --Abusing (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

do you think there is a positive way of presenting information about the war? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, all I know is that there's a neutral way of presenting information, and that's how it's supposed to be.--Abusing (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

UN weapon inspectors were denied access by the Iraqi government they weren't ordered out by the US thats utter crap. Reference is Peter Costellos autobiography - ahhh but we live in the disinformation age. The sheer ignorance of the anti-war majority is astounding. Put yourself in Bushes position. Your country has been attacked by terrorists, a country suspected of supporting terrorists kicks out UN weapon inspectors, you've got the worlds most powerful military at your control - would you sit on your hands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.129.190 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This has since been  Done --Abusing (talk)

Automobile

May I add link to Automobile because US & UK need their oil, & might be the cause of this whole war? Stars4change (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Bias?

This article mentions that President Obama has announced a strategy for withdrawal. What it does not show anywhere (I have checked other articles for this too) is that President Bush was the one who signed the withdrawal deal with Maliki, giving a timetable for Iraqi withdrawal. [1]

Also I have seen countless, countless references to hatred of Bush in Iraq and the humanitarian situatioin there (this article mentioned the number of orphans at least twice) but I haven't seen any examples of gratitude which the troops no doubt encounter on a daily basis. Even if most Iraqis are against the occupation, there are most definitely those who are glad that Saddam is out of power. If this article is going to point out critics, it should at least mention supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.237.17 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Start Date of War

We know now that the beginning of military operations in Iraq started at 5:25AM, March 19th 2003, with the bombing of the Presidential Palace and the address of the nation by Pres. George W. Bush that same day, as this report shows. Why is the start date of the war still March 20th? Outback the koala (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no comment in the next day or two, then I will go ahead and change the date. Outback the koala (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It may have been March 19 in the US, but it was March 20 in Iraq. Here [2] sixth aniversary of invasion clearly celebrated on March 20, not 19.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable quotes

I was just reading through this section and I noticed a few quotes from what appears to be non-notable people, two of which aren't even named. They all seem to be making the same point, IE the US is bad, caused terrorism, etc. I agree, but I don't think these quotes should included in the article as in doing so we're giving them undue weight. I'm probably gonna delete them if no one has any objections. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkey as belligerents?

Turkey did not actually take place in Iraq invasion coalition (in 2003). The turkish parliament have rejected the involment of turkish troops into the Iraq War on 1 March 2003. The clashes with PKK ist not a part of the Iraq War, this crisis resumes for nearly 30 years. So I think Turkey should not be in Belligerents List of the Iraq War, neither the PKK. I tried to change it but i could not manage to do. Can someone change it correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.22.18 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The US military in Iraq provided intelligence to the Turks about the PKK so they can strike them. This was greed to previously by editors.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

89.216.236.127's Unconstructive Edits

Comments moved from My Talk Page.

