Talk:Iraq War/Archive 15

message: The subtitle "2006: Permanent Iraqi government and civil war" seems a bit ambiguous. When I read it, I immediately thought,"Not very optimistic, now, are they?" Considering the ambiguity, and also the order that the two topics are discussed, it seems reasonable to me to change the subtitle to "2006: Civil war and the permanent Iraqi government". 
:::::::--The pirate game (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Boowah59 (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous Subtitle 

message: Now dont get me wrong I'm not proposing a name change for the article, but dont you think that the name "Iraq war" is very vauge. I relise that there is a disambig at the start and it tells you that this about the 2003 war. But personaly i think that having the name "iraq war" somehow makes you think that it is the ONLY iraq war. Am i right for thinking this? Feel free to tell me if im competly wrong. BonesBrigade 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the name isn't good.  Perhaps "2003 Iraq War" would be better.  At the same time I don't think it is a big deal.  Really it is a continuation of the previous Iraq war.  Many wars are like this for example the Korean war largely had 2 parts under Truman and then under Eisenhower.  Also it is the current struggle, as such by default the "Iraq War" stands for the current war.  One more thing to consider is this was not the traditional war.  In that the Iraq war civilians as a whole had no malice or decent to the war about half considered the US as liberators which technically is inaccurate.  Perhaps the "War in Iraq" or the official name of the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom."  I think the name should be familiar to to the average reader and specific of the current conflict. My vote is for "2003 Iraq War" or "Iraq War 2003".   In the end it is largely irrelevant what we call it.Mantion (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actualy thinking that the "Second Gulf War" would be a better title but those work just as well if not better. BonesBrigade 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the "Second Gulf War".  The Gulf war was named as such because we didn't go to war with Iraq, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was staging to attack Saudi Arabia.  The UN gave Iraq gave a 5 month deadline to withdraw from Kuwait.  The US sent troops to Saudi Arabia to defend against further Iraq aggression and possibly to liberate Kuwait.  After the deadline the US took action to liberate Kuwait including the bombing and ground operations in Iraq. Scud missiles were launched at Saudi Arabia, Israel and other nations of the region.  The gulf war was exactly that, It involved the whole gulf.  Operation Iraqi Freedom was really nothing of a traditional war.  It avoided all military engagements when ever possible.  It was push to Remove Saddam from power and establish a presence in Baghdad.  In all traditional messures it wasn't a war, it was maybe an engagement, conflict or operation.  Still I think war is the best term to use even though military aggression was avoided when ever possible.  Authorization in congress was to remove Saddam and the Bath party from power.  That being said the operation was isolated to Iraq. There was limited staging from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, our Air operations originated mostly from Turkey, main land USA and aircraft carriers.  The "war" might of been in the gulf but did not include the gulf.  So if were going to change the name, great, but definitely not "Second Gulf War" all operations were directed at Saddam and Baghdad.  Sorry for my length and grammar.Mantion (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I concur. 2003 Iraq War is better. smb (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, the term "Iraq War" is used 22 times more frequently than "2003 Iraq War".  We don't put a year in front of Vietnam War or Korean War.  And there's about a thousandth fewer mentions of "third gulf war" -- and many referring to a war that has not yet occured. And "George Bush War" is just terrible.  To begin with, there are two of them each with their own war in the same area. Boowah59 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree with keeping the more common Iraq war name. While the "Second Gulf War" might be a more historically accurate name for an American audience, what then about the Iran-Iraq war-which took place along their shared border, especially in the northern end of the Persian Gulf and with US naval involvement in the middle of the Gulf(see: Tanker war). That could have been called the Gulf War as well, which would make the current war the Third Gulf War. But for whatever reason, it received the Iran-Iraq war name, the war over Kuwait--most of which took place in the desert not the Gulf, received the "Gulf war" name, which bring us to today.Publicus 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohh 2003 Iraq War: how stupid. The war didn't last only in 2003 --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: The Sunday Times in the UK just published:Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study.
"A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros."
The Lancet study had to be a source of exceptional status, which it clearly now is not. (if it ever was)
I am removing the Lancet numbers from the Iraq War Info Box.
