Talk:Iraq War/Archive 11

message: Tony Blair is listed as one of the Commanders. However, unlike the USA, the head of the executive branch of the government has no direct connection to the Armed Forces. I might be wrong, and he may indeed be a Commander. However if this is not the case then someone should go ahead and remove him from the list. 202.155.210.86 07:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically Bush and Elizabeth II are technically commanders, Bush and Blair are commanders as percieved by the media/general populace, and none of them are actual commanders. - 85.210.21.73 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: RFBailey removed the QEII link in the info box.  I left a message on his talk page asking him to comment here on why he did it. I feel that it should be there. malatesta 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reasoning that Queen Elizabeth II position as Head of State is essentially an honorary one.  While the forces are officially "Her Majesty's", she does not command them in what to do.  There is a difference between her and Bush in this regard.  The President of the United States has far more direct control than the monarch of the United Kingdom.  --RFBailey 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Blair as a Commander? 

message: While the debate continues on whether Bush and QE II are commanders (they are both head of their respective armed forces) there is an actual field commander missing from the list.  He is General Ricardo Sanchez.  He is missing from the list of commanders.  He was commander of all multinational coalition forces in Iraq between the commands of General Tommy Franks and General George Casey.  How did he get missed from the list?  He should be added back (between Franks and Casey). -RobertBlacknut 05:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General Ricardo Sanchez

message: (why would it ever be called gulf war II. this isnt an action movie. its going to be refered to as the Second Gulf War.)
Many years from now, when the war is over, it will be called 'Gulf War II' by historians. Most would agree on this. I think we should change the title of this article to 'Gulf War II' and have 'Iraq War' redirect to it. There have been many wars in Iraq, and 'Iraq War' is not the official name of this one. Randomfrenchie 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cant make decisions based on a crystal ball. We do not know what they will call it in 50 years, thus we simply use the name that people call it today. And thats the Iraq War. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 1) Name change has already been proposed and shot down; see Archive 8. 2) By analogy, "Vietnam War" hasn't been replaced by "Second Indochina War" in general usage. 3) There have been many wars in Iraq, but there have also been many wars in the Gulf region. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The so called "Iraq War" should be murged with the Gulf War article. They are both the same war that has lasted from when Iraq invaded Kuwait.59.167.56.88 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current war started with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It is the same war that started in 1990. There was never a peace treaty, Iraq kept firing on allied planes thoughout the 1990's. That war never ended. It is the same war now.Caloris 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Let's call it the Civil War. j/k. : ) MPS 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the title of the artilce, it would be nice to mention somewhere in the article what the Iraqis call it. Sylvain1972 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gulf War II

message: Here is a message I put on the talk page at the above template page, and on the user page of the person who transferred the code for the infobox to it: User talk:AndrewRT
The infobox template idea would be good if the references could be maintained. Some of the references are used by other locations in the main article also. So putting the box in a separate template breaks many references, not just the ones in the infobox. I copied the infobox code back into the main Iraq War article, and left a copy in the template page. 
The Iraq War page is very busy, and edited by many people. And viewed by many people. So this problem needs to be fixed before removing the infobox code solely to the template page for transclusion. And there is no room to put a references section in the notes part at the end of the infobox. Space is already at a premium in the infobox. Many discussions over that already. Plus the references in the main article would still be broken. 
Please see the template on this page: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. I edit both that page and the template on it. Since the template references do not work for using as references in the main article, there are some duplicate references. Click the reference numbers to see what I mean. --Timeshifter 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template references broken. [[Template:Iraq War Box]] 

message: In the infobox I removed the total Iraqi wounded number. The source used an unreferenced ratio of 1.8 times the number of deaths. It used the Lancet number of 655,000 deaths as the starting point. Plus it added monthly numbers since July 2006 based on the last Lancet rate of monthly deaths. All to come up with a total of 1,296,830 injured in Iraq.
Here is the source link used:
*http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html#methodology
It states: "Where no credible data on serious injuries to citizens or troops has been made public, our rough estimate uses a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops, 1.8:1 for civilians." 
But it gives no reference for that "historically-based ratio." And the Lancet number is both civilian and combatant deaths. And all excess deaths too. So the application of their ratio is incorrect. --Timeshifter 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WIA - KIA military ratio in WW2 was 2 -1. In Vietnam and Korea the ratio was 3 - 1. With the exception of the U.S; records from the coalition partners indicate that Iraq is also 3 - 1 for them as confirmed by last years Polytrauma Conference. For the U.S. the reported ratio is 7 - 1 although this is not reliable as the U.S. system of counting undercounts true KIA substantially. The civilian wounded to killed ratio in armed conflicts from 1929 to 1996 (BMJ 1999;319:407-410 IRC) ranged from 0 to 4.4 / 1. For example WW2 had a civilian ratio of 2.7 to 1 and Vietnam 4 to 1. I dont know where the 1.8 to 1 figure came from as the IRC regard 1.9 to 1 as the minimum "acceptable" ratio in a conflict and 2 to 1 is what the U.S. and IBC use to make an estimate of wounded. Iraq's civilian wounded to killed ratio is actually 1 to 1 according to research which means if the Lancet is correct then there have been 655,000 civilians wounded or 68,000 wounded if IBC is correct.  Wayne 
17:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Iraqi wounded 

