From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


March 2007 I updated population estimates from Iraqi MOI and Coalition Forces to the current 350,000-500,000 figures that are cited regularly in unclassified briefings. I also removed a bit of extraneous development of Operation Phantom Fury as it was redundant and out of place, especially when compared to the previous paragraph giving a good overview of the recent battle history of the city. I also removed several parts about the deaths of American Marines that were both highly dated and too time-sensitive to be considered truly encyclopedic. The citation about Sgt. Rafael Peralta being nominated for the Medal of Honor was also rather out of place. This will perhaps be more appropriate when and if he is posthumously awarded the medal. The main concern here for me is factual accuracy and doing away with any coloring of history with jingoism or sloganeering by either side of this conflict. Robotempire 11:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Biased Links[edit]

Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I am moving the links for the Fallujah article in the next day or two. They are clearly biased and also belong on the Phantom Fury page. Also, the city of Fallujah has been around for thousands of years and the 4 links attached to the city should not revolve around 2 weapons used in 2004. I looked at the pages for Tokyo, Dresden, Volgograd (Stalingrad) and St. Lo and none of their external links dealt with the battles that occured there and destroyed the cities. Dresden did have an Extra reading section that pointed to books about the firebombing but the links focused on the city. Finally, would it be appropriate for someone to start adding links about how effective WP was in Fallujah or how Thermobaric weapons in Fallujah were a great weapon?

  1. Talk:Fallujah/archive01 - to Nov 2004
  2. Talk:Fallujah/archive02 - to Nov 2005

My Google results[edit]

I spent 15 minutes on Google, researching the incident, and I'm convinced the account I cut was one-sided:

  • The origin of its hostility to coalition forces dates back to April 28, 2003, when U.S. troops opened fire on a group of up to 200 peaceful protestors, killing 15. The soldiers claimed they were merely returning gunfire, but Human Rights Watch found that the bullet holes examined at the location were inconsistent with that story. Moreover, Iraqi witnesses at the scene maintained that the crowd was unarmed. [1]
  • According to the US spokesperson, Lt-Col Eric Nantz, the troops were being shot at and stones had been thrown. They tried to disperse the crowd with loudspeaker warnings but in vain, he said. Under threat, they fired back. ... Lt-Col Nantz said that the troops had been fired on from a house across the road. Several light machineguns were produced, which the Americans said were found at the scene. [2]
  • Americans and Iraqis gave sharply differing accounts of Monday night's shooting. U.S. forces insisted they opened fire only upon armed men -- infiltrators among the protest crowd, according to Col. Arnold Bray, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 325 Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division (search), whose troops were involved in the shooting. "Which school kids carry AK-47s?" Bray asked. "I'm 100 percent certain the persons we shot at were armed." ... U.S. Central Command said paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division were fired on by about 25 armed civilians mixed within an estimated crowd of 200 protesters outside a compound troops were occupying. "The paratroopers, who received fire from elements mixed within the crowd and positioned atop neighboring buildings, returned fire, wounding at least seven of the armed individuals," the Central Command statement said. A Central Command spokesman, Lt. Mark Kitchens, said coalition forces "have consistently demonstrated their efforts to avoid civilian casualties and practice restraint. Any allegations to the contrary are simply not based on fact." [3]

We should indicate at least that the "unarmed civilians" thing is disputed. Better, put in both sides' accounts. --Uncle Ed 20:44, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My main source in writing the section you removed was the CBC. They state:

[Faullujah] erupted as a flashpoint in the current conflict on April 28, 2003, when coalition soldiers fired on a group of protesters in front of a school, killing 15 and wounding several others. The military said soldiers were firing in self-defence. Resistance fighters disagree. [4]

I agree the story is a complex one and there is probably no way for us to find out what actually happened. It would probably be best to do a full Rashomon and describe each side's story. What I was trying to convey is that much of the population of Fallujah believe American troops killed unarmed civilians and that this has lead to the current situation in the city. - SimonP 02:28, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

To be realistic, in warfare, civillians are targeted, and die. Targeting may be right or wrong, but in every war, there are wrong "targets". Some are unarmed. That's war. It doesn't mean that innocent civillians are targeted intentionally. In the first gulf war, more americans were killed by americans than Iraqis (Until the retreat fire). I think the paragraph should be restored, with wording that indicates that the americans weren't just trigger happy, but felt they were under threat of death, and shot, rightly or wrongly. Ronabop 09:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I incorporated some of the info from the quotes above. Please check for accuracy and neutrality. --Uncle Ed 12:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good work, the new version is much better. - SimonP 15:24, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Disclosure discussion[edit]


The seige of Fallujah and threats of attack are enforced by the U.S. 1st Marine Division, which raises funds for its activities in Iraq through several web sites directly linked from Jerk Sauce, the main commentary service of [5], which is the sole on-going sponsor of Wikipedia, providing bandwidth, server space and server maintenance. The Marine fundraising efforts are conducted under the 501(c)(3) authority of the Spirit of America [6] [7] at Jerk Sauce's recommended sites including Command Post [8] and Tim Blair [9]. Earlier Spirit of America web ads featuring the 1st Marines' emblem recently have been replaced with ads for the same organization but featuring disparaging messages about the Arab television network Al Jazeera, which the 1st Marines hope to combat with their own version of the news, supported in part by funds raised at these web sites.

I removed the "disclosure" for several reasons. We really need a policy on this - starting from the fact that Wikipedia is part of a registered non-profit organization -not part of Bomis. Rmhermen 18:18, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

