Jump to content

Talk:Iraqi civil war (2006–2008)/Archive 2

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


Delete Entire Article, Civil war in Iraq

[edit]

There is not a civil war in Iraq. Some members of the mass media used the term civil war for Iraq. The term civil war did not work because there is not and has not been a civil war in Iraq the past few years. The news corporations quickly and quietly stopped using the words civil war to describe Iraq. I remember NBC started calling it a civil war a while back but only used the term for several days before it was not mentioned again. If there is no civil war in Iraq the civil war should not be in an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.240.132 (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • civil war
  • –noun
  • a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
That my friend is exactly what this war is. It is an armed conflict between multiple political factions belonging to the same country of Iraq. Regardless of weather or not the biased American media refers to it as that exactly what this is. (ForeverDEAD 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Michael Yon used the term in his latest article.[1] He is probably the most unbiased reporter there is for Iraq. He agrees with the Petraeus report, but he's still using the term "civil war". Isaac Pankonin 01:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yon has stated several times on his blog that he is not a journalist and has no formal journalism training or experience. There is no civil war in Iraq.The American media is not biased. Although there is violence between political factions the cause of this violence comes from foreign nations getting involved in Iraq. Iran sends weapons to Iraq that cause the violence that biased liberals call a civil war. The War in Iraq is actually a war for Iraq against foreign nations that don't want the Iraqi people to be free. Iraq was doing fine until neighboring nations got involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.109 (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to debate whether Michael Yon is a journalist, but he's been published in many newspapers, and his pictures have been nominated for Pulitzers. He's also been on Fox News. He's not what you would call a "biased liberal" either. He agreed with the Petraeus report and has said some very positive things about Iraq recently.
Anyway, foreign assistance is entirely beside the point. The Spanish civil war featured German war planes with Spanish insignia painted on them, and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade fought there as well. I think the underground nature of the insurgency is only because of American technical advantage and air dominance. Militants have held ground in Fallujah and recently in Baqubah, and they've set up their own governments. Are they winning? No. Are the forces equal? Not a chance. Has there been a civil war in Iraq in the past 4 years? I won't assert it, but I think it's possible. Anybody who says a straight "Yes" or "No" to this is trying to push an agenda. Is there a civil war right now? I don't think so. Isaac Pankonin 01:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the American media is quite biased, as an American myself i take the media as far as i can throw it which isnt very far. Yes there are foreign fighters but wait you forget about the bath loyalists who are still fighting and probaly the 1000's of iraqi youth that have turned to an extremist form of islam. There are many iraqis fighting eachother, sunni V shiia The iraqi police and military V the 100'd of local fighters. Also the statment about iran is quite not needed anyone can go out and get 1000's of weapons in that part of the world easiy. I promise you that one of those fighters could eaisly make its way to an arms dealer in africa of somewhere else and get just the saem amount of weapons iran is suppling. Ive already stated what a civil war is and it clearly falls under this catagory. You can put a AFD on this artical if you feel it really doesnt exsist but some people feel this is aivil war. And also just becuase the mass media doesnt refear to it as a civil war doesnt mean its not.(ForeverDEAD 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There is clear evidence that some of the weapons and bombs in Iraq come from Iran. The Iranians aid the extremists which cause violence in Iraq. There is also Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is trying to cause a civil war in Iraq so Iraq will fall into chaos and the United States will fail and leave. If Al-Qaeda and neighboring nations stop causing violence in Iraq the Iraqis will be able to get along. As long as they stay involved there will be violence in Iraq. There is no civil war in Iraq. What you call a civil war is actually a war by foreign nations that want Iraq to fail. Weapons in Iraq don't come from Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.109 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the country which came from half way around the world to invade Iraq, brought Al-Qaeda in to the country, and which recently lost over 100,000 AK-47 rifles in the country.. There's actually clear evidence that some of the weapons in Iraq came from this same country. --69.218.58.110 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United States didn't "bring Al Qaeda into the country". Unless you've been booking flights for Saudi, Egyptian and Yemeni terrorists without telling us again.71.215.186.237 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the United States invaded the country. Even the dumbest Neocons can acknowledge that. Ericster08 (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States wants Iraq to be free and peaceful. Iran and other countries want Iraq to fail so they can have it for themselves.They intentionally gave weapons to extremist militants to kill Iraqis. The weapons from the United States were misplaced not lost and were to help the Iraqis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.109 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exscuse me if i wasnt clear before but id didnt mean the weapons came from africa just that it would be extremly easy for one to get them and fund hypotheticly. Yes Iran and other Arab countrys want iraq to fall and yes they have been. And because there are foegner fighters that automaticly makes this not a civil war? there are 1000's of homegrown iraqi terrorists. Theres large enough people in the war who think that this is a civil war that NPOV to not have an artical on the civil war ForeverDEAD 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the Iraqis that think they're in a civil war, what was the number that's cited in the article, 30%? If you're using that criteria alone, I don't think it would be neutral to call it a civil war in the article's title. Isaac Pankonin 23:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no civil war in Iraq. The United States is fighting a proxy war in Iraq with Iran that is causing Iraqis to fight each other. Other neighboring nations are also involved. If the United States is able to stop all of the weapons and assistance from Iran and other neighboring nations most of the violence in Iraq will stop and Iraqis will be able to take control of all security in Iraq. When this is done almost all of the United States' troops will be able to leave Iraq. The war in Iraq is not a war on Iraq but a proxy war with Iran. If the United States leaves before the Iraqis are ready Iraq will fall into chaos as the Middle East fights for Iraq. Right now the war is a proxy war between the United States and Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.109 (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain NPOV i think we need this artical because alot of people do belive this is a civil war(ForeverDEAD 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Let me ask you this: What separates this article from the Iraqi insurgency article? Isaac Pankonin 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not NPOV. The article is a one sided argument that Iraq is in a civil war. It should not be in an encyclopedia. If it is NPOV it should state that there is skepticism about whether there is a civil war in Iraq. When it is proven that there was not and is not a civil war in Iraq the article will be deleted. There is no civil war in Iraq. The so called civil war is actually a proxy war with neighboring countries. Time will show that that there was not and is not a civil war in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.109 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to tell yourself lies that's one thing, but don't spread your written feces all over this talk board. Look, whether you believe it's a civil war over there or not, is immaterial. You aren't credible because your words do not correspond to reality. Michael Ware, the most seasoned journalist on the ground in Iraq, KNOWS it's a Civil War. The soldiers over there have told him that repeatedly and he can see it with his own eyes. Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiia are killing each other, plain and simple. What part of that do you not understand? Simply refusing to refer to a civil war as a civil war, doesn't make it something else. It seems the period has arrived when you should allow some intelligence to creep into a mind that has plainly been warped. There's Civil War in Iraq - DEAL WITH IT. Ericster08 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you wrote this, the "civil war" or Al Qaeda invasion, or whatever you prefer to call it, had already been over for nearly a year.97.125.82.143 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You no what? ive been thinking about it and i agree now. I was before most likely letting my agendas speak but you have a point. If you throw up a AFD tag ill vote for delete ForeverDEAD 21:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war in Iraq → Sectarian violence in Iraq — This is the proper name since by the article's own admission the violence "has the elements" of Civil War but it still cannot yet be classified as such. We can all agree there is "Sectarian violence" and this is what the article is about —Southern Texas 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Oppose While violence in Iraq has certain dropped far below levels seen in 2001-2007 there are still hundreds being killed every month. Though sectarian violence is a large part of the ongoing violence, the attacks are generally intended to fuel bloodshed and instability, resulting in the toppling of the Iraqi government. Armed groups fighting to overthrow their government, that's the type of conflict that's been seen in El Salvador, Russia and many other countries and it's the definition of "civil war".

