Talk:Iraq War

.

Casualties

I love how someone deleted my Iraqi casualties when I listed good souses do not change it, the sources I list are correct! Please do not change back to the old version of enemy kills. Those are up until 2007 and not present! (129.21.84.79 (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

found new source so i updated it (129.21.148.234 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

I do not understand why the insurgent casualties keeps on changing back to the 2007 casualty count when I provided a site that is up to date as of 2010....; Please author lets work this out for your source is out of date and wrong when my 55,000 source is correct and up to date! (129.21.70.171 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)) http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

As seen in the article's history, your edit was reverted as the source you provided is not a reliable source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

agreed,but now I have changed the sources (published articles who received their sources from DOD) to more reliable ones. There should not be a problem now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.71.50 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Baghdad

US Forces are still in Baghdad. I know because I have been there.205.110.156.226 (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 8 July 2009.

Citation for 'ongoing' as a word describing the conflict

The citation in the first paragraph appears to suggest that the war is in fact over, not 'ongoing.' Either please choose a more unequivocal source or ditch the wording. 137.73.126.173 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple issue. My answer is, "no, it doesn't." The source says this:

Nevertheless, top officials at the Pentagon will not say outright that the war has been won.

"I would say you could probably declare victory -- if you really felt compelled to do that -- at the point at which the Iraqi security forces, army and police, are shouldering the entire burden and U.S. combat forces are out of the country because they're no longer needed."

I do not see where in that you're getting "the war is in fact over." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that he is saying that the initial invasion is over as in we are no longer fighting Iraq but the insergents in the nation.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no coalition casualties last month, the stated mission objectives have been met and the USA is working on withdraw I think it reasonable (indeed I think is long past time) that this was labeled a "coalition victory". V7-sport (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC) v7-sport

Demonstrate that most of the reliable sources available consider the Iraq War a completed US victory. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The heart of this dispute is the difference between invasion and occupation. According to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 the objectives for the use of force have been met and combat against the armed forces of Iraq are over. (After world war 2 the Allies occupied Japan and Germany until the '50s and Russia is still occupying Japanese Islands, yet we don't describe the war as ongoing.) What remains are acts of terrorism against the Iraqi government and the coalition forces. There are acts of terrorism all over the world but they do not constitute "combat". There were no combat casualties in December and prior to that the vast majority of Coalition casualties were due to acts of terrorism (Ie indiscriminate acts of violence like car bombs, IED's etc) not to combat operations.

I propose that this article be split into 2 and the infirmation put on the articles on the invasion and occupation. That might be more productive and truthful then keeping this article frozen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:V7-sport|V7-sport (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)V7-sport]] (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things. One, the US has said all sorts of crap about victory in Iraq (remember the "Mission Accomplished" banner). I don't think we can use anything from the US as a reliable source on the status of the war. Further, the occupation is part of the conflict. So that would mean the conflict is ongoing. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you Joking? So we can't use any source from the USA here? Good luck with that. Isn't that editorializing? Websters defines "combat" as "active fighting in a war". According to the BBC (or are we not allowed to use information from the UK now?)There were no combat deaths last month. Indeed, major combat operations have been over since the mahdi army was routed. I thought a reasonable and accurate compromise between your "ongoing" and the edit by 84.251.110.251 of "Combat Operations Ended" was "Major Combat operations concluded, Occupation ongoing". V7-sport (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

Illegal

[1][2]. Please integrate, thanks. 205.228.108.186 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be more appropriate in Legality of the Iraq War. I don't think the US cares much about an inquiry in the Netherlands. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Enemy Casualties

I changed the number because I found a new source for the insurgents killed until January 2010 and according to the source of Iraqi Army killed it says 12,950 + or - and additional 2,150 so I felt the need to change it! (129.21.86.79 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

Combat operations ongoing

I have seen no sources provided implying that the Iraq War is over. Until then, the conflict is ongoing. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

1. No American casualties in Iraq.[3]

2. Americans in Iraq: occupiers no longer.[4]

3. Victory in Iraq.[5]

4. Marines leave Anbar.[6]

5. Marines no longer necessary in Anbar.[7]

6. USA transfers command.[8]

7. Iraq ending in victory.[9]

Note, those citations all pass WP:RS You wont be able to keep this buried forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V7-sport (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I can pry myself away from my evil fortress and my negotiations with the dark cabal long enough to respond. I've corrected the links in your comment, we don't need to use reference tags on a talk page. I've also added numbers for clarity. Here are my responses:

1. One month of no American casualties does not mean the war is over.

2. Apart from being an opinion piece, this source says "Iraq still faces major hurdles" and that "A return to the violence :of a few years ago is possible."