You don't need a policy to enforce shell games that hide funding sources and their ideological affiliations - state laws already require that non-profits not hide their funding sources. Bomis is the sole ongoing contributor to Wikipedia, providing bandwidth and server space, which is Wikipedia's primary expense. The disclaimer accurately states these facts, and does not misprepresent Bomis as the owner of Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia foundation does not disclose its funding affiliations with Bomis, it can face prosecution under Florida laws. If you have several reasons, state them. Otherwise, since Bomis is the primary sponsor of Wikipedia, and Bomis directs visitors to sites that raise money for 1st Marine activities in Iraq, disclosure is both appropriate and consistent with typical ethical practices. CNN still discloses its affiliations with former owners when its stories involve those sources, even though management has distanced itself from those sources. I moved the disclosure to the talk page to accompany your unexplained revert of a meaningful contribution. TruthSayer 18:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A disclosure would only be useful if Bomis had any sort of editorial control over Wikipedia. It does not and most users have no idea what Bomis is or what it does. Also when did USMC operations start being funded by web donations? - SimonP 18:59, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
A disclosure would be useful for me because it would have spared me having to discover these relevant funding affiliations on my own. An interest in a better understanding of when the 1st Marines started relying on private funding solicited through on-line sources is irrelevant to the consideration of direct evidence that Bomis sponsors Wikipedia and that Bomis affiliates itself with sites raising funds for war-time propaganda. It is especially useful in the context of an article about the flash-point of a likely explosion of resistance in Iraq. Until this disclosure, the article only reported that "Marines" (not which division) discovered things, but did not qualify that the information was based solely on 1st Marine's claims to have discovered these things, repeated in freindly news sources.
The fact that "most users have no idea what Bomis is or what it does" - especially what it does for Wikipedia - suggests articles that overlap Bomis' propaganda interests are uniquely in need of a disclosure. A disclosuer could be best developed in articles describing Bomis, but lacking any other way to report the information, it is specifically relevant to articles in which the 1st Marines tactical and propaganda interests are considered, and in which Bomis is specifically directing its visitors to sites that support that specific unit's propaganda interests.
For guidance on when disclosures are typically offered, developed from the CNN example, Ted Turner has long since surrendered editorial control over CNN, but CNN continues to offer disclosures in stories that report Turner's activities, including the activities of foundations he endowed and organizations they fund.
Bomis' contribution to Wikipedia's editorial and administrative direction is debatable. Administrators have continually turned to Bomis' owner for guidance and absolution in execution of policies. His work under the title "God King" for several years encouraged new Wikipedia leaders to use cult-like language that discouraged opposition to his views, and to disparage those who offer counterveiling policies. Bomis's owner Jim Wales set the direction away from a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, and presents as a primary pundit against the pheasibility of reviewed encyclopedias in numerous interviews. That policy, driven by Bomis' desire for rapid development, made Wikipedia more available to those who present election-time and war-time misinformation. Though other editors ostensibly correct misinformation, there is no procedure to assure correction and when corrections are made, it can happen hours, days or weeks after the misinformation has been served and forked to readers and to other web services. During election or war-time propaganda campaigns, a few hours of misinformation can be useful. Bomis set the stage on which such misinformation can be presented. Bomis' CEO also states in interviews he hopes to profit from commercial release of a Wikipedia CD, which instead could provide revenue to advance the independant non-profit interests of the Foundation.
Wikipedia Foundation could easily distance itself from Bomis by finding other contributors to fund purchases of bandwidth, back-up and primary servers, house servers and server maintenance. Failing to do so, it is in keeping with common journalistic practices to disclose who pays for publication -- Perhaps a savy investigator needs to review Wikipedia Foundation's 501(c)(3) and state non-profit reports to assure that its primary source of revenue - in-kind donations from - are accurately disclosed. The foundation could act in good faith by publishing those reports under the Wikipedia namespace.
In response to the question of when US forces started using private funding to support propaganda operations, the practice goes way back, but was widely reported during the Iran/Contra debate, when missles were privately traded to hostile nations in exchange for money used to support illegal Contra activities in Central America. The use of on-line fundraising might be a new tactic, which again points to a need for disclosure. TruthSayer 20:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is all still irrelevant in that no one who helped write this article is paid by or associated with Bomis. - SimonP 19:52, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Who pays for the printing of a newspaper is as relevant to some readers as is who wrote the articles. Journalists typically concur it is not the publishers' decision to decide when fiscal affiliations are relevant; instead journalists typically concur the information is best provided to readers who can individually make judgements about what is relevant to them. TruthSayer 20:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
From an article in American Journalism Review:
The online financial publication discloses its investors and business partners and posts its stringent conflict-of-interest policy on stock ownership by employees.
CNET: The Computer Network discloses its investors and business partners and plans to post its in-house code of conduct. The model ethics code covers employee freebies and stock transactions, disclosure of the company's affiliations in news stories, even-handed use of hyperlinks and how to forthrightly correct errors online. [10]
I'm looking for some more sources on ethical practices and standards of disclosure in new media.
Bomis' general interest that would suggest a need for disclosure include a policy of rapid development that resulted in a lower standard of credibility in Wikipedia, coupled with Bomis interest in profiting from rapid development of Wikipedia. Bomis' support for rapid development of a new information format that lacks the methodically enforced standards of credibility in better funded sources, while also promoting military alternatives to traditional regional information sources suggests it might best be left to readers to decide the implications of Bomis critical role in funding Wikipedia's ongoing operation. TruthSayer 20:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
From the American Society of Magazine Editors new ethics guidelines for on-line publications, developed largely without discussion of very new media such as Wikipedia, deal primarily with the relation between advertisers and on-line content:
To protect the brand, editors/producers should not permit their content to be used on an advertiser’s sitewithout an explanation of the relationship (e.g.“Reprinted with permission”).
6.E-commerce commissions and other affiliate fees should be reported on a disclosure page, so users can see that the content is credible and free of commer-cial influence. Exact fees need not be mentioned, of course, but users who are concerned about underly-ing business relationships can be thus reassured.
TruthSayer comments:Bomis links to Wikipedia in the same sidebar that links to the Marine fundraising sites, but does not disclose in that space either its creation, on-going in-kind support or future profit interets in Wikipedia.
A website should respect the privacy of its users.If a site intends to collect information about its visi-tors––whether the data will be disseminated to thirdparties or not––it must offer users a chance to decline if they choose, through an “opt-out” option. As part of its privacy policy, the site should explain its use of cookies and other data collection methods and tell what it intends to do with the information it gleans.
TruthSayer comments:Wikipedia offers no assurance Bomis does not share its router logs with intelligence interests supporting the Marines in Iraq. Bomis pro-military stance raises a suspicion it could be inclined to use information about Wikipedia contributor interests, especially in controversial articles about the Middle East, to serve the military interets of one side in that conflict. Bomis appears to be a pro-Israel site, by the content of advertisements on its pages. Israel has a long history of tracking journalists' activities to identify the location or identity of its opponents, including some so identified then targeted for assassination. Wikipedians might need to know every keystroke they enter goes through Bomis' T1 lines and routers before it arrives at the Wikipedia server. Bomis has made no assurance of privacy to Wikipedia users, and has not promised to keep private user information beyond that that appears in the SQL database. This lack of privacy assurance implies a need for disclosure, especially on pages where Bomis favored military units are discussed.

