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 Keep the article NPOV by equally including material that both supports and doesn't support the Iraq War. A concise paragraph that includes all justifications for the war from American top officials as well as keep it NPOV by giving space to rebuttals.

Incredibly Biased Article

This article is so biased it is frankly laughable. Among the innumberable lies and distortions in the article, the part that is particularly amusing is how it goes right from talk about how the United States is doomed to failure to talk about the aftermath of the war, i.e. the drawdown of US troops. It completely fails to mention the US victory in 2007. This article is nothing more than ultraliberal propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If the US was victorious in 2007, then why is a gradual drawdown necessary? Is the US victory similar to the British victory?--99.1.99.177 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you usually drawdown your troops after you win unless your goal was to conquer, which in this case it wasn't? I could cite about 1,000 wars in which an Army went somewhere, won, and then left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I live in the US and I must have missed the victory celebrations? I was here for all of 2007; when was the official victory? I can't believe I missed out on my Iraqi Freedom Party Whistle! csloat (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want the US to lose the Iraq War, then I can see one having the POV which follows this bunk that the 2007 troop surge was ineffective---(incorrect by all responsible estimates). There will be plenty of “media articles” (and “studies”) published for years to support the view that ’07 was unsuccessful though . There was not a "Victory Party" for the Korean war, but the Korean war WAS a huge success, in preventing Communist China and North Korea from doing whatever they wanted (taking S. Korea and who knows what else). Like, Iraq, the Korea situation is an ongoing work -- without a finite victory day. Anyone denying that the US Troop Surge of 2007 was effective is believing brainwash from the left, or the spineless BBC (which is the same thing) rather than the voice of reason. The troop surge had a huge impact on the war. It was surprisingly effective in making the insurgent’s business less effective, and in making the Iraq War “winnable” (something that many contributors to this article do NOT want – A Coalition victory in Iraq). Also Spineless; the American people, with little or zero interest, or concern that the US and coalition turned the tide of a very unpopular war. The general public does not want to hear it (even more so outside US borders). This article will always be garbage, a ugly , terrible piece of junk - vandalized by POV Warriors who are out to prove we are losing this war, when in fact we are winning it. Bwebb00 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While I strongly agree with this opinion, this line of discussion (as yet) is not conducive to improving the article. We need to focus on what specifically is wrong with the article, and work to set the record straight one section at a time. On that note, where do you think would be a good place to start off? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The average U.S. taxpayer has spent $1930.00 so far to finance the war (enough to pay the salary of every Iraqi for three years), and the U.S has almost lost 5,000 of its soldiers. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction are no longer a threat to the United States homeland anymore. The U.S. was victorious in its mission, and the Iraqi people and government are now asking us to leave their country. How much more money and how many more lives do we need to spend, and what would be spending them for now? If the American people are "spineless", then why don't you finance and fight the war yourself?--99.1.99.177 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing your opinions or reciting your talking points. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss changes to the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I would like to compliment the cost of the war section and suggest that more could be added about the impending US withdrawal.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Center for Public Integrity even mentioned in a supposed unbaised article? Most of the financial contributers to this organization are poltically-driven far-left figures (i.e. George Soros, Bill Moyers etc...)? Therefore this is an uncredible group who should not be cited in this work without a balanced reponse from a opposing second source. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article does read like it was written by the "anti-war", I use that term loosely, left, rather than offering unbiased information. The irony of the democrats' talking points is that for a year Iraq has been moving toward self-sufficiency, and the counter insurgency strategy was a success. But Afghanistan and the "good war" is a stalemate with little future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Iraq term

Introducing another source was the best way to correct the error you found, which the other editor simply may have been unaware of. Adding the more recent source definitely improved the article. :The Occupation of Iraq name is used academically, in media, by Iraqis, and across the globe. If you wish to note that the name is controversial, not universally accepted, etc. this can definitely be done. If the article completely ignored controversy there would probably be no article, so a common name should be reported even if it is controversial. We should just briefly note the controversy.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to note that the war is still very popularly called this across the globe. Examples of usage may be found in the following press: Middle Eastern Times, AFP, Middle Eastern Times(2), Lebanon Daily Star, Pakistan's "The News", The Guardian, USA Today, ...