3. This is an opinion piece.

4. Marines leaving one city is not victory in the war.

5. See above.

6. This article is about the US renaming the army in Iraq. This means absolutely nothing.

7. Americans have considered themselves "winning" throughout the entire war.

If you want to compare this war to WWII, I can google WWII right now and fight thousands of sources that specifically and directly call it a victory for the allies. This is not the case with the Iraq War. Also, as I stated above, the occupation is part of the conflict and since, as you state, the occupation is ongoing, the conflict is ongoing. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a foolish when you make statements like "I don't think we can use anything from the US as a reliable source on the status of the war," "Maybe the US and its allies are the bad guys in this situation" and Indeed, this article, and your talk page are full of examples of you being taken to task for your bias.

What I posted was "Major Combat operations concluded, Occupation ongoing." When an American soldier is statistically more likely to encounter violence in a major US city then he is in Baghdad it is safe to say that major combat operations have concluded.

Who authorized you to unilaterally decide that the "occupation" and "combat operations" are the same thing?

By the standards you wish to selectively employing any of these sources that declare the allies victorious in WW2 are opinion pieces. The point you missed however is that the USA occupied Germany and Japan until the mid and late'50s. (Indeed, there are still American bases in both countries) Did the war end then or in 1945? V7-sport (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

Gee this seems familiar, a novice editor accusing me of filling the article with my "bias." Let me direct you to some more policies you should read to aid you in your contributions to Wikipedia: WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. Your statement about statistic is interesting. I'd like to see a source for it, only out of curiosity though, as asserting that that is the definition of victory would be original research on our part. I did not say that "occupation" and "combat operations" are the same thing. I said "occupation" falls under the umbrella of "conflict" and thus the conflict continues. Regardless of our word play, we don't have any reliable sources asserting the war is over. Also, see VE day. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How could anyone have come to that conclusion? ("Reality has a strong liberal bias.") This lack of neutrality de-legitimizes the whole wikipedia project. Indeed, the whole article should be cited for POV. Civility is a 2 way street, as others have pointed out.

Again, what I posted, a revision on a previous post was "Major Combat operations concluded, Occupation ongoing." Which was itself an over-compromise.

The crux of your argument is: I said "occupation" falls under the umbrella of "conflict" and thus the conflict continues. “Occupation” and “conflict” are obviously 2 different things. Especially when the occupation has been recognized by the legitimately elected Iraqi parliament. However the verbiage that you object to is "major combat operations". Since you allow that "occupation" and "combat operations" are the not same thing and since the UK has concluded it’s combat operations in Iraq, the US marines have withdrawn from Iraq and the remainder of the occupation forces are confined to training and backing up the Iraqi army according to the SOFA agreement how can you claim that major combat operations continue? If you wish to claim that major coalition combat operations are ongoing please provide some evidence. If not let the edit stand.

Regarding Victory in Iraq Day, even though there is such a citation I am willing to watch this happen incrementally. Apparently you wish to draw a semantic difference between “success in Iraq” and “victory in Iraq” but in the long run that isn’t going to fly. V7-sport (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Please don't tell me what I wish to do. You haven't provided any reliable sources saying the war is over. I don't see what commenting on my userpage has to do with improving this article. I refer you again to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Also, direct me to my statement that was incivil, because I don't remember making any. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"You haven't provided any reliable sources saying the war is over." "war is over" isn't what I have posted as it's status. Please read what I have been posting before you delete it. V7-sport (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)v7-sport

Semantics. Find a reliable source that says "major combat operations are ended," either in those literal words or something very close. A report on the lack of casualties, or the number of incidents is not sufficient. Anything where we decide what comprises "major combat operations" is original research, and not allowed. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you should take this to the arbitration committee, for a binding solution.--JokerXtreme (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom does not handle content disputes. If it's necessary, we can start an WP:RFC. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Find a reliable source that says "major combat operations are ended," either in those literal words or something very close." Here ya go: "The move formally ended the seven-year-long Marine presence in Iraq, in effect signaling the end of heavy combat operations." [10]Buh by now. V7-sport (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

Just because the war is not as bad as previous years doesn't mean it's over. Wikipedia is not here to make judgements on these matters, it's here to present the commonly agreed facts.Publicus 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A fact doesn't have to be popular in order to make it a fact. V7-sport (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Not yet. We'll be able to report the war as "over", frankly, once the mainstream media starts referring to the war as "over". Swarm^(Talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Iraq Body Count numbers on casualities should not be presented in the infobox

Contrary to what is said in the infobox it is not an estimate on the casualities in the war and it has no ambitions to be. --83.249.251.220 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We include it as a lowerbound. The lancet study and its upperbound of over a million civilian casualties is also included. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand the reason why it's included, but I think that doesn't make it less absurd. The Lancet study and the IBC are uncomparable, as the first is an casuality estimate and the second one is a count of casualities as reported by English language media (or was anyway) with no ambition to give a correct estimation on the casualities of the war. It seems like a damaging compromise to include it. --83.249.251.220 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I would treat the Lancet survey as definitive and disregard all other estimates. However, a lot of mainstream sources refer to the IBC, and as such, so must we. We link to the wiki articles for both estimates, IBC and lancet, so readers can read up on the estimates and make up their own minds. I think that should be sufficient. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