Outback the koala, please listen. My edit to the Iraq war article was not unconstructive, on the contrary. The infobox was like that for years. However, Kassjab recently messed up the infobox in a way that the civilian casualties are in the Mahdi Army row (his way it looks like that 1,000,000 Mahdi army insurgents died and not civilians) and the overall insurgent casualties are only in the Sunni faction row (the number of insurgents killed provided includes both Sunni and Shia). Leave it as it is please. At the very least if you have a problem please discuss it before reverting. Thank you.89.216.236.127 (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your User contributions page shows that you have begun to edit wikipedia as of today (26 October 2009), please consider creating a user account in the future, this way when you change computers the edits you have made will be identified as from you. The info box identifies that the killed are civilians, the box you are concerned with does not apply to the Mahdi army and is clearly under the Casualties and losses section. I will be reverting these edits and will be placing notification on your talk page as well. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not started editing on Wikipedia today, I have edited for four years...It's just that my cable network changes my ip every week or so. As for my edit in the South Ossetian Conflict, you said and I quote refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia which can be considered vandalism, that is so untrue. You didn't even check the reference I provided since you claim this. The reference I provided is from the official Georgian Ministry of Defence site which cleary states that 161 soldiers have been listed as killed up to date and 9 are missing, which is in contrast with the reference you are reinserting that states 185 dead. Please check the reference before accusing me of vandalism. As for the Iraq war article. I was only reverting Kassjab's edits. He put the civilian casualties in the Mahdi army coloumn in the infobox. Also, the Mahdi army has been separated from the Sunni faction of the insurgents, while the casualties provided in the Sunni coloumn on the number of dead insurgents is for both the Sunni and the Shia insurgents killed, not just Sunni. Do you understand me? The main point here is that the number of insurgents in the box is for both Sunni and Shia, and Kassjab separated them without consulting other editors. And yes I have an account I just wasn't in the mood to log in if that's so much of a problem to you than I will log in and make my edits but please don't revert me since my edits clearly don't constitute vandalism, I don't know where you got that idea, maybe because I was an anonymous editor and it looked like to you that I started working only today. I am sorry if we got of on the wrong foot. But there is no reason for hostilities and you accusing me of vandalism from the very start. I am sure we can work this out reasonably through discussion. 89.216.236.127 (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will revert until other editors have a chance to discuss these changes in that case as some may think I am in the wrong. Upon reaching a consensus then the part of the article that you want deleted/altered and format changes can be made. Please wait for other editors to comment before making these changes. Outback the koala (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you explain to me what is so unconstructive about my edit? You have not pointed out anything about that. And why are you defending Kassjab's edits so much? Kassjab's edit was the one that was made without discussion, not mine. His edits should be discussed if they are to be implemented and not my actions which are simply to keep the infobox as it was for six years before Kassjab came. Please give me answers to all these questions. And until than if you have the right to revert to an unagreed and undiscussed version of the infobox than I also have a right to defended the original and agreed to infobox. Also, if you continue reverting you are going against the revert rule of Wikipedia.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from My Talk Page. Outback the koala (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "by the way, let an administrator protect it, like I said before I have a username and so that will not do you much good.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "

You moved that one comment of mine from your talk page bud didn't answer my questions, answer the questions.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Has the change into a three-side i'box been discussed?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that was a totaly undiscussed edit by Kassjab.89.216.239.108 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You want to block me now Koala without discussion just because I have a different opinion? Is that your way of resolving the problem? Just kill the competition so nobody oposses you? And what are those unconstructive edits, you still haven't answered my questions?89.216.239.108 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Koala, editors do not need your permission to edit the page. I see that you reverted several times without giving an explanation in the edit summary nor on 89.216.239.108's talk page. Further, I do not see what is gained by requesting 89.216.239.108 to create a Wiki account. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 89.216.239.108 is correct in that the new organization creates an unnecessary third column specifically for the Mahdi army. I have reverted to the previous version pending further discussion of Kassjab's version. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The changes being made were substantial changes to the page, page format, and removal of useful information, such as; the continued removal of info from the commanders section of the infobox; adjusting correct grammar in the caption for the lead photo to incorrect grammar. For me, these justify as being unconstructive edits, even though they had what some might see as a useful editing within them. The focus was not on the changes to the infobox layout, so much as the parts of the edits that were detrimental to the page. I did not feel, and still do not, that the box identifying that the statistics that showed one million civilians killed, the box 89.216.239.108 was so concerned with, did not appear to apply to the Mahdi army and as it clearly was under the Casualties and losses section listed as civilians. I also felt that a distinction between the Sunni and Shi'ite factions would be beneficial to the page, however I see that the lack of stats for this third column, and that said stats might be difficult to find. In light of this I would not object to continuing with two columns currently, but we should indicate(in brackets) that the different insurgents belong to different branches of Islam and that Shi'ite insurgents are supported by Iran, another thing lost in 89.216.239.108's editing frenzy. In addition, what is gained by requesting 89.216.239.108 to create a Wiki account, is that, other than benefiting this anon user's tracking of pages, is that statements like, "I have edited for four years," won't appear to be so baseless, as his history show the opposite. And indeed, at first I was skeptical, as would any wikipedian confronted by an anon user claiming to have edited for years, but who couldn't be bothered to log into their own account, but maintains they have one. I do not contend to make wikipedia a closed encyclopedia, and don't feel like I acting in a way that made it so, as I believe it's openness is one of its greatest strengths. note: I will not reply to 89.216.239.108 or 89.216.236.127, depending on where he is today and still cant bother to login to his account that exists, until he starts to follow WP:etiquette. Thank You.Outback the koala (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about etiquette shall we? Initially, after the edit by Kassjab, 89.216.236.127 reverted it with a lengthy explanation in the summary. You then reverted with no explanation. Following that, 89.216.236.127 reverted with another lengthy explanation in the summary and a comment on your talk page. You responded by reverting without an explanation in the summary, commenting on his edit history, and leaving an unconstructive edit warning on his talk page. This was followed by yet another cycle of his explained reversion and your wordless reversion. I can understand your skepticism of anon users as about 90% of vandalism comes from anons, but this anon is being more careful in his documentation and more cooperative in the discussion than you are. Even if this was his first edit, your zeal would be unwarranted; we should avoid biting the newcomers. Honestly, I do not see how he has been uncivil. It seems to me that you have not assumed good faith. Let's try and follow the dispute resolution process and keep the discussion focused on the article rather than eachother's editting history.