Notice: Restoring the Lancet article will place the burden WP:PROVEIT of sourcing on the person that does the restoration at the time they do the restore. Have your case ready before hand. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad nauseum. All 3 surveys in the infobox are disputed. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints are expressed in the form of X says Y. The narrative tone of Wikipedia can't be used to favor any viewpoint. The readers make up their own minds. There are criticism sections in the wikipedia survey articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This news is from today. There has been no discussion of it. You have the burden of showing the Lancet Study is an exceptional source.  If you do not wish this burden, do not restore.  It is that simple.   Ryder Spearmann (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One critical newspaper article does not discredit a scientific paper. Withdrawal by the authors or rejection by the scientific community are the only grounds it could be considered unusable. Removal could be considered vandalism. GiollaUidir (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The notion of discrediting is not what applies here.  It is Wiki policy. See WP:REDFLAG as a place to start.  Also, the policy/guidelines for exceptional sources would be in play in this case. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone want to place bets on how long this user lasts before being permanently banned? See his user talk page to see why I ask this question. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the page that WP:REDFLAG links to. All the info in the infobox meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability. It has been discussed by hundreds of users over years. Look at my user page. I have over 11,000 edits on wikipedia. That should tell you something. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of new editors jumping into controversial topics go through the same thing.  It is easy to see what you want to see in the policies when you don't read them carefully.  I'm betting on a few more weeks of turbulence, but you have to be deliberately malicious to warrant a permanent ban. Pushing a POV is not the same thing. Boowah59 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pushing a POV as a sockpuppet, or as part of a dedicated tag team, can get a topic or site ban for a very long time, or even permanently if egregious enough. But I agree that a single new user pushing a POV is likely to get lesser sanctions. Probably WP:3RR blocks, followed by longer and longer WP:3RR blocks. If his alleged tag team partner(s) step in here, then even longer blocks. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I don't know what you are seeing in WP:REDFLAG that you think implies that the Lancet studies should be removed.  They were both peer-reviewed, and in this context a peer-reviewed source from a top-tier medical journal like the Lancet is as reliable as possible.  Also, the Lancet estimates are about halfway between the Iraqi government's and the ORB's, so it is hard to consider them "exceptional claims." Boowah59 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The story says, "The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship." And it doesn't call in to question the results or suggest they were influenced or inaccurate. The article is appropriate for the articles on the Lancet studies, but it in no way supports removal of mention of the studies. Boowah59 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ryder Spearmann. You have only been a registered user for a few days, and your user talk page is already filled with warnings. I suggest you do some less controversial editing at first, and learn more about wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the suggestion, Timeshifter.  WP:PROVIT states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  You, as the restorer of the material is clearly charged with the burden of showing the Lancet work to be an exceptional source, but you are not taking that burden it seems to me. This is a matter of policy.  I think you made a very inappropriate statement here claiming my page is filled with warnings.  In fact, yours is the only one. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this warning on your talk page:  - If you continue to remove sourced info you can be blocked or banned. I will report you to WP:ANI. You obviously don't understand the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy page that you link to from WP:PROVEIT. All the info in the infobox is well-sourced and verifiable. It is also highly-disputed in many cases. That does not mean it can be removed. Note that several editors have already disagreed with you. That should tell you something. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz you are already mentioned as being part of a tag team. That is not a good way to begin editing as a registered user. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, I take very strong objection over your statement "your user talk page is already filled with warnings", yet yours is in fact the only one. See WP:BITE and please explain yourself here.  Thank you. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 5 warnings. Please don't start your wikipedia editing career by gaming the guidelines, and claiming WP:BITE problems as a license to do so. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not even reading them, Timeshifter.  4 are informational, one of those 4 is explicitly encouraging bold edits.  Yours is in fact the only warning, and it stands out like a sore thumb.  Ryder Spearmann (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I count 4 warnings. I see also a message from your alleged tag-team partner or sockpuppet master, User:Raggz. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  What are we talking about here?  A new disclosure about the funding source for a controversial study was reported today.  It seems that there is NO harm in having controversial and exceptional claims removed from the article while the status of the Lancet work is in discussion.  It can always be restored later. I would like to understand the steadfast imperitive that controversial and questioned work must remain visible in the wiki, defended at all costs.  I don't see how that conforms to 5 pillars. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NPOV requires presentation of all significant viewpoints.  Again, how is an estimate at the midpoint of the range an "exceptional claim"?  Are there any reliable sources who think that Soros's funding influenced the outcome of the study? Boowah59 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, The Lancet is a respectable, scientific source. The funding doesn't appear to have affected their research and unless there is a withdrawal of the paper or it can be shown that the funding source biased the outcomes then there is no reason to remove it.GiollaUidir (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet Article now in dispute in News Media 