IBC methology supports that it is an undercount. To include it in the infobox falsely implies to a reader that it is a minimum count as does calling it "lowest Estimate". I would much prefer to have a more reliable source that does actual research for the minimum such as the Iraqi Family Health Survey. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, that's true. The IBC doesn't attempt to be a true estimate. My only concern if we remove it is that a lot of editors start calling it original research to do so, because, really, we would be making a decision about the content based on the content, as opposed to the sources. Let's leave this proposal here for a few days and see what some other editors think. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - Considering that the Iraqi Body Count does not attempt to be a true estimate of the civilian casualties in Iraq and explicitly states that it is undercounting, should it be removed from the infobox and replaced with a different estimate that attempts to be accurate? Does this constitute original research?

The Iraqi Body Count overestimates Iraqi deaths because it counts all violent death, including that which would have occurred without coalition intervention and a notation should be made to that effect. The Lancit survey should be either removed or at the very least labeled as fringe or pseudoscience because of it's methodology, it has been highly discredited and it too does not attempt to be a true estimate of the civilian casualties due to coalition military operations in Iraq. Instead it claims to count "excess deaths" which could also be attributed to any cause. V7-sport (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)v7-sport

The Lancet Survey is Peer Reviewed and according to the U.K. Foreign Office, Quote: "the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones." The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser, Sir Roy Anderson stated: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to best practice." The dispute is one of ignorance on survey methodology. People assume that it can't be accurate due to the small sample size and PM Blair was officially advised to stop publicly critisizing the survey on that basis. The truth is that estimates using similar size samples have proven accurate for every other conflict where it has been used and in Iraq's case 92% of claims could be confirmed with a death certificate which gives the figures added credibility. The U.K. government was asked how it could accept the methodology but reject the findings. The official answer is a classic: "The Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources." The government also likes to quote an expert from London University who disputes the accuracy. What the government rarely mentions if at all is that this expert compiles data for IBC. Wayne (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The IBC greatly underestimates deaths because it only reports those deaths that can be confirmed with at least two published reliable sources. That is an extremely conservative estimate held to an extremely high standard of documentation. The claim that it lists people who would have died anyway is ludicrous. It also only counts civilian deaths. The Lancet study is widely considered authoritative among the experts but it is an extrapolation rather than an actual body count and therefore has been indicted by politically motivated commentators who don't really understand scholarly methodologies. Neither one is a truly "accurate" body count, of course, and such accuracy is probably impossible. Best thing to do would be to cite both estimates with a brief (and relatively neutral) statement of the methodologies employed to reach them. But they shouldn't be compared as they are really measuring very different things. csloat (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the estimates in the infobox to hopefully make it clearer that the estimates are not comparable. I hope this satisfies all parties involved. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the IBC being described as an "estimate" as it is most definitely not one. What other word can be used? Wayne (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can't really describe the methodology in the infobox if that's what you're hoping for :p. The only word that comes to mind is not surprisingly, "count." But I wouldn't know how to phrase that eloquently in the infobox. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How about what IBC themselves call it? Quote from IBC Website:"IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths." Labelling it "Documented Deaths only" may be the solution. Wayne (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the Iraq Body Count project they count is ALL violent death, whether it is attributable to coalition actions or not. They don't count "excess death". V7-sport (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

This is the first paragraph from the "about" section of their website:

Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others.

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with labeling it "documented deaths only." I think V7's distinction with "excess death" or whatever is original research and has no place here. csloat (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he was saying that the IBC counts deaths that would have happened whether or not the invasion occured, which contradicts the explanation from the site itself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From the IBC's site: "Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others."[11] Presumably "criminal attacks" existed in Iraq before the invasion and therefore these shouldn't be attributed to coalition intervention as the word "excess" implies. The IBC also routinely counts "bodies found" and without further documentation it is imposable to determine what circumstances lead to their deaths. Ill have more on the Lancet study later. V7-sport (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Er, I don't see why you're quoting things to me that I just quoted to you. I was simply demonstrating that the deaths counted in the IBC are indeed "excess." We don't need your original research on the IBC or the Lancet study. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So sorry, I thought I had made it perfectly clear: The IBC records deaths due to "criminal behavior". (Still with me?) There was criminal behavior in Iraq before the invasion. (I can prove that if need be.) Therefore when you claim that all of these deaths are "excess" it inflates the total deaths due to violence from the war and occupation by adding the deaths due to crime to the deaths due to, say, the Sunni terrorists attacking Shiite pilgrims in order to provoke a civil war, etc. Claiming that they are all "excess" deaths is speculation because you are unable to delineate which deaths occurred due to crime which was preexisting in Iraq. (got it?) I am curious about something; when you write "We don't need your original research on the IBC or the Lancet study" (after you acknowledge that I was quoting the website) who is the "we" you are speaking for? V7-sport (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