How does privacy fit into this, how does Bomis' supposed links to the military-industrial complex threaten the privacy of its writers? - SimonP 20:56, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Did you actually read the comments and attempt to follow the reasoning of professional associations that have developed standards for privacy assurances in on-line publications? Your question has already been answered in the comments above. And the comments are not about the "military-industrial complex" as you snidely misconstrue, but rather specifically about an ongoing practice of some forces in the region to track journalists activities, and specifically about Bomis's access to router logs that are not available to anybody who does SQL dumps. Are you asserting that Wikpedia has no need to review its position vis-a-vis industry standards regarding privacy and disclosuer of business affiliations? JillP 21:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jill, this is a typical administrative practice at Wikipedia of harrassing contributors with questions while refusing to respond to substantive debate, especially when the debate might in any way tarnish the reputation of this less-than-credible information source. This tactic was well developed in Stalinist show-trial purges and in Maoist ritual forced self-criticisms. Billigerant propaganda is easy to recognze. This practice offers ample evidence of Jim Wales influence on the project, in which all opponents are treated as evil and rhertorically shot on site. TruthSayer

I do not believe Wikipedia is a member of any professional associations. - SimonP 21:43, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Do you hold in contempt the ethics developed over several decades by professionals who have dedicated their lives to pursuing the endeavor you seek to administer as a hobby? Is it about whatever you can get away with? Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion, are you on a power trip protected by your status as an administrator? SaltyDog 21:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the later, based on his five reverts in contravention of the three-revert rule, and his refusal to respond to the substance of concerns raised in this discussion. TruthSayer 21:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is one of the weirder discussions I have seen lately. Isn't it remarkable how three new user accounts with the same writing style have all appeared at once to argue the same points on the same article? I'm not sure what could we say that would provide conclusive proof that we're not part of a giant Israeli/CIA/Alien Abduction plot. Here's a hint: if you are this paranoid, it's reasonable to assume that anything you type, anywhere on the Internet is tapped, logged, and sent to the black helicopters in real-time. -- The Anome 21:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, understanding the truth about the operation of political intelligence requires a little more savy, some homework, and some patience for juveniles who hold in contempt legitimate widely discussed privacy concerns. One might start with a read of Body of Secrets by James Bamford, to get an idea of the signint processing capacity of the NSA. Then one needs to review actions under the Homeland Security Act, develop a general knowledge of on-line security issues in the context of current Internet technology, then - to cover gaps in reasoning unfillable due to what we cannot possibly know about what other people do - learn a little bit about the political affiliations of on-line services one uses. Nope, the last black helicopter I saw was a really cool McDonald Douglas MD520N NOTAR, which I quickly identified as belonging to a local retailer, a fact I discovered by walking into the airport and asking the manager about that nimble helicopter conducting manuevers he found very inappropriate in his airspace.
Oh, look, somebody has been so busy harrassing other contributors they haven't bothered to write articles about the topic of all those red links above, subjects about which they likely know nothing anyway.
Hysteria is probably a lot easier for you than is substantive contributions to a meaningful debate, Mr. "Anome". What part of the conjectured scenarios are you calling paranoid? That Israel historically tracks journalists to locate opposition fighters? That Wales has access to router logs not available to the general public? That industry standards encourage promises of privacy instead of bizarre insults lobbed at those who raise legitimate privacy concerns? You seem to hold in contempt any discussion that goes against the orders of the beloved God King of your cult. Cult allegiance is a very sad alternative to intellegent discussion. Why not go ride your imaginary Black Helicopter back to your fictional UFO and leave discussion of serious publishing standards to the grown-ups, okay? Your childish insults offer little currency in mature debate. JillP 22:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Being a Brit with no horse in this race, I have to say I think at least _some_ disclaimer should be present in the article. It emphasises WP's neutrality and allows me/others to research further if interested. If I hadn't happened to stumble across this talk page, I wouldn't have known. That said, perhaps something a little briefer, eg:

Full Disclosure: The main provider of bandwidth for Wikipedia (Bomis) does have a financial connection to the U.S. 1st Marine Division which is responsible, in part, for the siege of Fallujah. For more information please see the Talk Page.

That way, those who are intersted know to look. Those who are not don't get a wall of ominous text. I wouldn't even object to describing it as a "tenuous financial link", just don't hide it entirely. (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[]

Misinformation littering Wikipedia[edit]

When the juvenille followers of Jim Wales' God King cult get over their fear of information that would disclose Wales right-wing Zionist ideology, the following paragraph needs to be inserted to replace the one that erroneously calls the former special forces soldiers (and action adventure television producer, in one case) employs for KB&R.

The US asserted that it hopes for a negotiated settlement but will restart its offensive to retake the city if one is not reached. Military commanders said their goal in the siege was to capture those responsible for the March 31 killings of four veterans of US special forces groups employed by Blackwater Security Services. US forces were unable to determine in early April whether those shown in news images attacking the company's elite security team had remained in the city or fled.


FWIW Any time I see "right-wing Zionist" in a comment, I immediately assume the poster has an agenda and quite often stop paying attention. Without making any comment on the facts you present, you're likely alienating readers just by sounding so fervent and entrenched in your position. I humbly suggest that a more neutral approach would help you. And no, I didn't actually read the argument (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[]

JillP, SaltyDog, TruthSeeker - all sock puppets?[edit]

Are these three users all sock puppets? Check their editing records... or perhaps the black helicopter brigade has mobilised en masse and wound up here? -- ChrisO 23:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that was TruthSayer, but yes, the history and writing style should make it obvious that they are the same person. And I might add that the style and tactics remind me somewhat of User:Bird. --Michael Snow 23:23, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Perhaps someone can do a fun log check. - Fennec 00:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I rather liked the way that at one point they started talking to one another. -- The Anome 07:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some bias and innaccuracy.[edit]

There are quite few innacurate information or biased views stated in the article. First of all, the "Fatal protest incident" says:

On the evening of April 28, 2003, a crowd of 200 people celebrating the birthday of Saddam Hussein defied the Coalition curfew and gathered outside a school building to protest against the US-led coalition forces who had occupied the school.

During the protest, it is alleged stones were thrown at US troops. Fifteen unarmed Iraqi civilians died from US gunfire. There were no coalition casualties. /quote

There are a number of mistakes here:

-The article states that the crowd was celebrating the birthday of Saddam Hussein. This is far from truth, and such a claim should either be removed or a note should be added,aclearing that this is merely an allegation.

-The article states that there were allgations about stones being thrown at U.S. troops. Then says Fifteen unarmed Iraqi civilians died from US gunfire. There is technically nothing inaccurate in this point, the word "allegation" was used, and the fact was layed out. But, there is bias in it, it's what people call "half-truths", a fact is said, nothing technically worng with it, but other related and important facts are ignored. It should be stated that testimonies from eye-witnesses said that US soldiers started shooting with no appearant reason. The American story says that the troops were firing back at gun fire that came from some roofs, but eye-witnesses deny that. Any ordinary person who reads this article would think that those Saddam supporters started attacking U.S. troops so they had to open fire in self-defense.

