Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)/Archive 1.5

message: We can not link to NYTimes, as they require registration. Taw 20:19 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Sure we can. --The Cunctator
The NYT is very clearly a biased source on the subject. If you must give links, try a source that isn't openly advocating one side of this issue (like Reuters, for example). --A Person
I don't care now about biases of NYT, but it's impossible to read these articles without registration (well, everyone on /. knows certain tricks, but ...), so people unwilling to register (and experience would suggest that's the majority) are unable to read it. Unless NYT is the only source that exists, I would seriously suggest linking to some other paper. Taw 17:40 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Welllll...you can just put in any old fake info to "register". It's more of an annoyance than anything else. Of course the other problem with NYT links is that they usually stop working after a couple of months, then you have to pay to access the archive. If someone just has to cite the NYT, perhaps they should just cite the paper version, which is much more generally available. Tualha 01:02, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: NYTimes Linking

message: Those of you focusing efforts on this article should take a look at this news item  and incorporate it into this article. Kingturtle 07:25, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sep/2003 suggestion 

message: Does anyone think it would be inappropriate to add a section on human rights abuses by the occupying governments? I've seen allegations of families being held hostage to flush out alleged terrorists, and of prisoners being held without registration (ie, notification to anyone that they are prisoners - they've simply disappeared) - both violations of the Geneva Conventions.
I freely admit that I have a POV here - I'm pissed off that "the land of the free" is doing such things, and nominally in my name too, since it's nominally a democracy. Tualha 14:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article needs more than a single sentence & a link to another article. Mdchachi|Talk 15:24, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights abuses 

message: After careful perusal of this article, and the discussion of it, I've written a new, somewhat shorter, but I believe more neutral article on Post Saddam Iraq.  I hope you all enjoy reading it, commenting on it, and editing it in the usual manner - have fun!
--Xinoph 23:27, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
----
=== Shi'ite population ===
Based on what sources did the writer conclude that the majority of the population is Shi'ite.?  ----?????
Is this really in dispute? I don't know where the writer got it, but the CIA World Factbook states: 
:Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
Dpbsmith 17:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article 

message: Based on what sources did the writer conclude that the majority of the population is Shi'ite.?  ----?????
Is this really in dispute? I don't know where the writer got it, but the CIA World Factbook states: 
:Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
Dpbsmith 17:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'ite population 

message: I deleted the entire portion of an anonymous user's post because it had been copied and pasted from http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=March&x=20040315181634sjhtrop0.8252527&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html . Kingturtle 23:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  my last edit 

message: There have been frequent claims made, by both U.S. government officials and others, that Hussein had contacts with officials in al-Qaeda, the organization considered by many to be responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.  This has not been independently confirmed.
Historically Hussein did support Palestinian causes; however, this seems to have largely been in the form financial support for the families of suicide bombers.  This was part of Hussein's attempts to become a pan-Arab leader.
Western military officials also frequently identify Iraqi militants as terrorists, although others may consider them to be freedom fighters.  As always, the application and use of this label depends on one's point of view and specific circumstances - defining these terms in a neutral way is difficult.
:I don't expect this to help much, but at least as a starting point and just for the record we should note the dictionary definition (AHD4):
::Terrorism, n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. 
:Dpbsmith 01:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: Check out this Iraqi opinion poll I just added. Opinion poll of Iraqis 2004-04-28 Pretty interesting stuff. Sam Spade 04:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These polls are interesting; I'm not sure what to think of them.  I was pleasantly surprised to see that they've been doing interviews door-to-door instead of via phone polls as they've done in countries like Venezuela, which produces a badly skewed poll in favor of the opinions of the wealthy.  However, some of the data coming back is still just strange.  For example, one poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, and others, came back with 44% of Iraqis saying that they are Sunnis, and 33% Shiites.  That is opposite what we know Iraq's religious breakdown to be, however.  An article in the guardian speculates that the problem is that people are choosing answers that they think pollsters want to hear, or answers that are prestigious .  But really, I have no clue what is causing this... Some people have suggested that pollsters are refusing to go to areas where security is bad (Fallujah, Sadr City, etc), and are consequently staying in the wealthier, more stable areas.  Who knows what is real.... --Rei
Having been a pollster myself, I will heartilly agree that it is far from a perfect source of information, even in the best of circumstances. That being said, it is also a window into what people are thinking, and is much better than just randomly shooting our mouths off (as is often done on the wiki) about how "most ABC's believe XYZ" despite the lack of anything outside of original research to verify it w. Anyhow, take it for what its worth, which is what 3,500 Iraqis told the interviewer in answer to those questions :) Sam Spade 19:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion poll 

message: I am not sure whether it is a good idea to move that section to a separate article. What do others think? I think that kind of decision should not be taken without discussion. It is strange to read that some countries retreated their troops when the article did not mention at all that they had troops there before. And at least there needs to be a link to the article. Get-back-world-respect 14:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your title is ok and the splitting of the article is reasonable. You should only care for a link to the new article and check which information is needed here to make it coherent. I think the part about specific countries that retreated their forces could also move, as long as this article mentions shortly that such things happened. Get-back-world-respect 21:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Get-back-world-respect. It felt like the section was just ripped out without any accompanying edits. Except for the article getting too long, i would have preferred the list on the main article. We probably need a brief summary, with a link to Multinational force in Iraq -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:22, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

text: No problem. Yes, the servers were terrible recently, and I didn't edit much either. Made me feel like I have a 28.8 modem. But things seem to be better now. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Multinational force in Iraq