Talk:Iraq War/Archive 10

message: Identified by the Bush administration as part of the "War on Terrorism"
----
This option seems like it has the most support, as even Alec has half-supported this measure.  To get this godforsaken debate solved, what do other people think of this addition?  I'd like to hear everyone, whether you've participated or not, on the matter. --kizzle 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contact the hundred people or so from the last year of discussion and straw polls, and see if they have changed their mind. The majority did not want WOT in the infobox. Many have shown up again in the last month and week, and they have written on the talk page here that they still do not want WOT in the infobox. People don't wait around breathlessly awaiting your latest popup poll. If we add just the one WOT sentence in the infobox, then we would have to add this template banner below (and other templates) also to the infobox. Because we also need the rest of the NPOV section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism." --Timeshifter 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can this be clarified further? I dont really see this as recognizing the verifiable information that it is designated as a part of the campaign. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of clarification do you have in mind, Rangeley?  IMHO, Bush is the Commander in Chief and the de facto head of the Coalition, so saying he has identified it as part of the campaign gets it about right.  TheronJ 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But its like the difference between saying a book was identified by the author as part of a series, and instead saying this book is part of the series. The sole determinant is the author, so if they say its in the series, its the way it is. We have the US government on record stating this as being designated as a part of the campaign, so to say it was identified by the sole determinant seems a bit redundant. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a false analogy.  The Iraq War, unfortunately, is not a work of fiction.  And history is not a notebook that a person, president or not, can write their fantasies into.  Now to say that bush has said that the iraq war is part of the "War on Terrorism" is certainly accurate and NPOV.  Let's keep in mind to put quotes around the title of the campaign as we would around the title of a book.  Lest we confuse Bram Stoker's "Dracula" with Bram Stoker's Dracula.  Bram Stoker does not have a Dracula.  Likewise, though iraq has been said by bush to be part of his "War on Terror", that does not mean that the Iraq war is part of a war on terror, or even that terror[ism] is being fought in Iraq, or even that terrorism is being fought.  We've heard little in the news or from this administration about any American activity in nations were terrorist are known to be, so if america is fighting a war on terror, and not a "War on Terror", that war on terror certainly doesn't involve fighting terrorists or taking actions in places were terrorists are.  One of the goals of an encyclopedia is to be clear and informative.  It is important, therefore, that we, the editors, are careful to avoid misleading the reader into believing things that aren't true, and the phrase "war on terror", quoted or not, poses a significant danger in this regard. Kevin Baastalk 04:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well said. Looks like yet another editor against WOT being in the infobox. --Timeshifter 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Bush starts the War on Kittens and Cows and states he is attacking Budapest to rid the world of Kittens and Cows. He is there instead to steal al the chickens. The fact is that Budapest War was started under the War on Kittens and Cows. As for your statement "We've heard little in the news or from this administration about any American activity in nations were terrorist are known to be" I think its because you perhaps do not listen, or do not look for it. As pointed out in the WoT article it is currently being fought in the Phillipines where they are working along side the Phillipino forces to fight Abu Sayyaf and Jemah Islamiyah, of that battle they have managed to catch Hambali, a al-Qaeda go between who was present in the Phillipines for the AQ Summit and the plotting of Oplan Bojinka. They are also present in the Horn of Africa in a "preventative mission" where the are hoping to remove terrorist elements before they gain fotting amongst the people. They are also partaking in the NATO wide mission of Operation Active Endeavor to patrol the shores to prevent the illegal importing of weapons to terrorists. Depending on your view they participated logistically and through arms support with Israel when fighting against Hisbollah in Lebanon. Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan is their efforts to remove AQ from the stronghold of Afghanistan following 9/11. Perhaps you didnt know about Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah, but they are responcible for the 2002? and 2005 Bali bombings as well as the Australian embassy bombing and numerous other bombings and kidnappings in the Phillipines for some time. Then there is the Waziristan War where the US participated logistically to remove the Taliban elements building up in the tribal region of Pakistan and the build up of AQ in the same region, where it seems Pakistan has turned over many captured high level AQ members. So you can say terrorists are not being fought anywhere, but of this so far in other countries around the world there has been some headway. --NuclearZer0 06:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also your arguement of justification of names is a little off base, its similar to arguing if the Cold War was a "cold war" since many "hot wars" took place during it. --NuclearZer0 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Kevin_baas points were well made. Bush says whatever he wants to say about a War on Terror. But it is not the job of an encyclopedia to agree with him by inserting unchallenged POV sentences in infoboxes. Bush's actions against terror in other nations such as Afghanistan against Al Qaeda are token efforts compared to his massive effort in Iraq where there is arguably a war against an occupation, and not an attempt to terrorize the USA. --Timeshifter 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure why you assume one effort is larger then the other, the two battles are being conducted differently. You do not need tons of troops in Afghanistan because you are not dealing with a local uprising or civil war. In Afghanistan the majority of the resistance still presents itself from the Taliban, which is what kind of lead to the Waziristan War and Pakistans troubles. The US troops in Iraq are attempting to stabilize in-fighting, acting as a over weaponized police force more then a military. You can't gauge effort by size of troops deployed. --NuclearZer0 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a common discussion in the media over the years that Bush put too many resources in Iraq that should have gone to Afghanistan to follow up on Al Qaeda. That discussion frequently questions Bush's War on Terror, and the trumped up WMDs in Iraq, etc.. Many, many commentators have said that Bush's War on Terror is bogus, because he left the pursuit of Al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq where there was no Al Qaeda threat at the time of the invasion. Many other commentators point out that Bush refuses to negotiate with all the parties in the region in order to settle the regional problems and stop the roots of the terrorism. Many other commentators say that all Bush really wants is to keep contractors like Halliburton prosperous, and oil companies prosperous, and the military industries profitable. So the WOT is questioned by many scholars, commentators, experts, Congresspeople, etc., etc.. --Timeshifter 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And as a note, I still favor placing it lower. It will look awkward at the very top if its any longer than usual. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Solution - TheronJ's passage 