When you quote allegations of one side and ignore the other sidess story, you are essentially promoting the story of the first side.

Unfortunatly, since the incedent is more than a year old, it's kind of hard to get links to reports about the incident. For the time being, try this:

The article also some times tries link the resistance in the city to Saddam Supporters and Forigen elements and even "gangs", this is very biased, as those are only the claims of the occupation. It should be stated that a large chunck of the resistance is made out of the local ordinary people who feel they have a duty to resist the American occupation of thier country.

Etymological fantasy[edit]

"There is some evidence that millennia ago a branch of the Euphrates divided off at that point, and that this is the source of the name, but today that branch has disappeared." This fantasy etymology is matched by the impossible geography, perhaps related to the canal that joins the Tigris to the Euphrates? Wetman 04:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why do you question this? I got the origins of the name from an article in JSTOR on the region in Persian times. - SimonP 05:36, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

The Euphrates DID branch at Fallujah, sending an arm to join the Tigris at Kadhimain/Khadhimiyya. This branch silted up and had to be dredged frequently in the Sasanian and the Abbasid time. The branch was known as the "Royal Canal" or King's Canal or locally as the "Nahar Shahi" (a mix Aramaic-Persian construct) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[]


I removed L2bairaq.jpg from the article, which seemed to serve no real purpose except (I think) to elicit an emotional response. Simoes 14:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I returned the picture because civilian casualties are relevant to military assaults on civilian centers. --Alberuni 16:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you mean relevant to battles between conventional and guerrila forces, when the guerrillas use civilians as human shields, then I vigorously agree. No matter how precise the GPS-guided bombings are, some civilian non-combatants are going to be killed if they remain in mosques or hospitals used by insurgents as hideouts or staging areas. Hmm. I guess I should write about US military "use of force" doctrine or rules of engagement in land warfare. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:15, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Some people seem to confuse high technology killing with high morality. --Alberuni 16:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute[edit]

Okay, I attempted to make some edited to correct what I thought were pov problems, but all of them were reverted without discussion (with the exception of the image removal). Here are my complaints:

  • Use of scare quotes with objective terms (e.g., "security contractors")
  • Inclusion of blockquote-length editorial commentary from an Internet blogger
  • Inclusion of an image with no obvious purpose other than to elicit an emotional response
  • Reference to an uncited Newsweek article purporting that Pres. Bush gave the order, "Let heads roll."

User:Simoes 13:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we should be very wary of including specific casualty numbers, quotes, etc. No one knows precisely what is going on in Fallujah and both US military and local Iraqi sources are immensely biased. I do think the image can stay for the present. At least until one more representative is found, as my guess is most casualties are not photogenic young girls. - SimonP 18:57, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
If you bring changes to long-established content to Talk first, they can be discussed and a consensus can be reached about editing. If you just edit them to suit your POV, someone is likely to revert in the interest of maintaining NPOV.
  • Scare quotes are bad and should be deleted. But should the article give a balanced impression that security contractors are civilians, mercenaries - or both?
  • What specific block-length comments are you trying to delete and why?
  • I responded to the picture concerns. I think the picture of an injured Falluja girl is a factual representation of the effects of military attacks on Fallujah, a civilian area. Therefore it is valid. Removing it seems intended to whitewash the civilian casualties ofUS military operations. Would you prefer a photo of the crater caused by a 2000 lb bomb? Or a nice photo of some US Marines saluting in the desert?
  • The Newsweek Bush quote is from a Juan Cole article and I can't find it elsewhere. I agree it is possibly spurious and should be deleted. --Alberuni 19:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The blogger quote I was referring to is the one by Rahul Mahajan.
As for the scare quote issue, I think calling them "security contractors" (without "civilian" in front of the term) is sufficient in that it lets the reader decide their civilian/mercenary/whatever status.
I agree with SimonP's statement with regards to the picture; it's not really representative. If I were writing a critique of the present Fallujah incursion, I would definitely include that photo. Maybe a broader hospital pic, or one of people carrying wounded off from a combat area, would be more appropriate here?
Simoes 19:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the photo must go. Its purpose is not informative, but emotive. --mav
I disagree. Iraqi civilian casualties are a fact of US military activity. This is just one representative picture of a victim of US war in Fallujah. It is relevant and factual. Deleting such evidence under guise that it is emotive could be considered an attempt at censoring, diminishing, denying or concealing the real human costs of US military operations. --Alberuni 23:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The photo does not provide any information; it elicits an emotional response which is designed to support a particular POV about the conflict. The same would be true of a photo of US soldiers giving cheering children candy. --mav
Is it representative picture? Or is it an image of the type of person that is most likely to have an emotional effect on the audience? Something like [11] might be more honestly representative. - SimonP 00:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see much difference in news value or emotional content between a photo of a wounded Iraqi boy or a wounded Iraqi girl. --Alberuni 02:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Another photo of an Iraqi civilian, a child, injured by the US military assault on Fallujah. [12]

Of course, US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that civilians have been given plenty of time to get out of the way, so whatever happens to them is their fault. " "Innocent civilians in that city have all the guidance they need as to how they can avoid getting into trouble," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference. He referred to a round-the-clock curfew and other emergency measures announced by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. "There aren't going to be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces," Rumsfeld said." Why civilian casualties are important to the Americans (not for humanitarian reasons, of course): "One risk of using overwhelming force to regain control of rebel-held Fallujah is that civilian casualties - nearly inevitable under the circumstances - could trigger a backlash elsewhere in Iraq and in the Arab world against the U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies." [13]


Well, the assault has started. Should we do some heavy newslike coverage now, or?

Only major events in the assault need be covered I'd think. Actually, I was hoping to move the Seige to a new page, seeing as how it's taking up so much of the article. Oberiko 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photo removed for being too Emotive - Thats Bullshit[edit]

Regarding the removal of the Boy killed as being too emotive - Well Enclycopedia Bratinnaca showed the twin towers collapse they are being emotive too - The Photograph of dead children Killed by Amercian forces is not imotive but informative - Just if Children are killed by terroists in the USA will be showen all over the world by media if this were to happen - Come off it folks - Human beings are the same - Are we all workinking hard at wikipedia as agents for the neo conservatives in Washington - We here to report facts without censor and do not follow the line of any Country engaged in an illeagal war against another which so far has cost 100,000 lives YES FOLKs I do not listen to Fox News to understand the world instead I read the Guardian, listen to the BBC and read their website and the Independent Newspapers as well as a host of newspapers both left wing and right wing from diffrent countries - I study first hand reporting from Iraqi blogs and Al Jazeera Arab news which has won prestegious awards by Western judges in Europe for un baised reporting.