More original research. Their website says they record deaths resulting from increased lawlessness. Until you decide to study their methodology and find sources that dispute its accuracy in recording "excess" deaths, that is how we will treat it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, how is quoting the website "original research"? Indeed, "original research" is adding the word "excess" to what they themselves post as "Documented civilian deaths from violence". Once again, who is this "we" who elected you their spokesperson?V7-sport (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC) v7-sport

I didn't say quoting their website was original research, I said ignoring sentences, as you are, is. They specifically state that they are counting violent civilian deaths resulting from the invasion. You think that it is impossible to distinguish deaths not resulting from the invasion from those that are resulting from the invasion. This is original research. "We" refers to Wikipedia editors who are working on this article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What sentence did I ignore? Where do they claim to record "excess" deaths? Indeed, they do not claim to report excess deaths at all. If they are recording deaths due to "criminal activity" then how can that be attributed to the invasion? The IBC is actually traffic accidents due to road closures as "violent deaths".[12] Were there never road closures or car crashes in the Saddam era? The word "excess" should definitely be removed as it is inaccurate and not even claimed by the IBC, indeed a notation should be made on both the IBC and Lancet citations that the figures are in dispute. I am a Wikipedia editor working on the article, do you presume to speak for me as well? V7-sport (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You ignored the first sentence, "Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq." Excess is a word I have chosen to say concisely what they are recording. You're doing more original research. The example you have posted is a result of US troop road closures, so yes it is attributable to the invasion. Why don't you make a post at the No original research noticeboard about the word excess? Make sure to tell the editors there exactly what you've told me. Oh, and you don't need to double-sign your comments. Writing four tildas will insert your name for you, you don't need to write it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, you accuse me of doing "original research when you have taken it upon yourself to add the word "excess" when the IBC SPECIFICALLY denies that is what they record. "Thus, the underlying concept is one of recording unnecessary deaths (rather than simply "excess" deaths)."[13] (note they regard all war as unnecessary and therefore presumably all deaths associated with it are eligible to be noted.) The example that I posted was attributable to the invasion if there were not similar road closures before the invasion. The point is that many of these citations for "violent death" could be attributable to causes other than coalition involvement, like "crime"and therefore these figures, like the Lancet's should be noted as in dispute. Regardless, they deny that they record "excess death" in those very words. Why would I post this at No original research noticeboard when you are so reasonable and willing to do the right thing? Thanks for the tip on my signature btw. V7-sport (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, editors do sometimes have to choose words. It seems in this case I chose the wrong word so I have replaced excess with "unnecessary." I don't see what your proposing we do with the figures in the infobox. The IBC is the lowest number we have. The Lancet is the highest. It is fair that we include both. You want to remove both? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain who wants what? ? ? (USMCMIDN (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Relax, the last comment in this thread was over 3 weeks ago. This dispute is pretty much ended. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Commanders

Though it might suit Blair's inflated ego to be described in the infobox as a "commander" (I'm reminded of a parody surveillance-camera sketch in a TV show in which he was depicted prancing up and down in a medal-heavy military uniform while his wife - dressed as a cheerleader - waved a large American flag) but he was not a "commander", and neither was Gordon Brown. Meowy 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They do take many decisions regarding strategy, they are de facto commanders. See previous discussions. G. R. Allison (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that is not what conflict infobox content is for. It is my understanding that "Commanders" means those in military command of the armed forces involved in the conflict. For example, I don't see Winston Churchill named as "commander" on the Invasion of Normandy article. Previous discussions on a single article talk page mean nothing if they result in breaking a core rule about what an infobox should contain - infoboxes are meant to be a standard across articles, this article can't go it alone. Meowy 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly well known that Blair and Brown do take military decisions, also, many infoboxes on this category of articles do list prime ministers as commanders... take the Falklands War or the Sierra Leone Civil War for example. G. R. Allison (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion was based on this: [14] commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. which I do not think was intended to mean political leaders of the countries whose military forces are involved, i.e.I think "commander" was intended to mean something more hands-on, either combatant commanders (or local community leaders or politicians if they have immediate influence over sections of the military forces involved). Meowy 19:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on principle, but I think the leaders that do exercise military control should remain. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Prime Ministers are technically not military commanders at all. Just clarifying this. Swarm^(Talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with those saying political leaders should not be included. 'Commanders' means those in direct command of the military forces ie the people appointed by their respective political leaders to prosecute the military action. You could argue I suppose that the US President is commander in chief and therefore should be listed as a commander. But that is not true in Britain where The Queen in the equivalent commander in chief, the Prime Minister does not have any equivalent command authority over British Forces. Marlarkey (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about military commanders in War articles at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Commanders_in_War_articles if anyone cares to comment. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - POV term used in the conflict infobox

