Talk:Fallujah/Archive 2

message: Things seems pretty damned ugly there right now. I added a NGO link in addition to the wire report, to balance civillian horror vs. War horror, and an edit to point out that the US military is not playing DOOM with real people and simply gunning down everything that moves (along with sources for some inflamatory words that might imply as such). Ronabop 06:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifing events vs. Spin 

message: Cut from intro paragraph:
:It is considered the home of the Iraqi insurgency, and Iraqi insurgents.
I dispute this. It is more likely that Syria or Iran is the the home of the Iraqi insurgency. Perhaps a better word would be "focus".
Anyway, if we want to mention that a lot of fighting is going on in Fallujah, there's a better way to mention it. And I'm not sure making it the last sentence of the intro paragraph is good.
The insurgency raises several questions:
*who's behind it?
*what are their aims?
*who are they against?
*what has happened so far?
This might even require a separate article, like insurgency in Fallujah -- if only for the couple of weeks it will take us to write this up well. After the dust settles, I'm happy to have the info merged. --Uncle Ed 12:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Home of insurgency

message: Cut from article:
:On April 28, 2003 the occupying Alliance forces of the coalition reportedly opened fire with on an unarmed group during a protest outside a school, killing fifteen.  While it is disagreed as to who fired first and whether some of the protesters were armed, the killings led to a public outcry and turned many in the city against the coalition. (emphasis added for talk page)
I may be wrong, but I think that an atrocity charge like "opened fire on unarmed protesters" needs at least ONE reference. Come on, an eyewitness at least -- or some advocacy group. We can't just say "reportedly" and leave it at that.
On the other hand, I may be biased: I was a US soldier for 5 years, and I might be unconsciously loyal to my former mates -- thinking them much more faithful to conventions of war than they really are. But I just can't conceive of US or British troops opening fire -- that is, firing the first shot -- unless there was sufficient and credible provocation from the other side. --Uncle Ed 20:26, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: [Faullujah] erupted as a flashpoint in the current conflict on April 28, 2003, when coalition soldiers fired on a group of protesters in front of a school, killing 15 and wounding several others. The military said soldiers were firing in self-defence. Resistance fighters disagree. 
I agree the story is a complex one and there is probably no way for us to find out what actually happened.  It would probably be best to do a full Rashomon and describe each side's story.  What I was trying to convey is that much of the population of Fallujah believe American troops killed unarmed civilians and that this has lead to the current situation in the city. - SimonP 02:28, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
To be realistic, in warfare, civillians are targeted, and die. Targeting may be right or wrong, but in every war, there are wrong "targets". Some are unarmed. That's war. It doesn't mean that innocent civillians are targeted intentionally. In the first gulf war, more americans were killed by americans than Iraqis (Until the retreat fire). I think the paragraph should be restored, with wording that indicates that the americans weren't just trigger happy, but felt they were under threat of death, and shot, rightly or wrongly. Ronabop 09:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Atrocity report

message: I spent 15 minutes on Google, researching the incident, and I'm convinced the account I cut was one-sided:
*The origin of its hostility to coalition forces dates back to April 28, 2003, when U.S. troops opened fire on a group of up to 200 peaceful protestors, killing 15. The soldiers claimed they were merely returning gunfire, but Human Rights Watch found that the bullet holes examined at the location were inconsistent with that story. Moreover, Iraqi witnesses at the scene maintained that the crowd was unarmed. 
*According to the US spokesperson, Lt-Col Eric Nantz, the troops were being shot at and stones had been thrown. They tried to disperse the crowd with loudspeaker warnings but in vain, he said. Under threat, they fired back. ... Lt-Col Nantz said that the troops had been fired on from a house across the road. Several light machineguns were produced, which the Americans said were found at the scene. 
*Americans and Iraqis gave sharply differing accounts of Monday night's shooting. U.S. forces insisted they opened fire only upon armed men -- infiltrators among the protest crowd, according to Col. Arnold Bray, commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 325 Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division (search), whose troops were involved in the shooting. "Which school kids carry AK-47s?" Bray asked. "I'm 100 percent certain the persons we shot at were armed." ... U.S. Central Command said paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division were fired on by about 25 armed civilians mixed within an estimated crowd of 200 protesters outside a compound troops were occupying. "The paratroopers, who received fire from elements mixed within the crowd and positioned atop neighboring buildings, returned fire, wounding at least seven of the armed individuals," the Central Command statement said. A Central Command spokesman, Lt. Mark Kitchens, said coalition forces "have consistently demonstrated their efforts to avoid civilian casualties and practice restraint. Any allegations to the contrary are simply not based on fact." 
We should indicate at least that the "unarmed civilians" thing is disputed. Better, put in both sides' accounts. --Uncle Ed 20:44, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: [Faullujah] erupted as a flashpoint in the current conflict on April 28, 2003, when coalition soldiers fired on a group of protesters in front of a school, killing 15 and wounding several others. The military said soldiers were firing in self-defence. Resistance fighters disagree. 
I agree the story is a complex one and there is probably no way for us to find out what actually happened.  It would probably be best to do a full Rashomon and describe each side's story.  What I was trying to convey is that much of the population of Fallujah believe American troops killed unarmed civilians and that this has lead to the current situation in the city. - SimonP 02:28, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
To be realistic, in warfare, civillians are targeted, and die. Targeting may be right or wrong, but in every war, there are wrong "targets". Some are unarmed. That's war. It doesn't mean that innocent civillians are targeted intentionally. In the first gulf war, more americans were killed by americans than Iraqis (Until the retreat fire). I think the paragraph should be restored, with wording that indicates that the americans weren't just trigger happy, but felt they were under threat of death, and shot, rightly or wrongly. Ronabop 09:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My Google results