The article should make use of a name which is very common. It can be noted that the name is controversial or not universally accepted, but we can't just ignore the name because it is disagreed with (just note the disagreement).--Nosfartu (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The occupation of Iraq is a phase of the "Iraq war" or the "war in Iraq". I read all those refs you linked, and they were describing a phase of a war, not naming the conflict the "occupation of Iraq." This article went thru a similar evolution in its name, back in 2003-2004, when editors wanted to call it the "invasion of iraq" instead of the "Iraq war". I think you are incorrect in continuing to claim that the "occupation of Iraq" is one of the names of this conflict. The most common names continue to be "Iraq War" and "War in Iraq"--the other names really have no place and aren't even descriptive of the conflict. Currently, the Coalition forces are operating under both an Iraqi agreement and a UN mandate that permits them to help stabilize the country for the current Iraqi government, which is a sovereign body. There certainly was an occupation phase of this conflict, but it ended back when the Iraqis elected a government and that government choose to continue to allow Coalition forces to support it. This is why the current Status of Forces agreement is so important for the Bush Administration and the Maliki government--they are changing the rules for Coalition forces for the first time since the Iraqi government was elected AND they are doing it without the possibility of any extension of the current UN mandate. A better way to look at the current phase is more of a partnership with a much more senior/powerful partner trying to gear up and empower a junior/less powerful partner. Publicus 16:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "Iraq war" is going to continue even without any Coalition forces. It will shift(and has already started to) to Sunni vs Shia, and Islamists vs Secularists, and Arabs vs Kurds, etc. Don't you think it would be kind of silly to call an Iraqi Sunni vs Iraqi Shia conflict the "occupation of Iraq"? Even if there is a continued Coalition presence somewhere in the deserts trying to track down a few al-Qaeda types, that potential phase of this conflict isn't an occupation by any stretch.Publicus 16:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of the sources cited are current, and there is a perception that the "more senior/powerful partner" is actually forcing things on to the "junior/less powerful partner". We may have our own individual opinions about whether this is true or the degree of this, but the fact is that this is a popular conception. This is why it has been outlined this way in a number of sources..--Nosfartu (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are current, what I was talking about was their reference to a particular phase of the overall Iraq war--not using the sources as support for possible name of the conflict as the "occupation of iraq." And I totally agree with the perception you mentioned--obviously, the US is pushing the Iraqi government around (withholding military aid, Iraqi funds held by the Federal Res. Bank of NY, etc)--but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is an occupation going on. The presence of US troops and of the US government pushing other countries around is unfortunately a very regular occurence--but that doesn't make the situation an "occupation."Publicus 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the sources seem to be speaking about the current U.S. military presence and not a particular phase of the war. To quote some of the sources cited above:

• Middle East Times:"... the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq accused U.S. officials of exploiting the force to eliminate a legitimate expression of opposition to the occupation of Iraq"
• AFP:"He said the movement would organise literacy drives for young men and women although it did accept that most "young men want to resist" the US occupation of Iraq."
• Lebanon Star:"The timetable for ending the US occupation of Iraq has proceeded much more quickly."

Again, a value judgement as to whether the Iraqi government is acting sovereign is not being made. The sources are supporting the fact that the war in its current entirety is referred to as an occupation. It's just a common name supported by sources, whether we agree with it or whether it is true are completely irrelevant. --Nosfartu (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points--if that's the interpretation from those sources I have no problem with occupation of iraq as one of the possible names people are calling this conflict. I'll revert myself on this edit.Publicus 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not an occupation