EastOfWest 10:27am, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
    • Comment the only significant source that I saw was that most Iraqis believe it is not a civil war. They actually live in the nation so shouldn't their account of the events weigh more than any foreign observer?--Southern Texas 03:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - You were only looking for the sources that you wanted to see then. The article is supposed to have a common English names and English polls (along with an array of verifiable sources) very easily make the case for the title. --69.210.15.210 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This forum is for the wikipedia community. Those signing from anonymous IP addresses have little legitimacy in our community / this dialoague. Dogru144 14:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I actually am concurring with User:Southern Texas his points above. Dogru144 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- A reason they should not be given more weight is the fact that the iraqis may be reluctent to admit its a civil war becuase that leaves the impreesion that iraq is a failed state. Also if your from outside the country you would have alot more resources and be able to look at the situation as whole. Not dissinng iraq but there really in no posistion to decided weather its a civil war, the historical defintion should decide Birthday sig-leave some love 15:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the TV news a few days after the first shots were fired in Sarajevo during the Yugoslavian civil war, a Bosnian was interviewed and said "Bosnia can still be cantonized and become a Balkan Switzerland"--victor falk 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In response to Victor above, the difference between the Iraqi and Afghani conflicts is that the historical Afghan conflicts have met the legal definition of a civil war. However, notice that the period beginning in 2001 (post-US invasion) is called "War in Afghanistan" because it no longer meets the qualifications of a Civil War. TheWinkel 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You'll notice that the "War in Afghanistan" is a part of the ongoing Afghan Civil War. Who determines whether Iraq has met the 'legal definition' of a civil war? Since you bring it up, the Wikipedia article Civil War uses an academic paper about the Civil war in Iraq to define civil war.. and it also meets a standard definition used by academics described here. Most importantly, Wikipedia naming conventions state that we should use the common name for the conflict. Discussion of the label definitely belongs in the 'Use of "civil war" label' section in the article though. --69.210.15.210 04:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If that was so, why are all the other sub-articles called civil wars in and of themselves? If this is true, you'll need to change the name "War in Afghanistan" to "Afghan Civil War (2001-Present)" to be standardized. Moreover, your article is an opinion piece in the NY Times. I feel no need to go further on this subject. As for the common name of the conflict. How many news agencies call the conflict a Civil War? How many people use the term "Iraqi Civil War" in describing the conflict? If anyone ever did, it was 2 years ago, and not today.TheWinkel 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've missed my point. There already exists Afghan Civil War 1989-1992, 1992-1996, 1996-2001. If what you're saying is true, you need to change War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to Afghan Civil War (2001-Present).
  • I'm not Victor, but I'll answer anyways. Regardless of the common naming of the "War in Afghanistan" article, you might notice it is still a subset of Afghan Civil War. I'd then reiterate my posting above about the academic definition of a civil war, and point out that our job is to document what has been said, not judge for ourselves. Finally, I would reiterate common naming dictates "Civil war in Iraq" because of a myriad of sources, Google tests across languages, ... --68.253.54.121 02:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/.

Arbitrary section break

[edit]
• The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
That would be the Red Zone.
• The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
Like the Mahdi army controls Sadr City for instance.
• The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
Everybody calling them "illegal enemy combatants", "insurgents", "guerrillas", "jihadis", "holy martyrs of the resistance". At the very least, if Iran provides support to some of them, one could assume that must imply it recognise them as belligerents.
• The legal Government is “obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military.”
Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Coalition_military_casualties
--victor falk 09:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While your points are very debateable, you ignored the last part of that section.
• “generally refer to conflicts with armed forces on either side which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country.”
We can easily agree that the conflict within Iraq is not analogous to an international war. Moreover, there isn't a governing body against the current government desiring international recognition (like there exists in Afghanistan, yet no one calls the current conflict there a Civil War either).TheWinkel 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? Either I'm daft or you're talking nonsense. Or did the Afghan Civil War end yesterday without my noticing it? What you say about bodies desiring recognition is even murkier, unless you're making a lewd suggestion, in which case I can only reply this is not the proper forum to do so.--victor falk 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a body desiring international recognition. Actually, there have been several. First it was the Baathists. Then it was the Mahdi Army (which, if you'll remember, started their attacks against the provisional US government). Then it was AQ in Iraq ... - Che Nuevara 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the ICRC clarification of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the convention regulates the military hows war is waged, not the political whys. The emphasis is on armed forces: it is about the scope of the military operations needed to be considered warfare. Translated into commonspeak: "If you use big guns, it's war, but not if you use pea shooters". That's why the conflicy in Northern Ireland isn't generally considered civil war, because though the British army could have used force protection rules of engagement, gunships, artillery, aerial bombardment and naval shore shelling, it restricted itself to a paramilitary/constabulary role. Similarly, the IRA restricted itself to terrorism and assassination and did not try to instigate massive insurgency operations.--victor falk 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is about the scope of the military operations needed to be considered warfare." This is an incorrect assessment. Warfare is far more political than it is armed conflict. I reiterate, lacking a government fighting the current government in power (much less one seeking international recognition) it is not a civil war by any stretch of the imagination. TheWinkel 05:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A war is a war only if there is only a government seeking international government recognition"? That's a rather quaint definition of war. Especially for civil war, which by definition means there are parties other than internationally recognised governments participating. --victor falk 10:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A war is a civil war only if there is a second government seeking recognition, yes. TheWinkel 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is a government? Must they have a protocol of cabinet meetings to be considered one?--victor falk 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't even our job to determine whether or not it is a civil war. A wide array of verifiable sources and the common name both lead to the current naming. --134.68.77.116 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is our job to determine if a) people even call it a civil war (in colloquial discussion they don't) b) if that label is appropriate (it's inaccurate). Do a google search for 'Iraq Civil War' and you'll find a number of old articles questioning whether or not there was a civil war in the first place and if you try a news search, it's barren. As a matter of fact, I'm now convinced the evidence is clear that this article should be renamed. TheWinkel 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2

