Talk:Iraq War/Archive 5

message: Sockpuppet maybe?  Rmt2m 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that was a possibility, it seems sorta weird how all these people popped up all of a sudden to make the identical edit. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism and the War on Terrorism 

message: In this edit I cleaned up a number of typos and attempted to repair POV issues.  The biggest one was the title of the section near the beginning called "War Rationale Post 1991 Gulf War," which was a remarkable misnomer since none of the events mentioned involved calls for invasion of Iraq.  Aside from the PNAC, there weren't any groups putting up a rationale for invading Iraq until around 2002.  There were several other fixes.  I haven't touched the external links section yet, but those often need pruning.  We also still need to clean up the repetition in the sections "Events following the 1991 Gulf War" and "= War Rationale Post September 11, 2001 ".  I think there the article still echoes itself on Hans Blix's assessment of Iraq right before the invasion, and also on some other information. --Mr. Billion 07:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big cleanup 

message: Whenever you put a link to an article hosted by Yahoo News, you're posting a link that will no longer work in about a month.  I'm not sure it's exactly a month; maybe it's two.  But every Yahoo News article I've seen has disappeared after several weeks.  Here's an example of a dead link from January 17 this year.  As far as I know, Yahoo does not archive most of the articles it hosts at all.
<BR>In this edit I changed a Yahoo link to a permanent link to the same article hosted by The Guardian newspaper, and avoided linking a URL twice by giving it a ref-name and having the second time it's cited refer to the original reference.  User:Patchouli changed the text  to another link to the same article hosted on yet another site, giving the edit summary "Added more link. I believe Yahoo! News are archived properly and they are pemanent links".  I'm pretty sure that is a mistaken belief, since every article I've seen has not been properly archived.  Yahoo temporarily hosts news articles from other websites.  I predict that at the end of this year this link will be broken.  Regardless, I don't see any point in duplicating a link.  Somehow the URL wound up getting linked and listed in the references a third time.  I've changed it back to the way it was.
<BR>See MetaWiki's entry on the ref element if there's any confusion on why it's better to use the ref name instead of multiple references to the same source.  --Mr. Billion 05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yahoo! News links do die out; you are correct.  I also couldn't understand, at first, that you were making multiple uses of the same footnote.  Sorry.--Patchouli 06:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding Yahoo News links because they die after about a month 

message: Reference in the intro is made to the "Iraq War", also known as  "the Second or Third Gulf War (and by the U.S. military as Operation Iraqi Freedom)".
What do the Iraqis call it? Should this be added for balance?
Gibberer 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A thought would be to check the Arabic wikipedia, but I don't speak or read arabic, so I'm not any help there. --Bobblehead 14:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arabic Wikipedia doesn't seem to have split the Iraq war into as many sub-topics as en.wikipedia has.  The only free automated translation service for Arabic that I know of is Google's.  That translation of the arabic equivalent of 2003 invasion of Iraq gives the title as "War on Iraq."  --Mr. Billion 17:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War by any other name ...  

message: I've deleted a section in this page because it sounded like it had a weasel-worded POV. If I am wrong, please send me a message; I will revert it.--Blue Moon Dragon 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: The article doesnt seem to mention the desertions that have been happening aswell as AWOL personel, i will add such a section, any comments? i think War Resisters Support Campaign and Darrell Anderson are good examples.Qrc2006 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonnotable. No inclusion. --Mmx1 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Because you would have to find the link that the desertions and awol troops are directly contributed to the Iraq War, no link, no inclusion in the articule. Drew1369r 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree - if the number of AWOLs has risen significantly, and in ways attributable to the war, then the article on "Iraq War" should mention that fact. People examining the causes, effects or outcome of this war would expect to see evidence of the effect on morale and effectiveness on US forces, and probably expect to see it in the main article. 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desertions

message: We shouldn't include people that were jailed.
They are routinely released such as part of Iraq's "national reconciliation plan" or other bogus plans.  Furthermore, there are surely some who have been jailed multiple times.
Just focus on reported deaths.--Patchouli 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurgents dead or jailed 

message: During the Vietnam Conflict news reports always said something along the lines of "Oh, at this offensive, hundreds died and at that battle thousands lost their lives."
Is the number of Iraqi deaths like that?--Patchouli 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishy figures  

message: I think the title should be changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since that is the term used by America to refer to the ongoing freedom-struggle in Iraq. Would you guys agree? Cerebral Warrior 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Absolutely not, for the same reason that the article on the Vietnam War is not called 'The Resistance War Against America For National Salvation'. Cripipper 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support a change to Third Gulf War if a name change were in order.GiollaUidir 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change. 

