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 remove POV in media section make a consolidated list of media POV complaints Cite all sources in media section 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.

The 4 pictures in the template for Iraq war

Does anything think it is a bit of "systematic bias" to have only photos of US soldiers? Can we have multinational forces and Iraqi civilians and terrorist (all of which who are playing important roles in this war) too? What do other people think?--Flamgirlant 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason I have always opposed having a split image - it falsely conveys the idea that we are trying to capture the entire war, or all aspects of the war, in one image. This would be impossible, even if we had a million image split. Instead of putting 4 pictures there, which is unattractive anyways, the best thing to do is simply pick one decent quality picture and use it. It wont represent everything, any more than this 4 way split does, but it will be more aesthetically pleasing, and wont give false impressions. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the 4-way image, but I see your point that it could appear to be a "systematic bias" when at the top. So let us move the 4-way image down farther in the article. --Timeshifter 10:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the 4-way photo down in the article. The article has some insurgent photos to balance it. The 4-way photo has one photo with Iraqi soldiers in it. Need some photos in the article of soldiers from other nations in the multinational force. --Timeshifter 11:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, we dont have to capture everything in an image, and we shouldnt pretend we have to by using a split image. We can use one image, we dont need to use a map, and further, we shouldnt use a map. Maps are used when there are no other images available. I have restored the image used before the split image was introduced. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rangley. There's no way a map of Iraq illustrates the Iraq War better than the split image. I think it's pretty good in my opinion, though. Maybe get a shot of an insurgent in there. We should come to a reasonable consensus before just throwing away good photos. -- VegitaU 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent). OK. I was trying to put a neutral map image at the top to avoid systematic bias. I moved that map back down in the article. I also moved Rangeley's image down in the article since it has the same problem of systematic bias as the 4-way image. I moved the car bombing image to the top. It has both Coalition and insurgent elements to it. So it is a balance without systematic bias. And it certainly represents a key factor in this war. I don't want to lose any good images, and all of these are good. I myself especially appreciate having a map on the page. --Timeshifter 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the point is, we do not have to capture everything in an image. It is not a "systemic bias" to have an image that has just American soldiers, just Iraqi soldiers, just Insurgents, just Saddam Hussein. If someone rejected images not because they were otherwise bad, but because they portrayed a side they did not want portraying, that would be violating NPOV, and that is the systemic bias that sometimes exists. If we purposely only choose images for this article showing Americans, thats one thing. But we arent, I beleive we have a variety of images within the article itself. But thats whats needed - variety in the article.

Thats why we should drop the guise of trying to find an all encompassing image - none exists. We should just opt for a good one, typically one that is a good lead in for the article. The one from 2005 which you moved up doesnt strike me as a better image than the previous one which you have moved down. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. So that is 2 out of 3 wanting a more balanced image on the top. Your preferred image may be more dynamic and exciting, but this is a war we are talking about, and avoiding systemic bias in the first photo people see is far more important than trying to grab people's attention with a less-balanced photo at the top. --Timeshifter 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For the third time, my point is that you have misdefined systemic bias, and we do not have to have only all encompassing images. It is a systemic bias to purposely reject images representing a side when images are available, but noone is suggesting this. The article should have a variety of images - but each image doesnt have to have everything in it. No image has everything in it, and no image can possibly represent all there is in a war. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We disagree. Sorry. 2 out of 3 people in this conversation thought your image at the top showed a systemic bias. A 4th person would have been happy with the split image if it had an insurgent in one of the 4 images in the collage. The variety of images that follow farther down in the article have a better balance, but even there they show mostly Americans. Others have discussed similar problems concerning the gallery of images. Wars consist of multiple sides, and the photos should not favor any side. --Timeshifter 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait - where did I say that? ~Rangeley (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, so, without further ado:

Using a collage of images to "represent" a war is somewhat problematic for one this recent. For WWII, for example, the approach works fairly well because there are a decent number of iconic photographs of the war; here, on the other hand, most of the images are unlikely to be instantly recognizable. (The systemic bias issue is a valid one, but caused more by a lack of freely licensed photographs than anything else. If the insurgency were releasing a pile of PD images, as the US government does, it'd be a lot easier to create a "balanced" grouping of images.)