[edit]
Calling this article "sectarian violence" is a case of WP:BIAS. There is a debate in the English-speaking world whether it should be called that or "civil war" because there've been attempts to influence the historiography of the conflict from many anglophone quarters, naturally enough as the US and the UK are major belligerents in that conflict. To do a Hated Google Test, "civil war" gets 2M ghits vs 1M for "sectarian violence". In the major languages in which I'm able to do a meaningful search:
"guerre civile" irak665,000 ghits vs "violence sectaire" irak 733 ghits
bürgerkrieg irak 411,000 ghits vs "sektiererischen gewalt" irak 60 ghits
"guerra civile" iraq 280,000 ghits vs "Violenza settaria" iraq 710 ghits
"guerra civil" iraq 1,140,000 ghits vs "Violencia sectaria" iraq 28,900 ghits
I'd be very interested in the results of a search in Arabic.
Please note that WP:N states that foreign language sources are as valid as English ones. We try to include only English ones for the convenience of our readers.--victor falk 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is English wikipedia so your searches are moot. Plus if the title is misleading regardless of common usage it must not be used. There is still much controversy over whether what is happenning in Iraq is a Civil War and we must wait until it concludes to more accurately make that assessment. Otherwise it would be biased for the article to remain with the same title because it is putting forth an opinion. Read the article on Sectarian violence, Iraq is included here.--Southern Texas 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is English wikipedia so your searches are moot.
Um, what??? Where does it say that we ignore other languages on Wikipedia? Foreign-language sources are acceptable (although English-language ones are preferred for purely practical purposes). And considerations of other, non-English-speaking cultures are essential for Wikipedia to have any legitimacy whatsoever. That's why we have Wikipedia:Translation. The vast majority of people in the world are not English-speakers, and there are vast troves of media out there which are not in English. To ignore them would be to take a narrow position which supports illusory specificity and promotes, in the very truest sense of the word, ignorance. Wikipedia cannot, should not, and does not take the position that sources, searches, and other useful information in languages other than English "are moot".
To quote your own statement from above, Southern Texas,
Comment the only significant source that I saw was that most Iraqis believe it is not a civil war. They actually live in the nation so shouldn't their account of the events weigh more than any foreign observer?
Do you think those Iraqis were polled in English? - Che Nuevara 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not dispute that the term "Civil war" was in more common usage nor that other languages cannot be used as realiable sources but just that this is "English" wikipedia and that English "google searches" outweigh other languages. Typing other lanugages into a google search really doesn't help your case nor prove of any bias. Plus no Arabic searches were done and the report of the poll was in English, so don't bring up the Iraqi issue. Address the issues that I put forth. Any search is moot if the common usage misrepresents its subject. More importantly read Sectarian violence and then Civil war and tell me which one mentions Iraq.--Southern Texas 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "الحرب الاهليه" في العراقa 660,000 ghits vs لعنف الطائفيa 261,000 ghits. Quite interesting result. In non-involved parts of the world, people talk about exclusively of "civil war" in Iraq; in both the English and Arabic world, "civil war" outnumbers "sectarian violence" 2 to 1. People talk more about civil war in iraq than sectarian violence, globally by an order of magnitude. Reaction of outsiders: "Those protestants/catholics/shias/sunnis/jews/arabs are at it killing each other in a civil war again", and then they go about their business. People involved in the war, though, will talk a lot about how to stop it and have a discourse that includes expressions as "sectarian violence". Don't forget, sectarian violence is by definition an element of any civil war.--victor falk 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for those results that is very interesting. However the definition of a civil war from the wikipedia article says that it can only be a true civil war if there is no foreign intervention among the factions. In Iraq the Shiite rebels are being helping out by Iran in their fights with the Sunnis. Americans are trying to cool tensions while al-Qaeda is trying to further the sectarian violence. The conflict is full of foreign intervention so this is not the best term to use. However the fighting is between two religious sects which everybody agrees is sectarian violence. For now this the best label.--Southern Texas 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Texas, you're disregarding Wikipedia naming conventions:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (WP:NAME, emphasis mine)

To call the article something other than what it is commonly known by would be original research. We don't call it the United Soviet Socialist Dictatorship or the Hundred-sixteen Years' War. - Che Nuevara 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that idea that a war is not a civil war if there's foreign intervention? Again, check the list of civil wars, esp the examples in my comment above --victor falk 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars use two criteria:

  • The warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy.  Not done
  • Their second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side Done

The second part is met but the first part is not: Many Sunnis are coming from other Arab countries and as was noted Iran is directly involved with the Shiite factions.--Southern Texas 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But why did it take the destabilization of the country for the factions to begin fighting? Its because other nations like Iran imported their people to continue the traditional Shiite-Sunni fight that has been fought since the times of Abu Bakr.--Southern Texas 03:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took the removal of suddams forces to start this civil war becuase Saddam held this country with a iron fist of violence and death. Any revolt would of been put down with his secret police and spys and military cordination. After the Us lead invasion and the interm of a reformed goverment with little military and control gave the perfect opertunity for the civil war too start Jack The Pumpkin King 03:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. The instability and youth of the government and military of Iraq created the perfect situation for Iran to import their own Shiites into the nation in order to install a pro-Iran regime.--Southern Texas 03:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are named by reliable sources and common naming, not opinion or original research. --69.210.15.210 03:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Keep in mind, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Do not overdo it if the common name misrepresents its subject a reasonable alternative that everybody agrees on should be used. The common term is Civil war but by definition the situation in Iraq is not a civil war because some elements in the Shitte faction are Iranian. However we all agree that it is sectarian violence and this is the reasonable alternative.--Southern Texas 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to repeat myself?--Southern Texas 03:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Southern, the new regime and all present a mix of starting the civil war while having iran try and put its own pro regime in. Its a complex war right now and "secterian violence" doesnt really cover the subject well enough. "civil war" allows for this article to talk about how it went into it and how secterian violence is the key part of this civil war. Jack The Pumpkin King 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This conflict is just a ongoing fight between the Shiite and Sunni sects that has continued since the time of Abu Bakr, it is classic sectarian violence but not Civil war, it doesn't meet the definition of Civil war and is therefore a misleading title. Sectarian violence is usually much more complex than just simple civil war.--Southern Texas 03:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen some valid reasons that this is a civil war ealier in the section so im iffy that it isnt one. I do agree that there is sectarain violence but it seems to me its just part of the Iraq civil war. Jack The Pumpkin King 03:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said, "the historical defintion should decide" and I agree, lets use the criteria from the article Civil war that I noted above so that we can see that the title is misleading and a violation of policy so that we can rename the article Sectarian violence in Iraq, the most reasonable and less biased name possible.--Southern Texas 03:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Sectarian violence" can be considered a synonym of "low-intensity civil war". The level of warfare in Iraq is anything but low intensity.--victor falk 11:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iraq does fit both definitions of a civil war. Between the fight for oil revenues, federalism, people trying to prevent various groups from voting in various elections, Kurdistan trying to break away, there are plenty of examples of political battles. Besides, sectarian violence wouldn't sufficently describe the situation. Besides the above, Sunni's have fought Sunni's and Shi'ites have fought Shi'ites. This goes on top of Iranian, Turkish, American, British, and Saudi influences. The title should remain as a civil war. Patken4 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider seeking more opinions

