Talk:First Battle of Fallujah

message: I have removed this edit made in the lede. Based upon this edit at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is where I encountered this issue, it was clearly original research axe-grinding. I did not, however, restore the material removed in that editand the failure of the operation to fully realize its tactical objectives would lead to a far more decisive engagement later in the year, the Second Battle of Fallujahbecause it has been in the article since January 2011 without an inline citation and WP:BURDEN says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." I have no sources to satisfy that burden — though admittedly I haven't looked for any — so I did not restore it. I would respectfully request that those who regularly edit this article and are familiar with this topic provide an inline source and restore the material. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede reversion needs source and restoration 

message: (I believe I can reasonably predict  that, whatever response (if any) is provoked by this comment, it will not be nearly so, er, passionate as many of the discussions on this talk page have become.)
The following is a quote from the "Background" section:
: "Fallujah had generally benefited economically under Saddam Hussein, and many residents were employed as employes [sic], military and intelligence officers by his administration."
I found myself unable to continue, as my brain kept repeating:
: "Employed as employes [sic]?"
I burst into a giggle fit, so entertained by this phrase that I didn't even notice the rather blatant misspelling of "employees."
I'd clarify it, but I have no clue what sort of unspecified employees Saddam Hussein employed (and we can't very well ask him about it, at least not without the benefit of time travel or clairvoyamce).  It sounded like the sort of thing that might refer to something exciting and dangerous like spies or mercenaries, or at least highly specialised prostitutes, although I had to admit to myself that it was far more likely to be the result of mere carelessness on the part of the person who had (as I had noticed by this time) left an obvious typographical error uncorrected.  (Probably I've just spent too long in the US, where (1) scandalous coverups of Very Nasty Business and/or extreme incompetence on the part of the government/military, and (2) amusingly preposterous one-liners by public officials both occur with impressive regularity, since each is 
necessary in order to keep a particular class of periodical from going bust, as well as to prevent people from getting bored, which could potentially lead to such undesirable and unpatriotic activities as voting.)
Eventually I was able to distract myself sufficiently that that my brain was able to achieve escape velocity from the silliness field generated by the "employed as employes" line.  At this point, I examined the reference (10. "Violent Response," http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraqfalluja/Iraqfalluja-02.htm#P105_11568) and found that it was indeed a simple error that had nothing to do with the cunningness of either the late Saddam Hussein or the Wikipedian who had written this about the former Iraqi dictator's…employes [sic].  (Not unless both of them were a lot more cunning than I think we can reasonably assume.  Of course, anything's possible…)
: Anyhow, the point is: can anyone offer some, you know, good old-fashioned WikiWisdom as to how to correct this business, or at last make it sound a bit less silly?  (I can't decide whether to correct the spelling of "employees" or just change it to "police" (the word used in the reference) or what.)  Mia229 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  sick of political flamewars? come hang out in this section! 

message: I noticed that recently a number of US military units were added to the "Units involved" section.  Some of them don't seem to be supported by any references I can find, with the 1st ID in particular being listed on another page as being in Ramadi.  I realize that it's referring to a detachment but that detachment has no mention of being in Fallujah.  Does anyone have any good references for the changes?Yojimbo1941 (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Units are still being added but I've noticed that some have documentation of being involved in the Second Battle of Fallujah but not the first.  I've been hesitant to remove units for the list since I realize that documentation can be difficult to find, but this has been going on for quite a while now.  I'll make every effort to find a citation supporting a unit's inclusion but if I don't find anything I'll remove it from the list, or add it to the Second Battle of Fallujah if applicable. Yojimbo1941 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to be listing the units I've removed from the article here.  Any listed here do not have any sources indicating that they took part in the First Battle of Fallujah.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Someone reinserted the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion without providing any documentation that they were a participatory unit.  Again, I understand there may be documentation issues but I would urge that without actual citations anyone could be adding units, some which may be incorrect.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units involved 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on First Battle of Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121104190816/http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/g/cvn-73/2004.pdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/shiphist/g/cvn-73/2004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on First Battle of Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326034327/http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx to http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Battle of Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928065241/http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1761282&nav=EyAzM2hB to http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1761282&nav=EyAzM2hB
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on First Battle of Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5m2j1gLVo?url=http://www.cpp.usmc.mil/press/kit/OIFII.asp?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpp.usmc.mil%2Fpress%2Fkit%2FOIFII.asp to http://www.cpp.usmc.mil/press/kit/OIFII.asp?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpp.usmc.mil%2Fpress%2Fkit%2FOIFII.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114171956/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F02%2F22%2F1434210 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F02%2F22%2F1434210
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604092252/http://www.cpp.usmc.mil/press/kit/OIFII.asp to http://www.cpp.usmc.mil/press/kit/OIFII.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "...PSYOP Tactical Psychological Operations Teams ... lured Iraqis out into the open for the Scout Snipers by reading scripts that were aimed at angering insurgent fighters and by blaring AC/DC along with Metallica and other rock music over their loud speakers.[38]"
This is the source that [38] leads to.
https://web.archive.org/web/20041027025331/http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-vigilant-resolve.htm
It only mentions playing metallica, not any other rock music including AC/DC and also doesn't mention reading scripting to anger the insurgents. 47.145.207.244 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to make a similar comment. I see the sentence in question has been revised, and is an improvement. However it still doesn't reflect the source. All the source says is that Metallica was played to "bait" the insurgents. Whatever that means is up to interpretation. I will amend the sentence to just say that such music was played by the unit in question as part of the operation, Toadchavay (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence claims more than source provides evidence for