The idea of using a map is not a bad one, but a simple geographic map of Iraq is not really helpful to the reader. What would be the better approach, I think, would be a map of the war; see, for example, Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618). Essentially, you'd need to start off with a (fairly large) map of Iraq and then mark it up with the locations of battles and military movements, important zones of control, etc.

Obviously, this will require more work than just uploading a simple map; but I think the end result would be both more useful and more visually appealing. Kirill 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that war map example is a good idea. --Timeshifter 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the 4-way collage image. Image:IraqWarHeader.jpg - I replaced the 4-way collage image with one of the images making it up. Image:Iraqwarimage.jpg - Another image from that collage is already in the article. Image:Car bomb in Iraq.jpg - Removing the collage image saves over 83 kilobytes (at the 300-pixel-wide size at which the image was in the article). This frees up kilobytes for use in downloading the many 3 to 5 kilobyte images in the gallery at the end of the article. --Timeshifter 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created and posted the war map with the major operations and attacks. There's no way I could include everything, but I'm fairly satisfied with what I made. What do you all think of it? -- VegitaU 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For the image at the top of the article it is a definite improvement. I put below a 300-pixel-wide version of your Iraq War map, Image:Iraq-War-Map.png. It is the same size as at the top of the article infobox. Keep clicking the image to enlarge it more and more. I suggest making the text a little larger in the title box on the image so that it is readable even in the 300-pixel-wide version of the image. So people know what the map is about before clicking it. --Timeshifter 17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks very nice. Good work. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks very useful. And will be even nicer IMHO when the labels on the map denoting military operations etc are correlated with mentions of them in the text of the article. Colin4C 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The operations and attacks image is very dry, and also practically illegible unless clicked on. I strongly believe one excellent photo showing people directly involved in the war should be used as the headline photograph. There are many possible iconic photographs that could immediately give the average user a sense of the war, whether they recognize it or not. It need not be all encompassing.67.163.209.247 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you think the picture is "dry", but it illustrates exactly what it is supposed to: the major operations in Iraq since 2003. Whether or not it should be up at the top is what the debate is all about. Secondly, I haven't seen any operations and battle maps encompassing an entire campaign that are particularly legible. In fact, let me give you some examples of images that are on featured or high-quality articles:

• Battle of Cannae
  Battle of Cannae
• 
  Second Punic War
• 
  Battle of Stalingrad
• 
  Battle of Kursk
• 
  Western Front (World War I)
• 
  Western Front (World War I)
• 
  Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618)

None of the above pictures are legible at 300 px. Furthermore, having created this image, enlarging everything on the map to make it absolutely legible on the front page, would crowd out the map with icons and text. The suggestion of having a campaign map like this was brought up and the idea was lauded by several users. This was the reason I created it. If you feel there is a better picture available, by all means, post it or suggest it. -- VegitaU 21:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think then that your map image should be moved to an appropriate location in the article, and either a past image reinstated or a new one selected. As someone said above, map images are usually used when no good photos are available, and I see that the images you posted are all from battles that took place during WWII or even earlier, putting most of the events in a time period during which photography was more difficult and thus less common. Although your map image is indeed un-biased, the first image visible on the page should be as compelling as possible, while also remaining appropriate and not overly-biased. The rest of the article is excellent, and I would like people to be compelled to read through it when they stumble upon it and see the top of the page. There just isn't anything at all compeling about a cartoon map of Iraq that shows a few major battles that have taken place. I didn't find the old 4-pictures image to be biased, and I didn't get the impression that it was meant to be all-encompassing. I would probably suggest simply reinstating it, but maybe there is something else in the PD that would work also, if there are still objections to the quad image. Also, perhapse it could be considered biased to have a top image that is not attention-grabbing and may result in fewer people reading through this article, although I don't think that that is your intention. It could be said that there is a risk of going too far and sensationalizing the events of the war if there is too much emphasis placed on making the article interesting and exciting to the reader. However, I really don't think placing one or a few interesting and emotional real photos from the war at the top of the page is going too far. This war is a very important issue that everyone should be informed about, so lets make sure that we do as much as we can to get people to read about it.Josh60798 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. I think people wanted a neutral image that did not favor any side in the conflict. If an image is wanted that would draw the reader more into the article, I would prefer an image showing some of the harrowing Iraqi casualties of the war. I can't find any good ones on wikipedia. I mean photos such as the ones I found recently here:

http://www.lowculture.com/archives/2005/12/

I found that page while browsing around looking for some more images for

Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003

Here are some categories with photos:

Category:2003 Iraq conflict

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Iraq_War

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_US_Army

Here is a non-bloody photo, that is harrowing nevertheless:

Staff Sgt. Kevin Jessen checks the underside of two anti-tank mines found in a village outside Ad Dujayl, Iraq.

