Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Iraq War

message: Hello all.  My name is Daniel, and if it is fine by all of you, I will be mediating this dispute for you.  If you all wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it if you indicate here whether you would prefer this mediation to continue on this page, or if you would prefer for it to continue in a private location.  I will read through everything that has been posted to date, and I hope that everything can be resolved.  --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why it can't continue here.  Thanks for stepping up and helping us out.--Rise Above The Vile 00:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like it to continue here so we can refer to it later.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Here is good. 1of3 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's fine. Dwtray2007 07:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree I like the idea that others can see it.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to make it clear that if the mediation continues here, it will be easier to refer to it for this dispute only.  Mediation is "confidential," however, meaning that you may not refer to this case for any reason other than showing the discussion relating to the Iraq War.  Therefore, this page cannot be used as evidence of any user's behavior in formal discussions such as ArbCom discussions, RfA's, etc.  This page is technically visible to everyone on Wikipedia, but should not be referenced except in reference to the specific topic beeing mediated.  That being said, I am more than willing to mediate on this page.  Give me a day or two to do some initial setup, and then we can begin.  Hopefully, we can come to some acceptable resolution.  In the mean time, please remember WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and any other relevant Wikipedia policies.  If we agree to cooperate, this will be much easier.  --דניאל - Dantheman531 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator 

message: Ok everybody.  I have reviewed all of the material that you have provided on this page so far, and moved it here.  If I am not mistaken, the main disputants in this case are User:Ipankonin and User:WLRoss.  I think it would be best if these two served as spokespeople for their respective sides.  In order to begin, I would like these two users to indicate below their willingness to calmly and respectfully participate in this discussion.  I am not requesting this because I anticipate any disrespect.  My feeling is quite the opposite, in fact.  So far it seems like both sides have been quite respectful, and I would like that to continue.  Mediation cannot work if there is disparagement of the participants.  If everybody remembers WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, I am confident that we can come to an acceptable compromise.  --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That's the only way to do this.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not exactly sure how that would work for me, as I don't consider myself to be on either Ipankonin's nor Wayne's side.--Rise Above The Vile 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, would you mind dropping me a message on my talk page with a little explanation of the difference?  Thanks. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Wayne 07:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning Mediation 

message: How about the following:
The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark (other countries were also involved in its aftermath) began officially on March 20, 2003. The invasion launched the Iraq War, which is still ongoing. 
The official trigger for the invasion was the Bush Administration’s claim that Iraq had failed to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, which they and their partners alleged Iraq possessed and were an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.  President George W. Bush stated that the objective of the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." In January 2005, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no WMD at the time of the invasion, although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, US Government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US "went to war". Four and a half years later, the weapons for which the US and others invaded have not been found.“Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq”|Fox News|June 22, 2006|http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html|Retrieved 26/10/07|“Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims”|MSNBC|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/|June 22, 2006|Retrieved 26/10/07
Surely that is an accurate enough summary for the lead paragraph? It's all factually correct and fairly succinct.Dwtray2007 08:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fairly balanced, although I would change the last sentence to something like, "The weapons for which the US and other countries invaded were never found."  The only reason is so that we don't have to keep updating it as time goes on.  Otherwise, I think it looks good.  Anybody else?  --דניאל - Dantheman531 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A bit weak but I can accept that. I suggest "the weapons for which the US and coalition partners invaded have not been found.". Wayne 02:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Can't think of anything atm. My problem is that the rationale is not getting the due weight which the original gave. The administration arguably lied, exaggerated and cherry picked but we can't say that in the lead, so the fact that nothing claimed was found should be prominant to avoid the invasion being presented as justified despite nothing found (by having it as a small part of a paragraph). Wayne 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well I sympathise with your views (and share those that you've expressed) but it is important to put them to the side as much as possible and relate the facts. The are damning enough as it is. Unless anyone else involved in this has any objections, I suggest inserting this revised paragraph into the article and then moving on. Dwtray2007 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That looks fine to me. I'm happy for it to go in. Dwtray2007 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree although I would suggest making "although some misplaced......" a new sentence to improve flow.  Wayne 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Since this compromise seems to be agreeable to everybody, I will replace the lead to the current 2003 Invasion of Iraq page with the compromise lead (I will slightly modify the last sentence per Wayne), and I will make a change to the current Iraq War lead in the spirit of this mediation.  If it's not a problem with anybody, I will also close this mediation is successful.  Congratulations to everybody on coming through and coming up with something workable. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your work Dan -it's appreciated. Dwtray2007 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convenience break