message: Identified by Bush as part of WOT campaign, though not by the British. Identified by Al Qaeda as part of campaign called "Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders". American public does not believe Iraq War is part of WOT. Neither does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sunni regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Shiite regional campaign name is [insert name here]. Scholars, diplomats, and historians reject implication of WOT phrase that all insurgent groups in Iraq are terrorists. They consider the WOT phrase to be propaganda. And so on. For more info see the section in the article titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". {Sprinkle in references to verifiable sources}. 
----
*Support. This passage is just a starting point. Probably needs to be a lot longer to meet WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and to meet the level of detail and NPOV in the article section titled "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". --Timeshifter 08:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Solution. Timeshifter's passage 

message: Concensus does not mean the aggregate of "something someone said a month ago"... those editors who are participating now to try to reach a concensus seem to favor TheronJ's passage.  For people to claim that the compromise in Wikipedia:WOT is invalid because it was made months ago and then cite random past comments by editors who aren't even participating in this discussion is blatantly hypocritical.  This does not require me to entertain the ludicrous suggestion that I "contact the hundred people or so from the last year of discussion and straw polls, and see if they have changed their mind".  I realize that "People don't wait around breathlessly awaiting your latest popup poll", so I am in no hurry.  But as it stands, the section is gaining support by everyone except for Timeshifter.  We'll revisit the issue in a week or so and see what concensus is based upon those who have chimed in now rather than some obscure comment in the past. For those editors who are new to this discussion, please see the proposed passage here. --kizzle 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concensus? 