Those days are gone when control of the news were in the hands of the few and powerful - Wikipedia a democratic information resource is an example.

If Wikipedia become a forum for those who follow the USA line then I think the thousands of its contributors beetr start another non baised Wikipedia

Lalit shastri India

Civilian casualties[edit]

There is nothing wrong with reporting on advocacy campaigns relating to civilian casualties. The US military sometimes refers to death and injury to non-combatants as collateral damage and requires local commanders to "minimize such collateral damage to civilian facilities in populated regions." [14]

Probably the most successful PR tactic used when opposing a US military campaign (such as Operation Phantom Fury) is to emphasize and publicize civilian casualties, especially to women, teenagers and cute attractive children. This is because Americans and American servicemen are highly moral - as compared to most foreign terrorists, anyway. It takes a steely resolve to make the mental effort to distinguish between accidentally casualties, or casualties caused by enemy use of civilans as human shields -- and deliberate or negligent targeting of civilians.

The claim that there are "no combatants in Fallujah" exploits American sensitivites and challenges its resolve. It's basically the same strategy that got the US to abandon South Vietnam to the North -- the pull-out led to over 1,000,000 civilan deaths: purges by the victorious Communists and deaths on the high seas by the "boat people".

I don't think high tech means high ethics -- but as a highly ethical man involved in high tech, I am gravely concerned about this matter. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:11, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Is this Article about Fallujah?[edit]

It seems to be two articles in one. We have a nice article on the Battle of F. (Operation Phantom Fury), why discuss the battle here? Paul, in Saudi 06:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, This page should be mainly history and pre-war info. There should be a brief section on the war with a link to the main article and a brief section with what info is available on the current condition in the city. We should treat this article like they did over on the New Orleans page. The article should be about the city before the disaster, with a brief section on current events. Nobody has enough information to write about what the city is like now. We don't even know the population. Seabhcán 11:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the bulk of the war related material to US occupation of Fallujah and copied the below talk topics to Talk:US occupation of Fallujah. I hope that this will allow more space to war and occupation information, and also more space to develope this article on the history, people, culture, etc. of the city of Fallujah. Seabhcán 10:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

New information, napalm[edit]


--Striver 19:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

White Phosphorus is not Napalm. It's a *totally* different substance, and bears little to no resemblance to napalm in deployment, use, or effects. MK 77 (still in use) is much closer to napalm than WP, which is how many folks seem to be confused. Ronabop 09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

--Barking_Mad 17:34, 7th April 2006]] (GMT)

Id argue how successful the initial attempts to take back Fallujah were. One led to a Sunni ex-Saddam general 'taking over', which led some elements of Fallujah to celebrate their success in keeping out the US troops who they perceived as 'occupying' Iraq.

The white phosphorus debate[edit]

There's a new idea floating around that WP (White Phosphorus) is somehow an illegal chemical weapon. In the interest of somehow reducing possible edit wars, it should probably be noted that:

  • 1. WP used to light a battle area would not be illegal use of the substance.
  • 2. WP does not meet any of the conventional classifications of chemical weapons, as it is usually used as an incendary or lighting weapon.
  • 3. Use of WP, Napalm, or any other incendary device (or even bullets) intentionally against civilians is, indeed, considered a war crime.
  • 4. However, mere use of WP, explosives, etc. in a field of battle is not usually considered a war crime.
  • 5. Balancing that out, use of, say the chemical di-hydrogen monoxygen, or any other chemical, with *intent* to use chemistry in order to *damage a large number of troops through the effects of that chemical*, may be considered a war crime.
  • 6. However, this probably doesn't mean that di-hydrogen monoxygen should be banned from use in battle.

The "shake and bake" debate seems to focus on asserting that use of WP, in any context, would be a war crime, in an effort to criminalize any use of WP. Ronabop 09:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have seen a video available online which was produced by an Italian news outlet that focuses on our usage of "Willie P". Nothing appears to be getting criminalized. In fact, it would seem accurate to say that Iraqi civilians have been burned to the bone by the stuff. I'm not aware of something which could burn somebody as badly as these corpses were burned. And I don't mean totally burned. I mean that whichever part of their body came in contact with this chemical, was burned incredibly, while the rest remained intact. Personally, I take no issue with our usage of "Willie P". I say drop it all day every day. See the trick here is, they don't call it White Phosphorus. It has some crazy military name like M347BA. Or something to that effect. Therefore they can't be considered war criminals, when they are in fact droping the same chemical. This Italian news outlet included filmed testimony by former US soldiers who served in this region. I'm not going to call these guys liars, and neither should you. I think that a mention of our possible usage of this chemical should be included. It might be used to light up the battlefield, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that it is going to completely burn through anything it touches.

I, too, have seen the video. We even have an article on it: Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre. The video repeatedly asserts actions of a criminal nature. Numerous corpses are shown, with advanced necrosis of various tissues (blackened and rotting). However, for some reason, they (the filmmakers) seemingly connected numerous corpses, including ones that were documented (in other sources) as having been sitting in a river rotting away, (which is one way a body can look horribly burned without clothing looking the same way) with WP. As far as naming concentions, I think you may be confusing the use of MK-77/almost-napalm with WP... and while MK-77 and Napalm are very similar, MK-77 and Napalm are two totally different substances. I didn't call them liars, so I'm not sure why you would insinuate as such. Ronabop 03:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to add information about the use of white phosphorous by U.S. troops as an anti-personnel weapon during the attack on Fallujah. In my last attempt, I used this article as a reference: My comments and reference were deleted and I was accused of vandalism. Why is this not acceptable? 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the piece about children deaths connected to chemicla weapons, as there was no prove. The Italian news outlet, should also be covered with doubt as the orginsation is a communist, who have a POV issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crt43 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Destroyed Cities[edit]

From the US occupation of Fallujah article:

The city is now largely ruined, with 60% of buildings damaged or destroyed, and a population at 30%-50% of pre-war levels.

If you look at the list of other cities tagged with the category there are several cities that were in presumably better shape than Fallujah after their "destruction." With the exception, possibly, of Pompeii, which was buried under lava and volcanic ash, one needn't expect a city's "destruction" to include 100% destruction of it's dwellings and 100% dispersal or extermination of its residents. --AStanhope 11:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Following gunfire from the demonstrators, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne stationed on the roof of the building[edit]

This is presented as fact but is disputed.