Image:VS-1.6 anti-tank mine.jpg

Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. So we can put any image we want at the top. I vote for showing the reality of war with some bloody photos of casualties from all sides. --Timeshifter 09:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats good, I agree with what you said. I would like the top photo to show Iraqi people in some manner, since the war effects them the most out of any group. The first photo doesn't need to be extremely harrowing or bloody, but it should tap into people's feelings about the war and compel them to read further. I would hope that nobody would consider a photo of that nature biased, as it would merely show a record of an event that took place as a result of the war. A photograph of an operation or a battle or attack is simply a document of something that happened, analagous to the Iraq map showing major combat events. But a photograph shows much more vividly the human aspect of such events in this war.Josh60798 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this one: Image:Army.mil-2007-03-27-114351.jpg. I have been showing the images in this section at the 300-pixel-wide size of the infobox in the article.

A soldier carries a wounded Iraqi child into the Charlie Medical Centre at Camp Ramadi, Iraq, on March 20, 2007.

--Timeshifter 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a very appropriate image. It features female soldiers in Iraq, which in my understanding is not a very common site in published war photographs. It also features Iraqi civilians. I think it is a well-balanced photo, in regards to viewpoints or emotions regarding the war. Its a sad photograph, but it also has a certain glimmer of hopefulness to it. The people in it appear worn out, but also determined. I think it would be hard to argue against that photograph.Josh60798 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I've redone the war map to consolidate information per Publicus' request. -- VegitaU 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on the picture?Josh60798 10:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the photo to the one of the female soldier and Iraqi child. The battle map it replaced still needs to be repositioned. If there is any opposition to this change or choice of photo, please state your concerns. Thanks.Josh60798 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo looks good at the top of the infobox. I am going to let others place the map. They seem to be having discussions on other talk pages about the various maps, combining them, etc.. --Timeshifter 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

-I hate the be the asshole here but I just dont like the picture. The photo compilations that are usually used for War articles are widely used for a reason, most wars are very complex. I dont doubt the authenticity or the intentions of the soldiers in this photograph but it should not be used as the centerpiece picture for the entire article... this is the kind of picture that the Department of Defense would release and therefore isnt neutral. Someone should make a photo compilations and include this picture in it. - Blake

If you can find a better photo, more power to you. I looked, and there are very few good photos of the Iraq War on wikipedia or the commons. I mean photos that show some of the reality of the casualties of the war. Not just the typical gungho photos of tanks, attack helicopters, and guys on patrol. Please encourage people to upload more casualty photos.

Here is the reality. There is a disturbing May 2007 New York Times slideshow of American casualties after an IED bombing. It is linked from the story here:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/07/1719/ - story

Slideshow: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/05/22/world/20070523_SEARCH_FEATURE.html

There is another casualty photo here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0412-07.htm

Due to the lack of detail visible on a 300-pixel-wide compilation photo at the top of an infobox such compilation photos are not compelling enough to be a lead photo for a wikipedia article about an ongoing war.

I agree with you about photos found on U.S.-military-associated websites. Most are cheesy. See

http://www.army.mil/mediaplayer/armyimages/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter --Timeshifter 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

One of several old Iraq War header photos

--86.29.246.148 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the compilation photo at 300 pixels wide that was used for awhile at the top of the infobox:

Image:IraqWarHeader.jpg

Another problem with it is that it uses 84 kilobytes even at this width. Various images have been used at the top of the infobox over time. We keep looking for better, less-cheesy ones to use there. --Timeshifter 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Use a dramticly smaller vergion or reduce the resalution to save on memory Kilobites.--Freetown 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to draw people into the article. It is not a very compelling photo collage even at the current 300-pixel-wide setting used for the Iraq War header photo. A smaller version will make it even less interesting. --Timeshifter 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The best hedder image could be this, it's so apropriate-

A blown up, burnt out and totaly destroyed M1/A1 U.S. tank in Basra!