[edit]

Hi, this discussion has been open now for more than the typical time for move discussions (five days) and there doesn't seem to be any consensus here. The discussion above seems to be going in circles, at least partly because only a small number of editors are involved. Might I suggest that the participants here seek further opinions? You could file a request for comments, for example, or perhaps notify any relevant WikiProjects that there's a discussion underway (take care not to canvas of course). --bainer (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Request

[edit]

Comments:

Comment — In terms of MILHIST style, I'd support the current name, "Civil war in Iraq." Civil war, by definition, includes sectarian violence within one country. Changing the name of the article could artificially limit the scope of the article. JKBrooks85 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say leave it as it is right now. If, later on, the situation changes and everyone agrees it isn't a civil war, worry about it then. I also agree with JKB on MILHIST style- sectarian violence is a big part of the current situation in Iraq, but not the only factor involved.Cromdog 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would choose another title, i.e. Ethnic conflict in Iraq (date-date), or similar. The wording civil war is too semantically loaded. It is not an all-out war if compared with, let's say Spanish Civil War. Regards, --Asteriontalk 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict is not ethnic -- Sunni and Shia are not ethnicities, they're religious sects. Virtually all of the combatants in the conflict are Arabs, as Iraq is 75+% Arabic and the 15+% Kurdish population is largely uninvolved. It's sectarian and political. But, since it's both sectarian and political, and since the sectarian lines are becoming less and less clear all the time (we now have Sunni tribes turning against the Sunni al Qaeda and Shi'ite militias turning against the largely Shi'ite security forces, for example), it's becoming less and less sectarian as well. This is chiefly a political battle. - Che Nuevara 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over religious control of the government, Shiites-Iran, Sunnis-Other Arab countries. Its the same battle that has been fought in the region since Abu Bakr and its much more than just an Iraq issue and therefore much more than a civil war. Its sectarian violence between two sects which we all agree, but it does not meet the requirements of a civil war since the war is not exclusive to purely Iraqi factions. Iraq is now the arena where Iran is trying to create another pro-Iran regime like the one in Syria and Sunnis from the South, and west try to impose a regime that would support their interests. Civil war is too misleading for the situation.--Southern TexasTexas 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources document that it is commonly viewed as a civil war but that there are other complexities as well. --69.210.15.210 01:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The involvement of other nations and groups in a civil war doesn't make it suddenly not a civil war. IMHO, you really need to demonstrate that it's a wide-ranging movement across several countries and political groups, not just contributors and fellow-travellers from those countries. JKBrooks85 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That demonstration would be pointless. There is absolutely nothing about wars being both civil and between states being mutually exclusive. As I've said, the Afghan Civil War (1978-present) is an excellent example. As are the Cambodian Civil War, the Finnish Civil War, the Lebanese Civil War, the Russian Civil War, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and more... See my comment above[2].--victor falk 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for the record: I have edited sunni combatants in the infobox[3]--victor falk 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For it to be a Civil war both factions must entirely be from the same nation. Civil wars are entirely internal conflicts within factions among a nation. It may still take place in one nation and involve members of many other nations for it not to be a Civil war. It is also possible for another nation to be indirectly involved as is the case in the wars listed above but if another nation has a direct impact and is fighting alongside a faction as Iran is in Iraq then it is not a civil war. It has been demonstrated that the sectarian violence in Iraq is a continuation of the fight over the legitimacy of Abu Bakr. The Sunni and Shiite sects, not exclusively Iraqis want Iraq to be under their control. This is a religious fight between members of many different nations, therefore the best name is Sectarian violence.--Southern Texas 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please click on the links in my comment above--victor falk 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Meawhile I'll check Abu Bakr--victor falk 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no denying that the strife between the Sunnis the the Shias did't start with the Iraq War. Just as the Wars of Religion between protestants and catholics didn't start with the Thirty Years War. But renaming the Thirty Years War to Sectarian violence in the Holy Roman German Empire because of that would be ridiculous.--victor falk 09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to bring up that war, as it was a while ago and it's rather complex (where discussions could be prone to have analogy breakdown & degenerate into arguments like "But Maliki is not really emperor of Iraq!"), but since I did, I think it is one of the best comparaisons. There was foreign intervention from all major powers except Poland, political conflict between the central government and constituent parts of the empire wanting de facto independence, peasant uprisings, catholics and protestants massacring each other, mercenaries looting the land, etc. They don't call it post westphalian warfare for nothing--victor falk 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I support the article title since it is the best solution to name the mess. Another option would be civil strife since we don't have a fool scale war yet. All in all good work guys.Wandalstouring 10:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has the Iraqi government ever called the conflict a civil war? Asteriontalk 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The former Prime Minister has (see list of sources above). Also, Iraqi Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, Iraq's deputy interior minister, Hussein Ali Kamal, the leader of Iraq's Kurdish region (if Kirkuk, whose fate has yet to be decided, cannot be annexed), and Former Iraqi Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani (if federalism is introduced), have been willing to talk about deep levels of violence.
On the other hand, Current President Talabani has stated that the formation of a national unity government 'disproves' the notion of a civil war and Current Prime Minister Maliki has said “Iraq is not in a civil war. Iraq will never be in a civil war.” --69.210.15.210 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the very fact that Maliki said "Iraq will never be in a civil war" is enough to discount anything he says on the subject as meaningless. Does he own a magic mirror? - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Maliki, sectarian violence "is closed now". If we're trying to be consistent with just the Iraqi PM's view, sectarian violence is not an appropriate name anymore either.. --64.109.56.207 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article should be merged with Iraqi insurgency. There's too many articles about the Iraq War. I doubt there's really any information on this page that hasn't been stated two or three times in other articles. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What about Civil conflict in Iraq. The term "war" may be POV but "sectarian violence" sounds even more POV (I strongly oppose that version: sectarian violence is only part of the conflict). The terms "conflict" or "struggle" resemble "war" enough but are more open to different viewpoints, as some seem to argue that it's not yet an open war but hardly anyone will argue it's not a conflict/struggle.

