Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.176.57.237 (talk) at 05:10, 25 March 2012 (→Edit request on 16 February 2012 (550 tons of yellowcake uranium found)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeIraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Pope's opposition

Isn't it worth noting that the late Pope John Paul II met with both George W. Bush and Tony Blair to advise them not to invade Iraq in the section under "Opposition to Invasion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from, 17 November 2011

Please correct the casualty estimates table for two incorrectly described sources:

"Associated Press 133,280 violent deaths. Health Ministry death certificates plus AP estimate of casualties for 2003–2005. April 2009 Iraq Body Count 113,494 – 122,483 violent civilian deaths. Reported in English-language media only. (including new deaths added from the Iraq War Logs) October 2010"

The correct AP number is 110,600. The figure of 133,280 is erroneous "original research" and never appears in AP. The missing early years were 2003-2004, not 2003-2005, and the AP figure of 110,600 already includes the AP estimate for those years.

The IBC number given here of 113,494-122,483 is also a weird kind of "original research" that never appears in IBC. It seems to be using some undetermined IBC figure from its database at some point in time and adding on top a separate estimate they made of likely additions that will come from the Wikileaks war logs material. The latter is a projection of what they think will ultimately added, which is separate from the database of recorded deaths (and which now already includes some Wikileaks-sourced deaths). Moreover, the statement here "reported in English-language media only" is false. The IBC website says: "Deaths in the database are derived from a comprehensive survey of commercial media and NGO-based reports, along with official records that have been released into the public sphere. Reports range from specific, incident based accounts to figures from hospitals, morgues, and other documentary data-gathering agencies."

The current Casualties of the Iraq War page has these sources listed appropriately, and it would be simple enough to just copy them from that table to this one to correct the OR and error problems here:

Associated Press 110,600 deaths March 2003 to April 2009

Iraq Body Count project 103,536 — 113,125 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. Over 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths[1] March 2003 to October 2011

It would also be good to add the Wikileaks to the table, again this could just be copied from the table on the Casualties page (with proper formatting of course):

WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][2][3][4] 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[5][6] January 2004 to December 2009


Conflict not over

First of all, saying the War ended on December 15, is incorrect, because although US involvement may be over (which it isn't really, because of all the contractors), the war still continues between Iraqi government and insurgents. Also, the claim that the insurgency is currently "small-scale" is POV, because there is no clear definition for this, and it seems to have only been framed in such words to make the war seem more successful for US, which is POV. In reality, although the violence decreased, the insurgency is by no means small scale and with at least 3,777 deaths this year [1] it is still one of the most violent conflicts on earth. Most ongoing conflicts, which have articles on wikipedia, have nowhere near 3,777 deaths a year, or even in total, and we don't label them as finished.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a conflict, but this article is about the war between Iraq and the coalition forces. We don't say the Seven Days War is ongoing because there is still violence between Israel and pro-Palestenian forces. Czolgolz (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the current insurgency is not that simple continuation of the Iraq War. There are factions that fight against each other besides the Iraqi government (which in turn is civil war). So besides anti-government insurgency, there is Shia vs. Sunni fighting. Indeed, most of the suicide bombings are against civilians that are of different group. There might be suicide bombers in Iraq in 2020, but that doesn't mean this article should cover the period up to that. --Pudeo' 14:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, 4000 dead a year is a large scale conflict by UN standards. The comparison with Six Days War is completely false, since not so many people die as a cause of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Czolgolz puts it incredibly well—"violent conflict" (in this case, an insurgency) ≠ "war" necessarily. The continuing of violence alone does not justify the claim that the Iraq War is still ongoing. I can not say it enough (literally, because people have a hearing problem): we work with reliable sources on Wikipedia, and our best bet 100% of the time is to stick firmly to the sources (which is what we're doing). Nothing terribly wrong with discussing it here, but those inclined to do so need to understand that. Swarm X 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists opinions are not reliable with regard to the existence of a state of war, imo. Hohum (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kermanshani, the Iraq War is not over, just because US pulled out its troups. The violence goes on. The event of American withdrawal interpretation as the end of war is WP:SYNTH.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of commentators here and there now seem to be opining that the war is not over. However, the vast majority of sources are clearly supporting the notion that the war is over— the ones supplied in the article are just a small sampling (as anyone with a keyboard and a search engine will easily be able to note). Swarm X 21:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not opining either way. I'm saying that journalists opinions are not reliable regarding whether the war is ongoing. Politicians are even less reliable. Respected political and/or military analysts *are*. (Hohum @) 20:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That a "reliable source" quotes a US politician as saying the war is over, does not mean the war is actually over. As long as there is an ongoing conflict that means the conflict is ongoing. Many conflicts which see only 100 or less casualties a year, or even just one or two bombings a year are classified by wikipedia as "ongoing," meanwhile one of the most violent conflicts on earth labelled here as finished simply because Barack Obama says so? Are we his propaganda site or what? This is a clear double standard. As for who is "reliable," politicians lie, their journalists do, but numbers don't:

Monday 26 December: 14 killed

Baghdad: 7 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Baiji: 1 body. Mussayab: 2 bodies. Al-Sieniya: 1 Sahwa member by gunfire. Baquba: 1 Sahwa member by IED.


December casualties so far: 371 civilians killed.

Sunday 25 December: 17 killed Garma: 6 policemen by gunfire. Arbat: 2 by gunfire. Baquba: 1 body. Falluja: 1 policeman by gunfire. Abu Ghraib: 2 by IED. Baghdad: 1 by AED. Dujail: 1 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 1 Christian by gunfire. Tikrit: 2 by car bomb.

December casualties so far: 357 civilians killed.