message: and  have been blocked as sockpuppets of .  See here for my complete post on this topic.  If any other editors pop up with similar editing patterns, please contact me and I will look into whether or not they are also sockpuppets.  Thanks! TomTheHand 12:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copperchair sockpuppets 

message: why should we not keep our troops in Iraq??
why should we keep our troops in iraq??
Any strong reasons (or any reasons) are welcome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickbellamy (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, this is the English Wikipedia. There are plenty of editors on this site who do not come from the USA (or other countries contributing troops such as the UK), so talking about 'our' troops is somewhat out of place. Second, this page is for discussing changes (or proposed changes) to the article, not for political debate about the war itself. Thanks Cynical 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep our troops in iraq? any facts to back this up??? 

message: I think that the italics for the word "surge" in the sentence quoted below from the article is bias. Is there a reason for this formatting? If not, I will remove it.
"In his speech, he made references to changes to be made, including a surge of 21,500 more troops for Iraq, a job program for Iraqis, more reconstruction proposals, and 1.2 billion dollars for these programs."
:The issue is that it has become a political term, and away to avoid saying sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Find a way to make this clear, without using italics. I think this would fall into the same category as shock and awe. Wikipediatoperfection 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "increase" would do just as well, perhaps "a 'surge,' or increase," if the terminology is necessary. Other opinions? --BekiB 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They are necessary in that this was by and large a Republican war, and it should be clear which party started this war. Wikipediatoperfection 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a broad generalization, considering that support or opposition to this war is not based on political affiliation in many cases and wasn't from its beginning. If there is going to be blame placed in this article, I request more citation to support that. --BekiB 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? Small notes 

message: in "January 2007: Bush's "New Way Forward" confronts Iran" it says
"American troops raided an Iranian liaison office in northern Iraq on 11 Jan 2007 and detained five employees.[75] "Around 5.00 a.m., after disarming the guards they (U.S. troops) broke into the office, without giving any explanation and arrested five employees," the official IRNA news agency reported, adding that documents and computers were seized.[76][77] The fate of the kidnapped Iranian officials is not known."
Isnt the use of the word kidnapped rather biased? It may or may not be true but a serious newspaper would never use the word kidnapped for this situation.
:This now has a wikipage at US attack on Iranian liaison office in Arbil hope that helps. Hypnosadist 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kidnapped" Iranians? 

message: "Some small groups of Fremen warriors have also been sighted" linking to a character from the Dune novels.  o rly?
66.235.4.134 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fremen? 

message: Shouldn't this be March 19th, not 20th as the article states? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
===Should...===
Is it worth mentioning, that this was has lasted longer than our involvement in World War II and Civil War? Source. Adamv88 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date the War started? 

message: Is it worth mentioning, that this was has lasted longer than our involvement in World War II and Civil War? Source. Adamv88 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should...

message: "However, the coalition was unsuccessful at restoring order to the entire country, leading to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil warfare between Sunni and Shia Iraqis, and al Qaeda terror operations in Iraq.[25][26] Despite this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have decided to withdraw troops from Iraq.[27] The causes and consequences of the war remain controversial.[28][21][18]"
It should be noted that the tiny number of troops that "the growing number of coaltiion forces" have withdrawn from Iraq does not significantly effect the total number of troops in iraq. Therefor this withdrawal reference is misleading.  I think having that in the intro, is misleading, and it should be clarified or put somewhere else.  Also, historically the largest coalition I have ever heard of was mounted by Nazi Germany in it's invasion of the USSR. So we need to be careful the "rightousness" we so blindly associate with a "coalition".   JohnHistory 01:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: Is this event part of the iraq war as it involves british troops deployed as part of it? Please look at that articles talk page and add your views whatever they are. If it is part of the war in iraq then should it be added into this article? Hypnosadist 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't seem to have anything on the 2004 capture of eight UK Navy personnel under similar circumstances, or if we do I can't find it. 75.18.208.221 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Seeing as the UK's soldiers were serving under an operation within Operation Telic, I would say this is inherently a part of the war. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel]] 

message: Wikipedia code:
*NOW on PBS: Iraq War: Stories, resources, and video on a wide range of Iraq War topics.
Jethin 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Edit - External articles: News: NOW on PBS: Iraq War 

message: Should we be keeping a list of the slogans used by the proponents of the war? 75.35.74.5 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree that we should present both sides, I admit I have questions about their relative validity. Also, it seems to me that sloganeering is coming from only one side, which is constantly ordering repetitive oratory.  I guess the other side has, "support the troops, bring them home," and the like, but I wonder if grassroots catchphrases are the same as central command-and-control sloganeering.  James S. 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "They'll follow us home," etc. 