I think that your suggestion about the parenthetical comment regarding the Shi'ite and Sunni factions would be a suitable compromise for now while we discuss further changes to the infobox. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I hear your constructive criticism of my response in this matter and will in the future attempt to provide more of an explanation as to my actions that I am taking in my editing and reverting. Although I think we should stop the talk about WP:UNCIVIL and start to spread some wiki love. As far as the info box goes, I don't think anyone else is still arguing for a 3 column info box anymore so we can probably stick with it, but I couldn't seem to figure out how to get the Iranian support flag back into the box without reverting before, so someone else will have to do that. This all seems like a fair compromise that keeps a maximum amount of the info in a clear and concise way. Thanks Azure. Outback the koala (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the Iranian support flag back to the belligerents section of the infobox. Is this what you were envisioning? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed what I was thinking. Do you think it would be overkill to put their religion in brackets, as Iran only supports the Shi'a militias and not the Sunni. For example: Baath Party Loyalists (Sunni) . Outback the koala (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added the belligerents' denominations to the infobox. Look good? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is 100% good. Thank You Azure for the great work! Outback the koala (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have the belligerents' denominations mentioned? "Iraq War" generally refers to the Coalition and Iraq vs. the insurgency, while what can be called the "Iraqi Civil War" refers to the conflict between religious factions. In other words, this infobox only needs to list the combatants that make up the insurgency, not necessarily their respective religious faction. I don't think it's necessary to include the denominations in the infobox at all. We can easily present the same information without it:

...

• Mahdi Army
  Soldiers of Heaven
  • Supported by
    Iran
• Baath Party Loyalists

...

That's how it was before, and it might be simpler than using the denominations in the infobox.--Abusing (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't feel strongly about it one way or another, but let's see what koala has to say before we make any significant changes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, I think it is irrelevant to the article as the Iraq Civil War is a part of the Iraq War, as per the main infobox on the Iraq Civil War page. As well, we should note that while all insurgents are hostile toward the Coalition, only some are hostile toward each other, usually along religious lines. It seems to me, that it was, and still is in some ways(in its impact), an important part of the war. Perhaps a small link to the Iraq Civil War page could be slipped in at the bottom of that section. It would most likely be something like;

"For fighting between insurgent groups, see Iraq Civil War."

Would this be a good improvement to clarify, Abusing? Outback the koala (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I like your idea. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the information isn't relevant to the article, just that its relevance to the "belligerents" section of the infobox is unclear. I think that would be a good improvement, so I'll slip that in. Abusing (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Abusing (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Update needed?

The information on the strength of the insurgency (in the infobox) is apparently from 2006 and 2007 at the latest, as is contractor strength. Updated info is needed on the strength of the combatants.--Abusing (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Invasion/Insurgency phases

The article's infobox says there is an invasion phase and an insurgency phase. Is this information verifiable at all? Are there any sources that say the war took part in two distinct phases, with the insurgency phase beginning the day after the invasion ended? If not, it needs to be removed and listed as one date, since "Iraq War" generally refers to both the invasion and occupation.--Abusing (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapons of mass destruction!