It is actually controversial and inaccuarate to call 2005-present day Iraq an occupation. From 2003 until January 2005, Iraq was occupied by the Coalition. However since January 2005, Iraq is no longer governed by the Coalition, but by a democratically elected government who has the legal authority to throw the US military out the country whenever it sees fit, just like the Saudis did in 2002. Coalition Forces in Iraq are guests of the Iraqi government and are subject to Iraqi law unless a status of forces agreement is met. Today US troops are subject to the laws and oversight of the host country laws. PM Malaki is even looking at having all foreign troops out of Iraq by 2010. Domestic decisions like that don't happen under an occupation. Reports from the theater have Iraqi troops conducting most of the defense of the country while Coalition troops are being scaled down into advisory and troops training roles. To call Iraq occupied is to technically label Kuwait, Germany, Korea and Japan as US occupied, which they are not. WWII-era Poland, 1990 Kuwait or Tibet would all be examples of occupied countries --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to agree with your point, but while the reality may be that the Coalition forces are in Iraq at the pleasure of the Iraqi government--there certainly is the perception that Coalition forces are occupying Iraq. It certainly is not one of the main names used for the conflict, but it does appear to be one of the names used--especially in the Middle East.Publicus 22:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the quotes are from hostile Arab sources which are anti-democratic. I don't suppose we can use those adjectives? But why do anti-democratic (non-free) sources have equal claim with democratic ones? Student7 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The AFP, Lebanon Star, USA Today, Ali Allawi, etc. typically wouldn't be classified as "hostile Arab sources which are anti-democratic". Nonetheless, denoting it is a phrase from the Middle East or similar seems appropriate if others think there is room in the lead for it..--Nosfartu (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently the Pennsylvania Penguin is unfamiliar with the concept of Puppet governments...GiollaUidir (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GiollaUidir, how can a democratically-elected government that who voted on by the Iraqis via national and local elections (certified and recognized by the United Nations) be labeled as a puppet government? It's actually quite the opposite of a puppet regime. Even your link to the article on puppet governments pretty well states that only critics and insurgents in Iraq call the current Iraqi government a puppet state. I am a fair-minded person and I gave your comment (and viewpoint) a fair and honest observation, however I couldn't find one example of a puppet regime that existed (past or present) as a democracy. Puppet regimes are put into place by foreign governments. Iraq's government was fairly voted on by the Iraqis. Even many of the most committed anti-war individuals and academics agree with this. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

New source on Bush's strategy

A front page article in the Washington Post by Bob Woodward gives some good information on the US's change in strategy in Iraq in late 2006 and how that came about [1]. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Part 2: [2] & [3]. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the significant views reported in Woodward's articles is that it wasn't just the surge that reduced violence in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. According to Woodward, new, top secret sources, methods, operations, and tactics allowed coalition forces, beginning in 2007, to inflict heavy losses on key al-Qaeda, Sunni, and Shia insurgent leaders and combat cells [4]. The second factor in the reduction in violence was the "Anbar awakening" in which thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda and allied with the Iraqi government and coalition forces. The third factor was Moqtada al-Sadr's order to his followers to suspend attacks on US troops. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article on Jack Keane's behind-the-scenes role in the surge strategy and the selection of Petraeus to be its new leader [5]. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush on God

I note in this edit that the cause attributed to George W. Bush's beliefs in God has been removed. Why is such removal warranted? I didn't see any reason, so I replaced it along with one of the oil cause sources. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

4 paragraphs for the lead is fine, but some of the paragraphs seem awfully long. Debating the specifics of a quote seems like something that could be done further down in the article, perhaps in the lead the idea could be summarized. I just think it would be beneficial to trim about 10-20% of the lead in to the main article, and I'd welcome any trimmings you or others see.--Nosfartu (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The theme you are discussing is mentioned more in these articles: [6] [7] [8] [9]

I really think it would be best to discuss these and the specific of the Bush quote under the rationale for war section, and to just briefly summarize the theme/idea in the lead. That being said, I would just like to make the lead slightly shorter.--Nosfartu (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a rationale for war section, there's just a chronology followed by troop deployments, etc. The reasons for the war are summarized in the intro. Is it fair to include some but exclude others? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the tail end of what is currently footnote 64, the Washington Post article:

"This time there is a response: "We checked contemporaneous notes from the meeting with President Abbas and did not find a single reference to God," a senior administration official told us. "The closest thing we could find that the president said is: 'My government and I personally are committed to the vision of a Palestinian state.' "

Back in 2004, a White House spokesman told Mennonite Weekly columnist Brubaker that Bush "likely talked about his own faith," as he often does, but did not say God speaks through him.