message: I updated the various troop deployments in the Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment. Hopefully this clears up the questions about current strengths and withdrawals. Publicus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the updates, but could you provide sources? Not that I'm doubting the numbers, but it would innocculate the article against people questioning the numbers. Thanks! --Bobblehead 14:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop Deployment Strengths

message: This has no relevance to the article and I see no reason to include it. If anyone disagrees with it's removal please say why here.GiollaUidir 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with its removal. A vigil to honour the matyrs of Operation Iraqi Freedom obviously has relevance to this article. Cerebral Warrior 11:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removal. I find it irrelevant and it gives the article very much of an American POV. --Merat 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should one vigil solely dedicated to the US soldiers killed be included in an article generally about the war but? By the same reasoning we could include every vigil held for the civilians killed during the course of the conflict.GiollaUidir 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It pains me when people, whose ideas on war are based on anti-American propaganda movies they sit and watch in their suburban homes, insult the true warriors who lay down their lives in Iraq. If you want to put in details of the "memorials" held to "honour" the jihad-monkeys who blow themselves up in Iraq, go ahead. But please, don't insult the fallen heroes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let the Vigils section remain. Cerebral Warrior 11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring to those resisting the US in Iraq; I was referring to the thousands of innocent civilians killed during the course of the conflict by the US. Heroes or not (perhaps we could include a section on the Haditha massacre, the rape of a 12 year old girl by US forces who then killed her and her family by the US or how heroic the torturers of Abu Ghraib were??) the section has no relevance to the article. Go ahead and start another article about it but you've given no good reason why it should remain so it's getting removed.GiollaUidir 12:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about any of the events being shouted out here - especially this Haditha thing - but the ection should mbe removed. It adds very little to the war, it's more about the US. HawkerTyphoon 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giolla, just curious, who has killed more civilians?  I just want to hear from a combat veteran like yourself who has knowledge of what he speaks.  Rmt2m 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why ask me and what's with the snidey comment? No-one knows because the great liberators didn't bother to check.GiollaUidir 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What snidey comment?  Yours towards Cerebral?  Well I just figured that since most of the things you mentioned are still under investigation you would have been there, seen them happen and know all of the circumstances to make those statements.  That's all. Rmt2m 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iraq_War#Vigils_to_Honor_2000_soldiers_killed_in_Iraq|Vigils Section]]

message: Whereas when it comes to the Americans, we make sure that every single person has authentically died via a body count + Social Security number, etc.
Whereas when it comes to the Iraqis, people just make estimates — albeit mathematical or not.
Therefore, this makes the American casualties thus far seem minuscule and creates more expectation of the American and the coalition troops alike.--Patchouli 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintended consequence  

message: These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:
*"Massive civilian casualties" is an emotional opinion, which is why it was removed.
*"Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure"  is not documented in the link given, which is why it was removed.
*A badly done ref in the first paragraph has caused 3 paragraphs to dissappear, which is why it was replaced.
CJK 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three points 

message: Some people are talking about "Officially Iraqi government count" and "Iraqi health ministerium count" and later only linking to Iraqbodycount again, which is a rather useless count for estimating the casualties in Iraq (see discussion above: "Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an 'estimate'"). Unless you provide links directly to information about the Iraqi government count or Iraqi health ministerium count, I will remove the 40-thousandsomething estimates. --Merat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqbodycount and Iraqi health ministerim/Iraqi government count is not the same thing 

message: We shouldn't include people that were jailed.
They are routinely released such as part of Iraq's "national reconciliation plan" or other bogus plans.  Furthermore, there are surely some who have been jailed multiple times.
Just focus on reported deaths.--Patchouli 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurgents dead or jailed 

message: I think the title should be changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since that is the term used by America to refer to the ongoing freedom-struggle in Iraq. Would you guys agree? Cerebral Warrior 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Absolutely not, for the same reason that the article on the Vietnam War is not called 'The Resistance War Against America For National Salvation'. Cripipper 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support a change to Third Gulf War if a name change were in order.GiollaUidir 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change. 

message: Whereas when it comes to the Americans, we make sure that every single person has authentically died via a body count + Social Security number, etc.
Whereas when it comes to the Iraqis, people just make estimates — albeit mathematical or not.
Therefore, this makes the American casualties thus far seem minuscule and creates more expectation of the American and the coalition troops alike.--Patchouli 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintended consequence  

message: The article doesnt seem to mention the desertions that have been happening aswell as AWOL personel, i will add such a section, any comments? i think War Resisters Support Campaign and Darrell Anderson are good examples.Qrc2006 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonnotable. No inclusion. --Mmx1 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Because you would have to find the link that the desertions and awol troops are directly contributed to the Iraq War, no link, no inclusion in the articule. Drew1369r 14:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree - if the number of AWOLs has risen significantly, and in ways attributable to the war, then the article on "Iraq War" should mention that fact. People examining the causes, effects or outcome of this war would expect to see evidence of the effect on morale and effectiveness on US forces, and probably expect to see it in the main article. 21:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desertions

