Talk:Iraq War/Archive 8

message: So, Rangeley, looking over the arguments you've made, I think part of the problem we're having is that you're assuming as fact the idea that there is one war going on, and then you are arguing that it's acceptable to refer to that war by a POV name, because it's just a name.  And yes, there is a certain logic to your claim that "War of Terror" is just a name, and that the Iraq war should be regarded as a part of that conflict, even if many thing it's not a perfect accurate name, since it may or may not be an actual war on terrorists.  A case could be made that a name is just a name, and our use of it doesn't imply that Wikipedia believes it is literallly accurate.  Conversely, a case could be made that the name should be NPOV if we're going to use it in, say, an infobox.  That's one question. 
But a second question, which I think is getting lost, is this:  is there really just one war going on?  That's certainly Bush and many other's POVs, and history may ultimately agree with them.  In the 1930s and 40s, there were two conflicts-- one in Europe, and one in Asia.  History ultimately decided, however, that they were best viewed as two fronts of a single war-- World War II.  Modernly, people who would dispute that conclusion are a non-notable minority, if they even exist.  So Wikipedia is free to unequivocally state "The bombing of Pearl Harbor was part of WWII".  But history-writing is a rather time-consuming business, and it takes many years before society reaches consensus on these issues.
Right now, with the war or wars still on-going, there are way too many people all across the world who insist on separating the Iraq War from the War on Terror.  An August 2006 poll found that 51% of the American population say that the Iraq war is not part of the "War on Terror".  I won't bother to look for it, but I think it's obvious that the rest of the world would feel even more strongly that there are two separate wars, not one. 
The fact is-- right now there is a highly notable POV which holds that the "Iraq war" and the "War on terror"  are two completely different wars.  If the poll is to be believed, 51% of the American people disagree that the Iraq War is part of the same war as the Afghanistan War.  Meanwhile, another POV say they're just different fronts in one war, the War on Terror-- and supposedly 49% or so believe that.  So, there's a valid dispute ongoing, the issue has not been resolved, it is being hotly debated.  
Until that changes, it's not Wikipedia's place to decide one way or the other, whether it is or it isn't.  We can say "Some regard it as part of the WOT", we can say "Bush has said it is part of the war on terror", we can say "Here are the reasons people regard it as part of the war on terror", but we absolutely cannot say "it is part of the war on terror".   Nor can we say "it is not part of the war on terrror".   --Alecmconroy 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. What I'd really like to see come out of this is some better content explaining the nuances of the situation. Invariably that is the way that Wikipedia has been able to make great content about controversial issues, although I have to say that this article is perhaps not there yet. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Once again, unless you can understand that the US War on Terror is a campaign, and not a conflict, this discussion is utterly pointless. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that "War on Terror" is a campaign not a conflict is certainly one POV, but again, it's just one POV.  Another POV is that it is a conflict.  But you know, whatever "War on Terror" means, 51% say Iraq isn't part of it.  Whether it should be a "name", a "campaign", a "conflict" or whatever-- most people disagree with our infobox. --Alecmconroy 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand very strongly that the US views Iraq as part of the WoT campaign. Unless you can understand that that the other combattants have other views, and that the US view is only one view, I agree that this would be pointless; hence the desire to draw in comments from other editors. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, please read the War on Terrorism article. After you read atleast to intro, maybe you will know what it is. Until you can recognize that it is legitimately a campaign and not a conflict, and until you stop calling that merely a POV and not a fact, we cant get anywhere. Ignoring facts never works in debates. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently, a prominent US government official expressed the view that the legislation that authorized Bush to go to war in Iraq was no longer applicable, because the nature of the war had changed (to sectarian conflict, I believe.) This also should be taken into account. I think that we should be very careful about things like templates, infoboxes, and categories, because things presented in these modes will be seen as factual by the reader, and when there are multiple points of view on an issue, it is better to deal with that issue in the body of the article. --MaplePorter 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The POV that the two wars are separate

message: I noticed that Iraq and Syria are listed as combatants. Although there have been reports of limited clandestine involvement by the two states, does that suffice to classify them as combatants. I would argue no. TSO1D 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if there is a reliable source showing them having direct military actions, beyond arms and money. The arms and money trafficking might warrant a section if reliable sources can be used to do this. --Bobblehead 01:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran and Syria as Combatants? 