--86.25.50.222 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

.

I agree that the headder picture is boring, but it's not naff. I think this reprisents the true meaning of the war for me.

File:Saddamstatue.jpg

Happy Irqaie rebels pull down the immage of there opressor, in the famous 9 April 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Firdos Square in Baghdad.

--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool it, nurds!--86.29.248.245 11:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You warn us about etiquette and then call us "nurds". -- VegitaU 11:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking if you think a picture of an American soldier carrieing and Iraqi child is appropriate! This doesn not show how the war is at all. You are giving people the impression the Americans are doing good and that's not neutral (and not true). The Honorable Kermanshahi 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section: Professor Chip Pitts

There is a lengthy paragraph in the intro to the criticisms section that describes the views of Professor Chip Pitts. This seems like undue weight, especially because Pitts is talking about much broader issues than what this section is about. This section is about criticisms of the prosecution of the war. Pitts is talking about U.S. foreign policy in general. I woudl like to remove this paragraph, but want to propose doing so before I make the change. I think I have removed it before and someone put it back in, so I welcome their thoughts on why it belongs. Cheers --Mackabean 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the change.--86.25.50.222 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to just reduce it's size.--86.29.246.148 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well!...

I don't beleve they could be so dopy! Is this what they do in Iraq, these days- [[1]]--86.29.246.148 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

I've added a bibliography section. Ricks' 'Fiasco' and Gordon's 'Cobra II' look like the most up-to-date and comprehensive books on the conflict so far, but feel free to add. Colin4C 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's Make the Opening Paragraph Change

I've read a great deal of support for changing the opening paragraph to reflect a more neutral tone. It's time we make the change. I'm willing to make the edit myself in the next fews days if I sense I have the support of the contributors in the discussion. --Clayc3466 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a contributor to this article. So I might be out of line for replying here. But I feel it is needed, regardless.

The suspect lines are perhaps:

"The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush and supporters in the Republican and Democratic parties, was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat[29] to the United States, its allies and interests. In George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, he claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Saddam Hussein became imminent.[30][31]"

These might hint at an anti-war bias, but they are also facts that are reliably sourced. The primary rationale for the war in March 2003 was unarguably the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. Terrorism, liberation, and other reasons were mentioned but the focus of the President's speeches were on the possibility of Iraq gaining nuclear technology and on the possibility they would give these weapons to terrorist groups.

"After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons. To support the war, other U.S. officials cited claims of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda connection. Yet others pointed to human rights abuse in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the need to establish democracy in Iraq as reason for the war. They have also claimed that the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply limited non-military options. Many critics of the war have alleged that this was a primary reason for the invasion.[32]"

This is where I start seeing an obvious bias in the choice of words the article uses. But again, these are facts. No evidence was found that Iraq was actively developing a weapons of mass destruction program. This is all a matter of government record in which the conclusion has been that Iraq ceased such programs in the years following Gulf I. The line about oil not being sourced is particularly troubling to me, and I feel it should be removed unless it can be sourced or quoted. All of this is relevant, but this is more about the political implications of the war (for which there are numerous articles) than the history of the war itself.

"The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq. The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq.[33][34] As a result of this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have withdrawn troops from Iraq.[35] The causes and consequences of the war remain extremely controversial.[16][36][24]"

Failure to restore order is the only anti-war language I can see here. T

he war is controversial. That is a fact that is undeniable. Order was not restored. This is also an undisputable fact.

Assymetric warfare broke out. The Pentagon itself has stated this.

The US coalition occupies Iraq and tries to establish a democratic government. This is fact.

The force has been and remains to be primarily American and British.

That being said, my vote is that it is completely rehauled. Not because of bias, but because it is too long-winded and repetitive like my post here. I think about 2/3 to 1/2 of what currently exists could be there.

What do you mean specifically about 'neutral tone'? Which parts of the paragraph are non-neutral? Colin4C 08:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to nitpick a little bit here. Consider the following statements:

After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons.

