Talk:Iraq War

	Pending tasks for Iraq War:
	Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done: convert "200x in Iraq" articles (x==2...7 e.g. 2007 in Iraq) to Wikipedia:Summary style Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

"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)

Use of discredited studies to give body count

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: [1]). 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 [2] 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)

Disturbingly POV article

Yes, the Iraq War was a huge mistake. Yes, it's been handled poorly. And yes, it has made the situation in the country worse (at least for now). However, to me the overall tone of this article is extremely negative and POV. The section that talks about the effectiveness of The Surge and Iraq casualties is written, in my eyes, in a way that gives a negative opinion of The Surge and almost entirely ignores the major security improvements that have resulted from The Surge. Also, perhaps the single most important positive thing to occur in the war, the Awakening movements, has little substantial coverage and seems to downplay the impact it has had on reducing violence in the country, which, by the way, is another aspect that seems to have been almost ignored. Also, there have been rumors lately that the insurgency has had trouble finding new recruits for suicide bombings, and that's why they've resorted to women and mentally retarded people more and more often. Of course this is unconfirmed, but it's been rumored and speculated on, and I don't believe it would be difficult to find sources on this. There is also fairly little on the suicide bombings against civilians (kind of like how there's almost no outrage against their actions in the media, either). Most of the latest violence and casualty estimate reports seem to be from sometime in 2006...is this really the latest information on these things? Surely there have been reports on how much the violence has been reduced since The Surge started? The reports on the well-being of the Iraqi people and the infrastructure of the country are outdated; I don't know how much, if at all, it's improved since the numbers mentioned here, but I'd love to see how it's changed in the last few months. Again, is this really the latest information that can be found on these things? Finally, the neighborhood security in Baghdad and the recent return of many refugees has been almost completely ignored. On another aspect, however, there's also very little on the political aspect of the war and the ineptness of the Iraqi government (so it isn't all completely anti-war slanted).

In conclusion, I came here hoping to find an accurate and well-written overview of the war, and instead found a disturbingly slanted article in which most of the (very few) positive events, aspects, and progress in the war is almost completely ignored. bob rulz (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see two graphs showing the decline in violence. As for casuality numbers, look at the article history; people update those almost every day. CKCortez (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed out in the past that I have deep problems with this article, however I have been shot down as well (and apparently, I am not the first one). Your criticisms are important to us; do you think you could provide some concrete examples of where the text should be amended? (at the moment, you have simply given a lot of generalities, which is hard to work with). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean it's POV. NPOV stands for Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. You have a lot of suggestions above, but seem unwilling to back them with actual sources. Adding reliable sources that substantiate other viewpoints is the best way to improve the article. Superm401 - Talk 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Woops, yeah, I knew it was POV. I fixed that. I'll go through and take a more thorough look through the article for more specific examples of what needs to be changed, imo, but mainly I'm more concerned with what's not here than what is here, and most of what I'm concerned with is explained. But I will take more of a look at it, see what more I can make clear. bob rulz (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The more editors the merrier, I always say. bob rulz, I think you make some valid points. One of the things the article definitely needs is some filling in and some updating. A lot of editing is done on the margins (casualty counts and various editing over the rationale of the war, etc) but we certainly need a lot more editing done in the later sections and updating in the most recent years, 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately, if you feel the article has an anti-war bias then it looks like some of my personal biases might be creeping in, (since I've been editing this article quite a bit) which is why it's extremely important that other editors step in. Your specific criticism about the "surge" is a difficult" one though, since the effects of the "surge" can easily be seen as both successful and unsuccessful (more troops = less violence in one area but more violence elsewhere, i.e. Mosul)--it really depends on your definition of "success." However, if there are any assessments of the surge, either way, they should be added to help make the article more complete. Publicus 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The best you can hope for on a subject as controversial as this is that about the same number of people think it's biased one way as the other, which, reviewing the Archives, seems to be the case. 32.155.159.111 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that we need complaints about specific problems for the POV tag to stay. CKCortez (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Restore Nutrality and Clean The Talk

I am going to try to clean this article up. We also need to start archiving this talk page, please follow the guidelines to neutrality which can be found in the knowledge base. If there are any suggestions, please suggest away! :) Anarchy 228 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will put a automatic archival script IF enough people agree to doing this. I will be using the MisaBot Archiving Script.

A bot archiving after 30 days would be a great idea. CKCortez (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will add a notice that MisaBot is archiving the page. Ursasapien (talk) 03:03, 10 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^{(talk|contribs)} 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)

References in Popular Culture

I added a section to list popular culture references to the war. I'm going to expand it over the next couple of days, anybody who wants to help is more than welcome to. BigNSmart (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if you do add a list of popular references, try to ,at the least, pick ones that are most relevant to this subject and keep it short.Nukedoom (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan and Israel's influence on the war

Harvard's Hoffman himself describes {it} thus:

"And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. … These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith." http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html and actually the war has turned out quite bad for Israel..Iraq has become AL queda's recruiting gound. The Israeli Paper Haaretz reported that a majority of Israelis believed the USA was dangerous for peace in the mideast.