message: So what do people think of the current text? Does this satisfy? Publicus 21:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current State of Infobox--Is this a solution

message: Here are Kirill Lokshin comments below from Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict. The comments are from the talk section titled: "Partof" question
::::Well, there are a few related issues here.
::::The term "campaign" has two slightly different meanings, which seem to be the source of some confusion here.  The first (and older) one refers merely to a series of engagements that form part of a war; the origin here is from the idea of a "campaigning season".  This sort of campaign is not really named by the parties involved, but tends to acquire a historiographic name just as battles and wars do; see, for example, Ulm Campaign or Gettysburg Campaign.  It is this sort of campaign that a battle can be said to be "part of".  
::::The second meaning of "campaign" is limited to more modern warfare, and refers to a designation used by a particular armed force for a series of operations; it crops up in things like campaign streamers or medals.  This type of campaign is named by the party in question, but is quite obviously based on that party's perspective, and is generally only used in historical works that present that perspective.  (It's usually the case, incidentally, that the "official" campaign names used by different parties to a conflict won't match up; historians that aren't working from a particular party's perspective tend to avoid them in favor of the first type of campaign—or theater designations—for that reason.  This is common even among allied parties; for example, the U.S. and the U.K. define the "Normandy campaign" differently.)
::::Beyond that, of course, is the historiographical question itself.  The Iraq War is still ongoing; it's still too early for a historiographical consensus to have formed about what, exactly, its relationship to other events is.  It may be that, with a few decades of hindsight, it'll be considered "Part of the War on Terror", or "Part of the Pan-Islamic Jihad", or "Part of World War III", or something entirely different—or that it will be regarded as an entirely separate conflict, unconnected to anything else—but it's simply too soon to be able to make a definitive statement in that regard.
::::From a utilitarian standpoint, I would suggest not using the "partof" field here and instead, as someone suggested, working the needed links into the "casus" field.  Infoboxes are not well-suited to describing aspects of a conflict whose very existence is a matter of dispute; we can deal neatly with differing numbers, or disagreements about the results, but not really something so basic as whether the conflict is part of a larger one.  The issue can be better covered in the body of the article, where there aren't such dramatic space limitations; and giving it such prominent play in the infobox somewhat overshadows the fact that it's supposed to be a summary table for the actual war, not the associated politcal debate. Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template editor comments on Iraq War infobox

message: As noted above, a discussion occured with Kirill over the intent of the infobox fields. He clarified the difference between the two types of campaigns, one is a series of battles or wars, the other is a designation given by a government to a set of operations. The infobox field "partof" is meant for the former, not the latter. But he does note that the Iraq War is a part of one of the latter types of campaigns, which is being led by the USA. He points out that while this isnt suited for the partof field, it is suited for the article itself: 'So something like "the coalition operations in Iraq were designated as being part of the WoT" would be acceptable.' So long as we make it clear that we are talking about a government designated campaign, it can be stated, because of the verifiable information from reliable sources.
So to summarize:
#The Iraq War is a part of the US led campaign.
#The "partof" field is not meant for this sort of campaign, but for historical campaigns or wider wars only.
#It can be noted in casus belli, as it was a given reason
#We can state it as a part of the campaign within the article itself, as there are no space constraints as there are in the infobox.
I can wholly agree to this. I was not aware of the precise intent of the "partof" field, but as it has been clarified, it is clear that it is not appropriate for this field. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone has ever explained that the infobox, while having a place for campaigns, is not meant for this type of campaign. Every other argument presented has been either that the Iraq War is not a part of the campaign, that it violated WTA, that it was merely a POV, that they werent really terrorists, etc. These arguments were false or irrelevent, and I was not prepared to accept them due to this. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill definitly had a different take on things, and since he's the head of the Military History project, he had a slightly different POV that was very helpful in getting everyone on the same page.  Now, a cynic like 66.249 can see Rangeley  acting different around Arbcom members, but I don't think that's the case at all.  I think a much better answer is simply that Arbcom members have their job and their reputation for a reason, and we shouldn't be at all surprised when they're able to mediate between different groups of users better than the users themselves are.  Mad props must also go out to TheronJ for his help in mediating.  --Alecmconroy 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It has nothing to do with him being an arbcom member and everything to do with what he said... as I have explained several times before. People like you, Alec, or Timeshifter have consistently argued that it is not a part of the campaign. He repudiated this, but explained that its not the same type of campaign meant to be placed in the infobox. I didnt even know he was an arbcom member until people accused me of siding with him because he was one. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just know I'm not accusing you of that.  If there's any connection, it's that people who get elected to Arbcom are people who are very good communicators. --Alecmconroy 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Kirill was the most unquestionable candidate in ArbCom elections, but that's due to his work as the lead coordinator of WP:MIL. After all, this article relates to military history, doesn't it? And I really don't see what the controversy is about except for who thinks what. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirill Lokshin's Input 