Shouldn't there be a subject on not finding WMD(Weapons Of Mass Destruction)? George Bush's intelligence said that their were WMD but none were found or claimed to be. Is it that hard to believe that Iraq had WMD, when saddamm Hussein had already used these weapons on his own people. The nation of Iraq used,possessed, and made efforts to aquire WMD. Duramax (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the first section following the overview: Iraq_War#2001.E2.80.932003:_Iraq_disarmament_crisis_and_pre-war_intelligence. This is a link in that section: Iraq disarmament crisis. This is a subsection of that section: Iraq_War#Alleged_weapons_of_mass_destruction. Might try reading the article before you make claims about what is or is not in it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Duramax, I reverted your addition on this topic per WP:BRD, and left a note on your Talk page. Let's discuss. As noted in my edit summary, my main concerns were that the addition did not fit the style of the rest of the article, and included no citation(s). Regarding the latter, I'm sure you could find appropriate references. Regarding the former, I'm sure someone could help re-write. However:

• As noted by User:AzureFury, there is already a section on this in the article. Is this section insufficient?
• Is there consensus for your addition?

Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The information provided is sufficient, just over read the article. Im aware of this now "buddy". thanksDuramax (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC) It was a simple questions that needeed to be answered. If i recall that is what talk protion is here for.No disrespect is needed.Duramax (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2002 military action

This article discusses how the UK and US started bombing Iraqi positions in 2002. I can't seem to find any mention of it in this article or in other related articles but it seems like it should definitely be included. Should it go in the Iraq_War#Preparations_for_war section? 131.111.30.22 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the article. It is mainly written as an allegation against the US and UK. There are some facts which are tied together by the editor to form a conclusion which may or may not be true. While we can publish allegations on Wikipedia, we may only do so if they have been widely reported on by many reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we avoid publishing things of questionable accuracy. So step number one if you want to get this allegation included is find multiple, mainstream, reliable sources that attest to this allegation's accuracy. Then we can work forward from there. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the link whilst not logged in (Wikibreak). I can't see how WP:CRYSTAL applies to this - it happened 7 years ago it is nothing to do with what might happen in the future. I've never heard that things need to be reported in multiple reliable sources either to be included in an article. New Statesman seems like it is a "mainstream, reliable source" so I think the article can be used. I'd like to add something stating that MoD records show that bombs where dropped in Iraq during 2002 - I think that this is pretty clear from the article and could be included in a neutral way without being an "allegation against the US and UK". Did some searching and found this at the time, this in 2005 and even coverage on Wikinews. I need to go to bed but I'll add it sometime. _{Please try not to bite newbies too....} Smartse (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how my response was in the least bit "bitey" but regardless, the article is guessing. This is their evidence that the US and UK bombed Iraq, "The MoD response shows that in March 2002 no bombs were dropped, and in April only 0.3 tonnes of ordnance used. The figure rose to 7.3 tonnes in May, however, then to 10.4 in June, dipping to 9.5 in July before rising again to 14.1 in August. Suddenly, in other words, US and British air forces were in action over Iraq." We have no official confirmation. Just some guy at some newspaper's educated guess that that was what was going on. It may or may not be true. And when something "may or may not be true" we treat it as an allegation. All allegations on Wikipedia trivially need multiple mainstream reliable sources to get published. You can take that to any noticeboard and ask whether it is based in policy if you wish, but I don't think that should be very surprising. If some random person somewhere makes an allegation, it is not worthy of publishing in Wikipedia. In addition, I was concerned with the reliability of the New Statesman, as their Wiki page says

The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine published weekly in London. Founded in 1913, and connected with leading members of the Fabian Society, the magazine reached a circulation peak in the late 1960s. In the 29 May 2006 issue, then editor John Kampfner stated that the New Statesman remained "true to its heritage of radical politics".

Self-admitted radicals tend not to be the source of objective reporting. Additionally, of your two additional sources, one is authored by the same guy as the first, and the other only says there is evidence of a secret bombing campaign. Even logically, you have to wonder about the claims made in the article. Why wouldn't Saddam have said anything if Iraq was already being bombed? We can't treat this as established historical fact as you seem to imply. If you are unconvinced, we can start an RfC or get some of the other editors watching this page involved in the discussion, but this seems to me to be a kind of WP:FRINGE theory. Thus we have to consider its WP:WEIGHT carefully. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You say "We have no official confirmation" but the multiple reliable sources say that this information came from the MoD - surely they are "official"? It's also worth remembering that we only need information to be verifiable, which this is, rather than necessarily being the truth. The fact that it was mentioned in The Times suggests to me that it can certainly be included, Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations says it is at the "high-quality end of the market" of news organisations. That the same journalist wrote the article in New Statesman suggests that they are hardly a "random person" but a respected journalist. I don't think that this is particularly a minority view either, as demonstrated by the coverage in multiple reliable sources. I can't guess why Saddam wouldn't have said anything, maybe he did but it wasn't reported, who knows? I'll add it later on once I can log in, feel free to make some edits if you think my wording is not neutral.