message: with all the citations needed being negative in nature against the u.s. media I added the pov tag, these things needs the citations... I believe, to remove the tag. Drew1369 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems generally OK, it only really needs the citations. To have the NPOV tag as well is a bit excessive, there's no argument that US media coverage has been criticized.  JW 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added npov tag to crit of u.s. media 

message: I've just added the war on terror template. I ususally edit much less contraversial pages but clearly the article needs the template regardless of anyones views on Iraq conflict. Francium12 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template's fine. It has information that can be found useful, as long as the Iraq War isn't reduced to part of the war on terror. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War on Terror template

message: I wondering whether a note on international law sould be put under "criticism". At least in other countries (e.g. Germany, my home country) international law issues have been a main topic back in 2003.
:Maybe, if you can look up some of the stuff to do with UN resolutions and provide adequate citations. Walton monarchist89 11:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International law 

message: Cocoaguy tried to put this code below (indented) in the infobox just after the Lancet casualty estimate and before the Iraq Health Minister estimate. It caused that estimate and the IBC info not to show up at all:
:|cost1=total amount of money spent on the iraq war 349.594 dollars as per 12/12/2006 sorce
Looks like an interesting web page that the URL goes to. I just added the link as a reference in the financial costs section. Along with the cost of the war to date.
*http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 --Timeshifter 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of war 

message: The criticism section and criticism of medio coverage section need to report criticisms rather than attempt to assess the criticisms or the need for the war itself, in order to avoid POV disputes and maintain an encyclopediac style. Ashmoo 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Isn't it the third gulf war, considering the first between Iraq and Iran? SeHe 84.188.225.137 21:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. In many English speaking countries the war between Iran and Iraq was the Iran-Iraq War and the invasion/liberation of Kuwait was the Gulf War. In that case, the Iraq War would be the Second Gulf War. On the other hand, some consider the Iran-Iraq War the First Gulf War, the invasion/liberation of Kuwait as the Second Gulf War and this war the Third Gulf War. --Bobblehead 04:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  second or third gulf war 

message: Can anybody tell something about the role of mercenaries and private military companies / security forces in Iraq? I've heard there were about 30.000 troops of about 80 private companies active (estm. 2004). German Wiki talks of Companies like:
*The Hart Group: Defense of Electronic Companies
*ISI Group: Security for Coalition buildings
*Eriny's International: Security for oil infrastructure
*Custer Battles: Airportsecurity
*DynCorp: Training the iraqi Police (for 40 million $ ?)
*Vinnell: Formation and training the iraqi army
*Blackwater USA: Escorts and Bodyguards
*Armor Group: Clearing minefields
*Kroll: Bodyguards
*Global Risk: Bodyguards
*CACI International
*Titan Corporation
(see: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irak-Krieg#Rolle_von_privaten_Milit.C3.A4rdienstleistern)
30.000 private troops (combatants/mercenaries/armed security forces) would form the third biggest party after the U.S. troops. What would be the legal status of them? Does anybody know? The Wiki links to the companies contain quite harsh accuses about the role of some of them. SeHe 84.188.225.137 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Forces? 

message: Can somebody update the article with 'Happenings of UN' - UN resolutions, their time lines and other activities which happened in UN in relation to this war! --Natrajdr 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Nations Activities 

message: I realize Saddam's execution is reported elsewhere in the article but I consider it relevant to the campaign as a turning point, so I included it in that section as well. The ISG report is also mentioned elsewhere but not in a complete context. The Haditha events might seem biased to bring up, but it got a lot of press coverage. I'd like to find more positive news to add alongside it, but unfortunately I was unable to. If someone else wishes to do so then by all means...
I have no intentions of starting any edit wars or pushing any POV onto the article because frankly I have no opinion on this war. Whoblitzell 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2006 news added 