I think there is a serious misuse of the infobox by the addition of the "Part of the War on Terrorism" title. If such a POV claim is inserted, can we also have text saying "part of the conspiracy by NeoCon Jews to control the World", or "part of a campaign by arms dealers to massively increase their sales" or "part of the establishing of the New World Order" and so on? The connection between pre-invasion Iraq and Islamic terrorism against America was a spurious claim made by George Bush's administration to justify the invasion. While some deluded people may still believe the claim to be true, that would be no more a reason to put the claim in the infobox than neo-Nazis wanting to put "part of the Aryan race's war of survival against Bolshevism and Jews" in the WW2 conflict infobox (even if Hitler genuinely believed that was what Germany was ultimately fighting for, and even if Bush actually believed his "war on terror" reasoning for the invasion). Meowy 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have a valid source to back up your claim, I'm going to revert you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What "claim"? There is no "claim" I need to justify. It is your POV claim that is being removed. The justification ball is in your court. I'll repeat what I wrote above. WW2 should not be described as "part of the Aryan race's war of survival against Bolshevism and Jews" even if Hitler genuinely believed that was what Germany was ultimately fighting for, and the Iraq war should not be described as "Part of the War on Terrorism" even if Bush actually believed his "war on terror" reasoning for the invasion. Meowy 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What you're describing is a criticism of the War on Terror and the justifications in the war. For better or for worse, the war was started as part of the War on Terror. One of the justifications was to remove Saddam, fight Al Queda, etc. Complete BS to be sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it is indeed part of the War on Terror. Disagreeing with something is not grounds to remove it on Wikipedia, per our WP:OR policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong reasoning. You are wanting the infobox to state that the invasion was "part of the War on Terrorism" - but that is just an opinion. The opinion of others, as I have attempted to explain, differ greatly from that opinion, and range from the highly credible to assorted conspiracy theories. There is no more justification in placing the "part of the War on terrorism" claim into the infobox than there would be to place the most extreme conspiracy theory claim there. "War on Terrorism" is clearly a POV term. Nowhere on Wikipedia will an editor easily get away with using the pov word "terrorism" to label an event or a group, so you are not going to get away with labeling an entire war with that word in this way! It is OK to say that in the opinion of such-and-such a person, it was a "War on Terrorism", or that so-and-so called it a part of "the War on Terrorism" - but that is article content, not an infobox label. Meowy 01:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No source provided. Reverted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You have quite blatantly refused to address the issues I have raised, and the text you are reinserting is quite blatantly breaking numerous Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. RfC time, I think. Meowy 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am going to add a pov tag to the article, for the reasons I have stated above. I may have used the wrong pov tag - if someone thinks one of its other varients is more applicable then they are welcome to change it. Meowy 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And still you have failed to provide a source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Meowy, we are simply repeating what the sources say. The only POV that is being pushed here is that of the reliable sources, and that's what we're supposed to do. This infobox is not the place to debate about whether or not there was any connection to terrorism to justify the invasion. The text of the article, and other articles, cover that in great detail. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And other sources, as you admit, say different. And even the Obama presidency no longer uses the phrase. The "War on Terrorism" phrase is pov because it is only used by certain sources, is used by those sources mostly to advocate a particular pov, and on Wikipedia the label "terrorism" is always seen as a pov word. You can't weasel-in what amounts to an article title using the "t" word by saying it's OK to use it because terrorism is just being used within a phrase used by sources. Meowy 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if Bush launched the war as part of the War on Terror, we should include it in the War on Terror. This has nothing to do with POV. It's what the sources say. We aren't labeling the Iraqis terrorists. IMO the label is kind of added ironically as a reminder of the insanity leading up to the war. You seem worried about the message implied by that label, but when I read it, I only see Bush's lies. Anyway, if you check War on Terror, they still include the Iraq War. We may have to make a post at WP:NORN if we can't resolve this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think about it, claiming the War in Iraq was not a part of the War on Terrorism actually elevates Bush's position. You're making it seem like Bush thought Afghanistan remained the central front, which is a complete rewrite of history. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