message: As it stands, the introduction is in need of revision, so I'm proposing the following intro. Clarification of the problems with the current intro can be found above in the "Opening Paragraph" section:
The Iraq War (March 20, 2003 to May 1, 2003), sometimes known as the Second Gulf War, was a war and subsequent occupation that began with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The causes of the Iraq War included concerns that Iraq possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction, concerns about terrorism, and concerns about the abuse of Iraqis by their own government.
The war began in March 2003 when a US-led coalition overthrew Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, occupied Iraq, and established a new government. Following the defeat of the Iraqi forces under Saddam Hussein, violence gradually escalated, with attacks on coalition soldiers and Iraqi troops by insurgents and conflict between rival Sunni and Shi'ite factions; debate over whether the violence constitutes a state of civil war continues. The war resulted in the establishment of a parliamentary democracy under President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. E Pluribus Americanus 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the Iraq War is ongoing. Or do you think all those references are only about the March-May 2003 period? Bramlet Abercrombie 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Revised Introduction

message: Both this page and the Scott Helvenston page state that the four blackwater contractors "were dragged from their cars, beaten, and set ablaze".  This infers that they were beaten to death while still alive.  
None of the descriptions I had heared over the years have stated this.  I've spent a good deal of time looking for a source on the net, but can't find anything definitive.  The Blackwater USA page states that they were killed by "a grenade" - however that's quoting the first poorly written sentence of a CNN reference/article whose main body quotes unnamed eye witnesses who says that "threw hand grenades at the cars ... The assailants then sprayed the burning cars with small-arms fire."  This sounds much more accurate.  There are clear descriptions on the net of the video that was taken by the insurgents that shows that before anything was set afire and before anyone was removed from the vehicles, all of the contractors were dead.  I've also seen a photo which subsequently shows a body by the rear tire of a burning vehicle, with blood pooled around.
Until someone comes up with a better reference I'm going to change all three to the following - "were killed with grenades and small arms fire, their bodies dragged from their vehicles, beaten and set ablaze", and I'm going to reference the CNN article.
I'm also going to remove the following current reference (http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles387.htm) as I think it's clear that the quote there is totally unreliable and probably fabricated.  IE: "Another man gave a chilling description of how the men were dragged from their car, begging for their lives. "They had gasoline splashed on them and were set alight," he said."  This contradicts everything I've heard about what the insurgent's own video showed and what other eye witnesses report.
CraigWyllie 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackwater Contractors - misleading description of how they died

message: "Despite this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have decided to withdraw troops from Iraq."
I would propose that it is perhaps because of this failure that so many nations have exited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.19.102.15 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Wording in the opening section: 

message: I removed this from the bottom of the article:

It does not show up correctly in the article. It is being interfered with by the broken template mentioned in the next section. I tried placing it in different places. But it always ends up at the bottom of the article. But it shows up OK on the talk page. And it shows up in the section where I place it. --Timeshifter 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed problematic American conflicts template for now

message: I think it is supposed to be a 3-column template. There are titles for 3 columns:
Active Troops. Withdrawn Troops. Multi-National Corps-Iraq Units.
But everything is in the first column. This template needs to be removed until it is fixed. But I don't see any code for it. Anybody else see it? Or is it part of another template? --Timeshifter 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broken template no longer is showing up at the bottom of the article. The correct template is showing up in the section titled "Troop deployment 2003 to current". --Timeshifter 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is code for broken troop template at bottom of article?

message: I see multiple columns in my Firefox browser. For the references and external links sections. But not in Internet Explorer. --Timeshifter 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What code makes for multiple columns in both Firefox and Internet Explorer?

message: Article: Iraqi details 'shocking' U.S. missteps
Yahoo Daily News.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insider_s_account
Bush will tell everyone its getting better there tomorrow. CaribDigita 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi government insider shares another side of the war on Iraq. 

message: I'm concerned about Publicus's moves of substantial war-related content to the 2007 in Iraq article..  US military command changes do not seem to belong in an article about Iraq, a survey showing that more than half of Iraqis now consider attacks on coalition forces acceptable, up from much smaller proportions in earlier years certainly is war-related, and the news item about Dowd certainly doesn't belong in an article about Iraq.
Why do we even have the "200x in Iraq" articles?  There is no 2007 in the US, 2007 in the United States, 2007 in the United States of America, 2007 in USA, or 2007 in the USA.  Is there any other purpose than for hiding uncomfortable information? 
I am proposing to merge those articles back into this one. James S. 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If these articles are merged, do we really want every single attack, bombing, or event (no matter how small) on the Iraq War page?  Looking at some of the events listed on the dates in the 2007 in Iraq article, some of them wouldn't make it to the main Iraq War page, or could be summed up in a "300+ people were killed in April 2004 by suicide bombing attacks" statement.  It seems the original purpose of the 200x in (country) pages was to show a timeline of minor events that normally don't get much attention in the press and look more in depth at the levels of violence and number of attacks.  Sirkan 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I can agree with that argument based on the sheer bulk of all the news items. However, the chronology in this article needs to follow Wikipedia:Summary style, and right now it doesn't; not even close. There are plenty of important events which should be at least summarized in this main article, and plenty of facts relegated to "200x in Iraq" articles which have more to do with the US and the war than Iraq.  I'm contemplating large changes to meet WP:SS. James S. 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  It needs to be brought up to Wikipedia standards.  I'll start some work on that to get it up to snuff.  It might take me a while, considering the bulk of the items...I may need some help from other Wikipedians. One question, though...should these pages really be under Wikipedia:Summary style, or under Wikipedia:Timeline?  The page layout seems more accurate for that. Sirkan 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2007 in Iraq should be renamed 2007 in the Iraq War... Iraq is a country... this timeline only lists war events and should be named to reflect this. If a big fancy hotel opened in Kurdistan it would look silly on this list. MPS 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent content moves by Publicus to [[2007 in Iraq]]; merge proposed 