message: Could anyone find a different symbol/text to use on Zarqwai and anyone else they want to label as dead? Using the Christian cross to symbolize the death of a Muslim is hardly appropriate. Not exactly what should be used, for now I'm just going to add KIA after his name. Any ideas appreciated. Publicus 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its recognized as a symbol for someone who died, regardless of their religion, in the English language. Its a tombstone. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you User:Rangeley that's what I'm talking about. Top Gun 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule in Wikipedia on this. I dislike using the cross for signifying deaths of Muslims. I believe many Muslims would find it highly offensive. I am going to put "dead" after his name. There is no need for symbolism. And tombstones in some U.S. military cemeteries use the Star of David for Jews. I don't know what those cemeteries use for Muslims or atheists or agnostics or .... Maybe they now also use non-symbolic tombstones. --Timeshifter 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Timeshifter and Publicus. Better to give a short explanation with text instead. --Merat 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: KIA symbol for Zarqawi, others

message: This article Describes what would happen if us Withdraw from iraq.
the articl was writen by Seth Wikas (who is a visiting fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, focusing on opposition elements to the Syrian regime), and published at omedia, which is a non commercial articles site.
thanks
yuval —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuval a (talk • contribs) 11:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting to edd a link 

message: The user Whoblitzell is continually vandalizing this article with lieberal propeganda, can an admin do something about this?
UnfairlyImbalanced 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? "Lieberal". That is funny. Was it intentionally funny? ;) --Timeshifter 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, lieberal - where you insist on writing the number of civilians that get killed by military actions ;) Sad mouse 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not have sexual relations with this article, depending on what your definition of it is. Whoblitzell 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please lock user out 

message: It's not that long right now, but as the war goes on for even the next year (which I assume we can all agree on) it will grow in size by 25% or more. I believe the best way to solve this is to move the Iraq timeline to its own article and provide a synopsis or listing or short events here in Date: Event form or something of the sort.
I don't want to start an edit war or be accused of "lieberal proeganda" as above, so I thought I'd post here before doing it myself. Whoblitzell 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Iraq War timeline to its on article? 

message: lots of editors of this page have left it as a mess of "citation needed" and "name a specific person/group" superscripts, which really compromises the presentability of the page. take a ctrl-F seach down the page for "citation" and you will find A TON  of "citation needed" superscripts. unless you guys resolve them soon, i think i should remove a lot of them (and leave a note on this discussion page that lists the parts where i removed them, just so there is a record). sorry if this is a bit drastic but i think it needs to be done, because this article needs to look a lot more encyclopedic and complete, debates can stay on the discussion page. lots of people come here to read about the details of the iraq war, and for this reason the page needs to look much more presentable.
160.39.208.20 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up the superscripts!!

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
#Support as nom. -Patstuarttalk|edits 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nom. -Patstuarttalk|edits 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: #Oppose. The war is limited to a single country, not the whole Gulf region; furthermore, Iraq has only a small coastline with the Gulf, and most of the country is distant from the Gulf, including the Sunni areas where the war has mainly been waged- how close is Mosul to the Gulf? Also, calling it the "Second" Gulf War is also Western-centric, as it implies that a "Gulf War" only takes place when US/Western powers are involved- was the "Iran-Iraq War" not a Gulf War? --Groggy Dice T | C 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: I dispute the White House being a source for its own war, this seems to go against Wikipedia policy on verifiability and more importantly reliability because the WH is a partisan source and the viewpoint is seen by much of the world as extremist. Furthermore including it as part of the war on terrorism simply because the American government views it as such is tantamount to saying Israel is an illegal state simply because the Iranian government doesn't say so. After all, he says it in a lot of his speeches. He even said it at the official convention against the Holocaust! It was a meeting of academic minds.
As it stands, the infobox is POV and it has only one clear proponent going agaisnt public opinion and editorial consensus in favor of a previous consensus reached only through one side leaving the table. 68.58.28.162
::Whenever an editing question raises this much controversy, it seems to me self-evident that the topic in question should be addressed only in the body of the article, where it can be rebutted. Putting something which may be POV in an infobox, category, template, etc. should be absolutely avoided. --MaplePorter 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I point both of you to the above discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These points appear to be in response to the above discussion, and I agree with them.  This doesn't belong in the infobox at all.  Continuing to stick it in is disruptive. csloat 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White House not a valid source for infobox