Talk:Iraq War/Archive 9

message: Reporting contractors as part of the Allied forces, based on a reference which only describes their total number, and does not separate out security contractors from other contractors, is highly unbalanced POV. Especially since the asterisk noting who the contractors are is not shown at "contractors" in the infobox. I've returned the asterisk, but a reliable source for the number of security contractors should be found, and that number used. Argyriou (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in infobox

message: "U.N. says 34,452 Iraq civilians killed last year."  --Alienlifeformz 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an issue with this or are you just telling us? ~Rangeley (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq civilians

message: Australian troops have also don quite a bit. They mostly partook in the opening stages, but are still holding in there along with the Poles and Danes. I think that mentioning the Australians as a 'major combatant' is valid due to there relitvly heavy military and political contribution compared to there actual size on the world stage. 
--Lilidor 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia's bit

message: Given the importance of the UN discussion before the invasion and the conflictual debate which took place at the UN, the introduction section to war must at least mention this episode. I added some key elements on this question from the Wikipedia article on the UN discussion.Gpeilon 18:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UN discussions before the invasion

message: I would like to discuss the images beaing deleted that are in use in this article and articles linked to it. On January 21 2007 more than a dozen images about the Iraq war, primaraly that were not made bu the US DoD were deleted. Even images of Abu Musab al Zarkawi and that of Sadr were deleted. There are no images of those two now. Also the image of insurgents celebrating the victory in Fallujah and other insurgent images have also been deleted. The images of US soldiers which were primaraly made by them and a few other images have been left. They say that is because the other images were taken from news sources. Well first of all these images should be allowed in this article because this is an ongoing conflict and there will be no library images of this conflict for at least 10 more years that can be used under the free use policie of Wikipedia. News images are actualy the only images of the Iraqi insurgents that CAN be found. It's not like that the insurgents have their own military photographers that can distribute their images like the DoD under a free use policie. The news people are the only ones that can take a shot of the conflict, not just of the insurgents but also of other people and other events that some Administrators and Wikipedia editors say are not under the fair use policie. For example the image of insurgents celebrating their victory in Fallujah was deleted. The image was there for more than two years and now they delete it just because some user nominated it for deletion beacuse he didn't have anything better to do. Some specific news images should be allowed to be put in the Iraq war and linked articles. What are the opinions of other editors? Top Gun 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq war images

message: Please do not insert information that is out of context.  Point of view of MILITARY OFFICIALS will also be helpful.  The military has a different point of view than politicans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.109.11.130 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information and context 

message: One thing that has come up in lots of the discussion is that there are many good reasons to believe Iraq is part of the War on Terror, and many people feel strongly that that is the correct assessment.  However, I noticed, unbelievably enough, that these were never actually presented in the article text!  So, I wrote a short two-paragraph summary of the whole issue.  In the process, I also came across two new really good pieces of evidence for the pieces of evidence in the "Iraq is WOT camp".  For one, in 2006 the House passed a very strongly-worded resolution that explicitly called Iraq part of the Global War on Terror.  Additionally, right after the war started, there was a time when people who said "Iraq is not part of WOT" were outnumbered 3-to-1 by people who said "Iraq is part of WOT".
--Alecmconroy 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to quotes, I believe me and Rangeley were pretty flexible on this last time. Alecmconroy feels that our previous large scale discussion wasnt valid. --NuclearZer0 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion sides with Richard Clarke in that Iraq had nothing to do with going after Al Qaeda, and that the claims that Iraq has any substantial connection to terrorism or that we went to Iraq to fight terrorism is complete bullshit.  However, my opinion is not the point.  Regardless of my personal belief, I cannot argue against the fact that Iraq is stated as being part of a set of foreign policy principles the Bush administration has adopted under the name "Global War on Terror".  By using quotes around the term, we identify it as such and preclude any unproductive discussions/justifications/arguments over the validity and appropriateness of Iraq as linked in any way shape or form to terrorism. Thus, I'm all for including "Part of the 'War on Terrorism'" in the infobox, as long as we identify the term with surrounding quotes to indicate it as a name given to the set of foreign policy principles. --kizzle 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, they were not there before, not in any real ammount to run after, but they sure are now. --NuclearZer0 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded discussion in text on Iraq as part of War on Terror