Lancet Iraq death count study

[edit]

I think Lancet and ORB are WP:FRINGE, for reasons outlined here. Keep in mind that the organization debunking Lancet in this instance is liberally motivated to end the war by showing how many people have died. So why would they want to discredit the report, other than the fact that it's outrageously inaccurate? Isaac Pankonin 05:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert September 21 2007

[edit]

I reverted the latest edits by HanzoHattori because they re-characterized the combatants to make the Shi'ite side look better while only identifying al Qaeda on the Sunni side. It was a substantial POV rewrite. • Gene93k 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He made a lot of other changes too. So, it would be better if you corrected a specific statement(s) you disagree with, rather than revert everything.Biophys 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Rename to "Sectarian conflict in Iraq"

[edit]

I've seen it written before, and I agree. This article should be renamed, and here's why: I think everybody will agree that there is sectarian conflict in Iraq, but it seems that we're deeply divided as to whether or not it should be called a civil war. The recent drop in violence is a further reason. When this article went through its first AFD in 2005, the main discussion was whether or not civil war was going to happen in the future. Since we're further down the road now, we can see that things are not as bad as they were predicted to be. There can still be a section that debates whether "civil war" applies, but having it in the title seems POV. As I've said before, I'm not sure whether or not there's a civil war, but I know for sure that there is sectarian conflict. That's what the title should be. Anybody that says a straight "yes" or "no" to the civil war question is trying to push an agenda. It's not a fact one way or the other, therefore it shouldn't be in the title. Isaac Pankonin 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There didn't seem to be a lot of controversy about what the article should be named.. The following sources agreed with the naming:

Sources agreeing with the naming

[edit]

Academic Sources

[edit]

Professor of Political Science at Stanford, testifying before Congress]

Former (and some Current) Officials

[edit]

Media Outlets

[edit]

Polling Data

[edit]

Neighboring countries

[edit]

The only sources against the name seem to be quotes from the Administration and a poll of Iraqis. This information could surely be mentioned, but a rename seems overboard to me.. --69.218.58.110 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm talking about. You're trying to push an agenda. You didn't mention the fact that 2/3 of Iraqis don't think they're in a civil war. You didn't mention the analyst that said "civil war" doesn't quite explain the complexity of the situation. I would say the same thing to somebody who said there's no civil war. There's no consensus, and titles must be neutral. Isaac Pankonin 02:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to push an agenda, I'm trying to edit in good faith and support my argument with verifiable sources. I'm pointing out what a large portion of the sources say. I also mentioned the poll of Iraqis, though I don't what what the specific percent is (I've seen about 30-40% believe they are in a civil war, definitely less than a majority). I agree that the analyst who thinks "civil war" doesn't explain the complexity should be mentioned as well (though I don't know the specific citation). Regardless of the name of the article, I encourage you to add both of these in to the article with citations..
I observed that you were the one who nominated the article for deletion for a second time and the one who nominated it to be moved.. I appreciate the fact that you aren't happy with the article, but instead of just deleting or renaming it you might first consider adding the verifiable facts that you feel are missing from it. Other editors will be much more likely to engage with you if they don't feel threatened and rather feel you are making constructive contributions. For example, this article discusses two polls of Iraqis from March 2007 that you might find relevant for the article. --69.218.58.110 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize because I didn't AGF. However, I only took action after a consensus was reached above. It would be wrong to say I rushed in and started disrupting the page just because I disagree with it. In fact, if you look at my first comment, I defended the term "civil war". I was also the one who put the Iraqi poll in the introduction.
Those polls are interesting, but I don't think they're relevant here. Isaac Pankonin 04:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say you didn't AGF, I was just trying to make sure I was coming off the right way. You did collaborate with other editors, I just meant that there are dozens of editors who may not have looked at the page yet. You definitely aren't disrupting the page, since you're only making proposals. At this point, I'm still against a rename because I think most of the sources agree with the naming. I think polls and complexity should be mentioned, and I'm also willing to see what the other editors think.. --69.218.58.110 14:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag since it's been up a fair amount of time without further comment. Other editors should still feel free to leave their opinions below.. --69.218.58.110 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic discussion on a think tank page

[edit]

An article of great relevance to the current debate is the following article on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations. Participants in the roundtable discussion include people that have served in the Carnegie Endowment and the U.S. Army War College. Participants weigh in of the yea and the neigh sides of the classification as Civil War question: "Iraq: Is there Civil War in Iraq?" [4] Dogru144 (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good read, even if it's hard to gauge now that it's two years out. Lots of other links about it under the Sources topic a few topics above. --69.218.57.60 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, the article is relatively old. However, it is still quite useful for considering the debate over the term, "Civil War." The participants are all experts in the area; and they offer their criteria for consideration on the term, civil war or sectarian conflict. Dogru144 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, their answer seems to be a resounding "maybe", so, while the article is indeed interesting, it is probably not going to solve this disagreement. Excellent link, though, I quite enjoyed it. - Revolving Bugbear 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Called Civil War has Ended

[edit]

As of November 2007 it appears that the conflicts in Iraq that caused the so called civil war/sectarian violence have stopped. Violence in Iraq is down. both sides have come together to fight Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is on the run. If there was ever a civil war in Iraq it appears to have ended. The civil war in Iraq has ended. History has proven that there was probably never a civil in Iraq. The comments of many people have been proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.236.201 (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The continued edits to the article need a source and not just your speculation. --69.218.58.44 13:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the not-so-new news: [5] --HanzoHattori 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, the source doesn't say what is being claimed and currently isn't being used to support the claim in the article. Secondarily, the Pentagon has said it will take months to see if any security gains are permanent (especially as the surge ends and Iraqis continue to not embrace political reform). Thirdly, the army is paying off Sunni groups (some which previously targeted US troops) with money and arms to work with us (which Prime Minister Maliki has argued is actually 'an armed Sunni opposition in the making')[6].
It would be wonderful if the source you provided said that the civil war was over, that these groups might not end up turning on us, or even that the reduction in violence would last once the surge ends; but unfortunately, it could still end up being a last ditch effort that comes back to haunt us. Either way, it doesn't support the claim being made. --69.218.58.44 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More of the not-so-new news:
To summarize them, the Iraqi Parliament couldn't get enough members present to establish a quorum and the son of a major Sunni party leader was caught planting suicide bombs. While he was caught, the arrest shows how high up/close to the Green Zone that the terrorists/insurgents are. With 51% of Iraqis approving of attacks on US troops and 97% of Sunnis opposed to coalition presence on their soil about eight months ago, it becomes apparent that it would take a very long time for the United States military to successfully win over the Iraqi population by itself. More recently, Sunni members have quit Maliki's cabinet and walked out of Parliament. --69.218.58.44 04:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The so called civil war was caused by al qaeda's involvement in Iraq. Since al qaeda was forced out of Baghdad violence has fallen. This proves that there was never a civil war, it was al qaeda causing the violence in Iraq. It is not a civil war it is a war between al qaeda and the Iraqi people with the U.S. on Iraq's side. [7]

