Talk:Australian involvement in the Iraq War

message: I think the whole section on the F111 debate looks like original research and therefore should be removed WP:NOR. I also question if this really belongs here? The article is about the contribution and almost a quarter of the article is about an aircraft that did not participate. The whole section is an unreferenced controversy that I suspect may only be important to F111 pilots. You could for example write a whole section on similar lines about why the Australian Leopard Tanks didn't go instead of LAV25s? I feel it adds little to learning what the Australian contribution actually was. Greynurse 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It deserves no more than a few sentences. --Robert Merkel 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't think that it was original research though - I read an article at the time which discussed pretty much the same issues. The 'debate' was pretty non-existant though and I agree with removing it from this article. --Nick Dowling 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F111 debate? 

message: It seems to me that the line "No Australian personnel were killed, wounded or taken prisoner during the war." is incorrect. The Multinational force in Iraq page lists Australian casualties and injuries as follows: 
"In January 2005, eight Australian soldiers were wounded, two seriously, in an ambush on the road to Baghdad International Airport. One Australian private military contractor was ambushed and killed along with a British and American counterpart in mid-2005; with another killed by a roadside bomb in June 2006. On November 7, 2005, an Australian soldier was killed in a traffic accident while training in Kuwait for Iraq duty. On April 21, 2006, an Australian soldier died after accidentally shooting himself, although this report has been challenged. For more information see Jacob Kovco. The independent Australian force in southern Iraq will remain in the country until at least late 2007[16]. Australian journalist Paul Moran was killed in a car bombing in March 2003, while another was killed five months later when an RPG struck the US military vehicle he was in."
Perhaps we can update this article to reflect that. In the meantime i have removed this line... Smartaalec 05:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line was in reference to the "major combat operations" phase of the war and I've reverted your edit as this is an important point. I have added a couple of sentances about subsequent Australian military casualties in Iraq. I personally don't think that the deaths of Australian security guards or journalists fits into this article as the individuals were not in the country due to the "Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq". --Nick Dowling 08:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian's Killed/Wounded 

message: I felt that this section was biased and defended Howard: for example, it said that the 'deputy sheriff to the US' claim was wrongly attributed, and was only used by a few media commentators. Other politicians and even scholars have used this term to describe Howard. As there is a lot of debate over whether Howard is like a 'deputy sheriff' or not, it is wrong to just say one way or the other. 131.217.6.8 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an Australian who minored in history and majored in poltical science and I don't 'know' or agree with that. Australian foreign policy is much more complex than just sucking up to the great power of the day. --Nick Dowling 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The deputy sherriff comment has now been expanded and referenced to reflect that Howard did not say it but also did not deny he said it when it was wrongly attributed to him. Wayne 04:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the information referred to in the above discussion has been removed from the article. There is also no information about the major public debate, protests, resignations, and opposition to the involvement in this conflict. As far as I recall, it was a very unpopular decision with the Australian public.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  About motivations for war 

message: The section on proportional contribution reflects erroneous statistics statistics in the it compares apples with oranges - comparison with actual military size is the only potentially valid comparison point (ADFs are freely available from the Defence website) - and even to do so would be heavily flawed - for eg it doesn't take into account military funding per gpd, 'deployable' proportions of the forces, and other committements (including Australian Defence as was mentioned by another reader). The section is logically biased and assumes that the equall committment must equal equivalent numbers of troops etc, it assumes that the most appropriate role of Aus personnel was to parallel what the other two forces were doing and does not consider how the skills, capabilities and priorities of the different military forces fit together. I originally wrote a more extended crtique on other elements - and then lost it - but the objectivity of the document needs work. The article needs a review and that table should really go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I get cranky at bad stats (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right and I believe the table is irrelevant. If you check the next section it says: "The quality of training and equipment and determination of the force (Australian contribution) allows it to have a disproportionate influence for its size." The reference for that statement is a United States House of Representatives committee report. Wayne 04:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a review - bad stats 

message: :Image:AMTG.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AMTG.jpg

message: I removed this text and reference from the John Howard article: 
On 22 February 2005 Howard announced that Australia would increase its military commitment to Iraq with an additional 450 troops, telling John Laws, "I’m openly saying that some small adjustment at the margin might happen".; 
Perhaps one of the editors of this article can use it? --Surturz (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But did the troop increase happen? I'd expect a mention of it in http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/lessons.pdf and maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anything. On the contrary, there was an announced reduction in April. Ben Aveling 22:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinforcement

message: Would someone be able to add information detailing the total cost of Operation Catalyst to the Australian government? Lawrencema (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is in the various Defence annual reports which are available online at www.defence.gov.au Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total cost to defence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327094344/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Touchdown_August_2003.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Touchdown_August_2003.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=9084
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061123100815/http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18240 to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18240
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061121224014/http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26621 to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26621
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is meant by "important though limited contribution"? What was important about it? Ben Aveling 21:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  important though limited contribution 

message: "The initial Australian force ... included 14 F/A-18 Hornet fighters"
citation: http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/lessons.pdf
This appears to be wrong. At least, according to the cited document, the initial force (Operation Slipper) only included 4 Hornets. The increase to 14 Hornets appears to have been in January and/or Feb 2003 (Operation Bastille)
Regards, Ben Aveling 22:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planes deployed - when? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)   (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq →  – 
This article is written about Australia's role in the Iraq War after the invasion, which is inconsistent with the title of the article. Parham wiki (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 June 2023