Herne nz 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

this is a load of bollocks - Posted by:
The idea that the 82nd Airborne fired first is absurd, but since the history books will put this fact down as "disputed," wikipedia has little choice but to do the same. As for what really happened: Part of the problem was that Iraqis commonly protest with guns, and we soldiers do not take kindly to people who mob infront of our bases shooting. That being said, the 82nd did not fire on the crowd simply because they had weapons and were firing into the air. I spoke with many of these soldiers the day after the event and the crowd started by shooting into the air, but as the protest continued people began firing shots first over the school house and then actually at the school house. If anything, the soldiers should be honored for having enough restraint to not fire on the crowd simply for being stupid enough to show up with guns. - Atfyfe 01:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of Cluster bombs[edit]

I am going to remove all references to the use of cluster munitions inside the city of Fallujah. Cluster bombs are ineffective in an urban environment and no country would use cluster munitions on an area where their infantry would be walking through right after. It defies military logic to do so and the only evidence given is leftist websites that don't back their claims. They just throw the term out there because it grabs headlines and they assume that if WP was used then cluster bombs must be too. --Looper5920 22:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a quick google search reveals that journalists including Salman Pak and Dahr Jamail cite testimony from eyewitnesses and doctors in hospitals treating victims who state that cluster bombs were in fact used in Fallujah. This information should be included whether or not it is reasonable to claim that such use "defies military logic"; the military logic at work here really isn't the issue. (In fact, at least one American soldier, Lance Corporal Jesus Alberto, was killed by a US cluster bomb in an earlier raid, so we know for a fact that the "military logic" of which you speak was not always followed during this operation).--csloat 22:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Dahr Jamail is the least credible source you could have used. He is as far from a reporter as you will find. He has his agenda and he pushes it. He mentions cluster bomb use right after he notes that the CIA might be responsible for the car bombs in Iraq. Cluster bombs were used in 2003 during the invasion, which is when the Marine, LCpl Suarez, died but they were not used in Fallujah. The Asia Times article in the google search talks of A-10s raining cluster munitions on the city. There were not even A-10s in Iraq at the time. Also I don't think Salman Pak is a reporter. Last I checked it was a training camp in Iraq.--Looper5920 22:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, no; the "least credible source I could have used" would have been appeals to my own conception of "military logic" without any sources at all. Given the balance between the two, I'd say Jamail wins. I disagree with your assessment of him, by the way, but that is neither here nor there - he certainly is a reporter, and you can take up the issue of his credibility as one on the Dahr Jamail page. Simply stating that he has an agenda is not helpful; if you don't have any evidence that he is lying about these facts, you are just poisoning the well. And, let's be clear, the information is not from him, but from doctors and eyewitnesses. Salam Pax is what I meant to say, not Salman Pak. I see no evidence refuting the claim that cluster bombs - or A-10s for that matter - were in Fallujah other than your assertions; sorry, but I think the published record outweighs those assertions. I mentioned Suarez not as evidence of anything specific to Fallujah, but to refute the sole piece of evidence backing up your claim, which is the assertion about "military logic." If the military acted logically with regard to cluster bombs in Iraq, it would not be killing its own men.--csloat 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Doing a little more research, there are other confirmations of cluster bombs used in fallujah. Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey gave an interview to the Sacramento Bee (14 May 2004) p. E3 stating that they were used in Fallujah, that they were used "everywhere" in and out of cities, and that one of his buddies lost a leg to one. And this from the Minn. Star Tribune, while it doesn't specifically say they were used in Fallujah, it again refutes your logic that the military would avoid dropping them in civilian areas where the infantry would be walking around afterwards: "Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from cluster bombs are well-documented. In a report in December, USA Today found that U.S. forces had fired hundreds of cluster bombs into urban areas, killing dozens of civilians, while other sources give much higher casualty estimates."(6 Feb 05 p. 1AA) And at a press conference with Kimmitt (14 May 2004) it is stated that "The ordnance disposal units of the ICDC in Fallujah have been reporting that they've been finding cluster bombs in Fallujah. Could you confirm or deny whether the U.S. Marines used cluster bombs in Fallujah during the fighting last night?" Kimmitt does not address the ICDC report but only says "We have no reports of Marines using cluster bombs during this operation." It is unclear whether he is denying that the ICDC reported that or whether he is responding to that report saying that his own sources did not report it. So at best, reports of the use of cluster bombs are disputed. CNN Correspondent Karl Penhaul started his report from Fallujah on November 9 2004: "The sky over Falluja seems to explode as U.S. Marines launch their much-trumpeted ground assault. War planes drop cluster bombs on insurgent positions and artillery batteries fire smoke rounds to conceal a Marine advance." And apparently Al-Jazeera reported that the US was using cluster bombs in Fallujah on April 8 and April 15 2004; both stories were picked up by BBC and Tass; another al-Jazeera story from July 31 made the same claim and it too was picked up by BBC. The July 31 report included as sources both eyewitnesses and interviews with local hospitals. I think we need to say that these are the things that have been reported, and that US sources deny it (if so). Simply deleting it is not helpful.--csloat 23:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to keep hammering this, but here is some more evidence. AP reports 26 April 2004: "A spokesman for an Iraqi delegation from the violence-gripped city of Fallujah on Monday accused U.S. troops of using internationally banned cluster bombs against the city and said they had asked the United Nations to mediate the conflict. Mohammed Tareq, a spokesman for the governing council of Fallujah and a member of the four-person delegation, said U.S. military snipers were also responsible for the deaths of many children, women and elderly people." April 17 2004 Economic Press Review reports: "American F-16 warplanes are blitzing the Al-Julan residential area in Al Fallujah 50 kilometers west from Baghdad with cluster bombs." Xinhua reports from fallujah on 5 April 04: "Early on Monday, six people were killed and others wounded when US troops clashed with militants in Fallujah, witnesses said. The US soldiers cordoned off the city and blocked all the roads leading to Fallujah as the clashes erupted between unknown militants and the US troops before the dawn for more than two hours, according to the witnesses. The US troops bombed some residential neighbourhoods with rockets and cluster bombs, killing six people and wounding others, the witnesses elaborated." On the other side, State Dept spokesman Richard Boucher (talk about a source with an "agenda to push") described the April 9th Al-Jazeera report as "totally false," but it is not clear what he is basing that on. His briefing was April 27 2004 -- by then we have another al-Jazeera report plus the Xinhua report, and of course we have other reports later that year (in July and then November with the big offensive then). Oh on Sept 25 2004, Xinhua reports another incident confirmed by an eyewitness: "The toll would possibly hike since a number of citizens were being buried under the rubble of a targeted house in the al-Julan district in western Fallujah, local resident Abdul Rahman told Xinhua by telephone. 'The house was destroyed by cluster bombs dropped by US warplanes,' he said." And, you won't like this one, but another Dahr Jamail article on 16 November 2004 reports from another official source: "The Red Cross official said they had received several reports from refugees that the military had dropped cluster bombs in Fallujah, and used a phosphorous weapon that caused severe burns." You may not like Jamail, but this is the Red Cross, reported by Inter Press Service/Global Information Network. Sorry about the lack of links but I'm looking through a private database (lexis/nexis) for these reports. (It's a lot easier to find official sources without your searches being polluted with blog nonsense). So we have the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and a handful of eyewitnesses, doctors from hospitals looking at first hand evidence of injuries, and journalists claiming that cluster bombs were used on Fallujah; on the other side we have Boucher and Kimmitt. I think at the very least the different sources should be reported.--csloat 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested protection[edit]

