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)