message: Little or no information is given about the actual pre-end of major combat hostilities, including the invasion itself.  Is there a reason for this?  There's hardly a sentence about it, the article just jumps from "The US declared war" to "The US occupied Iraq" --NEMT 02:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: information about the actual war?

message: Al-Sadr was listed with an Iraqi flag, even though he is not an Iraqi government commander. Does anyone know the flag of the Mahdi Army?
This is the only image of the flag I can find. Mahdi Army. This will help you recognise it if you can find a picture suitable to use for the article. 
Wayne 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Sadr's flag

message: Shouldn't the contractors rather be referred to as mercenaries?--Soylentyellow 09:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slang or not, it is a synonym with almost ten times the Google hits and a third of the words. James S. 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, except it isn't a synonym - at all.  --NEMT 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Mercenaries are illegal and under the Geneva Convention can not be given the protection of POW status. Private Military Contractor is a "weasel phrase" to legalise them. Wayne 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not refering to non combat functions. Currently 100,000 PMC's work in Iraq and of those 48,000 work in combat operations according to a GAO report which makes them mercenaries under the Geneva Convention. Maybe we should mention that half the PMC's work as mercenaries for accuracy in the article?BTW The Geneva International Advisory Board has this included in it's definition of PMC's "Terms such as mercenaries and private security companies (PSCs) are often used interchangeably with PMCs". Wayne 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for clarity. Although mercenaries are illegal under the GC, in iraq the CPA passed a law exempting PMC's from liability for any laws they break which is why the civilian interrogators could not be charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal while serving military personel were. Wayne 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: contractors or mercenaries

message: They weren't on the same side. If it's possible to divide the combatants into 3 parts, please do so. Malamockq 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the battle box, Al-Qaeda and Saddam shouldn't be grouped together 

message: The phrase "to the present" in the time frame of the Iraq War cannot be correct. What is happening in Iraq now has nothing to do with the original Iraqi Freedom Operation.It is a brand new "CONFLICT" (not war by any definition) in the war against terrorism. That's why those media shows and analysis that contrast Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech with the series of bombs and casualities are specious.
:I'm a bit confused by the statement "What is happening in Iraq now has nothing to do with the original Iraqi Freedom Operation".  NOTHING to do with the original operation?  As in there are no causal connections?  As in what we are seeing now would have happened anyway?  This seems an odd, not to mention indefensible, point of view.  SlipperyN 17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  to the present? 

message: I'm a little puzzled as to why the three mile wall, which the US military is currently building around the Sunni district of Baghdad and which has been in the news for the past several days, didn't have a mention here or in the current events portal. I've added in notes and links accordingly. 
:It was added to Adhamiya on Apr 21 but I guess it took a couple days to "trickle up" to this article. Patience, my friend; the Wikipedia process is working. MPS 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Baghdad Wall]] 

message: In  April 1999 General  Zinni (ret.), conducted a  game  Desert Crossing to evaluate the number of troops needed post Saddam. It might be worth mentioning in this article.  KAM 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is worthy of inclusion, and have put in a couple of sentences in the criticisms subsection on inadequate troop levels. Thanks! --Mackabean 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate troop levels 

message: This article is in general very biased.  It clearly makes every attempt to convince the reader that the United States was wrong to invade Iraq, and that the United States is losing there.  To this end, it ignores or downplays any evidence to the contrary, while emphasizing or exaggerating anything that suggests American failure.
The specific issue I'm addressing right now is the fact that there is no mention of the so-called "Anbar Awakening" in this article.  What has happened in Anbar with the tribal sheiks is an undeniable fact, whether you like it or not, and should be in the article.  Even the New York Times has awknowledged this with an article on April 29, 2007.
12.158.118.103 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the unnamed poster that potentially good news like the Anbar Awakening group should be included in this article along with bad news.  I also agree with Publicus that if he or she wanted it included, they should have just put the information in themselves:)  Regardless, I have added information in the militia section about the Anbar Awakening. --Mackabean 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a point about Anbar under April 2007.  Robbskey 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias and the Anbar Awakening 

message: I think it's highly innappropriate to refer to the deposed and executed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as Saddam.  Would one refer to President G.W. Bush as George?
195.217.233.178 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a million Castros in Cuba, but everyone knows what you mean when you say Fidel. I suspect there are a million Husseins in Iraq. mutatis mutandis, "Saddam" makes sense. MPS 02:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referring to Saddam Hussein as Saddam is probably not appropriate 