I requested Full Protection because there has been no discussion during this edit war. Cheers.--Burzum 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit War Discussion[edit]

User_talk:Freepsbane, the WP:V policy states:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Your edits fail to meet #2 and #3, therefore they are in violation of WP:V. I have reverted for this reason. Cheers.--Burzum 07:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the issue up, if you take a look at my last update you can see that multiple sources have been added to support the final sentence, describing the population exodus from Fallujah in the aftermath of the military operations and it’s current status as a ghost town. However the upper sections of that paragraph claming Fallujah’s pacification (with the exception of the link reporting Anbar’s capture by the insurgents.) is totally unsourced, and goes against current reports of skirmishing in Falujah. I suggest that if we go about removing/revamping we ax that section first and then wory about the common knowledge/sourced parts afterwards. Freepsbane 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your link [15] doesn't describe population loss or the destruction of infrastructure, nor does it connect that with a reduction in the strength of resistance (it just describes torture by insurgents which I think is extraneous for this particular section). Link #9 is broken so I can't evaluate it. And watching the middle link [16], the video certainly does describe the population loss and destruction of infrastructure but it doesn't connect it with a reduction in the strength of resistance compared with the other security measures implemented as you noted. Unless I missed something in the video or one of the links (including the broken one) I don't see the verification needed to back up your statement. In my opinion, we can state that the infrastructure was damaged and that Fallujah became a ghost town but little else unless we find more information. I don't yet see enough information to state that Fallujah is now peaceful or violent. I'll do some searches and hopefully we can come up with a consensus or find some new references. If all else fails we can ask for an WP:RFC to get more eyes on this issue because it is a fairly important part of recent history. Sorry that I had to ask for protection, but I felt it was getting a little silly. Cheers.--Burzum 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the correct step to halting that edit war, I should have known better than to be so stubborn. At any rate as you were the most level headed editor in this affair it may be best if you were to rewrite the statement for us.Freepsbane 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll perform some updates pretty soon (as I finally got some free time). If you have any information on the points that I listed above that you could clear up it would be helpful, especially my confusion on including the RAI News link. And if you still have any major problems, an RFC would be useful (though we should lay out the areas that we have conflict with in detail). Cheers.--Burzum 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Off Topic[edit]

"This article is about the city of Fallujah in Iraq. For detailed information on the events of war in Fallujah, see US occupation of Fallujah."

There's nearly more unsourced material about possible mustard gas use recent events involving US forces than the entire history of city!

Shouldn't all that be in US occupation of Fallujah? Everytime 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the balance is wrong at the moment. And I have a big problem with some of this unsourced material, much of which I flagged up for citation in my recent edit.
This article should be a much more broad look at the history, geography, economy etc of Fallujah. However, I do think it will be impossible to write a useful article without mentioning in some detail the events that have shaped the life of the city since 1990. Not so much detail as at present, though - there is a separate article for that, as you point out. Furthermore, I think we need to keep a beady eye on NPOV. -- TinaSparkle 08:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP, Nerve Gas, etc.[edit]

Removed all references to white phosphorous, nerve gas, mustard gas, etc., as it is utterly and completely unverifiable. "Eyewitness accounts state..." with no citations or secondary sources is not encyclopedic fact. I am all for presenting facts that portray the U.S. or American military in a negative light if they are true, but let us not devolve into speculative, emotive imaginings that may or may not bear any resemblance to reality.Robotempire 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The most recent edit adds back in a cited WP reference that also highlights that WP is not a banned substance. Cheers. Robotempire 09:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm wondering if the citation flag is still warranted. I've gone through and added quite a few references. Robotempire 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone has apparently tampered with the reference link to the BBC article about the U.S. using white phosphorus as an offensive weapon. The page is apparently locked now, and I can't fix it. Here is the correct (or at least better) coding: cite news|url= White Phosphorus in Iraq|publisher=BBC News|date=2005-11-16|access date=2009-01-22

Done! Highspeed (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Just added video, shown on almost every news channel in the world.--Sean-Jin 03:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Video removed from Youtube because of "Copyright Violation" , apparently not because it shows a large group of civillians being killed by an F-16...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

It looks like half of the section "Return to Fallujah" is taken directly from the Independent article of the 28th January, 2008 word for word. I think it should be removed or at least summarised. Secondly, the second half of that section doesn't cite its sources, but it looks like it has been lifted directly from another article as well. Lawrencema (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: It looks like the second article is word for word from If both articles aren't rewritten, they should be removed. Lawrencema (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Removed section. It was added by by Hisham 5ZX (talk · contribs) on 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC).--Burzum (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Due to the constant edit war going on, I suggest that the article be protected. At the moment the article is being reverted nearly every day. Lawrencema (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest reverts[edit]

I made a massive revert to a very old version of the article which does not include every beneficial change made since. I presume the massive revert I made may have eliminated some good changes to the article, but sentences like "The Chemical weapons caused Congenital deformation between every five children Born in fallujah."--added by one of those IPs, completely unsourced and probably made up, and poorly written--cannot stand. In addition to these sorts of additions, lots of text was removed over that time--some perhaps appropriate such as to a forked article--and many numbers were changed without references. See the diff between my massive revert and the latest status quo. If you want to glean through the entire article, go for it, but otherwise I think the long revert should remain or at least form the baseline. —Centrxtalk • 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) (copied and slightly altered from User talk:Looper5920)

Dream Land and the MEK Compound[edit]