This article was published in March 2002 talks of how threats to Allied aircraft had decreased recently which may also be relevant. 131.111.30.22 (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (User:Smartse logged out)

Ah, found 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion which already mentions this, I think it definitely deserves a line in this article though. 131.111.30.22 (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done No need to use the New Statesman article in the end either. What I really don't get is how the 2005 stories make it seem like new news when it was reported in 2002 anyway! Smartse (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations also says, "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." So if it was an allegation as I was assuming, there would be grounds for deletion since the bombing campaign had not been verified, only the increase in ordinance. But it looks like the campaign itself has been verified by Tommy Franks so I have no objections. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapons of Mass Destruction

It appears the article leaves out the fact that the US forces found 550 metric tons of yellow cake from Iraq, which was subsequently removed. While the yellow cake would not be the optimum choice for a nuclear bomb, it could be used in a 'dirty bomb' by insurgents and elements determined to mount an attack on Western nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.126.62 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear that then?! I'd guess that the US and UK governments would have made quite a lot of noise about it if they'd been right all along! If you have a source for this then please add it below. Smartse (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search was all it took.[3] I don't know how this isn't in the article, it needs to be, ASAP. 24.12.93.206 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is from that very article, "While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, this is from Iraq_War#Alleged_weapons_of_mass_destruction: "Prior to the Gulf War, in 1990, Iraq had stockpiled 550 short tons (500 t) of yellowcake uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Baghdad." Why do editors come here and complain about something not being in the article that is already in the article? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clicking on the link provided. I stumbled into this page and am unfamiliar with the article and recent revisions. I was reacting while AGF on the part of 70.164.126.62. My mistake.24.12.93.206 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, this is an emotional article and anons like 70.164.126.62 sometimes make comments without thinking clearly. I don't think the article mentions that the yellowcake has been removed, if you're still interested in contributing.AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

It is my opinion that the neutrality of this article is well...not neutral. I get the feeling that when reading this article, the wording makes it seem like the US and her allies are the bad guys. Wikipeida is here to not put in a bias but to rather state the facts. Can someone try to look over this article and fix any of these issues?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the US and its allies are the bad guys in this situation. Regardless, it is not helpful to say "article is NPOV, fix it." If you have specific issues, list them. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, the article does sound biased. It's not a problem with specific parts, it's more of the fact that most of the article clearly has a biased tone. I suppose I can dedicate myself to a project of going through the article, section by section, and making information with a tone neutral and appropriate. For the most part, I'll focus on rewording statements that have a biased tone, removing questionable statements that aren't sourced, and removing information that is obviously presented in an inappropriate way. However, if you have anything specific you think should be corrected, feel free to put it on the talk page and I'll be more than happy to go over it. Feel free to put the appropriate template ({{POV}} at the top of the at the top of the page. This project really has no reasonable end in sight, due to the length of the article, and I have no illusions about fixing the whole thing, but I will do as much as I can in the long term.

Oh, and there are no bad guys.--Abusing (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

*There are no good guys. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

what does that mean? Look All I was saying is that this article is biased. A lot of articles that deal with events that are ongoing and are in the news every day will be biased its not an attack on your part its just a statement. Now ill go ahead and put the template on. Ill also read over the article eventually and post any issues that I come across.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, how about you read over the article, find some issues, and then add the template. You can't just call the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes the tag shouldn't be added unless some specific problems are first mentioned here. Personally I can't really see the problem anyway. Smartse (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AzureFury, you do seem to have a way with trying to be uncivil do you? Its no feeling of patriotism as I myself never supported staying a nation where we are not welcome however this is getting off topic. I put the tag on because I was told I can (see above). You cant call an article not a POV even if it contradicts you political feelings as well.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember calling the article POV. Anyway, we're not going to stigmatize the whole article because you feel it is POV and then wait for you to get around to actually reading it and come up with actual complaints. If you feel there is something that needs improvement, let's hear it. Then you can include the tag if need be. Until then, I do not believe you have sufficiently justified its inclusion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No you never did say that you belive the article is POV. (I never said you did) but you did say (off of your comments and statements) that the article has no bias and is fine. Its not. To prove it, in the comming days or so ill give you a list of POV statements. Here's some by just skimming over the article itself:

You: "You cant call an article not a POV even if it contradicts you political feelings as well." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

1. During 2002, Bush repeatedly backed demands for unfettered inspection and disarmament with threats of military force. (Portrays the Bush administrations as a group or war mongers. Come on now. Weather or not they are warmongers does not matter. Couldn't this be reworded to say During 2002, the Bush administration continued to demand unfettered inspection and disarmament with military action being the alternative if the Iraqi Government refused. It states the facts (Bush's administration wanted disarmament and will invade if the demands were not met) and is in my opinion neutral.
2. Most of his crimes were committed when he was an ally of the US and UK. (this may be true but it has no source)
3. On November 23, the deadliest attack since the beginning of the conflict occurred. Suspected Sunni Arab militants used suicide car bombs and mortar rounds on the capital's Shia Sadr City slum to kill at least 215 people and wound 257. This attack was retaliated by Shia militias who fired mortar rounds at various Sunni neighborhoods and organizations. (once again no source)
4. However, the failure to restore basic services to pre-war levels, where over a decade of sanctions, US and UK bombing, corruption, and decaying infrastructure had left major cities barely functioning, contributed to local anger at the IPA government. (No source. Looks POV by implying that the sole reason for "the failure to restore basic services to pre-war levels" was due to US and UK intervention.)