message: Are these three users all sock puppets? Check their editing records... or perhaps the black helicopter brigade has mobilised en masse and wound up here? -- ChrisO 23:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was TruthSayer, but yes, the history and writing style should make it obvious that they are the same person. And I might add that the style and tactics remind me somewhat of User:Bird. --Michael Snow 23:23, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right. Perhaps someone can do a fun log check. - Fennec 00:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather liked the way that at one point they started talking to one another. -- The Anome 07:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: JillP, SaltyDog, TruthSeeker - all sock puppets?

message: "There is some evidence that millennia ago a branch of the Euphrates divided off at that point, and that this is the source of the name, but today that branch has disappeared." This fantasy etymology is matched by the impossible geography, perhaps related to the canal that joins the Tigris to the Euphrates? Wetman 04:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you question this? I got the origins of the name from an article in JSTOR on the region in Persian times. - SimonP 05:36, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Presumably this refers to the "Pallacopas," as described in the Geography of Babylonia and Assyria article. I would like to learn more about this. --Iustinus 08:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymological fantasy

message: Well, the assault has started. Should we do some heavy newslike coverage now, or?
:Only major events in the assault need be covered I'd think.  Actually, I was hoping to move the Seige to a new page, seeing as how it's taking up so much of the article. Oberiko 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assault 