I'm not disagreeing with this, but you need a reference. Without a reference it is a worthless statement.

The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq.

Considering the operation to restore order is ongoing, I think my friends who are deployed there would be quite surprised to learn that they've already failed. This is a broad and dangerous statement, and the author has provided absolutely no external support for it.

The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq.

No one attacked Iraq. The allied forces invaded the land and fought (and are still fighting, fyi) Iraqi military and paramilitary organizations. Iraqi civilians have never been harmed without first showing intent to harm others, except in a few tragic accidents and but for a handful of immature young troops who take potshots at passing Iraqis because they want action. I know this is a bit too nitpicky, but honestly that language (attacked Iraq) seems very immature. Its like something a ten year old would say. Lets use adult language to describe adult situations.

I'm not suggesting that the introduction needs to be entirely overhauled, but if you are going to make dramatic and controversial statements you must word them thoughtfully and you absolutely must include references. Mrmb6b02 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your allegation that only immature people use the word "attack" is, um, entertaining. Perhaps you could take your crusade against the word "attack" to the World War II articles; it is used quite heavily there. Then you could proceed to many other articles on wars and battles. Harvard yarrd

Hehe. I'll concede that one to you. I debated whether or not to include that in the first place. Perhaps I didn't debate long enough? A momentary lapse in judgement. I know we aren't supposed to remove talk page content, but what is the policy on striking? ;) Still, I stand by the difference of what I wrote. Cheers. Mrmb6b02 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Suddenly calling all opposing forces "al-Qaida"

This is bizarre. Does a summary of it belong in the article? 75.35.79.57 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Topically Related Imagery

The so-called topically-related imagery on this page is pathetic. It does not feature the war's victims in one single photograph, yet there are at least 5 tame, unrevealing photos of American forces.Nwe 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about that gallery of images at the end.--Timeshifter 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems have been corrected. --Timeshifter 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Propose Removal of "Topically Related Imagery"

The Topically Related Imagery section at the end of the article serves informative purpose. It merely takes up space. I have not encountered such a section in any other article and since we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile, it is really of no use to anyone. Nwe 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile" - i disagree. Any photos/diagrams etc that aid understanding of the issue should be allowed to be on wikipedia, under a suitable subtitle or sub article.Chendy 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean there don't seem to be any good images that have been licenced by the copyright holder.Nwe 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are image galleries in wikipedia articles. I have seen them. The question is how many images should there be in the image gallery here. We can't fit anymore images in the right and left side columns. I tried a few days ago. I had to alternate sides in order for there not to be blank white spaces in the 2 browsers I checked (latest Firefox and latest MS Internet Explorer v7.x). I assume all the images are allowed in this wikipedia article, or someone would soon delete them. --Timeshifter 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are, they are not common to every article, and there is no reason why we should have them in this one, particularly when the images are so unsatisfactory, and the article is already so long and likely to expand. Don't bother adding any images if they're anything like the ones we have at present. And I'm sure these particular images are allowed, I only said that no good images were licenced.Nwe 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this rag-bag of images serves no particularly useful purpose in the article. Colin4C 10:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I substituted a couple photos. Feel free to substitute more. I found a collection of images here:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Iraq_War --Timeshifter 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely the proper place for an 'image dump' of Iraq war related images is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War. Otherwise we should integrate appropriate images with appropriate text in the body of the article. Makes sense? Colin4C 10:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Galleries are common, and are not image dumps. I think by continued substitution of better images, this gallery will be fine. 12 4-kilobyte gallery images take up only 48 kilobytes. Removing one of the larger-kilobyte, inline images from the text can save 30 kilobytes. --Timeshifter 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite other articles with similar image galleries? I still don't see the point of including images just because they exist, without immediate relation to the content. I know it's a great thing when it is established that the wikipedia actually has the rights to use an image, but that is no reason to go overboard with the sheer thrill of it...Colin4C 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"sheer thrill of it". Please ease up on the hyperbole. It is uncivil, and does not assume good faith. Offhand, here is a page with a photo gallery in it: Mexican general election 2006 controversies. Photos are just another form of sourced info useful to encyclopedias. Let us move on, please. --Timeshifter 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture gallery you cite in the Mexican instance is explicitly and thematically related to content in the text about a political rally. It is not a rag-bag of vaguely related images. As for incivility and bad faith, I have not directed any personal comments at any editor here, I am merely discussing the issue and I assume the good faith of anyone who has added pictures to the gallery or who created the gallery itself, even if I disagree with it on the grounds I have mentioned before. Colin4C 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)

In the latest Firefox browser, and in the Microsoft Internet Explorer v7.x browser, it says

"Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

at the top of the browser when I am viewing this talk page. Does anybody know why? And how do we fix it?