message: I am for including the number of contractors killed in the war but I think we should not include them in the total count of killed coalition forces members. Even if most of those contractors are in situations that the coalition soldiers are, and even if most of them are former soldiers now mercenaries, still most of them are not there as part of the coalition army. Yes some of them are imployed by the Stated department and the Pentagon, but there are others who are imployed by private companies. We should put in the casualties box under Coalition the number of killed soldiers and seperatly under foreign contractors the number of contractors. I mean we have already divided them in the part of the box with troop numbers. One coalition, and one contractors. The way it is now somebody who read's the article would think that almost 4,500 coalition soldiers have been killed in the war, but actualy only around 3,600 have been killed. I will wiat to see the others opinions before I make any changes. --Top Gun 07:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contractor deaths 

message: Some one say its part of the war on terror. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.76.223.111 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 May 2007  (UTC)
In a way it is. --Pine oak 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Part of War on Terrorisum

message: Rose had some very interesting things to tell the BBC about this war and a book to go along with it. He believes the war cannot possibly be won because the insurgents will not ever give up, comparing it to how the Americans could not possibly have given up to the British in those colony wars, as the fight is for what they believe to be home soil. I don't know anything about this, but it seems to be an interesting and strong point from someone, a Gen no less, that is in this war. He says it cannot be won so they should pull out. Now it is not for you to decide if pulling out is a bad idea or not, but to decide if this guy has enough merit to be mentioned and quoted here. I think so, but there are certain pages I refuse to edit, and this is one of them, so I am just leaving it here for your good selves to have a look at. Thank you ^_^ JayKeaton 01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gen Sir Michael Rose

message: Edited the oil reference in the lead paragraph to read "They have also claimed that the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply limited nonmilitary options, while many critical comentators have alleged that this factor was a primary reason." The second clause needs work but I think something should go there, one quote from Wolfowitz would not be encyclopedic if it weren't for the anti-war suspicions of an oil motive. --Homunq 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For oil... 

message: How many mercenaries have been killed, anyone know? There was a report that there could be tens of thousands of mercenary (Western mercenaries, I'm not talking about terrorists or Iraqi insurgents) troops in Iraq also. This should also be listed.Azerbaijani 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also difficult to tell if "contractors" means Blackwater-style private soldiers, or unarmed construction workers and the like, or both.Solicitr 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercenary dead

message: under the heading "2004:The insurgency expands" it states that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq (an affiliated al-Qaeda group), led by abu musabal-Zarqawi, would help to drive the insurgency." The links provided (Abu Musabal-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq) provide more information and indicate that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is an unofficial name, misused by the US Mass media and has only one Al-Qaeda affiliation (but not in the sense included here). More investigation is needed, and a change, i think is definitely needed. Megadecimal 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Qaeda in Iraq 

message: For the sake of Wikipedia and controversial articles...
Gold Seal Campaign:
What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..
1-This page is properly cited.
2-This page has been verified.
This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this. 
As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. 
— mattawa
I think it's a good idea. Brilliant. --LtWinters 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what Wikipedia:Good Article does? the grading scheme is already in place. I like the name "Gold Seal" though.  MPS 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's pretty much what the Good Article does. Regardless, this is not the place for this discussion. This talk page is for discussions relating to the main article, the Iraq War. Parsecboy 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gold Seal Campaign 

message: Hi,
I've removed the line in the WP:Lead listing "ensuring the security of Israel, a key American ally in the Middle East" as a rationale for the Iraq War, which is not mentioned at all in this entry. It is sourced to this article which draws the connection based on a single speech from a single individual. The closest thing that the dedicated subarticle has is a general desire for MidEast peace. TewfikTalk 04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be restored, with more comprehensicve sourcing. There can be little doubt that Saddam was a very real threat to Israel's security, openly sponsoring inter alia Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Abu Nidal Group, as well as paying $25,000 bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.Solicitr 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority views in lead 

message: And editor has changed this word to "urgent" on the basis that Bush never said it. The article made no claim as to who said it. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Sen. Edward Kennedy and White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett all said it in press interviews. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used the word "immediate" many times. Both these words have a similar meaning but different to urgent which although also used is a weaker word. The media used imminent often as in this example. The rest of the world still uses the word imminent today and in fact Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently gave a weasel definition of the word by saying "the question of imminence isn't whether or not someone will strike tomorrow, it's whether you believe you're in a stronger position today to deal with the threat or whether you're going to be in a stronger position tomorrow" which shows the word still has prominence. Imminent needs to be used in the article as "urgent" is POV in the context of the world perception of the history of the conflict. Wayne 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Condoleezza rice needs to consult a dictionary.  I'm changing it back to 'imminent', as the weasel word "urgent" is original research.  Kevin Baastalk 15:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imminent

message: I think the image gallery is missing some of the most important photos of this war, such as  "Mission Accomplished", Abu Garib, the fall of the Saddam statue, and the burnt bodies hanging off the bridge. The images I feel best represent this war, unlike the current images which are more 'routine'. Angry Aspie 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Gallery