message: a long time ago, i posted a comment on this discussion page entitled "clean up the superscripts!"
the page is still overflowing with "citation needed" superscripts.
nobody has cleaned up the superscripts. nobody has even responded to my message. i gave you a clear warning that the page was becoming rather unprofessional and needed to be changed, and lots of time has passed since that warning. so, true to my promise, i will begin to remove many of the "citation needed" superscripts in 24 hours if nobody addresses the issues before then. its not hard to do. the page needs to look a lot more presentable. tons of people come here from all over the internet to read about the iraq war. for this reason, the page cant continue to look like a rough draft. you have 24 hours to overcome your partisan bickering and resolve these issues
70.107.37.96 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution is to provide the citations yourself, per "So fix it!".  Removing the "Citations Needed" tags by themselves would be a step backwards, not a step forward.  --Alecmconroy 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally it's not just the citations needed templates that should be removed, but the sentence that they are associated with and the template. If the anon is going to be removing the associated sentence, then more power to 'em. --Bobblehead 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dont say i didnt warn you 

message: I would like to edit the "terrorist attacks of the Iraq war" box (its called "Campaignbox Iraq War bombings", but I dont know how to do so. My problem is that as part of the list there is an attack on a US military base. While the rest of the events in the list are genuine terrorist attacks against civilians, this is an attack targeting a military base. Since the target (and most of the casualties) were military rather than civilian in nature, I dont think it should be on the list of terrorist attacks. Another argument would be that this box only lists very large scale terrorist bombings, while the casulties of this event are light in comparison to the others. Harley peters 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrorist attacks 

message: For the second battle for fallujah the article says the U.S. took significant casualties, and then lists 95 dead, even though only 40-50 died during the week of major fighting that was this battle, and the rest over the following months on patrols, etc.  More importantly, even the inflated 95 does not constitute "significant casualties" for taking a city, in fact 95 is tiny by any historical standard and the sheer size of the Marine force involved not to mention the number of insurgents killed by comparison.  In addition, when talking about fallujah the article says it is reported that 5,000 insurgents were killed, but on the side panel for the article page it says only 4,100 insurgents have been killed in the entire Iraq war.  This article's writer(s) are confused.
Feel free to make editing changes if you think there is an error. On the "substantial casualties for the US Marines, for a single battle in this war 95 KIA 500 WIA is pretty substantial for a single battle. Most the coalition losses have come in rather small numbers(2-5 per incident) due to heli crashes or IEDs. So in that respect, 95 is quite large.
Also, I've changed the inusurgent killed number to 1,200 which is the same listed on DoD sites and the Second Battle of Fallujah page. Thanks for pointing out the error. Publicus 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERRORS: U.S.A. / Insurgent Casualties / fallujah  

message: Noticed after reading the Mahdi Army page that the numbers claimed in the fact box no longer have citations (thew ones noted on the page are dead links or do not contain information on the nuber of troops) and seem widely exaggereated. Adding citation superscrpt until a new reference is found. Macutty 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Box problem

message: In addition to the history of the Iraq war, there is also a history of views about the Iraq war, in particular there has been extensive debate about the range of strategies for moving forward in Iraq. If everyone thinks it is a good idea, I am interested in starting a page describing all the strategies (go big, go long, etc) that have been ever proposed, who proposed them and why, and analysis of the various options. This is a topic of great interest at present and I think it could be a valuable addition to the Iraq war page for years to come. 
 
