Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)/Archive 4

message: :Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2004 as title and scope work for me. Do you envision a new article for Iraq after the election? I forgot to mention it earlier, but part of my concern is also the article length. It's now at 45 kb, and 32 kb is the recommended maximum. Maurreen 04:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rama, what is your disagreement with Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2004 as a new title? Maurreen 17:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-invasion Iraq?

message: What about this ? It has the merit of not relying on words like "occupation" (so we'll be less subject to technicalities), and emphasises the transitional nature of the regimes (the US occupation administration and the Allawi administraion) which precedes the hopeful come to power of a real elected government. Rama 09:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be too much of an understatement, as if the topic was similar to the changes after any given leader. Maurreen 09:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is so special about the changes after Saddam Hussein ? It is a period a instability and foreign occupation (if not technically, at least if facts), but this is not so uncommon in History, is it ? (I say that just to get the point : I am not in love with this title or anything ;) ) Rama 09:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Hussein Transition 

message: Sorry if I have missed the deadline to give my  opinion on this, but I do not think that removing the number of victims of the introduction is a good idea at all. One of the most important components of a war if after all the number of victims and the xtension of the detructions it causes. If you take a look at articles about other wars, like WWI or WWII, you can see that the number of victims is featured in the introduction. I think that the article is weakened by this removal, and that the section should be put again. Any comments ? Rama 16:48, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to keep it, how about we at least put it in its own section? Maurreen 17:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest developping the subject in its own section, while keeping at least a general toll in, say, the last paragraph of the introduction. I think that the victim count is an important information which needs to be featured early in the article, and I find that not having at least a short mention in the intro does not feel very natural for a war or disaster-related article. It could be shorter than what we used to have, but needs to be there. Rama 09:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The information deleted does not directly and specifically relate to the occupation and needlessly duplicates information available in related articles, and requires maintenance to keep up to date, unless there is agreement that the occupation ended, and someone is willing to do the work to find out what the appropriate figures were when it did.--Silverback 11:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of the section of the introduction 

message: I think the first three paragraphs of the overview should be deleted. They are about the war, not the occupation. Maurreen 07:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: I find the name change somewhat Orwellian. Anyone typing in Occupation of Iraq is now redirected to this page, as though there was no occupation. In addition, the occupation is ongoing: just because the occupying forces decide to call it something else does not mean that others must follow suit. The coalition forces have not left, and the situation is arguably deteriorating, not improving. But that aside, even if all editors agree that the occupation is over, then a new article should be created to describe the post-occupation period, and it should not be called "post invasion," because the invasion is not over. To simply redirect is trying to rewrite history, in my view. Am I the only user who thinks this? SlimVirgin 09:11, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
*Please read our discussion of this above.  We considered separating the period pre-June 28 and post-June 28 but as there were not great changes on the ground we decided to keep them together.  As to the occupation being ongoing except in the eyes of the occupiers, it is recognized as over by the UN and the Arab League, Iran etc, but many consider it de facto continuing, which is clearly noted in the article and another reason we decided not to split the history up.--Pharos 09:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Security Council,
Welcoming the beginning of a new phase in Iraq’s transition to a democratically elected government, and looking forward to the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004,
This version may be easier to read, the italics I put in the above quote were in the original.--Pharos 09:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The resolution still gives a precise date for the end of the occupation; it seems that the key point is the insauration of an Iraqi government, rather than the presence for foreign troops; in this point of view, it is acceptable to say that the occupation technically ended. Taking this into account, I would have similar objections to using "occupation" than I have for "regime" refering to Saddam Hussein's government. It would seem that the occupation has indeed ended de jure -- I won't comment the  de facto part, though I might motice that there is lots of comments about this "occupation" matter, while very few is said about the implications of the illegality of the invasion ("crime against peace", which qualifies for "crime against Humanity" under the Nuremberg principles, I'm afraid... if anyone wants to draft a comment about this, I'd be interested). Rama 13:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I see and understand your point, and I also wish there could be a synonym for "occupation" :p On the other hand, avoiding the exact term might avoid frictions centered around the mere word, and allow to concentrate more on the content of the article (that's why diplomacy is mainly the art of using "weasel words" while retaining the meaning while not looking like it :p ). Well, these were my two pence, just musing... Cheers ! Rama 15:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pharos. Maurreen 05:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that "US military presence in Iraq" or "US political presence in Iraq" would extremely difficult to do: it would be very difficult, and probably not extremely interesting, to make an article specifically on the US presence, without talking about the politica and historical porcesses at work here, and about the the other nations which have a presence, wouldn't it ? Rama 22:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "US-led coalition presence in Iraq" might be better (or another name for the group of countries involved). I do think that both the military involvement and the political involvement would have enough information to divide it into two separate articles. Barring that, I'd agree to just a "presence" article. --Ben 23:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to name change

message: Ben said the article  "characterizes the actual occupation (May 2003 to June 2004) as 'post-occupation'". I don't see that.
He suggested:
*March 2003 to May 2003: "US invasion of Iraq" (or "US-led coalition invasion of Iraq?")
*May 2003 to June 2004: "US occupation of Iraq"
*June 2004 - Present: "US military presence in Iraq" and/or "US political presence in Iraq"
We had discussed splitting the article at June 2004, but there was no consensus. I don't see any value in narrowing anything to "presence". Whatever period is covered by the article, the politics, government and military and related aspects have no reason to be separated. Maurreen 11:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Presence"

message: Near as I can tell from the history, the neutrality tag at top of the article was added by User:Ed Poor on October 18, many edits ago.  Is the neutrality of the text of the article still greatly disputed?--Pharos 02:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: This section is POV, and it seems to say the opposite of what I recall the research showed. "The smaller British forces has a higher proportion of active duty professionals" . How does the reference show that? 
Also, this para is stuck in that section without seeming to go anywhere: "On September 7, 2004, the British Royal Institute of International Affairs issued a report  saying that if current conditions continue unabated in Iraq, the most likely outcome will be a major civil war that could destabilize the entire Middle East."   SlimVirgin 18:17, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
: the "The smaller British forces has a higher proportion of active duty professionals" might point to a page whose content has changed over the time; or perhaps I had actually read all that stuff at the time and it was clear in my mind; anyway, I agree that it's far from evident according to the link.
: I am sorry but I really have trouble to understand your second remark. It is undoubtly my faulty English which has reached its limits there I'm afraid... could you reformulise ?
: Silverback made a reference to a consensus version from which I have deviated; can we take this as a backup solution ? In any case, the consensus solution was of course what I intended to put -- I wouldn't have spent one week discussing this matter on the talk page otherwise, of course. Cheers ! Rama 20:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: American v. British forces

message: *Vague or euphamistic. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq, 2003-2005

message: *POV. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation of Iraq

message: *Clear and neutral. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005

message: *Euphamistic. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-Hussein transition

message: *Makes sense to me, although we'd still need to decide what to call the second period. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article in two, before and after the official, formal handover