message: As part of the Global Task Force's effort to counter systemic bias, I've added a small international opinions section, which I hope to expand. For understandable, but nonetheless regrettable, reasons, this article is lacking in international views. I wonder if, in addition to a section indicating overall global opinion, we should add subsections to indicating global opinion/reaction to particular issues, e.g. Human Rights, U.S. troop surge, etc.? I'm interested, of course, in any advice and/or help!Benzocane 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International opinions section

message: Concerning the insurgent deaths number in the infobox that sources List of insurgents killed in Iraq. I have been calling it a "representative" list of insurgents and militia members killed. I think that is a more accurate word than "comprehensive". And it sounds better than "partial" which can sound deprecating. The list is in no way comprehensive. Just like the Iraq Body Count project counts made from media reports are not comprehensive. Because the media in Iraq does not record all the deaths. The media is not everywhere in Iraq. And they do not report everything for many reasons. See: 
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Undercounting --Timeshifter 10:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: insurgent deaths

message: The Kurdish insrgency and brave Peshmerga malitia deserve more of a mention in theis article.--86.29.255.69 19:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kurds]] 

message: I am wondering if this entry wouldn't benefit considerably if we moved the time line section--by far the longest section--to its own entry, as is often done for other conflicts. We could have a summary here of the major events, of course, but the readability and, I feel, encyclopedic nature of the article suffers from the ever-expanding list of detailed occurrences. I'm not saying they're not important--just that they might lengthen this entry to the point of unreadability. Thoughts?
:: I think this is a good idea.  The timeline section now dominates the article, making it difficult for the reader to get a more general understanding of the war.  I would support moving the time line section to a separate article while keeping the key points of the timeline summarized in this article.  Some precedents for such a change seem to exist in the Timeline of the Gulf War and the Timeline of World War II.  --Mackabean 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I've also found other precedents. I'll go ahead and make this change. It also seems in keeping with the "to do" list for this article. Benzocane 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a separate page Timeline of the Iraq War but I have not yet deleted the timeline section from the main page until we have a summary of the main events of the war instead of a 68 kilobyte section! I will begin to work on such a condensed summary but would appreciate help, of course.Benzocane 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a worthy effort to me -- the article is extremely long, and having a very short summarized history would actually be a helpful resource. I would recommend making it very condensed so that you don't end up with two competing versions of the timeline - but of course follow the best examples you've seen in other articles. I'm tempted to tag the section somehow, but don't think there's a template exactly suited for this type of transition status (i.e. that it has already been moved to a separate article but still needs to be summarized)? There are templates you can use to tag a long article or section, but I don't know of one that specifically calls for summarizing the current material.  Also, once the summary is underway be sure to add a "see also" link to the timeline article from the top of the section.  --Pladuk 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of this change, I think it would streamline the article nicely.SlipperyN 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time line and the structure of the article

message: It's here: Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad
The last time it even remotely resembled anything being not completely crap was there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jama%27at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad&oldid=130644162
It was by no means good even back then, but now it's almost beyond repair but scrapping altogether and starting anew. --HanzoHattori 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There never were al-Qaeda in Iraq. The group the U.S. media claimed were al-Qaeda were based in the no fly zone where Saddam could not touch them (they were anti-Saddam) and Bin Laden refused to aid or support them. After the invasion and until recently the media often called them "al-Qaeda affiliated". Lately I notice the media has begun to call all such groups both inside and outside Iraq "al-Qaeda inspired" due to al-Qaeda as an organisation no longer existing. Wayne 03:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes Really Firstly I was referring to the media in my own country. Secondly it is not OR as you would find if you do the research on scholarly articles instead of relying on the media.al-Zarqawi refused to swear allegiance to Bin Laden which was a prerequisite for membership of  al-Qaeda nor did he or his organization get funding from al-Qaeda. When al-Zarqawi was based in the Herat Province of Western Afghanistan in 2000 there was no contact between the two groups. In 2002 Zarqawi joined Ansar al-Islam in Iraq who were funded by al-Qaeda but he still refused to swear allegiance and al-Qaeda stopped funding them. It wasn’t until late 2003 that  Zarqawi met with al-Qaeda and this was only to help insurgents enter Iraq. Zarqawi’s objectives of promoting the sectarian violence are the complete opposite of al-Qaeda’s who are opposed to it. It wasn’t until 2004 that Zarqawi offered to work with al-Qaeda but he still refused to pledge allegiance and al-Qaeda said at the time that he (and his group) were a hindrance to them not a help. It wasn’t until the very end of 2004 that he eventually pledged allegiance for propaganda purposes and was then accepted as a part of al-Qaeda although they both still worked independently from each other.al-Zarqawi would be more accurately described as al-Qaeda affiliated. It is likely that Zarqawi's replacement is closer to al-Qaeda though. Using the al-Qaeda name for unrelated Muslim terrorist organisations who have similar objectives is a propaganda ploy.Wayne 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article on the al-Qaeda in Iraq is worthless 