Here is some linkbar code followed by the linkbars:

{{article|Talk:Iraq War}}

Talk:Iraq War (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Iraq War|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

{{article|Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)}}

Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maybe the history and log links can help figure this out. --Timeshifter 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah?

Is Hezbollah a player in the Iraq war? I note that an editor recently inserted it into the multiconflict insurgency side. There is the political movement Hezbollah Movement in Iraq which, if that article is to be believed, is not affiliated with Hezbollah. Anyway, since the article doesn't treat either of these groups, I am reverting the edit until it can be suitably referenced and clarified. Silly rabbit 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Officials: Hezbollah agent played deaf before confessing
2. U.S.: Iran helped in deadly Iraq strike
3. Michael Ware report here. Robbskey 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm still not convinced that Hezbollah should be identified as one of the combatants, although certainly they are deserving of some mention in the text. So far, there is evidence that the group assisted in training and arming Shiite resistance forces as a proxy for Iran. I don't think this is quite enough to justify identifying Hezbollah as a combatant: (1) Iran is already listed; (2) until evidence surfaces that Hezbollah actually has soldiers on the ground, it seems to attach undue significance to the role Hezbollah is playing in the war; (3) this is all rather recently revealed in the media, and still feels sort of speculative. That said, it probably is justified bringing this recent news up in the article somewhere. Silly rabbit 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disability Claims

Shouldn't these be mentioned somewhere? According to Veterans Affairs documents there have been 192,000 claims for disability by returned veterans. 110,000 were accepted, 21,000 rejected, 17,000 ruled as unrelated to war service and 44,000 still pending as of January 2007. That's a discrepancy of almost 140,000 in the number of injured compared to the info box. Wayne 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the source on that? Also, something specifically related to casualties might be better suited for a mention on this page with an in-depth reference on the Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 page. Publicus 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We need an offical sorce to back up the, infact true, claims. I heard it was about 115,000 recently. I'll look up a source for you.--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some intresting links on U.S. war dead, wounded and disabled-

[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] --Comander E.I. Davis2 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Protests against war in Iraq

An editor has just changed some wording in the article from 'protests against war in Iraq' to 'protests against the war in Iraq'. I think that the latter wording is incorrect because the protests started before the war began. What do people here think? Colin4C 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a Typo

In the section "Calls for withdrawal from Iraq," there's a typo. "hile" for "while". D. Winchell 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong majorities

In the section International opinion of the War on Terrorism It is said that "In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia." What are these majorities? Government Majorities? News polls? Credible sources? Or taken after bias reporting? Please indicate the nature of the "majoraties".

As far as I can tell, polls and have elections have indicated that- Turkey is concerend about El-Queada; France, Germany and Russia suport Iraq; Japan and India want a diplomaic resalution to the despute; the U.S.A. wants to give up and leave, while the U.K., Australia, Poland and Denmark want to stay in Iraq to compeat the job! --Comander E.I. Davis2 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reality proves you wrong. Kensai Max 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WW1

According to my 'original research' (i.e. ability to count) the Iraq War has lasted longer than the First World War, in which, incidently, Iraq was involved. In general terms it might be worth keeping tabs on duration of war, compared to other conflicts. Colin4C 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting research Colin4C, I wasn't aware of the connections between the length of the Iraq War and WWI. Before you add this it might run into some problems with a straight comparison of time. Since Bush et al stated that major combat ops were over 4 years ago in May 2003, some editors may look at that as the end of the "war" and the beginning of the "occupation" phase. So your edit comparing these two very different wars might run into some trouble. On the other hand, having a section that compares the duration of the Iraq war with other notable conflicts might be worthwhile and useful. Just my two cents. Publicus 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that e.g. the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004 was bloodier than the initial invasion and that things seem to ratcheting up in a major way lately. Iraq is certainly a guerilla war if not necessarily a conventional one. Colin4C 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worth while to include a comparison of insuries and deaths between the different wars. Perhaps these comparisons should be a separate article though.--Kumioko 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

War Status

Its interesting how this event is so commonly reffered to as a "war", even though the mission is to target specific groups of people within the country, not the country itself, meaning there is no hostility directly between countries.