message: There was less information on the financial costs of the war in the article body than in the last introduction. Untill that is fixed, if it is deemed important, it has no place in the introduction in my opinion. I have removed the sentence. Please note that there has been a previous discussion on the relevance of describing the financial costs eleborately in the article. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same totals appear in the "Criticisms and costs" with no more or no less information, just sources.  At 160+ kilobytes, we can't follow Wikipedia:Summary style as precisely as in shorter articles.  The sentence links to Financial cost of the Iraq War which has the details. Making a separate section would be pointless, because most people will only care about the totals. Boowah59 (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The British cost estimate is not in the article, that is what I mean with less information. Furthermore the selection of the US and UK cost estimate for current expenditure seems arbitrary. Why not use the total estimate for the US tax payer (1.9 trillion), why not use the costs made in any other countries (primarily Iraq). And the question that remains is whether it is important enough to put it in the lead. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct about the U.K. figure not being in that section; it should be mentioned there as well. The $1.9 trillion figure is a rough estimate projection that depends entirely on how long the U.S. stays in.  Because Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, that kind of projection is inappropriate for the introduction. Boowah59 (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am still not sure about whether this sentence deserves a place in the introduction. It is not in the introduction (and usually not even in the body) of any other wiki articles on wars. Why do you think it is important enough? Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it's a remarkably large number.  WWII cost the U.S. $288 billion and the Vietnam War cost the U.S. $120 billion (says its article) over eight years.  (Those numbers would be higher adjusted for inflation.)  It is also the kind of thing that people are likely to come looking for, because, for example, it's the largest expense in the U.S. outside of entitlements. Boowah59 (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct in the sense that it is notable for many people, especially considering that many consider it too high. That is the reason why it is listed under criticism in the article body. Perhaps my problem is more with how the costs are incorporated in the article body as opposed to the introduction. The two do not really match right now. I will look into it later, at this point I will leave it as it is. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial costs removed from lead 

message: Why are they included. Their fight is maybe part of the WoT, but not of the War in Iraq--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they fight in Iraq, I guess you can say that they are part of A war in Iraq. Whether this fight is part of THE war in Iraq may be a different matter. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, the Turkey-PKK conflict has its own article and is by no means connected to the Iraq War. Pkk is not allied with any of the insurgents.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  The conflict is reasonably part of the larger asymmetric warfare and certainly brought about by it. Boowah59 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Thirty Years War is a good example of a war with many different combatants entering and leaving the arena at different times, with various motivations. Wars have a tendency to go 'off course'. Maybe one day politicians will understand that?  Colin4C (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. Publicus 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey and the PKK 

message: Tony Blair is not the PM of britain anymore and even Gordon browns name should not appear on the list.
The commanders of the British army are always millitary personel (technicaly the Queen) but the names of the actual military commanders should be used  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.128.84 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British commanders 

message: Am seeking information on the legality (or lack of it) of America's preemptive launching of the invasion. If my memory serves me right, we hanged members of the German high command post-WWII for the launching of "wars of aggression" (eg. Poland, where specious reports [created by the Germans themselves] were utilized to "justify" the invasion?). How does the U.S. legally justify launching an attack against a nation that did not attack it first? Or was this just the ending of an American "tradition" of only responding with war to a foreign attack (we will leave the U.S./Mexican War out for the moment)? It now seems that the claims of Axis defendents at the Nuremburg/Tokyo Trials (that the proceedings were merely the "revenge of the victors") has now been proven correct. This opinion is now bolstered re the above and by the execution of Japanese troops post WWII for utilization of the same torture methods now applied legally by the U.S/Coalition. Or am I wrong? If you have an answer, please respond on my user page. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See legality of the Iraq war for further information. But for future reference, this is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preemption 