I don't think this "My source is more authoritative than yours.", "No, is not." will not get us anywhere, because there is too much opinion pushing (out there in the real world) for a clear preference, just a general tendency in one direction (for "civil war"). History and comparison with modern conflicts is much more of a guide for what is a "civil war" and "sectarian violence", and here "civil war seems" more adequate. If all else fails, "civil war" is to prefer, because it is a more general term, in plainer and simple words, to describe that confused and diffuse conflict.--victor falk 09:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your source tals about a success from a year ago, before the surge began. The immediate aftermath of the success outlined didn't seem to have much of an effect nation-wide in Iraq.. --68.253.50.187 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A war between Iraq(with help from the U.S.) and al qaeda is not a civil war. Just because people are confused about what the war is does not make it a civil war.[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.225.118 (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more Iraqi-on-Iraqi casualties than there are American-on-Al Qaeda casualties. The Pentagon has alleged Iran is providing weapons to Shi'ite extremists (while Al Qaeda is a Sunni group), so..
  • What happens when a temporary cease fire in 'Sadr City' ends?
  • What happens if Iran starts allegedly sending weapons back in to Iraq?
  • What happens if 'political reform' is never passed in the Iraqi parliament?
  • What happens if US soldiers withdraw too quickly?
  • What happens if former Sunni extremists turn on us?
  • What happens to the Sunni extremists who still aren't working with us?
  • Though not as likely, what happens if something flares up between Turkey and the Kurdish region of Iraq?
Violence is back to about where it was at the beginning of 2006, when the mosques were bombed and things really got violent. There are many unresolved conditions still on the ground such as dislike of coalition forces, disbelief in the efficacy of the national political process, a weak and loosely held together central government, etc. To reduce the fight to a conflict between America and al-Qaeda is simplistic, naive, and would imply that we can successfully pack up and leave today. With impending troop withdrawals and the fragile variety of multi-party factors involved in any such prediction, it is simply far too soon to say whether the drop in violence is continuing or permanent. --68.253.50.187 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violence is back to where it was in 2004,before the so called civil war started. The so called civil war has ended.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.225.118 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different military spokesmen adopt different positions, as Odierno himself was quoted a day before this as saying attack levels were around those of spring 2005 and the defense secretary was quoted less than two weeks ago as saying early 2006 violence levels. So any of these varying claims would need statistical information and a methodology to evaluate the claim (I will begin to canvas military sites for actual numbers). A verified dip in violence would be encouraging, though not the sole factor that would be used in such a consideration to determine whether the dip is sustainable (as outlined above; for example, 'What is happening in response to Turkey's bombings of the Kurdish region', 'What is happening due to the British withdrawal of troops from Basra', 'What happens if the political process remains frozen as US troops begin their withdrawal').
If you could show some statistical information (presumably military) which shows why either of Odierno's analyses supersede the analysis of Secretary Gates, this would be a good start for verifying the level of the dip in violence. Also needed would be an up-to-date independent analysis of the situation (presumably academic) for forecasting the nature of the dip and its sustainibility. I will look for these and encourage you to do so as well.
--68.253.50.187 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq's conflicts with Turkey and Iran can't be a civil war. If Iran caused the violence that you call a civil war why not call it a war with Iran? How is Turkey causing a civil war? If Iran caused the violence in Iraq, how can you call it a civil war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.225.118 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey's involvement signifies more violence for a calm part of the conflict, while Iran's alleged support shows one of the Iraqi parties involved in the conflict. Neither of these is the main issue. The overall conflict is called a civil war because a body of reliable sources have termed it that. Some of the Iraqi-Iraqi problems that remain unresolved in this conflict include:
  • Iran has been accused not of sending in soldiers, but of supporting Shia extremists already within the country
  • 'Concerned local citizen' groups of Sunnis working against Al-Qaeda are working with the United States because we are paying them too.
    • Prime Minister Maliki has complained they are a Sunni opposition in the making
    • Some Sunni groups have already announced plans to turn against the 'Iraqi government of the occupiers' (some wording of this sort) once the 'occupation forces' leace
  • The Sadr Brigades have signed a temporary peace agreement, but there is no sign how long this will last for.
  • The son of a Sunni politician was arrested with about 40 others for planting roadside bombs (this signifies how deep and far up sentiment in the conflict goes)
The central reasoning against the provided Odierno source is that:
  • the issue has already been recognized as a civil war by multiple academics, government officials of varying countries, media outlets, etc.
  • a drop in violence is insufficient evidence to address this label because
    • most importantly, it fails to take in to account the reasoning provided by the sources described
    • the exact magnitude of the drop remains somewhat subjective as it conflicts with two other assessments
    • the nature of the drop (sustainibility, etc) remains unaddressed (how will it hold up against the unresolved factors given above)
This is hardly an all encompassing argument as I was merely providing a few examples of what I have read. The central point is the list of sources given under the 'Sources agreeing with the naming' section and the many unresolved problems facing the conflict (some of which I have outlined). --68.253.50.187 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I was unable to locate Pentagon statistics about the drop or any academic papers discussing the drop in violence, this article describes some of the problems still facing the country. Also worth noting is that Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil said progress made in Baghdad in recent months is "fledgling, fragile and not guaranteed." --68.253.50.187 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this encyclopedia Civil War in Iraq page is based on speculation and a one sided view to prove there is a civil war in Iraq. Any person that says and gives information that it is not a civil war will be proven wrong or seen as one sided. Any person that believes it is a civil war will will use there one sided information and will see the person that disagrees information as one sided and an unreliable source. Wikipedia is one sided. Wikipedia appears to be bias. It is full of liberals who refuse to see other people's point of view. The fact is that only history can show that it was a civil war. We do not decide. History decides. Until history decides there should not be an article about a civil war in Iraq. We can both agree it is a conflict. It should be called Conflict in Iraq.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.225.118 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a liberal:) but I agree with this comment, especially the latter part. Also, the term of "civil war" is not used in Iraq, and even on Arabic wikipedia. --HanzoHattori (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that political orientation shouldn't have much to do with it since the label is supported by 65-85% of the public and some conservatives. (Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, ..) More importantly, the label has been accepted by non-partisan groups and foreign officials, as well as current and retired military officers.
Using the Arabic title (which mentions 'American occupation'), seems to inappropriately open a whole other can of worms to me. --68.253.50.187 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political orientation does matter. Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel are the most radical republicans. The American public does not decide. The American public is thousands of miles away from Iraq. Asking the American public is like asking a group of 5 year olds if Santa is real. kids get there ideas from there parents. The American public gets its views from the news and other Americans. The sources they get their information from can be one sided. Wikipedia is full of liberals. The War in Iraq is seen by liberals as bad. So liberals view Iraq as in a chaotic civil war even if The War in Iraq is doing and there is no civil war. If the liberals/democrats admit that Iraq is doing fine the republicans will win the elections in 2008. The democrats do not want to lose so they will not admit they were wrong. Wikipedia is one sided. Only history will decide if there was a civil war in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairAndBalancedUSA (talk • contribs) 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage you to explore some of this in the 'Use of "civil war" label' section in the article, but reducing the importance of the conflict to a semantic and political naming contest seems simplistic and insensitive. --68.253.50.187 (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict has been reduced to a political naming contest. It is simple and not insensitive to see that democrats who are seeking election in 2008 and liberals will not admit that they were wrong. The democrats want to win next year so they want to make republicans who support Iraq look bad. If the democrats admit they are wrong they will lose. It is simplistic to call this conflict a civil war. Wikipedia is full of liberals who have an agenda to take down the republicans.There is no civil war in Iraq. listen to this.[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairAndBalancedUSA (talk • contribs) 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you could consider adding this to the 'Use of "civil war" label' section of the article. We would have to make sure that it is notable, represenative, and well-sourced but finding one shouldn't be too difficult for you. --68.253.50.187 (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This so Civil War in Iraq article should not be its own article. There should be a section in the Iraqi Insurgency article labeled Possible Civil War in Iraq. The so called civil war, from the examples you gave to me and the Iraqi Insurgency article, appears to be part of the Iraqi Insurgency and is too complex to simply call a civil war. The two articles belong as one and should be merged into one article. If I include anything in the Civil War in Iraq article that goes against the statements of the liberals/democrats the things they do not agree with will be reverted. Wikipedia is full of liberals/democrats that will not admit there is no civil war. If I write this under the 'Use of "civil war" label' section of this article. it will be reverted/ deleted, even with references. They will say it is not NPOV and revert/delete it. The entire article is not NPOV it is a one sided argument to prove that there is a civil war in Iraq. The article does not say that there is controversy over the labeling of this conflict as a civil war. It only has information to prove that it is a civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FairAndBalancedUSA (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of the civil war??