Maintence Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible page for iraq strategies 

message: When reviewing this article it fails on point four of six of the good article criteria. The issues of POV and neutrality will need to be addressed. Further, the article is on the long side. Consider summarising where appropriate. Also, follow the wonderful suggestions/goals that are listed at the top of this talk page:
*Remove POV media section
*Cite all sources in media section
*Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article
*Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources
If you can accomplish this, and summarise the article some, then the article will be on its way towards being a good article. However, at this point it fails, though this time let's put the nomination on-hold to give editors some time to correct these issues. Please discuss ways that the goals set out above can be completed in a due course. If progress isn't made, this article will again fail in its review. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination on hold

message: I guess a week was not enough time to accomplish these tasks. However, if they are completed in the future, you may wish to resubmit the article for a good article review. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed

message: " In November 2003, some of these forces successfully attacked U.S. rotary aircraft with SAM-7 missiles bought on the global black market"
There is no source for the above. More importantly, no air planes have been shot down in Iraq!  how can this missile attack (I've watched the video of it)  that hurt no one, and barely damaged the plane (which safely landed afterwards) at all be considered militarily "succesfull" other then by this articles meer mention of it???  with a SAM-7, successful would be shooting it out of the sky.  I'll give you an example;  If the U.S. military fired a missile at an enemy plane, hurt no one on the plane yet alone failed to destroy it, would you consider that a succesful attack????  No way!  They don't have many missiles so for them it was a failure to kill no one yet alone not destroy the plane with their expensive precious weapon.  
I consistently see this article glorifying insurgent attacks: For example, stating that  the insurgents inflicted significant/large casualties on the Marine Corps in Fallujah (3% at the most KIA for this Op)  The fact of the matter is that the insurgents are scared to stand up and fight the U.S. A. that is why they use these tactics that many would deem cowardly. what is their favorite tactic in Iraq???  to hide and detonate bombs from concealed positions and then run off.   I guess their winning the propaganda battle right here on Wikipedia though aren't they!  Imagine being that insurgent who fired the missile (if he's still alive) and reading this article about your "succesful" attack that did nothing.  Talk about encouragement.  They don't even have to hurt anyone or destroy anything.  Just hit the button and aim for the sky and you've already won on wikipedia if you happen to be an Iraqi insurgent.
:I don't think this is the place to brag about killing peasants in Iraq who were never a threat to America or its freedom and had nothing to do with 9/11. Try a political discussion forum. Richard Cane 10:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see something that doesn't have a source, type  at the end of the sentence or next to the phrase. Also, if you see something that looks like it is unbalanced, label it POV or something similar. This article is constantly a work in progress so if there's a problem create an account and start editing. The more editors the merrier. Publicus 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Insurgent Glorification 

message: This talk page is enormous. Currently more than 300kb long. I've sent a message to Werdna to see what can be done. Maybe shortening the archive timeframe for Werdnabot can fix it. Any suggestions?? - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lowered the archival time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you did. But then you reverted yourself when you put your message here in. So I changed it again from 30 to 15 days. JRSpriggs 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I blame the database (sorry). Thanks for noticing and fixing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enormous

message: This section needs serious cleaning up, more than a mention of coalition casualties (a reference to an infobox).  This should be repeated in the section, in descending orders of magnitude.Mach Seventy 07:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the casualties section before, but it duplicated the totals in the infobox. And it was not updated as often as the infobox. There is very little space for more info in any section of the Iraq War article. Most info is moved to separate articles. Many separate articles. In the casualties section the main casualties article is listed as: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. Have you looked at it? --Timeshifter 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: At beginning of article "Coalition forces overthrew Iraqi _____ Saddam Hussein." What word should be used? We could use "leader", "president", or "dictator"?
Leader should be used. Randomfrenchie 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the German version of "leader" is appropriate in Saddam's case — Führer. JRSpriggs 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper descriptive word for Saddam

message: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is South Korea's input not listed here? South Korea's input is almost double that of Australia...
:I added South Korea to the infobox. --Timeshifter 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "--Multi-sided combatants after Ba'athist government fell:" to infobox. Any other ideas to make it clearer? --Timeshifter 05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatant Section