Now I'm not certain if this informations is verifiable, and I don't want to ammend the page if I don't have a source, but I know first hand, that Dream Land (translated from the Arabic) was a resort located just to the East of Fallujah, and within a mile or two (undetermined distance) from the former training ground for the Iranian Freedom Fighters also known as Mujahedin-e-Khalq [1], who were given safe harbor by Sadam Hussein. I've given citation to other corroborating evidence found on wikipedia. (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Nick

Well, I'm glad you posted here before editing. Both locations already have entries; perhaps you could help improve them? Camp Baharia redirects to Dreamland (Fallujah, Iraq) and Camp Fallujah redirects to MEK Compound (Fallujah, Iraq). Highspeed (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Clean-up of citation formats (January 2009)[edit]

Now that this page is semi-protected, I am attempting to clean-up the formatting of in-line citations/footnotes. I am not checking their accuracy or vetting that they are even in the right place. Just trying to get it standardized so as to make it easier for follow-on editing... which I hope others will attempt. Highspeed (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

not only Marines died in Fallujah[edit]

The article says "95 American Marines were killed". It is not true, because out of 95 American troops killed several were from US Army - not Marines.


find more here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fallujah's Location on the Map is Wrong[edit]

The little map of Iraq with the red pog denoting Fallujah's location in Iraq is incorrect. Currently, it has Fallujah listed where Ramadi is located (check the Ramadi page - the grids are the same).

Fallujah should actually be a bit further east, roughly mirroring Ramadi's location on the northeastern side of Lake Habbaniyah, on the other side of the river, IIRC (it's been a few years since I've been there).

I don't have the exact coordinates of the place since I can't access Google Earth from my NMCI computer - can somebody fix this please?

Thanks, (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Birth defects?[edit]

I'm not sure if this belongs in the article, as the story seems to be mostly anecdotal, but the BBC has reported that there have been unnaturally high levels of birth defects in Fallujah since 2004: [17]. What do other editors think? Robofish (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Add it. Counteraction (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been a number of reports of an increase in birth defects, including the Guardian on 22 Jan 2010 and the Independent at the end of July 2010, the headline from which, "... Fallujah worse than Hiroshima" seems to have inflamed the blogosphere. The comparison with Hiroshima may have originally come from a report apparently presented to the UN in March 2008. The idea that the cause of the birth defects and illnesses is depleted uranium (DU) crops up during the past three years on various sites, but as best I can see doesn't seem to have any credible mention other than the piece in the Independent (and there it's a quote from a long-term campaigner against all things nuclear). It's hard to see what use DU enhanced weapons would be against people and buildings, or why similarly high levels of birth defects shouldn't have been reported from areas where DU is known to have been used.
It appears to me that the cause is much more likely to be dioxins or something similar, together with the lack of clean water and sanitation. The symptoms reported are very similar to those that arose from Agent Orange in Vietnam and in the environs of the Bhopal disaster. Close to Fallujah there are, or at least were, three chemical plants. Fallujah 2 produced chlorine and production had been re-established in 2000. It's by no means implausible that the birth defects were caused by organochemicals from one of these plants, but there doesn't seem to be much information about bombing or the damage they sustained. Davy p (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, check out the last paragraph of Fallujah#Current_situation, with an academic study. Rd232 talk 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't make sense. The claim is made that the change in birth sex-ratios is similar to that which occurred in Hiroshima. As a quick search would show, radiation does not significantly change the sex-ratio. See, for example, British Journal of Cancer or Journal of Human Genetics 1966; 18:328-38 or Atomic Bomb--A Study of Aftermath
The 'academic study' mentioned appeared in a pay-to-publish Swiss journal. Its lead author is well known for alarmist conjectures. Richard Wakeford's editorial, "What to believe and what not to believe", in the Journal of Radiological Protection referenced at the end of Chris Busby's page, gives a relevant overview.Davy p (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Greatest Battles in Human history not mentioned at all in this article[edit] the first and second battle of Fallujah are probably the greatest and bloodiest battles in human history similar in comparison to Stalingrad.Why are they not even mentioned in this article.What is wrong with Wikipedia.Talk Pages are always better than the articles. Mention these battles in the article or provide links to them as they are the greatest part of the history of Fallujah.Ht67890 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Cancers, popular press & WP:MEDRS[edit]

The paragraph on cancers is a clear violation of the WP:MEDRS guideline on medical sources. Specifically what it does is violate the section on popular press by using a popular press article as the source for the conclusions of a published academic study. For instance, "the types of cancer were 'similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout'" is taken from the popular press article but it or anything like it cannot be found in the academic source. In fact the cited Independent article misrepresents the academic source; it quotes the report/article as saying the types of cancer were "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout", but this is not found in the published study. (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[]

Another comment. The paragraph cites statistics from the study, but the authors of the study explicitly caution against quantitative interpretations of their results, saying only that they believe them to be qualitatively convincing. I don't think the article should mention quantitative results per the authors comments and also as the study is a low quality source under WP:MEDRS anyway, being primary research of low quality i.e. a questionnaire. (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[]

Reference to article re: discovery of mass grave on 17 May 2011 incomplete and misleading[edit]

In the paragraph pertaining to the discovery of the mass grave in Fallujah on 17 May 2011 it states "The US Military declined to comment." This is misleading based on the article cited. As per the article cited, the US military declined to immediately comment. Please change the sentence to "The US Military declined to immediately comment." This would be a fairer and more accurate statement. Dm10025 (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. To make an informed decision on this, we really need to know whether they commented subsequently. Even if they did, the sentence is still accurate as written, but inserting "immediately" implies that they did. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

There's no such thing as "Babylonian Times"[edit]

The fact that Fallujah was occupied since "Babylonian times" is mentioned twice in the article without citation. Babylonia is an area not a period.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[]

Iraq army attacks IS in May 2016[edit]

In May 2016, Iraq army started fights against IS for reconquest of Falludscha. -- (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[]

Fallujah fully captured by Iraqi army; please edit the article[edit]

Fallujah has been fully captured by Iraqi army. I wanted to edit the article to show this but I am unable to edit it as I don't have an account and I found out even if I create one it will take days before I am able to edit this. So can someone with a confirmed account please edit this? Thank you. (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016[edit]

"Unfortunately due to the study Methodology the authors had to include a significant qualifier by saying "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively"

This seems like a very biased sentence ( Starting with "Unfortunately....") (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[]

I agree... most scientific studies have some sort of qualifier, but this entry seems designed as a somewhat unwarranted attempt to dismiss the findings. I have toned down the sentence. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[]