message: This has no relevance to the article and I see no reason to include it. If anyone disagrees with it's removal please say why here.GiollaUidir 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with its removal. A vigil to honour the matyrs of Operation Iraqi Freedom obviously has relevance to this article. Cerebral Warrior 11:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removal. I find it irrelevant and it gives the article very much of an American POV. --Merat 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should one vigil solely dedicated to the US soldiers killed be included in an article generally about the war but? By the same reasoning we could include every vigil held for the civilians killed during the course of the conflict.GiollaUidir 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It pains me when people, whose ideas on war are based on anti-American propaganda movies they sit and watch in their suburban homes, insult the true warriors who lay down their lives in Iraq. If you want to put in details of the "memorials" held to "honour" the jihad-monkeys who blow themselves up in Iraq, go ahead. But please, don't insult the fallen heroes of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let the Vigils section remain. Cerebral Warrior 11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring to those resisting the US in Iraq; I was referring to the thousands of innocent civilians killed during the course of the conflict by the US. Heroes or not (perhaps we could include a section on the Haditha massacre, the rape of a 12 year old girl by US forces who then killed her and her family by the US or how heroic the torturers of Abu Ghraib were??) the section has no relevance to the article. Go ahead and start another article about it but you've given no good reason why it should remain so it's getting removed.GiollaUidir 12:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about any of the events being shouted out here - especially this Haditha thing - but the ection should mbe removed. It adds very little to the war, it's more about the US. HawkerTyphoon 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giolla, just curious, who has killed more civilians?  I just want to hear from a combat veteran like yourself who has knowledge of what he speaks.  Rmt2m 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why ask me and what's with the snidey comment? No-one knows because the great liberators didn't bother to check.GiollaUidir 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What snidey comment?  Yours towards Cerebral?  Well I just figured that since most of the things you mentioned are still under investigation you would have been there, seen them happen and know all of the circumstances to make those statements.  That's all. Rmt2m 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iraq_War#Vigils_to_Honor_2000_soldiers_killed_in_Iraq|Vigils Section]]

message: I updated the various troop deployments in the Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment. Hopefully this clears up the questions about current strengths and withdrawals. Publicus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the updates, but could you provide sources? Not that I'm doubting the numbers, but it would innocculate the article against people questioning the numbers. Thanks! --Bobblehead 14:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop Deployment Strengths

message: During the Vietnam Conflict news reports always said something along the lines of "Oh, at this offensive, hundreds died and at that battle thousands lost their lives."
Is the number of Iraqi deaths like that?--Patchouli 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Although there is a section in the article (or was anyway, editing's happening so fast currently!) about different operations by the US army. Although I think it would be extremely difficult to categorise deaths by Operation etc. Esp given the under-reporting of deaths.GiollaUidir 08:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishy figures  

message: These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:
*"Massive civilian casualties" is an emotional opinion, which is why it was removed.
*"Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure"  is not documented in the link given, which is why it was removed.
*A badly done ref in the first paragraph has caused 3 paragraphs to dissappear, which is why it was replaced.
CJK 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "massive civilian casualties" was rather good, and i can't see any emotional part in, but okay. We can change "Massive civilian casualties" to "The deadliest conflict of the 21th century as of now, (according to the Lancet study)" if you like that better.  And I'll find another link to support "Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" if you want it. --Merat 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all of CJK's points. Cerebral Warrior 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fix was very simple...no one broke the ref with a /  <ref name="Second Lancet Study"> should be .  •Jim62sch• 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three points 

message: Some people are talking about "Officially Iraqi government count" and "Iraqi health ministerium count" and later only linking to Iraqbodycount again, which is a rather useless count for estimating the casualties in Iraq (see discussion above: "Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an 'estimate'"). Unless you provide links directly to information about the Iraqi government count or Iraqi health ministerium count, I will remove the 40-thousandsomething estimates. --Merat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqbodycount and Iraqi health ministerim/Iraqi government count is not the same thing 

message: In the article there is only one reference to spain as a member of the coalition, but there is not reference to the antiwar stance of Zapatero, his pledge to remove the troops if elected, 11-M, or the subsequent removal of the troops. Spain was the first to pull out, Italy is doing so and the UK may do so soon. The issue has repeatedly been raised in the US with questions to the president as to the return of the troops. Dont you think that this deserves to be tackled in the main article?88.15.59.243 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good points there. Why not add a section yourself?GiollaUidir 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain and "pulling out"

message: The paragraph "Criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war" misses a blank between "and" & "Human". --User:89.58.6.137 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small mistake