message: Few examples:
*Reuters: Al Qaeda in Iraq leader killed: Interior Ministry
*Associated Press: Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaeda In Iraq
*BBC: Al-Qaeda in Iraq names new head
*CNN: Al Qaeda in Iraq issues virulent manifesto 
*AFP: Deputy leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq captured
*Time: Is al-Qaeda on the Run in Iraq?
*Al-Jazeera: Al-Qaeda denies death of Iraq chief
And really, more than half million other links THIS YEAR ALONE.
Meanwhile, Wiki sez:
The term "al-Qaeda in Iraq" may refer to:
* Osama bin Laden's international al-Qaeda network's alleged operations in Iraq.
* al-Zarqawi, who was labeled an "al-Qaeda operative", alleged contacts with the group Ansar al-Islam in Northern Iraq, an area that was outside the control of the former Ba'athist government. (Note: Ansar al-Islam's founder, Mullah Krekar, has staunchly denied any such contacts. )
* al-Zarqawi's alleged operations in Iraq under the group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad
* Alternative name of The Jihad Base Organization in Mesopotamia used by U.S. officials and certain western media.
* The alleged "al-Qaeda operative" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's alleged operations in Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is an alias for the deceased leader of al-Tawhid.
It may also refer to alleged links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein:
* Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
All your claims of "There never were al-Qaeda in Iraq." and all this "allegedly" (and sometimes even "falsely" - ??) are, simply, laughable (and original research). Al-Qaeda in Iraq should be about al-Qaeda in Iraq, and not a bunch of "allegedly" and "alleged". Better tell me that if "certain" media and officials use this term (ha ha, "incorrectly"), then what media do NOT? I'm seriouly asking. 
You know how the article should be written? This is how, for example, BBC described the al-Qaeda in Iraq in the Guide: Armed groups in Iraq:
AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ
Al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in the Land of the Two Rivers is the country's most prominent insurgent group, blamed for many of the bloodiest bombings and beheadings.
It was led by the Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, until he was killed by a US air strike in June 2006.
He emerged in Iraq as the alleged head of the Tawhid and Jihad group, which was blamed for some of the biggest early insurgent attacks.
These included the truck bombing that killed 23 at the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003 and the blast in Najaf 10 days later that killed a senior Shia cleric and more than 85 others.
Tawhid and Jihad was also known for the brutal beheadings of foreign hostages, which were posted on the internet in video footage attributed to the group.
An internet statement in 2004 claimed that the group had joined Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, although the depth of the links is not clear.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq's hallmarks include synchronised bomb attacks, as well as the abduction and murder of foreign hostages.
The bombs have had a range of targets - from US military personnel to Iraq's fledgling security forces and its Shia community. Shia Muslims have been derided as apostates in messages attributed to Zarqawi.
Igniting sectarian conflict is central to al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq, according to a letter purportedly authored by Zarqawi and released by the US military in early 2004.
Foreign "jihadi" fighters are widely thought to play a key role in the group, although some analysts say it may have also have a considerable Iraqi membership.
Shortly after Zarqawi's death, al-Qaeda in Iraq named a new leader, Abu-Hamzah al-Muhajir, thought to be a pseudonym.
Uncertainly surrounds the new leader, although the US military released a picture of a man it named as Abu Ayyub al-Masri and said was an Egyptian militant based in Baghdad.
 
And that's it. This style, expanded and updated (this was 2007). --HanzoHattori 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Really Firstly I was referring to the media in my own country. Secondly it is not OR as you would find if you do the research on scholarly articles instead of relying on the media.al-Zarqawi refused to swear allegiance to Bin Laden which was a prerequisite for membership of  al-Qaeda nor did he or his organization get funding from al-Qaeda. When al-Zarqawi was based in the Herat Province of Western Afghanistan in 2000 there was no contact between the two groups. In 2002 Zarqawi joined Ansar al-Islam in Iraq who were funded by al-Qaeda but he still refused to swear allegiance and al-Qaeda stopped funding them. It wasn’t until late 2003 that  Zarqawi met with al-Qaeda and this was only to help insurgents enter Iraq. Zarqawi’s objectives of promoting the sectarian violence are the complete opposite of al-Qaeda’s who are opposed to it. It wasn’t until 2004 that Zarqawi offered to work with al-Qaeda but he still refused to pledge allegiance and al-Qaeda said at the time that he (and his group) were a hindrance to them not a help. It wasn’t until the very end of 2004 that he eventually pledged allegiance for propaganda purposes and was then accepted as a part of al-Qaeda although they both still worked independently from each other.al-Zarqawi would be more accurately described as al-Qaeda affiliated. It is likely that Zarqawi's replacement is closer to al-Qaeda though. Using the al-Qaeda name for unrelated Muslim terrorist organisations who have similar objectives is a propaganda ploy.Wayne 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh really?