Here are just 4 that I came across. in a few minutes. Can these be addressed?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The first is a non-issue. You want to replace the word "threat" with a much softer, unclear, and unnecessary phrase that has the same meaning as "threat." Of the rest, you simply say that they are unsourced (which I will look into shortly). Note that this is different from being POV and appropriately has a different tag. Overall, I don't see anything that implies a problem with POV. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of his crimes were committed when he was an ally of the US and UK how is that not a POV? and does it even have anythig to do with the article itself? the answer Yes and No. Now most of all it has no source! Ever heard of WP:RS? It we cannot find a source it needs to be removed. Now I have found several of these unsourced statments. Perhaps it sould have the lack of sources tag instead.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the second issue you've mentioned. It did seem out of place there and no doubt is covered in one of the many articles about Saddam Hussein. The other two are from sections with main articles. The citations are most likely in those articles. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thank you. Now we need to get those citations before someone else brings up the same problem.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have again added the POV template. The purpose of the template is explained here. An explanation of a POV dispute can be found here. The template should not be removed until a consensus has been reached that the article's problems have been fixed and the dispute is resolved.--Abusing (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the article wide template and added NPOV section templates to the sections in dispute. Please don't mark entire large articles as under dispute when the talk page already lists the specific points being disputed. Thanks! Sperril (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ill agree to remove the templates once all paragraphs in the said sections have at least one citation to back up the claims. Some rewording might also help but I dont think that it is that much of a deal. As AzureFury said. Some of the sections have main articles that might have the missing citations.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Coldplay's first comment, I was under the impression that they were disputing the neutrality of the article, and not just those four points they mentioned. It seemed the specific points they listed were simply an answer to the demands for them to do so -- and not the only statements they were disputing. Although it is certainly helpful to address specific, individual problems you see, Coldplay Expert was in no way wrong to bring an argument to the talk page against the article itself, and place the "POV" template at the top of the page. It seems their legitimate concern was met with hostility and incivility, at one point even being accused of simply calling "the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism." That aside, there is a minor template dispute brewing, so I ask Coldplay: are the four statements you mentioned on the talk page what you are disputing, or are you indeed disputing the neutrality of the whole article? Based on your comments, I would assume it's the latter, but apparently your dispute is unclear. I would just like to clear this up once and for all, so the appropriate template can be used without being disputed or removed again.--Abusing (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we dont want a dispute about the dispute! But to answer your question I was only nameing af ew to justify me putting the template on the whole artilce. Now I dont belive the whole article has a POV but far too many sections to put them on each and every one. (Otherwise it may look like the artilce is worthless, seeing 5-10 POV tags on it) So I decided to put it on the top as there are several POV like statments in the article itself (Mainly no citations and as a result it appears like the statments were origional research and POV.) I only pointed out 4 as an example as I skimed over the article in a few minutes. I have not yet read the whole thing so there may be more in my opinion. However I belive that once more citations are added and some wording is tweaked everything will be fine. (In shore yes its the whole article as there are far too many sections in dispute)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I reinstated the template; further information can be found in the links I listed above. When you get an opportunity, listing further specific issues will help the effort of making the information neutral; I will attempt to do the same.--Abusing (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. And most if not all of the POV statments are pretty obvious (as in you can tell they dont belong here) Ill try to in the comming days to read the article and let you know of any more issues if they arise.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, the sheer length of the article is what makes this task difficult. It will take awhile but just a little bit of effort can greatly improve this page. I'll focus on reading through it also in the coming days. I have a feeling that just the few steps that have already been taken since the beginning of the discussion have been more NPOV attention than this article has seen in a long time. Hopefully we'll be able to improve it further.--Abusing (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:INCIVILITY for a definition of what constitutes incivility, and note that accusing others of being incivil is considered incivil! I see no NPOV listed on this talk page except a vague feeling that some parts of the article might be POV maybe. I've replaced the tag with an appropriate citation tag while we work to address the actual issues that have been listed. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If were going to start defending uncivil actions when we should be talking about the article itself then...See WP:DICK you may want to try to be nicer in your comments against my statements.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! That's what I've been saying all along. You can start by listing any POV issues in any section that you've encountered. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Azure, please, I didn't make a single personal attack, or accuse anyone specifically of being uncivil. I just made the observation that Coldplay was treated in an uncivil way, and was obviously responded to with bad faith and rudeness. The only reason I said that was to clarify the fact that Coldplay's complaint was completely legitimate, and the responses to it were uncivil and assumed bad faith. It was not intended as an attack, accusation or warning to you or anyone. Commenting on someone who is being uncivil is absolutely not a personal attack, and discouraging it is actually encouraged in the WP:Civility page; it is even something you have done on this very talk page. So I'll be frank, you did indeed act uncivil. I urge you to actually read the civility page, and look over your own comments. I'm sure you'll see what I'm talking about.

On a side note, please do not remove the POV template. There is clearly a POV dispute going on; the template puts the article into "POV disputes" categories. It's not a badge of shame.--Abusing (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol @ "No, YOU read WP:CIVILITY." Is that how this discussion is going to go? Are we going to repeatedly link to WP:CIVILITY and demand that the other editor actually read it this time? I don't need to look over my comments a second time because I know what they were on account of the fact that I made them. I have made no personal attacks, only comments about edits which is what we're supposed to do. A POV dispute involves identified issues. There are none. Maybe I should just go to any article I don't like and say, "this article is POV" and tag it? I think I'll head over to John McCain and tag it for POV because it makes McCain look like a good guy...or a bad guy. I haven't decided yet. But I certainly feel that way. Then maybe I'll read it some day. I might find an issue worth correcting. Maybe not. The important thing is that I disputed the neutrality and thus there is a POV dispute. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't need to repeatedly link to WP:civility, because I actually did read it. I didn't just throw the link at you, I read it, and wrote the link, in hopes that you would read it and understand why I was saying what I was saying. However, you accused me of a personal attack, seemingly "throwing the link" at me (as it is a completely different page than WP:Civility. That's why I urged you to actually read it; you clearly did not see that I was simply arguing straight from the guidelines. The point is, the problem is not that you corrected Coldplay, but that you did it uncivilly. I am surprised you can not recognize this. ("Uhhh, how about you read over the article, find some issues, and then add the template. You can't just call the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism.") It wouldn't have been hard to get your point across while being nice. There was absolutely no reason to be abrasive or take a hostile tone. You could have put the issue to rest with a civil explanation of why they need to give specific examples in order to fix the problem, and a polite request to do so, without hostile comments like: "Anyway, we're not going to stigmatize the whole article because you feel it is POV and then wait for you to get around to actually reading it and come up with actual complaints. If you feel there is something that needs improvement, let's hear it." If you did dispute an article's neutrality, how would you feel if other editors assumed bad faith and were rude to you? Anyway, I've made my point, and I will say no more about it.