message: The vast majority of people discussing this issue over the last year are happy to allow you to put "war on terrorism" in your very own section. That section is currently titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" in the article. A section where you can put sourced info supporting your viewpoint. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with giving you plenty of space for your sourced info? Why do you want *less* space? --Timeshifter 09:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of th epeople think its fine in the infobox, you havent shown any evidence that the War is not part of the larger campaign, and WTA requirements have been fulfilled, citing a source and mentioning who said it was terrorism. --NuclearZer0 14:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's refrain from using the phrase "the vast majority".  I don't believe either side has a "vast majority". KevinPuj 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia is not a democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. A summary of the latter, "Decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through editing and discussions by reasonable people, working towards consensus. Polling is not forbidden, but should be used with care." ~Rangeley (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key phrase is "reasonable people." I don't remember you acknowledging that the WOT issue has been thoroughly discussed in a long section of the article. --Timeshifter 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section deals with whether or not its part of the larger war, which is an issue of opinion. What I am talking about is not an opinion issue, but instead that of it being a part of the US-led campaign, which is verifiable and concrete. I have provided you with the authorization countless times which authorized the use of force to "prosecute the War on Terrorism." It is therefore a part of the campaign as the campaign is definable by the USA, just like the Great Leap Forward was definable by the Peoples Republic of China. Whether its part of a wider war, and whether its part of a campaign, are two seperate things which needs to be understood here. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You also do not really acknowledge the wikipedia guideline on the use of the word "terrorism". Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Even if things were as ironclad certain as you claim, the wikipedia guideline still has to be met. That requires at least a paragraph. And there is no reason that guideline-required paragraph can't be in that long section called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". Actually, it needs more than a paragraph. --Timeshifter 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is as ironclad as I claim, read the Iraq Resolution yourself if you do not beleive me. I completely agree that even though its proved to be a part of the campaign, guidelines have to be met. Your no compromise attitude that nothing will suffice is not something I see as getting us anywhere. Rather than place it unadorned, it is being placed lower, it is being cited, it is being linked to, it is being identified as a campaign rather than merely "part of," it is identified as a proper noun and as US-led. These steps do bring it into accordance with policy. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is window dressing since it is still in the infobox where there is not enough space to do more. Adding a few words, links, the word "campaign", etc. is not sufficient to meet this policy: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism --Timeshifter 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sorry Timeshifter, but it is. Note one of their examples uses the exact same format we are using here: "X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list." We are following this format pretty much exactly, with X being the Iraq War, as well as the thing it is a part of in quotations. It requires that we say who, as well as cite who, both of which are done with the compromise proposal. It is in accordance with policy. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting quotes around "War on Terrorism" and adding a link is not enough. See previous discussion about the wikipedia guideline in the sections higher up titled: "Recent Infobox controversy and call for admin involvement" and "2 different wars in Iraq" and "WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism". --Timeshifter 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Its using the very same format as the example. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed solution. Accept section "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" 

message: In their lists or statements about the number of editors who are against WOT being in the infobox some people conveniently leave out many of these editors who have spoken out against it just in the last month or 2: 
*savidan
*csloat
*Timeshifter
*Alecmconroy
*UnfairlyImbalanced
*Bobblehead
*Wgbc2032
Also, some editors talk about some kind of previous "consensus" or "agreement". I have yet to find any kind of consensus or agreement about the WOT being in the infobox. See next section with my points and links about the various polls, discussions, and interpretations of them. --Timeshifter 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Agreement" or "consensus" 