[15] The Bush administration perceived the Iraq war as inseparable part of the war on terrorism, so our personal opinions don't really matter. Bush is a moron btw, but that's just my opinion. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is content. A single group's pov perception of an event is not suitable for a conflict infobox's article title, even if that title was not to include the highly pov word "terrorism". Meowy 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the POV here? Let's assume that I'm head of a state and I declare a campaign called "War by error". If I choose to contain within that definition of the campaign 2 or 3 things and your role is to present the facts, you must state that the one thing you are describing is under the banner of "war by error". That is not POV. What exactly are you arguing about? --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Meowy, you do not seem to get this. Take this to a noticeboard if you wish, but multiple editors have explained the application of WP:OR to you. I'm deleting the tag. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it is you who does not seem to get it. Maybe you have been editing this article for too long to see the glaring invalidity of having this pov title. I'll make this point again. Would you be happy to have the Second World War infobox subtitled "Part of the Aryan race's war of survival against Bolshevism and Jews" since that is what Hitler perceived and declared the reasons for Germany fighting to be? If you would not, tell me why - and explain why you wish to have double standards for this article. Meowy 17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm... Come to think of it, Meowy has a very valid point. War on terrorism is the campaign launched by Bush. Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan is a part of that campaign. The operation is a part of the campaign but the war in Afghanistan itself is NOT. The same goes for the Iraq war. Yup, thanx for bringing that up Moewy. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research. Follow the sources please. Post at WP:NORN or WP:POVN if our interpretation of WP:OR is incorrect. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury, please contribute to the discussion. I was with you right before Meowy's last post but now I think he has some point. I think this at least needs some discussion, because maybe, just maybe, what we were writing so far is original research and synthesis. --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Following the sources is not original research. You're the one who quoted Bush saying how important the Iraq War was to the War on Terror. This is not about POV. It's about factually recording history. The Iraq War is part of the "War on Terror" for better or for worse. Our interpretation of that label is irrelevant. That is the original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, to make my point clear, I mean that "Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan" does not equal the war in Afghanistan. It's a little mind-aching just to think of it, but I think it does make sense. Think about it. The OEF-A was an operation led by US, which led to the actual war. We cannot name the actual war in accordance to what the one side named it. That is a USA-centric POV. The usual sources that we are using are USA-centric as well, no matter how strong their intention to be neutral is. I believe that makes sense. Yet, I admit again that my reasoning may be wrong. However, we should give this great consideration. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's an article about a war launched by the US. The term was coined by the US. Of course the article is going to be US-centric. I don't understand your point about Afghanistan and I don't care. You're avoiding the issue. The sources call it part of the War on Terror. We call it part of the War on Terror. 'Nuff said. Take it to a noticeboard if you disagree, or start an RFC. I'm done debating this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

