Talk:Iraq War/Archive 1

message: If Iraq War is a redirect to Iraq War (disambiguation) why does Iraq War (disambiguation) exist? Why isn't the disambiguation page here? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
===Move===
Excellent idea to make the move, whoever it was. -St|eve 08:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: redirects

message: Excellent idea to make the move, whoever it was. -St|eve 08:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I moved this article back to Iraq War, because the conflict which the article covers is ongoing and did not take place exclusively in 2003. The initial invasion, which did take place only in 2003, has its own article at 2003 invasion of Iraq. This article is meant to cover both that initial invasion and the subsequent fighting. Plainsong 18:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back to [[Iraq War]] from [[2003 Iraq conflict]] 

message: Concerning the UK detainees recently held by Iraqi police, if they weren't in uniform or carrying their weapons openly, then they aren't protected as soldiers under the Geneva Conventions.  These are the same standards used by the US and UK to classify their enemies as "unlawful combattants."  For the sake of conformity, at least, the same language used to describe the insurgency should be used to describe these two ("British fighters," "British agents," etc.).  Maybe "members of the British military." David Iwancio 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Undercover Soldier" seems POV 

message: : This next section is inaccurate as to a description of what happened at this time, before this section goes in, must source: The inability of successive interior ministers to create an effective security force, the willingness of insurgents to target police training and police stations with car and truck bombs, and the skyrocketing unemployment and collapse of the pervasive secret police system used by the Ba'ath Party, contributed to the escalation of civil, as well as political, violence.
This was in the article ... but was commented out. JDR 18:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: inaccurate portion that was commented out

message: The section below was removed wholesale from this article by User:Silverback after repeated deletions by him and subsequent reverts by various users.  If information is not relevant to this article, please move it to an article where it is relevant, rather than simply deleting.  There is a VfD protocol to follow for redundant information - otherwise you are taking a unilateral decision to sanitise the Wikipedia account, which is verging on vandalism. 195.157.197.108 10:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone moved it to the Basra article which is probably a more appropriate place Nil Einne 09:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed from article 

message: The US Troops are there as guests of the sovereign Iraqi government, as are the US troops in Germany. So by your logic, the troops in Germany are occupying that country? Are you serious? BTW, see the main article on the occupation" According to Article 42 of the Hague Convention, "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."" That's no longer true, so your opinion is wrong - the country is no longer occupied Done. NPOV. JG of Borg 00:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your childishly simplistic and out of context insights. Now go back to watching Star Trek. -St|eve 04:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stevertigo, your POV and repulsive attitute toward Jgofborg is simply amazing .... how dare you ridicule another for asking about a the anti-war movement's twisted logic. That make me sick. JDR 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  I red parts of this discussion after seeing this page on requests for mediation, and I believe the matter is quite clear: If UN says that it is not occupied, then it is not occupied, even if user:Steve considers it a "ceremonial decree". UN is simply the largest authority on application of international law. One may state that the Iraqi goverment is influenced by Americans, but Americans are not the goverment, so the country is not occupied. --Heptor 16:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the vindication.  Seemed like a clear parallel to me.  Though we're going to be (mostly) out of both Germany and Iraq in a few years, so not for long! JG of Borg 14:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Iraq is just like Germany' 

message: This section is not a Debate Section. It is simply a listing of the "pro" position. There is a "criticism" section, but I note that there is a POV tag being placed on this. I have no strong feelings about the Iraq War, but I can detect propaganda, and feel that this whole article is becoming very very biased. A reader would think that it is a military manual glorifying a magnificent victory. If you hadn't noticed, the war is continuing... Wallie 08:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate Section 

message: This article seems as though it was written by Fox News with help from the Department of Defense.  I don't want it to slant in the other direction, but it needs some neutrality.
1) "Insurgents" - this term is inherently biased.  Its wide use in the mainstream press doesn't mean it's neutral. 
2) Lack of cites - this article is chock-full of citeless assertions.  I removed something today to the extent of "Coalition forces suspected that the insurgents were being supplied by Syrian forces.  And with the amount of resistance they encountered, they were proved right."  No cite.  That sort of thing is wildly inappropriate in a Wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackberrylaw (talk • contribs) 24 Oct 2005.
I don't think the term "Insurgents" is inherently biased (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgents , http://www.answers.com/insurgent&r=67 , http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent ), it seems acurate and NPOV to me; it's not as if they are being called "terrorists" or "freedom fighters". "Insurgents" is term that encompases the idea of orginised rebellion against an authority, and which does not imply that this rebellion is justified/unjustified or any other POV implication. -Greeny 02 Nov 2005
: "Insurgents" is not biased as it is a description of the various forces against the internationally recognized Iraqi state and the forces against the coalition troops. Its use in the mainstream press doesn't necessary mean it's neutral ... but it is the most accurate while being neutral. 
: I agree that the article lack cites ... the article isn't chock-full of citeless assertions .... but it could use more external reference/links ... It is toobad that you removed "Coalition forces suspected that insurgents were being supplied by Syrian forces" as that is a commonly heard belief from the commands of the coalitions (Iraqi and non-Iraqi). But, I think that the part sayin "And with the amount of resistance they encountered, they were proved right" sho8uld have been removed ... as there was no citation (I am unaware that there was any evidence of this yet). This second part is inappropriate in a Wikipedia article, but the first part isn't .... JDR 20:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blackberrylaw's point is that using terms which are inherently POV is problematic for a project that values NPOV. Most of what comes out of the Pentagon and its bases is a subjective and admittedly trimmed and tailored information. It may even be false or misleading - its an issue of tone, and its not surprising that articles which are NPOV are found to be dissagreeing with MSM and other sources. -St|eve 06:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and lack of cites 

message: Or it is hidden so well that I couldn't find it in 10 minutes of reading this article. I am reffering to Iraqis attititude and opinions towards the war and reconstruction efforts. Do they support it or not? Were there any surveys conducted? Sources, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing vital piece of info