[edit]

Improved security in Baghdad has pulled Iraq back from the brink of all-out civil war but security forces must not relax in the battle against threats such as al Qaeda, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.[11]. Seems that the Operation Law and Order ended it..--TheFEspan style="color:red">ARgod (Ч) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No??

[edit]
Not to sure exactly what you are proposing, but Maliki has also said Iraq will "never be in a civil war” so clearly his opinion is not new and is not the single opinion to weigh. If you want to look at recent quotes though, many academic and media are still referring to the conflict as a civil war without consideration:
The article you cited, Operation Law and Order also states:

The U.S. military commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, has gone so far as to say Iraq will be "doomed" if this current plan fails.[1] Numerous members of Congress have stated the plan is a critical period for the U.S. presence in Iraq.

68.253.39.146 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good sources, however, the ICS report doesnt' specify that it is continuing and also says al-Sadr made a big step by declaring a ceasefire. The ceasefire announce should be the end of the civil war. --TheFEspan style="color:red">ARgod (Ч) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The al-Sadr ceasefire ended the civil war in Iraq just like it ended all the violence against American troops in Iraq. - Revolving Bugbear 16:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The al-Sadr ceasefire is also temporary in nature and only addresses a limited number of parties involved in the conflict. --68.253.39.146 (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to some of the questions posed above, Sadr's ceasefire is apparently incredibly fragile (Sadr has recently threatened a "civil revolt") and violence is raging in Basra (where the British "successfully" pulled out of awhile ago). Baghdad is in an indefinite curfew and US officials are locked down in the Green Zone in and around Saddam's old palaces. Political reform is still out on the horizon, many of the US funded concerned local citizens will soon be jobless, Turkish-Kurdish problems are developing, and a partial and gradual US drawdown is coming. When violence levels only briefly bottomed out at levels we saw a few years ago (when the war was still raging), it becomes clear that the conflict hasn't ended. --68.253.50.109 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Iran Shia faction

[edit]

The only mention of Iran in the article is here:

Iran, it has been conjectured, would assist the Shiites. Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq, with Iran helping the Shi'ite and Arab nations helping the Sunni, is a possibility. A senior American official has said that during a meeting between Vice President Dick Cheney and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in November 2006, the king said that if U.S. forces pulled out of Iraq, the Saudis would be forced to support the Sunni minority.

The only mention of Iran is listed as a possibility, along with Arab nations helping the Sunnis.

As far as I personally know, the furthest we have seen are reports of finding Iranian weapons, but no one has made the allegation (let alone provided the evidence) that the government of Iran specifically organized this support. The U.S. charges come as Iran and Turkey have complained that U.S.-supplied guns are flowing from Iraq to anti-government militants on their soil. Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq has argued that Iran has a "positive and constructive" role in helping the Iraqi government improve security in his wartorn nation. Two different studies have maintained that approximately half of all foreign insurgents entering Iraq come from Saudi Arabia. Turkey has also sent military troops in to the country to quash Kurdish 'terrorists'.

So if we include this, we would have to greatly expand the list if we wished to include Iran on it, and we would also have to provide more information in the article about the specific charges (while also offering the perspectives of the Iraqi government, the Iranian government, etc.) --69.210.15.59 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could add Quds Force and put alleged behind it. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who kept adding this in isn't anymore. The point is that if we add alleged support of a group within Iran, then we would have to add the definite involvement of Turkey and Kurdistan, American contractors, and other definite or alleged Arab states.. I also question the wisdom of including every alleged group in the conflict to the list.. --68.253.35.13 (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here Iraq said it had no evidence that Iran was supporting militants on Iraqi soil. - AFP: 'No evidence' Iran backs militias - Baghdad. --68.72.34.126 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is massively outdated; needs major updates.

[edit]

Almost every part of this article is more than a year old (many parts are far older) and almost everything was written pre-2007-surge. I think the article probably needs a total rewrite. A non-exhaustive list of antiquated sections would include:

1) Ethno-sectarian composition:

For example, is most of the violence still suni vs. shi'ite?