THE sources? What are the sources? Do you mean these sources? [16],[17],[18]? Two of the sources are from the white house page and the other one is from the US defense department. Those are the sources? Not good enough. Those sources are only good to state that the Bush administration included the operation in WoT campaign. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The term was coined by US and reasonably is US-centric. The article should not be us-centric. This is not an article about a term coined by the US.--JokerXtreme (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is about a war launched by the US. The US gets to define the labels, not us. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A war requires two sides, it is not a unilateral issue. An operation on the other hand is unilateral. Which is what I'm saying all along here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose calling the US the US is also POV because there are two sides. We should include in the title of United States, "also known as The Great Satan." The point being, the US decides the naming convention for wars launched by the US. The US decides what wars to include in which groups of wars. There exists a group of wars called "War on Terror." The US decided the Iraq war was a part of it. Therefore it is a part of it. Q.E.D.. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Great Satan has undue weight. An unfortunate example to make your point. If Taiwan declares a war against the US, is it entitled to name it? This is nonsense. Neither the attacking side, nor the victor decides what will a war be called. That is historians' job. Do you have any such source claiming that the war itself, not the US led operation, is part of WoT? What seems to obstruct this conversation is your inability or rather unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between the war and the operation. --JokerXtreme (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the dispute is whether or not the phrase, "Part of the War on Terrorism" should be above the figure in the infobox. For an example of a similar situation, I looked at the article Gaza war where there is a similar phrase "Part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" in the infobox. I think the difference between that phrase and the one here is that the editors there agreed that the Gaza War was part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike the situation there, it appears that the term "war on terrorism" is controversial and some feel it does not properly characterize the conflict. If that's the case, then representing it as a War on Terrorism, because one side in the conflict claims that is what it is, would seem to be a violation of WP:NPOV. However, I'm open to any arguments to the contrary since I expect that the editors here are more familiar with the subject than I am. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another editor misses the point. People are objecting to the label "War on Terrorism" because it is such a emotionally charged word. But despite that, historically, the Iraq War was started as part of the War on Terrorism. To remove it because of some message implied by that goes against history and is a violation of our policy on original research, and a pretty trivial one at that. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, is there currently any controversy about calling it a part of the War on Terrorism? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is phrased poorly, we should be asking if there is a dispute over whether or not Iraq was included in the War on Terrorism. Again, trivally, yes it was. This is history. Let's not rewrite it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Azure, I thought you were done debating this. Bob, thank you for actually contributing to this conversation, instead of obstructing it. The point you make makes perfect sense. "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" is a term that assumes NPOV. WoT on the other hand assumes USA POV. Take this for example Eastern Front (World War II) and this Operation Barbarossa. The war between Germany and USSR is not named under the invading Operation, nor a German campaign name. Neither the invasion of Poland. Wars are ought to be named with terms that take no side and assume NPOV. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Meowy, there is a big flaw in your claims and that is that the US government itself declares this war as part of their war on terrorism, so this is not POV at all it is just fact. Kermanshahi (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Kermanshahi, I think you are slightly off the topic here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Joker, you are the one off topic. That this war is a part of the "War on Terrorism" is fact. Not only that, objecting editors are not disputing this fact. They are proposing its deletion for reasons consisting of original research, IE the label implies Al Queda connection, etc. It's not up to us to decide what the label means or why countries start wars, or whether or not those wars are justified. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article War on terrorism, I found the following article used as a reliable source in the lead. Obama administration says goodbye to 'war on terror'. If the guardian article is correct, it appears that "War on Terrorism" is at least an obsolete name and to say that the ongoing Iraq war is "Part of the War on Terrorism" would be using an obsolete name and thus not correct. It appears that the name "War on Terrorism" was coined by the Bush administration and is not currently used by the Obama administration. Thus it appears that using the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" would be a violation of WP:NPOV since it uses the name favored by the previous Bush administration for the conflict as it is currently, which is not a name that is favored by the present Obama administration for the current conflict. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Obama administration uses another term. That is another issue we must deal with. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More rewriting history. But it's ok when Obama does it...? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's puzzling to me that you haven't commented on my message below which favors your position but instead have posted two messages that are somewhat combative. Perhaps you have developed a love for the smell of napalm in the morning? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had second thoughts. Although "War on Terrorism" might be an obsolete name, an ongoing larger conflict still exists, and the Iraq War is part of it. In order to refer to that larger conflict, some name should be used. Since there is a Wikipedia article War on Terrorism which describes the larger conflict that includes the Iraq war, and since there isn't a new name for the conflict that has caught on, it seems like the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" is a reasonable and practical way to describe it. It is unfortunate that it has flaws, but I think the informative value of the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism", i.e. that it is part of a larger conflict, outweighs the flaws. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment, with a suggestion to remove the phrase: the part of parameter in the template is designed to locate a conflict within a greater military history, it's not designed to locate military actions within a political spectrum. Thus 'the battle of the bulge' is listed as part of the greater military history of world war II, but not as part of the war against German Hegemony (and yes, there are sources in the academic literature who talk about the intractable drive towards imperialism in the Germanic peoples from the time of the Holy Roman Empire). The 'War on Terror' is a political neologism dreamed up by the Bush administration to justify a number of independent interventions with no overarching strategy, goals, or procedures that can't really be justified as an actual war. It doesn't even rise up to Cold War status (since the Cold War had numerous goal-oriented regional conflicts based on a cohesive military strategy), and there are clearly sources that argue that point. besides, it's a frigging infobox! infoboxes should not contain any contested information, period. Take it out of the infobox, and place it in the article where it can be properly sourced and balanced. I'll do that now. --Ludwigs2 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments seemed to be mainly a potpourri of your opinions, political and otherwise, rather than convincing arguments. (Somehow I get the impression that you don't like Bush, LOL!)

Re "the part of parameter in the template is designed to locate a conflict within a greater military history" - that seems to be the case with the Iraq war as part of the War on Terrorism which began after 9-11.

Personally, I would like to see the various sides of this issue try to settle this infobox issue before anyone takes action on the article. It would make for a more stable article. Hopefully, other editors like me who haven't come to the discussion committed one way or the other will take part too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to Bush. I'm pretty sure that history will use him badly (in twenty or thirty years, when the nation has moved on to some new, fresh hysteria, Bush will be remembered as a president who failed to live up to the demands of the office). further, it's not really my problem if you don't understand the functional definition of a war. The only point you need to concern yourself with is that this is a contentious issue, among editors, among the general populace, and among reliable sources. contentious issues do not belong in infoboxes. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it should remain off the infobox, until and if a consensus for its placement there ever occurs. --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The label should remain in the infobox until there are enough reliable sources stating that the Iraq War was never a part of the War on Terrorism. Anything else is original research. The label's factual accuracy is undisputed. We have a consensus. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The label cannot remain, because it is presented as a fact, while it is widely disputed. There is no consensus, therefore it should not remain there. --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Azurefury (cool handle, by the way), the question comes down to this: are there reliable sources that state that the Iraq war has little to nothing to do with the war on terror? If the answer is "yes" (as I think is obviously true) then we have a problem - we'd need to add something to the infobox itself that qualifies the statement (e.g. "part of the War on Terror according to the Bush administration", or "part of the War on Terror" with a footnote pointing out that that ascription is contested). In short, we'd need to start explaining and balancing the comment within the infobox itself in order to maintain neutrality, and that's just ridiculous. better to leave it out of the infobox and and put it into the article proper where it can be balanced properly and easily. --Ludwigs2 01:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What sources say that the Iraq War was not part of the War on Terror? I've seen none that postively state this negative statement. There are sources that say that Al Queda was not in Iraq. There are sources that say the war was not motivated by terrorism or 9/11 at all. But there are none that state that the Iraq War was not included by the US in the War on Terror. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In October 2002, a large bipartisan majority in the United States Congress authorized the president to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq in order to "prosecute the war on terrorism."[19] Bush considered the Iraq war the central front of the war on terror. I don't see the problem. Swarm^(Talk) 02:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, we are talking about a USA POV, so u cannot use USA sources to prove NPOV. Try using Arabic or Iraqi sources. Then you'll prove NPOV. --JokerXtreme (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