message: The term 'hopeless failure' redirects to this article. While amusing, this is clearly POV and unfitting for a source like Wikipedia. I would really appreciate if someone could remove the link {but I'm not holding my breath :) }.
Resently it also went to Aricle-'Islam' for a few day and then was cut out.--Pine oak 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect vandalism 

message: The opening sentence seems to begin very poorly: "The main rationale for the war offered by the President George W. Bush"
Shouldn't that be, at least, US President? After all, the article purports to be about Iraq, not the US, yet US domestic terms such as "Democrat" and "Republican" are immediately thrown around, as though the realm of discourse is US domestic roundtables. Furthermore, "rationale" is not really the correct word at all. That is an unsubstantiated attempt to say what was in the mind of the US President, I think (and a very implausible one). Surely, what is meant is that the main "justification" was that. Or, if you believe that the Bush Administration knowingly lied, I suppose you could argue that it was the main "pretense", but that sounds very undiplomatic, and I think the more polite term "justification" is much better.
Note: I'm not going to be bold and touch the article, because I tried editing another article related to Iraq recently, and found that my changes were reverted without discussion or explanation, so I have some suspicion that (probably US) propagandists may be pushing some agendas here, and forbidding changes due to these agendas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harvard yarrd (talk • contribs).
:I wouldn't leap to conclusions of propagandist control of these articles.  Wikipedia is far less well-organized than that.  Lots of people revert without discussion because they're just not very polite; impolite people are much more common in the world than government stooges.  When reverted without discussion, the best policy is to initiate discussion, at the article talk page, and with the reverter if necessary.  As long as you do it in a respectful manner, it's a very effective approach.
:The edit you suggest sounds good; I'll go ahead and try it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making the lead less US-centric is one thing.  As for "rationale" versus "justification", I notice the phrase links to the article Rationale for the Iraq War.  As long as we're linking to an article with that title, it makes sense to reflect it in the text, I think.  Perhaps there's a better title for that aritcle? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've read several sources (mainly U.S. military, that say there will be 50,000 troops stationed in Iraq for around 50 years. Wayne 08:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in opening sentence 

message: it says ~26, 000 seriously wounded. The number on PBS, and every other news network for seriously wounded has been, currently, around ~10,000.
:Specific program, station, and quote(s), please? James S. 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about veterans with an amputation? Do they all need long term medical care or are they not seriously wounded? --Raphael1 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably what the story on PBS was talking about, those vets wt serious wounds like amputation or brain damage might number around 10,000, while maybe the total number of wounded reported by the DefDept includes around 16,000 less serious wounds for the overall total of 26,000 (10,000 "serious" 16,000 "less serious"). Either way, it doesn't really matter--both groups are counted as wounded. Publicus 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the "severely" injured phrasing from the infobox. I left it as "injured". See Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. "Severely" is a slippery term. See that main article on Iraq War casualties to understand. I have been editing that page a long time. See the main chart at the top for a more accurate breakdown. Currently it says about US casualties: "3,466 dead. 25,549 wounded in action, of which 11,476 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. An additional 6,991 non-hostile injuries and 19,197 diseases (both requiring medical air transport). As of 29 May 2007." The source is http://icasualties.org/oif/ - About half way down the page is a table for the wounded and injured. --Timeshifter 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's difficult to find data but I have found some old newspaper articals that shed some light. Several sources, both US and British, say that "serious life altering" combat wounds account for 60% of all WIA. In March 2004 Col. David Hackworth stated that the DoD admitted that only serious combat injuries were counted as WIA (at that time) for an official total of 14,000 in 2004 (giving a total of around 24,000 total combat casualties 3 years ago!) It looks even more likely that the 26,000 number in the box is only half the true count and thus was correctly identified as "serious".I also found the contractor numbers referenced. In April 2004 the estimate of contractor deaths was 900 (again 3 years ago) and it was claimed that only contractor deaths reported in newspapers are counted (much like IBC so the true number will never be known). In the info box "reported" should be next to the 916 for accuracy. Wayne 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking into this and have found some interesting facts regarding contractor deaths if anyone wants to follow it up.The Reconstruction Logistics Directorate of the Corps of Engineers keeps records of the number of contractor casualties but according to the Deputy Director, the U.S. Military deletes all references to casualty figures from their reports before they are made public. I also found an interview with the director of Falcon Security who have "contractors" guarding a weapons and ammunition warehouse in Baghdad. Since 2003 they suffered between 120 - 144 KIA and 192 wounded from a workforce of 500! This one small company at a single location accounts for 40% of the total casualties? I think not. Wayne 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severely Injured Box number is wrong 

message: A recent article, Legality of the Iraq war, has been written exclusively by one user.  It looks good, but I'd be happier if a few more eyes checked his work for neutrality and such.  Thank you. YechielMan 06:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read new article 

message: This section only briefly (3 paragraphs) describes the case for war made by the Bush administration and the domestic and worldwide reaction. I believe we need to do justice to the six month long saga by describing the buildup to the war in more specific terms. This would include, in my eyes, a discussion of pre-invasion opinion polls and intelligence for starters.
In that section there's wiki links to at least 12 different articles covering the 2001-03 disarm crisis. We're trying to keep the article brief with the details on various aspects, especially those prior to actual war breaking out, on related articles. Publicus 13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2001-2003: Iraq disarmament crisis? 

message: I have made a quote of my opinion.
When the Iraqi War is over; it will be a victory by ear; not by fist.
Meldshal42 22:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *  Please see the header of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article.  This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.    —Gaff ταλκ 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Opinion 

message: --BMF81 11:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for future plans, korean model 

message: The only logical order of Coalition forces being listed is
1.Great Britian 
2.Australia
3. the United States
4. Poland
Sgt Simpson 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Coalition