message: A thought that pops into my head that I'd like to ask Kizzle, GT, and Peter:
Let's step back and ask:  what are we trying to accomplish with the text in the infobox?  Which is to say-- are we trying to convey assertions about the Iraq War, or are we trying to create a navigational aid for going between pages?  
The issue we run into with trying to make assertions in the infobox is that the brevity requirements in an infobox tend to make us unable to attribute that opinion to specific individuals.  This has been the real sticking point-- infoboxes aren't good places to be trying to making assertions of fact or opinion, because there's no room to talk about all the intricacies of an issue. 
On the other hand-- maybe we we're just trying to make navigational aids-- so that readers can see click through to the War on Terrorism article.  This purpose seems more in keeping with what infoboxes are for.  If that's what we trying to do, what would people think of this:
:At the bottom of the infobox, include a link that says "See also War on Terrorism".    
if it was at the bottom, I don't think it would be making the assertion that "WOT" is a nother name for "Iraq War".   We could then leave the discussion of what the precise relationship between the Iraq and WOT for the article text, but at the same time provide readers with a link to the WOT.  --Alecmconroy 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. It is strictly a navigational aid, and does not remotely sound like the narrative voice of wikipedia favoring (even slightly) any viewpoint on the War on Terrorism. --Timeshifter 08:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we are trying to convey is that it is a part of the campaign. A "see also" makes it sound as though it is seperate. The proposed compromise which GT, Kizzle, and others seem to like at the moment is placing it lower, and introducing it as a campaign specifically. What it would look like is this and would take the form of 'Campaign: US "War on Terrorism"[1]' Noone is making assertions that the Iraq War should be renamed or is named the "WOT," and noone is making the claim that it is a part of a wider war. We are merely citing the verifiable information given by reliable sources that it is a part of the US led campaign. Whether its part of a wider war is another issue entirely, and again, the WTA guidelines are met as we are going by the example. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about a "See also"?

message: We can shorten the infobox by a few lines if the results section is made into a paragraph instead of a bulleted list. I got the idea after looking at the infobox at World War II. It uses a paragraph. I show what I mean in the infobox to the right. My motive is to make room to put back the words "war justifications" next to casus  belli. --Timeshifter 17:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the infobox here from the last version I had posted here. I made the casus belli section into a bulleted list instead of a paragraph, and used a shorter name for one of the wikipedia pages listed: Governments' pre-war positions. --Timeshifter 10:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the casus belli rough translation from "war justifications" to "war rationales". --Timeshifter 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter "results" section in infobox 

message: Testing the waters: I think a fair compromise would be to clearly identify the military campaign, as I did in this edit.  My edit would identify the Iraq War as follows:
:Identifed by the George W. Bush administration as part of the "War on Terror" campaign
IMHO, that addresses any concerns Timeshifter has identified, and also meets the minimum requirements of identifying the campaign, for the reasons that I discuss in Point 6 of my comment in the Rangeley RFC.  (Kizzle also discusses those issues above.)  I'm curious what people think.  Thanks, TheronJ 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think it limits the fact that more then the US is involved, I am willing to settle on that as a middleground. Just add a citation and it coveres the points of WTA, meaning having a "who says" and a citation to them saying it. Though I must say I still do not believe this falls under WTA since its a name of a campaign. I would say nice work, but we all know Alec and Timeshifter will not accept it being in the campaign box, no matter what, they will just make up a new arguement against it. --NuclearZer0 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll accept this compromise as well. :) --kizzle 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposed compromise 