And thus an official declaration of war by any country hasn't happened, so how can this article be named with the simple "Iraq War" tittle, not "Iraq-US insurgency", or something to that affect.I imagine atleast other names must have been proposed in the past, and the only reason for the current tittle must simply be the common,but inaccurate way to refer to the situation by the media and public. Rodrigue 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Because "war" is not limited to declared conflict between nations.

War (noun) - a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country;

a sustained campaign against something undesirable

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

-- VegitaU 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rodrique, also what other titles would you give the Vietnam war or the Korean war? Wikipedia is just going by the common usage here, nothing wrong with that. Reference materials bow to popular usage all the time. Publicus 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an international armed conflic, which was a war, untill Saddam fell, and a counter terrorisum/insergancy mission afterwards.--Freetown 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying the WW2 article should be changed to "The European conflict was an international armed conflict, which was a war, until France fell, and a counter terrorism/insurgency mission afterwards". Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting you down, but pointing out that usage is more important than what some politicians may call it. Wayne 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a war on scum like- Hezbolah!--86.29.244.175 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not feed the trolls. -- VegitaU 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

POV photo

I think the current leading pic is US-POV and could imply that americans are there to help Iraqi civilians. It could better fit into a humanitarian mission, not in a conflict infobox. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this discussion? Please read the subject above. I don't think we're ever going to agree on one picture. -- VegitaU 11:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with TheFEARgod, and I picked the photo. I was looking for a wikipedia photo that showed some of the casualties of the war, but could not find any graphic ones on wikipedia. This is the best I could find. I hope somebody uploads some more realistic photos of Iraqi casualties. See the previous discussion mentioned by VegitaU. We may never agree on a photo, but we can keep trying to put better ones on the page. --Timeshifter 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How would a graphic photo of a disemboweled civilian be more neutral than the current one? The current photo is as good as it can be, IMO. It shows that civilians are being injured due to the instability caused by the invasion (+1 for the left), while showing the humanity of the invading soldiers (+1 for the right). Plus 1 for both sides equals a net gain of zero for both sides. That is neutral by definition.

Rather than try and find the perfect picture that says in a thousand words that "This is the Iraq War" why don't we use the Iraq Operations Map in the Infobox and use the other pictures as appropriate throughout the article. Since this article is about the Iraq war and not about the casualties or humanitarian mission this should aleviate the picture discussion.--Kumioko 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about all aspects of the Iraq War: casualties, mission, maps, etc... No photo would be perfect. --Timeshifter 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The only leading pic I can think of that encompasses all aspects of the conflict would be the operations map, as it depicts the entire area in which all aspects of the conflict take place. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) My point was that no image can encompass all aspects of the conflict. So we have to choose what aspects to cover. I agree with previous comments that we should use a compelling image in order to interest more readers into delving into the article. Several other comments have been made that we shouldn't use obviously biased photos that seem to be glorifying one side or the other. Or their weapons. So I prefer photos of the reality on the ground. Such as the current header photo for the Vietnam War:

File:Burning Viet Cong base camp.jpg

I think the above photo is better than the typical tanks or helicopters photos. As at 2003 invasion of Iraq. Its current header photo of helicopters:

Please add a discussion of the intelligence leading up to the war

One of the most controversial aspects of the Iraq War is the intelligence that was used to justify it. Please add the following paragraphs in a section discussing the intelligence that led up to the Iraq War.