Feith and Perle are trying to outdo each other in their exculpatory books on their participation in the war.

It should be noted that in the 1990's Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld were on the payroll of the Likud party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. With all due respect, your proposal sounds more like one man's opinion, and appears to have problems conforming to WP:NPOV. I do not see why this addition should go forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think this should be included provided a few more sources could be found, how Iraq affects the stability and security of neighboring countries such as Israel should be included in this article as it is most definitely relevant Thisglad (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam Reference

I don't really like the vietnam reference in the introduction that was added recently. It says the war is often called the "new vietnam war" even though the sources are two editorials. I've never really heard of this comparison in the media before. Those wars are completely different, strategically as well as environmentally. Another concern is that the Vietnam War had a much larger amount of war crimes. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and am glad that was removed. The only fair comparison that can be made between the two wars is the cost.

I also removed the {{totally disputed}} tag since my request 5 days ago for specific problems has gone unanswered. CKCortez (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to agree as well that calling this war the "new vietnam" seems a very politically charged designation. As in you'll see an anti-war person call it that. Beamathan (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Both George Bush and Davis Petraeus have compared the Iraq War with the Vietnam war. E.g. Petraeus last year asserted that the insurgents were 'Doing a Tet'. Colin4C (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But I hope you see the difference between calling this war a "New Vietnam War" is much different than referring to a specific act of insurgents in the Iraq War to a specific act by the NVA or VC in the Vietnam War. Beamathan (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Vietnam war lasted 16 years, so it is probably too early to say. I agree that David Petraeus is a more intelligent commander than Westmoreland in 'Nam and seems to have learnt something from that previous conflict. However I have a feeling that just as the 'Nam conflict spread to include Cambodia and Laos, so the Iraq conflict might spread to Syria and Iran etc and then spiral completely out of control in a sea of blood. We shall see...Colin4C (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

When did the war start?

The lead says it started 20 March 2003 but later in the article it says "At 9:34 PM EST (5:34 AM Baghdad time) on March 19, 2003 the Iraq Invasion began." with a citation of the GlobalSecurity website (the actual webpage is here). Then, later in the same section, it goes back to "In the invasion phase of the war (March 20-April 30)". Which one goes and which one stays? Is there a reason to doubt the GlobalSecurity site? I'm hearing a lot about today being the anniversary of the invasion and then I check here and it says the 20th, what should we do? Padillah (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the 19th in EST, but the 20th in Baghdad time. CKCortez (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would list the Baghdad time БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Go with GMT time.Nukedoom (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought Wikipedia was UTC-based. But we need to make sure we point out that the times are UTC times and all the times need to be corrected accordingly. Oh, and thanks. Padillah (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"19,000 insurgents killed" stated in infobox is COMPLETELY WRONG, it's a multisided war

The source clearly says those were killed "in fighting with coalition forces".

Many thousands more were killed in the Shai-Sunni fighting (and often reported as civilians, unless everyone killed by the desth squad is really civilin which I don't think is a case), Shia and Sunni infighting, or were killed by Iraqi security forces.

Well, at least hundreds even commited suicide (by exploding themselves). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to miss what it is saying. 19,000 insurgents being killed by the Coalition doesn't affect the numbers of casualties caused by Shiite/Sunni fighting, or Iraqi Security forces. If you can find unbiased, and agreed upon sources for those numbers than you can add those to the info box (as far as I'm concerned) and be sure to properly cite them. Sound good? Beamathan (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Start time

Why in heaven is the start of the war given in a time zone on the other side of the world? --87.189.76.191 (talk)

I believe that it is the accepted method to list a start time of a war in the local time. Local time as in the local time of the actual location of the war. I think, along with it being generally accepted, it makes sense if you think about it. Beamathan (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Poland in infobox?

I was wondering if Poland should be listed in the infobox. It's listed in the first paragraph of the article, and it had a multinational zone under its command, which Australia, which is in the infobox, did not. --Jedravent (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded, I went ahead and did it myself. -Jedravent

Well, even though this is after the fact, I agree with the edit. Beamathan (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Slanted

This article is why I do not allow my college students to use Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia entries.

[3]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)

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)

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? ^8thstar 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[citing the Iraqi Health Ministry] and 1 million[citing ORB]." 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.

[4] 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)

Graph

File:DoD PERSONNEL & PROCUREMENT STATISTICS - Personnel & Procurement Reports and Data Files - GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM - OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM by month March 19, 2003 through September 1, 2007 - killed in action, died of wounds, accidents.jpg

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)