message: Just a request for comments about this addition to the links section.  I believe it is inappropriate because of two related reasons, 1) Wikipedia:No original research rule would seem to prohibit uncorroborated eyewitness reports, which is what this essentially is, in this case apparently added by the author himself (66.117.135.127 says "I added my own article" so presumably 66.117.135.127 is Dahr Jamail).  2) Dahr Jamail, the author, has been a consistent source of pro-insurgent propaganda such as "Hollow Election Held on Bloody Day", and "The Iraqi Resistance Spreads", full list on his site here .  An interview giving some idea of what the guy thinks here (excerpts: "Most are also too afraid to vote." and "Most Iraqis refer to the Iraqi Resistance as “patriots.”"...).  His stuff gets published in all of the pro-insurgency rags such as jihadunspun, uruknet, Z-Mag, AlterNet, CounterPunch, ...    I'm not sure this counts as journalism or a quotable source.  If it does, well, we should include some other quotable sources such as Zeyad, Mohammed and Omar to provide a well-balanced view.  Mr Jamail also threatens "the external link to my article has been removed twice by "SimonP." If this happens again, I will file a complaint with the site administrator" - ok, go right ahead.  ObsidianOrder 11:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is disgusting behaiviour Obsidian. Dahr Jamail happens to be one of the few independent and non-embedded journalists in Iraq and for most of the time he has been the only one. You cannot "cleanse" articles like this because you don't agree with their point of view. —Christiaan 09:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Christiaan - the problem is that I am not sure whether Dahr Jamail is an "independent journalist", or simply the media arm of the jihadis.  I will admit that he *could* be an independent journalist, and everything he says *could* be simply a fair description of the facts on the ground as he has seen them... but because of all the other contradictory information I get from sources I trust a lot more, I strongly doubt that.  The consistent pro-insurgent bias that permeates all of his writing is not the mark of a reliable source.  (exercise: find anything strongly positive about the US troops or Iraqi government, or strongly negative about the insurgents, in his "reports"... just one item is all I ask)  If we lower the bar to include Mr Jamail, then we should also include a lot of other sources of a similar nature (eyewitnesses) with every kind of bias as well, to give a well-rounded view.  I think this will detract from wikipedia, and I think it doesn't fit the character that an encyclopedia should have, but if there is a consensus about it, I can live with it.  ObsidianOrder 11:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Obsidian, you're not going to censor this article of Dahr's contribution I can assure you of that. I could equally argue that it detracts from Wikipedia to include links to articles by U.S. corporations that have shown consistent pro-U.S. bias. But I won't because it's not Wikipedia policy to exclude external links based on bias. —Christiaan 16:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Christiaan - I think you misunderstand what I said.  I am not trying to censor anything.  I think we should talk about this (and by we I mean everyone, not just you and me), and agree on standards for inclusion.  If Dahr Jamail meets those standards, then I have no problem with linking to his stuff... BUT a lot of other reports will probably also meet the same standards and I will insist on including them as well in order to produce a well-rounded article.  Dahr Jamail is obviously biased, that is not the issue.  The issue is whether he is (1) truthful - in some cases there is reason to doubt that, and (2) newsworthy or perhaps "encyclopediaworthy" - since this is essentially just an uncorroborated eyewitness report.  In general, there are serious problems with the use of independents and stringers, and huge problems with second-hand reports, which is why I would tend to depreciate any such reports regardless of where they're published, giving a much higher weighing instead to first-hand observations by regular staff journalists for major Western media organizations (whether U.S. or not).  If my preference for Western media bothers you, tough luck... I think most people will consider the Washington Post just a little bit more credible than, say, Syria Daily, and with good reason.  I should also point out that Wikipedia is a massively Western-dominated project.  Now, this is not to say that there is anything wrong with eyewitness reports... but I won't take anything as being well established until it is corroborated by a dozen or so independent eyewitness reports, and even then I would want to look into their personal backgrounds. ObsidianOrder 23:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully understand Obsidian; you are "obviously bias" and the above is little more than your point of view. We don't need to "talk about this" as there there are already guidelines that cover external links. This is a English-speaking encyclopedia and as you point out this is an issue of systemic bias, and I will be making continued efforts to counter such forms of self-censorship. —Christiaan 00:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are quite right, there are already guidelines.  I went and read them all.  As it happens they say almost exactly what I suggested, namely... Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources says "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable."  Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating primary sources says "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" ... "Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects?" ... "It is very important to cross-check primary sources against each other." ...  "If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased or their biases are at cross purposes, then you have a reliable account."  Regarding links to other sites, Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to says "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is." and also "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged."  Finally, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence is worth a look.  ObsidianOrder 06:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: So, with those guidelines in mind, a quick look at the links in this article: we have one link each to BBC, CBC, The Guardian, and Channel4 (UK).  We have two links to Dahr Jamail, one link to Jo Wilding (at Rense) who is another pro-insurgent eyewitness/reporter, one link to a "letter sent by representatives of the people of Fallujah", one link to Al-Jazeera, and a link to a raw video archive from multiple sources.  What is completely missing is any US media whatsoever, let alone CENTCOM briefings, soldiers' blogs, or similar.   I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not object to linking to Dahr Jamail (which the article did anyway, before this latest edit war), or to any of the other links there now as long as (a) any alleged facts coming from a single source are clearly attributed as such in the body of the article ("according to Dahr Jamail, a freelance reporter sympathetic to the insurgents" will do) and (b) there is an equal or greater number of links to primary sources with opposite biases.  I should also mention that it comes to secondary sources, this article is completely slanted, a situation I intend to correct after some research. ObsidianOrder 06:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even read what is in the link??? —Christiaan 08:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course I have.  For most of the significant assertions he makes, Mr Jamail simply cites other articles by himself as source (10 out of 45). ObsidianOrder 16:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dahr Jamail article/66.117.135.127 edits 

message: I find the claim that 36000 buildings (or 70% of all buildings) in Fallujah have been "destroyed" comletely unbelievable.  For one, I have some numbers for the heavy ordnance used, which suggest around 1-2000 buildings completely destroyed.  The majority of buildings probably have holes in them (esp. from 25mm or .50), but they are not "destroyed".  Aerial and ground pictures do not show large swaths of devastation, quite on the contrary.  An early report  mentions "one house in about 10 flattened" in an area of particularly heavy fighting.  That seems about right to me.  A few more points... another (translated from Arabic) version of CCFC's report  claims only 7000 "destroyed, or nearly totally destroyed, homes".  Which is right?  Finally, the head of the CCFC, Hafidh al-Dulaimi, would seem to be a member of the Dulaimi tribe which has had a pretty rocky relationship with the coalition... I wouldn't be surprised at some padding of numbers in order to get more money. ObsidianOrder 17:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  70% destroyed? 