message: CNN
Casualties
There have been 4,266 coalition deaths -- 3,960 Americans, two Australians, 174 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of February 13, 2008, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department. At least 29,133 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View casualties in the war in Afghanistan and examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html
Coachbeing21 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: Under Criticisms
Rationale Based on faulty evidence
“As of the year 2007, President Bush's administration made a total of 935 false statements in a two-year period about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.[156]"
This statement appears to be a claim.  It needs to be corrected or deleted. (935?)  The source (“Yahoo News”) is a dead link, and I cannot find it. Bwebb00 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Reference Link 

message: The article is biased! Everyone here knows that it is; and the failure to make it as accurate as possible simply shows lack of maturity on the parts of those in control of writing it. Look, throughout our historical search for the truth in past events many historians have had great frustration in the battle of deciphering fact from opinions keeping today's students and the populous from being able to have any true clarity about a previous historical event. We, as a people, have matured intellectually and technically over many years but it seems that we have not matured responsibly. This article goes far beyond the opinions of one person or the collective whole of others. This article needs to show GREAT clarity and robust 360 degree informational detail so that 40, 60, 100 years from now when the TRUE impact of our actions are seen; those historians can look back and have a more FACTUAL understanding of what took place and the events that caused the action. If we are to grow as a people, then we must have BETTER historical data from the actions we take. To me, anything less than the undeniable WHOLE TRUTH is not only irresponsible for the editor’s involved but incredibly irresponsible to history of mankind itself!   
You ask for direct information so that you can more closely examine the current articles effectiveness in telling the factual truth. I say if you need me to point out all the biased opinions here that you are not one without bias yourself! The entire article is riveted with false accusations, incorrect comments and purposely left out data which means this article DOES NOT directly reflect the war itself! And let’s not kid each other here. The panel of editors here knows what the concerns are. They know what has been left out of the article. And they know there is a biased viewpoint. And they know that the entire article leaves no room for open interpretation for future generations to draw their own conclusion. 
Understand this. It is VERY clear that the editors took GREAT STRIDES in writing this piece so that it would not bend too much to the left but that it would in its entirety meet the painted picture that they wished it to achieve. Remember that a truth is NOT a truth unless the WHOLE truth and nothing but THE TRUTH is written in its entirety! Meaning that words that are written which stand alone do not within itself create a lie, however, when combined in its entirety and there is failure to include other information supporting an action, then it, in its entirety, becomes a lie! 
I sincerely enjoy the Wikipedia idea. I find that it is one of the greatest creations for learning knowledge that exists today. However, if people start to write opinionated articles instead of fact, the very principle for which adds the value will be lost!!! Correct this article!!! Make it FACTUAL!!!!! Leave your opinions where they belong! On the other side of your work done here!!!
Let’s not debate the truths or the finite of each position. Let us instead reevaluate our efforts here and write this story so that future generations will know the entire story! That includes:  WHICH Intelligence agencies failed with their reports that lead the president AND other nations to believe that the threats were real. WHY President Bush would possibly believe them to be factual based upon the previous actions and history of Saddam Hussein, The theories that truck loads of cargo left out for Syria days before the invasion, the FINDINGS OF AL QAEDA CAMPS IN IRAQ (Which your article says there were none!!!)  AND many many more excluded pieces of this event!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisban35 (talk • 
contribs) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You wasted your time with that rant. -- Phoenix2 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your calls that it is biased, and yet you are giving us nothing concrete to work with. Please be more specific. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting the Record Straight! 

message: Osama bin Laden first took interest in Iraq when the country invaded Kuwait in 1990, raising concerns the secular Baathist government of Iraq might next set its sights on Saudi Arabia, homeland of bin Laden and Islam itself. In a letter sent to King Fahd, he offered to send an army of mujahedeen to defend Saudi Arabia, but the offer was rebuffed. After the war, Al Queada moved in on mass and even trained some children to commit terrorisum in the post-war power-vaccume in southern Iraq! Iran's Al Qouds devisions may also be helping them in southern Iraq to.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3320938.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3320938.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2007/8/11/captured-iraqi-terrorist-says-bin-laden-had-al-qaeda-camps-i.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enGB226GB226&q=AL+QAEDA+CAMPS+IN+IRAQ%22
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040705/corn
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
Also see- Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Mujahideen Shura Council and the Islamic State of Iraq--86.29.250.165 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq and Osama bin Laden!