Intelligence Leading up to the War

The Bush administration’s original justification for the Iraq War was that Iraq possessed WMD, and later that Sadam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was collaborating with the Al Qaeda terrorist group. However, the intelligence on which both these claims were made has proven to be suspect, and the administration has also been accused of falsely representing the available intelligence to the public. This has led many war opponents to refer to the Iraq War as a war based on lies.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, the CIA, under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. The questionable intelligence acquired by this secret program was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public. In some cases, Cheney’s office would leak the intelligence to reporters, where it would be reported by outlets such as The New York Times. Cheney would subsequently appear on the Sunday political television talk shows to discuss the intelligence, referencing The New York Times as the source to give it credence. [1]

Between September, 2002 and June, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz created a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), headed by Douglas Feith. It was created to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. One former CIA officer described the OSP as dangerous for U.S. national security and a threat to world peace, and that it lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam Hussein. He described it as a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality, taking bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignoring anything contrary. [2], [12]

As further evidence that intelligence was being fabricated, a British government memo was published in The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005. Known as the "Downing Street memo," it contains an overview of a secret July 23, 2002 meeting among United Kingdom Labour government, defense and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the Iraq war—including direct reference to classified U.S. policy of the time. The memo states, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." [3], [13]

In late 2002, CIA director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited an attempted yellowcake purchase by Saddam Hussein from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In his January, 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush repeated the allegation, citing British intelligence sources. Yellowcake is a product of an intermediary stage in the production of enriched uranium for use in WMD. The yellowcake intelligence was based on falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence, and there is evidence the Bush administration was aware in 2002 that the intelligence was not reliable. The Bush administration later admitted that Bush should have jettisoned the claim from his State of the Union speech.[4], [11]

In late February of 2002, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the yellowcake claims. He returned home and informed the CIA that the reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." After the Bush administration repeatedly referenced the yellowcake claims as justification for war with Iraq, ambassador Wilson wrote a critical op-ed in The New York Times in which he explained the nature of the documents and the government's prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war. Shortly after Wilson's op-ed, the identity of Wilson's wife, undercover CIA analyst Valerie Plame, was revealed in a column by Robert Novak, in apparent retribution for Wilson going public with doubts about the yellowcake claims. It is a felony to reveal the identity of a CIA agent, yet no one has been convicted as a result of Novak’s column, though I. Lewis "Scooter’ Libby, Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, was convicted of perjury in the Plame leak investigation. [4]

In September 2002, the Bush administration said attempts by Iraq to acquire thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes pointed to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Indeed, Colin Powell, in his address to the U.N. Security Council just prior to the war, made reference to the aluminum tubes. But a report released by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2002 reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium. Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, and was in some cases "deliberately misleading." [5], [6], [7]

Regarding Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda, even the administration has had trouble keeping its statements consistent. Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaeda terror network at an appearance on October 5, 2004 at the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld first refused to answer, then said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." Several hours after his appearance, Rumsfeld issued a statement from the Pentagon saying his comment "regrettably was misunderstood" by some. He said he has said since September 2002 that there were ties between Osama bin Laden’s terror group and Iraq. [8]

Despite all the rhetoric from the Bush administration, inspectors never found any evidence of WMD in Iraq, and the September 11 Commission reported no collaborative relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. [9] [10]

 

[1] "Frontline: The Dark Side", PBS, aired June 20, 2006, <A HREF=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside</A>

[2] "Office of Special Plans", Wikipedia, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans</A>

[3] "Downing Street memo", Wikipedia, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo</A>

[4] "Niger uranium forgeries", Wikipedia, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery</A>

[5] "Evidence on Iraq Challenged," Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2002, <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18</A>

[6] Colin Powell’s speech to the U/N, Feb 5, 2003, <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html</A>

[7] Meet the Press, NBC, May 16, 2004, <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/</A>

[8] MSNBC, "Rumsfeld backtracks on al-Qaida, Iraq links," <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/</A>

[9] AP, "U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD," <A HREF="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100704U.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100704U.shtml</A>

[10] "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie", New York Times, June 17, 2004, <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17panel.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17panel.html</A>

[11] "A Question of Trust," Time, July 13, 2003, <A HREF="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464405,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464405,00.html</A>

[12] "Revealed: The Secret Cabal Which Spun for Blair", Sunday Herald, Neil Mackay, June 8, 2003, <A HREF="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20030608/ai_n12583062">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20030608/ai_n12583062</A>

[13] "The secret Downing Street memo", The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005, <A HREF="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election2005/article387390.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election2005/article387390.ece</A>

Bubbatex 17:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)