message: If you feel the items you cut and pasted in here are valuable, why don't you just link to them ?  Just cutting and pasting things into articles is not productive. protohiro 23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  62.202.94.140 

message: I think describing Dahr Jamail as unembedded is not-so-subtly POV, because of the parallel with un-something-negative e.g. unbiassed.  Google has for him independent 50,900 hits, unembedded 906, freelance 614.  "independent" is a bit more subtly POV, but we'll let it pass.  He likes to describe himself as "unembedded", but  The Guardian and The Nation for example both say "freelance", and they are hardly tthe bastions of neocon thought.  He is freelance, that is a fact.  "is not embedded with US forces" is also a fact.  "independent" is POV, and "unembedded" is pure demagoguery.  Also, while I have no problem with linking to him, there has to be some kind of balance between him and other sources... he already has more links than any single other source, and people just keep adding more.  One or two is enough.  ObsidianOrder 21:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy with unembedded. It's an important aspect of his journalism in Iraq, considering the propaganda that has been the result of embedded jounalists. Now, I wonder why we might have more links to him from anyone else... duh? —Christiaan 22:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "propaganda" which has been the result of embedded journalists includes Kevin Sites' video and the consistently defeatist reporting by Dexter Filkins .  Yeah, it's propaganda, but for which side?  The reason why we have so many links to Jamail is primarily because you have been boosting for him (btw: make that six links to him now, that is five too many). He is marginally notable but is not a good source since he spouts obvious bullshit now and then (such as confusing incendiaries with chemical weapons, or misreporting numbers such as dulaimi's, just to pick a couple of recent examples). ObsidianOrder 00:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  describing dahr jamail 

message: I believe that in the context of Iraq, the terms Insurgent and Insurgency are
not neutral terms. We are under no obligation to follow the sheep mentality of the mainstream media.
When Afghan fighters were attacking Soviet tanks they were referred to as freedom fighters by the western media. Clearly then, freedom fighter is a term you use when you support the fighters.
In a similar way the terms insurgent and insurgency are used by the governments of occupying powers. You can see evidence of this in many conflicts including the French occupation of Algeria and during the Vietnam War.
Surely the neutral term for people fighting against an occupying force is resistance. Whether you agree/disagree with them, or their methods, the fighters in Iraq are clearly resisting the occupation.  
There are many propaganda mechanisms operating against the resistance. The media tends to concentrate on people having their heads severed, which is horrible and clearly damages the image of the Iraqi resistance. There is far less coverage of the attacks on U.S. tanks, although the footage is widely available on the internet. Do remember that the French resistance also executed people they viewed as being collaborators.  Neither the U.S. forces nor the Iraqi resistance are going to win any Nobel peace prizes. 
Another propaganda mechanism has been the suggestion that the resistance is made up of foreign fighters.  The idea is that it cannot be a real popular resistance if the people resisting are not indigenous. Likewise the use of the word insurgent is just another propaganda mechanism.
We all have our own opinions but if the rules of Wikipedia are that we do not express opinions, we should avoid using terms that favour one side or another.
------
Baloney. "Resistance" is a positive term implying approval. "Insurgent" is a neutral term. "Rebel" or "Terrorist" would be used if a negative term were being sought.
I don't know what the penultimate paragraph is trying to say. Are there foreigners amongst the insurgents or not? Or is the anonymous writer disputing that the presence of foreigners renders a resistance movement less legitimate?
To point 1 - well it's fairly obvious there are foreigners amongst the insurgent - probably not as high a proportion as amongst the government forces. To point 2 - it must at least make some difference. A resistance movement with 90% foreign membership would surely have as little legitimacy as an army of occupation.
Exile 21:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Resistance" means that there is a groups "resisting" sojmething.  It is neither positive nor negative; that all depends which side you're on.  But in this case nobody can deny that there is a resistance movement that is resisting foreign occupation.  It is also an "insurgency."  this has been debated to death on the "Iraqi Insurgency" discussion page.  As for the number of foreign fighters among the insurgents, we're talking about 3-8% roughly; certainly under 10%, and even those only operate with the permission of Sunni elders (otherwise they would have a much harder time getting weapons from within Iraq, moving freely around, and having places to stay).  To claim that 90% of the insurgents are foreigners is completely backwards; maybe 10% at most are.  --csloat 22:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurgency or Resistance 

message: I reverted this for the following glaring factual errors:
* this is listed in the April 2004 section, but all cited sources refer to November 2004
* media presence was not "extremely limited"
* the mentioned "AP photographer" and "BBC reporter" are in fact local stringers, not regular staff
* Fallujah General Hospital was secured by Iraqi troops, not US troops
* the staff in that hospital was not prevented from providing medical services to civilians in any way
and many more.
ObsidianOrder 00:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv, writeup does not correspond to cited sources - details