Brubaker, in a follow-up column, said he checked with his source, an Amish reporter, who rechecked with attendees and had gotten different wording from several of them. "But Bush has said similar things on other occasions," Brubaker noted, citing Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," where Bush says he's "surely not going to justify the war based on God . . . Nevertheless . . . I pray I be as good a messenger of his will as possible."

" 'Messenger of his will [or] God speaks through me,' " Brubaker wrote. "The difference seems rather fine."

The question is, how is it that Bush so confuses groups as diverse as the Palestinians and the Amish? Is it the Andover-Texas accent?"

The article earlier says,"Substantially different, we felt. Moreover, this is Abbas's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic and then put back into English."

There's nothing wrong with reporting the "story" as weak as it is. It is unconscionable to report only part of the story. And WP:POV.Student7 (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And what is this doing in the lead anyway?Student7 (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead starts with the names and a brief description of the war, lists its officially-stated causes, and then closes with a paragraph on its effects and status. Is there a more informative structure for the intro than names-start-causes-effects-status? That seems fairly standard for lengthy current events articles. Inspiration from God is sourced as one of the officially stated causes. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this has been removed again, without discussion, here was the original text:

Palestinian leaders have claimed George Bush said "God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did".(The Independent: "Bush: God told me to invade Iraq" by Rupert Cornwell, 7 October 2005.) Bush may have actually said, "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him."(Washington Post: "George W. Bush and the G-Word")

What exactly is the objection? Is divine inspiration one of the reasons for the war or not? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The objection is that there is some rather substantial doubt as to whether Bush did, in fact, say what the article claims to have said. The Washington Post article at least makes clear that Bush may or may not have said this. It is not reporting that he did say this, contrary to the sentence in the article. Since the statement is completely unconfirmed, I believe it should be removed from the article entirely. Anyway, I have flagged it as {{failed verification}}, since the current wording suggests that the Post confirmed this statement, which is false. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Then why was it moved to the "Criticisms" section? There are plenty of sources which indicate that Bush seeks answers from God, and acts when he believes he is inspired. Calling that a criticism is biased towards atheists and against divine-interventionists. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this reference which discusses four different translations of the same phrase: by Nabil Shaath, Haaretz's translation of Mahmoud Abbas's recounting of Bush ("provided a translation of Bush's words into English that was remarkably similar"), Arabic speaker at The Washington Post (whose quote is in the article now), and Mahmoud Abbas's subsequent revision of his comments. Spring Back (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have adjusted the attribution to be congruent with the first three quotes. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This has stood for more than a week as Rationale for the Iraq War#Divine inspiration:

Nabil Shaath told the BBC that according to minutes of a conference with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, Bush said, "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him." Haaretz provided a similar translation of the minutes. When an Arabist at the Washington Post translated the same transcript, Bush was said to have indicated that God inspired him to, "end the tyranny in Iraq," instead.

But clearly that is too long for the intro paragraph which tries to list the entire rationale, so I am replacing it with this: "Bush said either that God inspired him to end the tyranny in Iraq, or to hit Saddam.(ref>Kessler, G. (October 9, 2005) 'Interpretation of Bush's Comments Reignites Debate Washington Post</ref>" Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphans

Some sources with credibility claim that the number of orphans cannot be estimated. The UN appears to have no such reluctance. An editor has quoted a figure of 5 million. That is, 5 million underage children have lost both parents. While there is leeway here for abandoned children, children "effectively" orphaned, "around" 10 million dead parents does not square with the total number of dead, which is supposedly 1 million, and probably not right either. Remember that the 10 million does not include those who died whose children are adults or who had no children. There are around 29 million people in Iraq. So by this figure, 1/3 of everybody has died. This does not make sense. No matter how many "sources" say it, it does not compute. Student7 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Some families have multiple children and sometimes parents abandon their children. The sources are reliable, and I question a) whether you have read them and b) what sources you use to support your reasoning. Anyways, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is attributed verifiability, not truth. Just because the war was a failure, it doesn't mean the article should be whitewashed.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Abeer Chalabi, head of the state orphanages section of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, estimates more than 4 million orphans and says the number may be exaggerated "but to have so many is a catastrophe." Iraqi orphanages have the capacity to look after no more than 26,000 children, but the government says it has only 700 children in its institutions. This is due mainly to the Iraqi tradition that obligates relatives to take in orphaned or abandoned children, but many of these families cannot afford to care for them and send them out during the day to beg or gather scrap metal"