Saturday 24 December: 9 killed Baghdad: 2 by IED. Kirkuk: 2 by AED, 2 bodies. Hawija: 2 policemen by IED. Mosul: 1 body.

December casualties so far: 340 civilians killed.

Friday 23 December: 11 killed Baghdad: 5 by IEDs. Mosul: 3 by IEDs. Kirkuk: 1 by AED, 1 body. Gatun: 1 by gunfire.

December casualties so far: 331 civilians killed.

Thursday 22 December: 85 killed Baghdad: 75 killed in several bombings. Baquba: 6 by gunfire. Mosul: 2 by IED, 1 body found. Kirkuk: 1 body.

December casualties so far: 320 civilians killed.

Wednesday 21 December: 6 killed Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Kirkuk: 2 by AED. Abu Ghraib: 1 Sahwa chief by AED. Baghdad: 1 by gunfire.

December casualties so far: 235 civilians killed.

Tuesday 20 December: 4 killed Falluja: 1 killed by bomb inside shop. Baghdad: 1 university lecturer by AED. Mosul: 1 by gunfire. Haswa: 1 by IED.

December casualties so far: 229 civilians killed. Kermanshahi (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It dosent matter since none of these Casulties were American- this article only refers to the American involvement in the War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^^It doesn't. It refers to the Iraq War. The Vietnam War article doesn't end with end of US intervention either.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then you could make the case that the "War" started in 1980 with the Iran-Iraq War (possibly even earlier that that) and it has just been one on-going conflict since then (which by your logic is what it should be), there will always be violence in Iraq but this conflict is now over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you couldn't make that case at all, because the conflict between Saddam Hussein and the government of Iran ended in 1988 with a cease-fire. The conflict between the Iraqi insurgency and the new Iraqi government, installed by the US in 2003, has continued until today, and therefore is still ongoing.Kermanshahi (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but there was fighting between those two well before 2003- Just face it, violence will always continue in Iraq but the Iraq War is now Over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Iraq War is clearly over as the aims of the coalition forces to determine if Saddam Hussein's regime was hiding WMD have concluded and the U.N. resolutions to bring military forces into the country have been resolved. The subsequent occupation of coalition forces resulted from the ousting of Saddam Hussein's regime, as the Iraq War was the strategic removal of the regime's military stance against the U.N. resolutions. The battles between insurgents, therefore, are related to the occupation and not to the Iraq War/U.N. peacekeeping effort of the various coalition nations. The aims of the occupation were to stabilize the country and the region as Iraq moved towards a representative democracy. The war in Iraq was over once the U.N. resolutions were resolved. The occupation should not be included in this Wiki except as a reference, and the insurgent fighting and sectarian violence the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Embassy guards

In the interest of accuracy there is a very small force of Marine Security Guards at the embassies and consulates of the United States in Iraq. These marines are at every American diplomatic post overseas. Mrld (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, contractors are not military operatives that do not fight wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty Count

Coalition casualties are severely out of date and do not reflect the final total. More accurate figures can be located here http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/11/attachments/Lutz%20US%20and%20Coalition%20Casualties.pdf and would strongly reccomend the sidebox underneath the image be updated to reflect this, with all casualties and deaths incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.98.38 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can i add this image to the article?

Haditha killings November 19, 2005

There is no edit button. Why? InnovationCover (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 February 2012 (550 tons of yellowcake uranium found)

AP: 7/5/2008 -- I was wondering why no one had added the fact that in 2008 the last remnants of some 550 metric tons of yellow-cake uranium were removed from Baghdad by the US military. This was a historical find and yet only a select few news agencies cared to conveniently follow the story. I actually only stumbled across the story as it was posted at MSNBC.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/


208.229.219.2 (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please be specific about what text you would like to add to the article. Toward the end, the source identifies the yellow cake as having been known to the UN inspectors prior to the first gulf war, so this isn't really historic news, but I don't know what it is you would like to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what this person is referring to is the appearance of bias in this entire Wikipedia entry. It comes off as argumentative and seems to support the controversial notion that the Iraq War was a war of aggression, even though this was a United Nations peacekeeping effort of coalition forces. The yellow cake uranium is used in weapons of mass destruction, and the Hussein regime had "smoking gun" ties to terrorist groups who also viewed the West (i.e. the United States) as enemies. The omission of these facts and perspectives is likely what is driving this person and others to try and insert points of view that have been omitted from this apparently biased Wikipedia entry. It comes off as if the entry argues for "There were no WMD in Iraq that were relevant" and "Saddam didn't put money into Osama's hand," so "this was a war of agression by the unilaterally acting United States." This bias is quite apparent, and this person is addressing that in his own way, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, just maybe, it is because it is true that the US and UK fabricated all the alledged evidence in order to justify a war of aggression? If that offends you, then make sure to stand up and obeject in outrage the next time your politicians plan to invade and destroy a country with no reason other than self-serving interest.173.74.22.141 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's argumentative and opinionated. All of Wikipedia is a left-wing blog in the guise of an encyclopedia, as the previous comment should show. It doesn't even try to have an NPOV, it uses b.s. sources and doesn't give them a second thought and that's why people laugh when you say you took any information whatsoever from Wikipedia. It's 1:AM and I'm not going to waste my time shooting off the facts the previous comment ignores on purpose. I could say anything but you can't reason with people like that.

Blackwater heading

I've made a new heading, "Blackwater private security controversy", for the previous "Private security firm controversy". It's primarily about an incident involving a single company, so it should mention that company's name. Superm401 - Talk 03:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Altaie's remains were recovered last month.

The captured list should be updated. --68.45.180.34 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War&oldid=483800548"