WP:AGF says, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." An editor tagging a whole article without reading it is evidence to the contrary. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

wp:Civility says the same thing, but goes into more detail about the phrase's meaning: "do not assume any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, and given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one." The quote you're talking about means "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." In other words, you ("you" used generically) don't have to assume good faith if the person is obviously trying to hurt the article, and there is strong evidence to support this. There is no evidence that Coldplay had the intent to harm the article, and the evidence would only support that they were trying to help. They didn't start making malicious edits to the article, they simply brought a complaint to the talk page and put a single harmless template at the top. If you want to argue against this, you're supposed to "try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project."(Wikipedia:Civility#Co-operation_and_civility -- It's just where I took the quote from)--Abusing (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I'd like to see some more discussion in this POV dispute about the specific POV. As has already been pointed out, of four examples cited, three were actually ref-tag issues and one was a misunderstanding of what constitutes POV. I haven't read the article and don't doubt there would be a few dodgy sentences in an article of this sort, so this isn't an argument for or against the assertion, but let's present a discussion about the alleged POV in the article and less of a discussion about the discussion about it. It would be helpful to see what sorts of things are being changed and to what else, so objective editors can determine whether POV issues existed prior to—or after—the revamping.

As to choosing to tag the whole article instead of the specific instances because the latter would be the worse defamation of the article, that's a convoluted misunderstanding. It's supposed to be the opposite. A person seeing the whole article tagged might well avoid the whole article, while a person reading until they see a section tagged can (correctly) presume the untagged sections are determined to be free of POV. Abrazame (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

True howwever, haveing multiple sections taged rather that just one tag rep. the whole artilce may be just as bad. Once I finish reading the article, ill post any POV concerns and the community as a whole can decide their fait.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the whole article, which you haven't read, is bad? Is that why you want to tag the whole thing? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay: Come back when you have read the article and are actually able to cite examples of POV. I have removed the tag until then. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just now read the lead, I take note of the European way of styling US (in all but one instance), something that doesn't dissuade the impression of a POV exclusive of the U.S. (Not to mention a POV exclusive of the Manual of Style.) I would also specify that Hussein was tried by an Iraqi judge and jury before he was executed; this is the sort of thing that is a given in the free world but should be spelled out in an article like this one.

Assuming good faith is a default position for editors' first responses; generally somebody then has to earn the continuance of that faith by discussing edits to the article more than they do each other. This isn't a theater of war, nor a court of law, it's an editorial discussion, one where references and reason win. Abrazame (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What you're describing is an example of WP:systemic bias, not POV. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

War or conflict

Why are we refering to the situation in Iraq as a war instead of a conflict although the US never officially declared war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.183.130 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That just makes the war illegal and Bush a war criminal, it doesn't change the fact that it is a war. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments like the one above further my case that you have injected POV like comments to the article. Bush was authorized by congress to invade the nation. Nothing was illegal.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed a completely uncalled for, nonconstructive and inappropriate statement, as well as unacceptable behavior for a talk page; even liable to be removed completely. However, in answer to the question, despite not being a "declared war", it matches the definition of a war, and is referred to as a war in the media. It's most widely recognized as a war in society, so it would be inappropriate to primarily refer to it as something else.--Abusing (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol loosen up guys. To Coldplay: There are so many things wrong with your one line argument. 1: I didn't write the article. 2: The talk page is different from the article itself in both the policies that apply and the way I treat it. Btw, have you finished reading the article yet?

To Abusing: There is nothing in WP:TPO that says, "editors can't express opinions." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also a little thing called WP:CIVIL which you sir, seem to utterly lack. No offence but you are rude, and outright insulting to many editors that have an oposing viewpoint. And in case you dont know, you dont WP:OWN this article. I can edit it as much as you can. As to the other question, I am almost finished as I am currently engaged in a GAN for the World War II article Ill try to finish reading this one soon.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)