That is in the orphans section. Where did you see 5 million? Were you the one that fixed that, or does it mention that number elsewhere in the article? Then it needs to be fixed. Either way, you were absolutley right student7. 99.130.168.83, you seem to overinterpret the verifibility policy. It means that you can't add statements just because you know them to be true; they still have to be verified with a source. A source that mentions something that obviously isn't correct is in no way considered reliable. When verifying a statement, the source has to be reliable. Use common sense. Most people prefer an unsourced true statement to an sourced, false statement.

--Abusing (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I concede that there were already orphans or children who had lost their father already as the result of the disastrous Iraq-Iran War. A cap on orphans can be made from those casualty figures I would assume. Student7 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If the number is 4 million instead of 5 million, this is fine as long as the information is attributed. This still wouldn't tally with your basic math which makes way too many simplistic assumptions.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that all the 1 million estimated civilian deaths (same place as the "orphans" estimate?) were all parents. And putting aside murders by Saddam (I know - they never had it so good) and their war with Iran. 500,000 families. Each with ten children. Still seems like a lot to me. The problem is the figure doesn't stand up to any cursory analysis at all. It's a "top of the head" figure from somebody. Not based on any known population sampling or anything. Student7 (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you would actually read the articles which cite the statistic you would see that they are official governmental statistics from the Iraqi Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. If your "top of the head" arithmetic/analysis appears in a reliable source, then by all means add it. Otherwise you are leaving out many things such as runaways, abandoned children, families with multiple children, ...

Wikipedia is predicated on reliable sources, so it would be good if you searched for an outside expert who also wants to minimize the number of reported orphans.--70.236.79.188 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to minimize it. Trying to rationalize it. Whatever its faults, Arab society is known neither for runaways nor abandoned children. And the figures suggest wholesale something: abandonment? Runaways? The "ten children per family" remains. Not really likely, is it? I'm getting the same figure everyone else is, which has to be used. This is my first experience with obviously poor data that is properly sourced. Student7 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:IAILogo.gif

The image Image:IAILogo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

United Nations figures on death tolls

I'm not sure what image "United Nations" conjures up in the readers/editors minds. These are largely a group of non-European anti-Americans (in this case) collecting data from a bunch of Shiite appointees conspiring to manipulate the figures so that they appear worse than they should. I rather trust the NY Times. What is it about the NY Times that editors don't like? Yes, they have a liberal bias, but I don't think that they would deliberately lie. I'm pretty sure the UN and Iraqi bureaucrats would. Student7 (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty breathtaking arrogance that you would let your prejudices about the UN dictate what the reader should be told. The NY times is (at best) a secondary source and totally unofficial. The UN figures stay and are presented as the correct ones.GiollaUidir (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources have a liberal bias. So does reality. We won the war, and now we need to keep staying!--70.236.79.188 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, yeah...GiollaUidir (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. What makes the United Nations a "better" source? The Iraqi government is not terrifically competent. What makes them any better? In other words, what makes the NY Times an inferior source to the UN? The UN is just collecting stuff from the Iraqi bureaucrats. These statistics are only as good as the people reporting them. I know the quality of the NY Times. I don't know and don't trust the UN/Iraqi sources. Student7 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The UN is an official source, although it has massively underestimated the death toll itself anyway, which makes the NYTimes figs all the more irrelevant.GiollaUidir (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of funny to trust a public for-profit American corporation for unbiased reporting, rather than an international non-governmental organization composed of 180+ member countries. Just an observation. Publicus 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the Times has bias to make the figures seem worse than they are. Nevertheless, I would trust body counts "on the street" more than I would somebody collecting these figures a month or two later and several bureaucrats later in some archive someplace, when their is absolutely no reason to have any veracity in those figures. It is a third world country. We can rely on figures out of first world countries. Third world figures are only as good as their collection system which usually isn't very good or very credible.