message: The Hundred Years War went off and on between many nations. I am sure all sides used many campaign names. 
If you go to the main page for the Hundred Years' War one can see that to put one campaign name or slogan or propaganda campaign name from just one side of these many-sided confrontations would be incorrect. 
Just like in the Iraq War where there are many sides involved. No side gets to name the overall campaign for everybody. They all have different campaign names. The overall war name gets picked later by common usage, history writers, etc.. --Timeshifter 09:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the "War on Terrorism" is defined by the Bush administration and not "many nations"... also, it says "discretion of the article editors", and I see a growing concensus on "Indicated by the Bush Administration as Part of the War on Terrorism". --kizzle 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's the problem with "part of the US WoT?" This is on point and determines that it is a concept invented by the Bush administration.66.249.90.136 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not verifiable.  Many notable sources say it is not part of WOT. --Alecmconroy 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I see these sources, I am interested in the logic being used. I have often heard the arguement that it should not have been, and its wrong to include it in, but have yet to see the view that it isnt ... period, unless it was an opinion piece, which isnt WP:RS. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The British no longer believe that their involvement in the Iraq War is part of the U.S. "war on terror", or any "war on terror". That is their policy today. So it would be inaccurate to put it at the top of the infobox. --Timeshifter 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We all see what we want to see. I see some stubborn editors who think that they can wear out all opposition to their campaign to put "war on terrorism" in the narrative voice of wikipedia. And that statement is already in the article in its own section, and thoroughly discussed in a WP:NPOV manner. Also, you continue to ignore the fairness issue of what the many other sides in this war call their campaigns. Simple wikipedia NPOV fairness. Address  it please. --Timeshifter 09:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do they call them, if your issue is fairness to other nations perhaps if you provide the name we can include them all. I think its going to be hard to find them since for many nations this is the WoT and for others its just a war not a campaign. but I am willing to see what you pull up. --NuclearZer0 11:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Qaeda calls their worldwide campaign, "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". See Al-Qaeda and World Islamic Front. As you can see, it is another inflammatory name. --Timeshifter 12:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth-- in the arabic world, the War on Terror is often known as "Bush's War".  The Iraq War is "The Third Gulf War" or "The second American-Iraqi War".  Also interesting, just to get a sense of a global perspective-- the arabic wikipedia doesn't even mention the WOT in their article for the Iraq war.  Not really relevant, but, since you asked.  :)   --Alecmconroy 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed something in all this, The only common denominator in all the WoT battles is the US, not even al-Qaeda. So if you have sources of bin Laden using the term in the sense of a title, not a descriptor, please provide it and we can put both "Bush administration war on terror" and "osama bin laden jihad against jews and infidels" That way we represent both sides equally, fulfilling any requirements of NPOV. --NuclearZer0 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, therefore wouldn't it be great to mention that common denominator by saying "part of the US WoT." After all it is a US concept and not one that is globally used.66.249.90.136 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with Bush administrations ... or US's ... etc. I am jsut saying, state bin Ladens name and the US's and you satisfy NPOV. --NuclearZer0 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more fair, but there are much larger insurgent groups, in Iraq. They have campaign names too that cross borders. You see where I am going here. We end up with all these inflammatory POV campaign names that need to be explained, and put in context. That is why I have yet to find these type of inflammatory propaganda campaign names in other infoboxes for wars and battles. And since none of the options in an infobox are required why not just avoid all these problems by dealing with it in the text of the article as other wikipedia pages seem to be doing. --Timeshifter 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you prove this? You state that insurgent groups have campaign names, I would like to see some WP:RS sources for this. Campaigns are a series of wars, so I am not sure how people who only partake in one of them can have a campaign name, but I am willing to take in a source or two if you have. --NuclearZer0 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hundred Years' War]] 

message: In the infobox I separated out the foreign insurgent deaths because it is the only number I could find. I have read all the referenced articles. There are no numbers for total insurgent deaths (foreign and Iraqi). There are wild guesses. But that is about all. --Timeshifter 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beheadings are mentioned in the article. Use the find tools of your browser to search for "beheading." I have been writing mainly in the casualties section of the article, and in the infobox. Others will need to respond further. Also, feel free to add more sourced info. Or links to more info. Much info is moved to other wikipedia articles due to the length of this article. --Timeshifter 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign insurgent deaths. All insurgent deaths.