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 75.187.116.238 (talk) at 02:55, 19 February 2013 (→‎Lancet Survey). 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


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


Lancet Survey

The Lancet survey is here under "Estimated Excess Deaths". I think you should get rid of it since it is mostly Violent deaths. We already have an "Estimated Violent Deaths" with Iraq Body Count which is more credible. Having the Lancet under "Estimated Excess Deaths" implies this it is the best "Estimated Excess Deaths" estimate. Regardless there are better, more credible estimates as an alternative to the Iraq Body Count. And the Lancet has been repeatedly debunked anyway. Just look at these links: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/11Myths.htm#1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#Criticisms.2C_countercriticisms and http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.dead.html#lancet

There are more credible estimates to put alongside the Iraq Body Count. Such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_iraq_war#The_Associated_Press and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_iraq_war#Iraqi_Health_Ministry — Preceding

Iraq Body Count is not a scientific count of Iraqi war casualties. It only counts documented deaths, which in past wars have been only a small fraction of total deaths. The Lancet survey, by contrast, uses a technique which attempts to determine the total number of civilian deaths, rather than only the fraction which are reported in the media or by the morgues. That is why including the Lancet survey is important. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancet Study is infamous to anyone who knows how it was conducted. They polled Baghdad and Anbar, regions responsible for 92% of all violence yet represented 21% of the population, and simply multiplied that across the rest of the country in ratio to population. Not only that, but they made no distinction between causes of death apart from it was "unnatural", from criminal activity to automobile accidents, they lumped them all in together and claimed it to be the number killed in the war and insurgency. The fact that they release a number of 1-2 million, despite the Iraqi Ministry of health saying later that year that the highest estimate had been 350,000, and their median of 235,000 was to be used only highlights the problem.

75.187.116.238 (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Jade Rat[reply]

Surprise attack?

On March 20[1] the US led coalition conducted a surprise attack on Iraq without declaring war.[65]

I dun thin so, Lucy! And neither does the provided reference. "Declaration of War" is a Red Herring, it was not required though congressional authorization through the Joint Resolution was fulfilled with Bush furnishing 48 hour notice to congress AND his ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to leave the country make the idea of a "surprise attack" absurd. Batvette (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other users request for this sentence to be changed. A major feature of most modern conflicts is the reluctance for States to officially declare war (sorry but I don't have the time to reference this at the moment). I would recommend the sentence be changed to:

"On March 20[1] the US-led coalition launched an invasion from the South. No formal declaration of war was declared,[65] but this is not unusual or extraordinary (See [[1]])." 92.237.150.47 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)James Regan[reply]

At the time of Pearl Harbor all US politicians seemed to agree that it was a big deal that there was no declaration of war. If that standard applies to Japan, why not the US? --130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it was a "surprise attack" since they knew it was comming after Saddam failed to leave the country within his alloted time (the only thing they didn't know was when the attack would begin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Gov't sources, namely Gen. Tommy Franks and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, think the attack was a successful surprise, and the article should reflect this. See references. --Tungsten (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would you emphasize, that it was successful or that it was a surprise? To my knowledge (this could be OR but also may be supported in other context by many sources) the only surprise aspect about it might be that Saddam did not expect a full scale invasion and removal of his Ba'athist regime, as he had allies in Paris and Moscow assuring him Bush would merely carry out a half hearted aerial bombing campaign for a few days and these allies would broker a cease fire in the security council.
The mere fact that he would be attacked being a surprise is not supported to my knowledge by the historical record.
I hope no one is requiring we have broadcast the precise minute and place of the first munition being deployed lest it be a surprise attack. I'm pretty sure Franks and Rumsfeld would have meant the swift mechanized tactical nature of the campaign, which saw a thrust into Baghdad in just a few weeks- though if you have a reference clarifying this please post up, sounds interesting and useful. The way they did this was considered novel, and risky for leaving the flanks open with many Iraqi units being bypassed unsecured. Fortunately as Saddam did not command much of an organized defense (likely for reasons above) the risk did not backfire.Batvette (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War ended after a month?

Sorry to flag this up, but how is fighting a terrorist insurgency a war? Just in technical terms, a country can only declare war on a state, and since the Iraqi regime fell after a month or so, surely the war itself ended at that point? 95.149.42.73 (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 'war' is broader than just a conflict between sovereign states. For example, the War on Drugs. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Technically it was never a "War" since War was never declared however it has come to offically be known as the "Iraq War" which lasted for 8 Years and 9 Months — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC for several entities including congressional declaration for veteran status/VA benefits, the first Persian Gulf war never ended and continued until into the Obama administration. This was also within the language of the Joint Resolution. Batvette (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Casualties Edit

The current civilian casualties figure (from http://www.iraqbodycount.org) is out of date. The existing figure on the page is 103,160 – 113,728 whereas the up to date Iraq Body Count figure is 109,301 – 119,421. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamiaanVDW (talk • contribs) 05:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War&oldid=538975574"