You seem to think that there is an "official" figure that the NY Times or UN must meet to be correct? And what figure would that be? The problem with any third world country is that you can't believe any statistic without oversight. First world countries have massive oversight. Third world countries have next to nothing. The only figures we can believe in this article are those relating to allied countries conducting operations. We don't even know for sure how many people the Iraqis have in a given squad/platoon/battalion/etc. and how many of those are effectively trained? Unless we have someone right there on the spot doing the counting. And these are live people! There are no believable figures relating to civilians. Student7 (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should just report what the statistics are and who they are from, and leave it to the reader to decide for themselves. You are proposing your own original analysis, which doesn't appear to be published in any reliable third-party publications.--70.236.79.188 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This all started when one editor said that the NY Times figures underreported the actual death toll when compared to the UN figures. The word "underestimated" or underreported is WP:POV. I agree that the Times figures should be reported as the Times figures and the UN figures reported as theirs. They should not be favourably or unfavourably compared, one against the other. (The editor correctly objected when I turned the phrase around and said the UN figures were overstated when compared. But he reverted it to its biased original missing the point). The point being that making a judgement when comparing is biased. If the WP:POV and probably WP:OR comparison is still there, will you correct it or shall I? Student7 (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It says the NYT has "underestimated the total death toll by 50% or more when compared to studies by the United Nations", which is perfectly true if you use a calculator (a liberally biased one?). The UN/Iraqi government figures have traditionally been low as well compared to other sources, so your constant complaints really don't make much sense..--70.236.79.188 (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've just arrived back at where the discussion began. I claim that there are no "official" figures that the NY Times must match. That the NY Times is as good as the UN guesses which they get from the Iraqi governments speculations which they in turn get when somebody feels like sending them in with whatever unaudited changes they have deigned to manufacture. After we argued this for awhile, then we got to the point where I thought we were at, that figures may be presented based on whoever made them. But now an editor claims (again) that there is some sort of gold standard for reporting deaths. I think that remains to be proved. Kind of funny. First time I ever heard a liberal complaining about figures in the NY Times not being sufficiently biased! Student7 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Change of tack: the whole section is a mess and needs rewritten. The only real statistical analysis of the effects of the surge that I can find are on [iraqbodycount.org IBC] and they show incredible ambiguity. The only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the violence simply moved from Baghdad to the regions. (2007 analysis).GiollaUidir (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography, Wiki Link

A suggestion to include a weblink to this books wiki article (a book every American should read on the topic of the Iraq war and the current government)

site:en.wikipedia.org "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"

by famous and highly respected U.S. prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegOpbyChr (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Best of all, you can tell by the title that it is WP:NPOV! Student7 (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mislabeling of a Soldier

Down in the public opinion section, there is a picture captioned "A woman pleads to an Iraqi army soldier from 2nd Company, 5th Brigade, 2nd Iraqi Army Division to let a suspected insurgent free during a raid near Tafaria, Iraq" I suggest it is changed to "A woman pleads to an American soldier from 2nd Company, 5th Brigade, 2nd Iraqi Army Division to let a suspected insurgent free during a raid near Tafaria, Iraq". The man is not Iraqi nor is he in the Iraqi army —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's carrying an AK series weapon (and he has an Iraqi flag on his right shoulder), which would mean he's ISF. Unless you have a ref that says otherwise I think it's labeled correctly. Check the image link to see who uploaded it and ask them if it's properly labeled.Publicus 23:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if we didn't see the AK or the Iraqi flag patch, you can still tell by the camo pattern that he isn't an American troop. This camo pattern was abandoned by the US in the early 1990's, right after Desert Storm. The US has since turned it's material surplus over to Iraqi and other Middle-Eastern Coalition partners. So if you ever see a picture of a soldier w/ this pattern chances are, he's and Iraqi or an Afghan depending upon where the picture was shot. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox about occupation only?