JokerXtreme, Swarm provided a reliable source. Would you care to put one up that supports your position? Otherwise, it is Swarm's reliable source against your ..... nothing! --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Swarm's source provides no useful information for this dispute. All it says is basically "The United States Congress authorized the United States president to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq in order to prosecute the United States war on terrorism campaign." These kind of US-centric sources are not useful in this kind of not US-centric article. Bottom line is "This war is not ONLY about USA." --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough with this "centrism" stuff. The US does not need to negotiate with the world about the names it gives to its wars. This has nothing to do with the article being "US-centric." It is simply stating facts. The US started a War on Terror. The Iraq War was a part of it. What part of that logic is only true from the US' perspective? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(←)The source is a reliable source that names the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror. War on Terror does not only apply to the US. Swarm^(Talk) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I just had an epiphany. By saying that it's part of Wot, that doesn't actually exclude the possibility of the war belonging to another group of wars does it? --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For instance, if I theoretically were to add another sentence saying "Part of Iraqi-related wars" or "Part of Middle-East related wars" that would be acceptable. Correct? --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, sure, I guess that's true. That's not the same thing as saying "part of the war on terror", though. The war on terror is recognized as a single conflict that the Iraq war is a part of, "Iraqi-related wars" would not be. Swarm^(Talk) 03:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At least you're trying. As far as I can tell, the only notable names are War on Terror or War on Terrorism, i.e. these seem to be the only notable ones that reliable sources have used to describe the overall military actions in this area by the US and Allies after 9-11. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Well... I thought that the WoT kinda demanded exclusiveness and ownership of this war. What a perfectly pointless debate:/ Anyway, consider myself convinced. I don't know if someone else will want to continue this one. --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Great discussion on this one for the most part. I think I'm convinced at this point that it should remain "War on Terror." As much as I agree that the naming of the "War on Terror" is an americentric POV term, it is also the most commonly used term for this series of conflicts by both supporters and detractors in the english speaking world. At some point in the future another term may very well come into common use and we should of course change it if/when that happens. This was not a pointless debate by any stretch of the imagination. You brought up great points that required a lot of thought on my part at least. I considered many other conflicts and their naming conventions and it seems to me that they typically end up being named by a consensus and don't follow any particular rules. Sperril (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Neocon Cabinet members pushing for war

I would like to add some of this. Does anyone have a problem with this. Speak up then. There is some mention that David Perle wanted war with Iraq. My question is if the Neocons pushed Bush for this war? There is no mention in the article.

List of Jews that wanted war with Iraq. Source http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bushlist.htm

--Ericg33 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the long list copied from the above site, per talk page guidelines. The site in question does not meet the reliable sources requirements, and the page title ("The JEWS who Run Bush and the USA: AMERICA'S RULERS - Are They All Jews? Is this like the Jewish Administration of Hitler's Germany?") clearly demonstrates the POV at work here. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia does not permit the use of the site for pushing personal opinions or agendas. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it's pretty obvious that "biblebelievers" isn't a reliable source. Besides, if you want to talk about religious motivations for the war, Bush was read quotes from the Christian bible beforehand, and that is documented in reliable sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bush cabinet Neoconservative members who pushed for war.

There is no category of reason for war.

source -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle

Pre-2003 invasion

Like many in the neoconservative movement, Perle had long been an advocate of regime change in Iraq. He was a signatory of the 26 January 1998 PNAC Letter sent to US President Bill Clinton that called for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. He also linked Saddam to Osama Bin Laden just a few days after 9/11, proclaiming in an interview on CNN on Sept 16, 2001: "Even if we cannot prove to the standards that we enjoy in our own civil society that they were involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama Bin Laden..."[4]

Is there a request or suggestion in there somewhere? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)