The Arab-Sunni faction and the Arab-Shi'ite are the main two participants in the violence,

Much of the recent violence reported in the papers has been between the largely Shi'ite government and Shi'ite militias.

2) Groups known and alleged to take part in the sectarian violence

Is this still correct?

There are also militias created since the state collapse, the largest and most uniform of which is the Mahdi Army established by Moqtada al-Sadr and believed to have around 50,000 fighters.

3) Potential effects of the sectarian attacks

Are projections from 2006 still relevant? Do we have sources showing that things might play out the same way now?

4) Growth in refugee flight

What's the number now?

As of late January 2007, 2 million people have fled Iraq as refugees since the Iraq War began.

5) Use of "civil war" label

There's been some debate about this in the media recently. Is the title still relevant?


Again, this is just a sampling. Almost the entire article is composed on antiquated material like this.

Maybe some of the text from the current article can be held over, but I think the article as a whole needs major rewrites. Almost all of the citations are from either 2005, 2006, or early 2007, and those citations are sprinkled heavily throughout the current text. Moreover, those citations are referenced in the present tense which misleadingly suggests that the numbers and events referenced are correct/ongoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.61.53 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the intro section of the article is entirely based on facts from more than two years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.61.53 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 2008, the UNHCR raised the estimate of refugees to a total of about 4.7 million (~16% of the population). The number of refugees estimated abroad was 2 million (a number close to CIA projections[22]) and the number of internally displaced people was 2.7 million."
  • The Red Cross states that Iraq's humanitarian situation remains among the most critical in the world, with millions of Iraqis forced to rely on insufficient and poor-quality water sources.[24](dated 2008)
  • Escalation: March 2008 - Reuters: April Iraq's deadliest month since last August
  • Other articles discussing the current civil war: [12] - "Tina Susman of the LA Times reports that Iranian involvement in Iraq's civil war may not be everything it's been cracked up to be", [13] - "It is true that Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, has been implicated in scores of sectarian murders of Sunni Iraqis, thereby expediting and deepening Iraq's civil war.", [14] - "None of this constitutes progress toward consolidation of the central government or institutions; all of it could amount to little more than the U.S. boosting specific actors in an increasingly fragmented civil war and unbridled scramble for power and resources. Short-term achievement could threaten long-term stability.", [15] - "Some backers of the surge even argue that the Iraqi civil war is over.. Unfortunately, such claims misconstrue the causes of the recent fall in violence and, more important, ignore a fatal flaw in the strategy."
This is all recent information. Please try reading the material before deleting content and throwing up tags. If you find newer information, then add it; but sources don't just automatically become outdated. Have a substantial number of sources recently published their change in opinion on the matter?--208.111.26.88 (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problems I initially listed out were far from exhaustive and you don't even address most of those (e.g. my (1), (2), and (3)). My recommendation is that you read the article in its entirety before coming to any conclusions about the need/lack of need for major updates.
You may also want to consider reviewing each tag on an article separately, rather than deleting all the tags simply because you disagree with one of them. Even if you think the article isn't outdated (and again, I'm sure you will once you read it) there's no justification for deleting the uncleardate tag. Please review the following if you're unclear on Wikipedia's policy regarding statements that will date quickly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_statements_that_will_date_quickly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.168.121 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting this page, which says to avoid phrases such as "recently", "in modern times", "now considered", "is soon to become", and "the sixties. None of these occur in the article, and a statement does not become outdated unless newer information from a variety of reliable sources is introduced. If you can identify this case, then you should either individually tag the material or simply update the material yourself.--208.111.26.88 (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be reasoning from the fact that part of the page I linked to doesn't apply to the conclusion that no parts of the page apply, which obviously doesn't work. See the sections advising "as of" phrasing and consult the list of "as of" pages. Notice that many of these sentences for which "as of" is recommended resemble sentences in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.73.173 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it sometimes suits the article to include time-sensitive statements that will need to be updated in the future. Articles should not avoid including valid information solely on the basis that it may change. If that were true, then none of these articles would exist. Why did you remove the cited references to the armed clashes this year? Because the information in the Iraq Spring Fighting of 2008 is likely to change? Wikipedia is a work in progress; don't remove content solely on the basis that it may become outdated. haz (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If people were actively updating the article, or lion's share of the article weren't more than two years old, there wouldn't be a problem. What makes this case problematic is that no one's updating and at the same time the authors used language which quickly became dated. Neither of those is that bad by itself, but together they create a problem which needs to be fixed. Hence the tags.
And the stuff about events in March/April was removed because those sources didn't validate the claim that they were being used for. The claim at hand was that April marked a period of escalation in the Iraqi civil war - there was nothing in the source that said as much. You'll note that I tagged the article in more than one way, and that one of the tags noted than some claims in the entry may not be confirmed by their putative sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.73.173 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting to put the tags back on to the article. Add any specific concerns you may have here..--208.111.26.88 (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You leave the tags up and we'll work to address the concerns that prompted them. That way you can stop reverting and so can I and, as an added bonus, we can spend time working on the article rather than on this bickering. Once the concerns motivating the article have been addressed, we will of course take the tags down.
To be honest, I find it somewhat suspicious that you're working so hard to keep people from improving and updating this article. If your concern is simply with the March/Escalation stuff then I'm willing to leave that in so that we can have some consensus in working to improve the other parts of the article. Leave the tags in though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.196 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tags need specific concerns cited if they are going to remain on the main article page.--208.111.26.88 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specific concerns have been listed. See above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.168.121 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newer information has been included where it has been released. Statements with a date include a date.--208.111.26.88 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously "statements with a date include a date" - if they didn't they wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact that statements are littered throughout the article which reference "current" states of affairs and which haven't been updated since 2006. Moreover, the fact that some statements have been updated does nothing to show that there aren't large segments of the entry in serious need of an update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.67.185 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cite specific instances.--208.111.26.88 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specific instances have been cited. See above. See also the various outdates statements sprinkled throughout the article like "The attacks on non-military and civilian targets began in earnest in August 2003 and have steadily increased since then." or "The bomb attacks aimed at civilians usually target crowded places such as marketplaces and mosques in the Shi'ite cities and districts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.73.229 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is ridiculous. Statements don't become outdated by an invisible clock, but by the introduction of new events. Can you demonstrate why some of the cited instances are false?--208.111.26.88 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so called civil war has ended.[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.188.55 (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most analysts and Iraqis aren't so sure. [17]--208.111.26.71 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni factions

[edit]

Why is Al-Qaeda added on the side of the sunnis in the infobox ? - Tourbillon A ? 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One would presume it is because it is a faction which consists of Sunnis.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17079786/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraqi_civil_war_(2006–2008)/Archive_2&oldid=1131179238"