The infobox at top right seems, in its chart of belligerents, only to show the balance in the counterinsurgency, and not in the original invasion. Obviously, it hasn't always been USA et al and Iraq on the same side, and perhaps there should be a split infobox or multiple sections. Despite the common use of the phrase "Iraq War", there really have been several different wars--one leading into another--since 3/19/03. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.10.172 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point. The problem, of course, is to ensure no WP:OR which is difficult since its easier for the media to treat it as the same thing and therefore everyone else to blindly follows as they always do. Student7 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article is broken down so that each of the conflict's stages are listed with an infobox, that should be alright. Since Iraqi deaths in 2003 can be mainly attributed to allied forces and now Iraqi deaths are mostly contributed to foreign fighters, insurgents or terrorists. Since the conflict evolved from what it was in in 2003 (or even 2005) it should be broken down by (and not limited to) The 2003 Invasion, The Occupation of Iraq (2003-2005), The Iraqi Transitional Government (2005), The first elected government (2006), The Surge (2007-2008), Coalition Troop Drawdowns (2008-Present). Iraqis who fought in 2003 fought for the Baath regime, today they fight for their elected government. Its seems more fair, informational, and accurrate. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Penguin, that kind of infobox breakdown would be pretty difficult to edit--WWII had a lot more phases and theatres and that article only has one infobox. So, I think we can work with the main infobox to reflect the different phases/combatants efficiently and clearly. The current infobox does have a kind of separation with just a line, but something clearer could probably be designed. Publicus 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the WWII article never deals with the insurgencies that took place in Japan and Germany after the war. Many American troops still died even after the Japanese surrendered due to insurgents. The same holds true with Germany, via the The Nazi Werwolves. Iraq is an unconventional war unlike WWII, meaning it focuses mostly on nation building and making sure Iraq is stable before declaring victory. Plus during each phase of the war, the combatants and generals are different. Which makes the war more confusing. That's why it's probably more accurate to use various infoboxes. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PKK

Pkk is a terrorist organization by Turkey,USA and European Unıon and other countrıes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.200.60 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

as far i know neither the pkk nor the turkish government are involved in this war the pkk has no connection to the war in iraq and has even supported the actions of the united states and stated several times that it wont attack us troops or positions the pkk and the turks fight their own war in turkey only in the border region thre is sometimes fighting but to link this up with the iraq war is plain wrong and i suppose politically motivitated to kill the kurdish question in turkey and to change the fact that there is a civil war in turkey

Past, present

I have tried to eliminate present tense where possible. This is often the cause of annoyance in articles. e.g. "The surge is working." instead of "Last week, General X said that the surge was working."(ref) Quite a bit of difference. The surge might not be working this very minute. Time will tell.

Even on refugee count, the number will change over time, maybe increase maybe diminish. I think it better to date all entries. They will need dating later and the editor who made the original entry, and had the information at his/her fingertips, may be gone. Student7 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Coalition Members

Poland has now pulled out of the country completely to my understanding. LA Times article. Perhaps we need to put a (2003-2008) next to them in the info box? (SSJPabs (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Date of the start and end of the conflict

If nobody minds I will put in the date section of the article in the infobox three distinct periods just like it is in the article Second Chechen War:

Active battle phase: March 20, 2003 — April 30, 2003 Insurgency: May 1, 2003 - May 11, 2008 Sporadic fighting: May 12, 2008 - Present

I think everybody understands the date of May 1, 2003 (the day Bush famously said Mission accomplished) as for May 11, 2008, that's the day a cease-fire was signed with the Mahdi army, after that there were no more large-scale battles between the Insurgents and the Coalition. If the war flares up again we will revert it to just March 20, 2003 - ongoing. Hope nobody has a problem with this.89.216.235.26 (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning presented is understandable, however it could be stated better and may be overly simplistic. More importantly, it would need to be well-sourced.--134.68.77.116 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)