Talk:Fallujah

message: <TR>Disclosure
The    seige    of    Fallujah    and    threats    of    attack    are    enforced    by    the    U.S.    1st    Marine    Division,    which    raises    funds    for    its    activities    in    Iraq    through    several    web    sites    directly    linked    from       Jerk    Sauce,    the    main    commentary    service    of    Bomis.com    ,    which    is    the    sole    on-going    sponsor    of    Wikipedia,    providing    bandwidth,    server    space    and    server    maintenance.    The    Marine    fundraising    efforts    are    conducted    under    the    501(c)(3)    authority    of    the    Spirit    of    America            at    Jerk    Sauce's    recommended    sites    including    Command    Post        and    Tim    Blair    .    Earlier    Spirit    of    America    web    ads    featuring    the    1st    Marines'    emblem    recently    have    been    replaced    with    ads    for    the    same    organization    but    featuring    disparaging    messages    about    the    Arab    television    network    Al    Jazeera,    which    the    1st    Marines    hope    to    combat    with    their    own    version    of    the    news,    supported    in    part    by    funds    raised    at    these    web    sites.
I    removed    the    "disclosure"    for    several    reasons.    We    really    need    a    policy    on    this    -    starting    from    the    fact    that    Wikipedia    is    part    of    a    registered    non-profit    organization    -not    part    of    Bomis.    Rmhermen    18:18,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)
:You    don't    need    a    policy    to    enforce    shell    games    that    hide    funding    sources    and    their    ideological    affiliations    -    state    laws    already    require    that    non-profits    not    hide    their    funding    sources.    Bomis    is    the    sole    ongoing    contributor    to    Wikipedia,    providing    bandwidth    and    server    space,    which    is    Wikipedia's    primary    expense.    The    disclaimer    accurately    states    these    facts,    and    does    not    misprepresent    Bomis    as    the    owner    of    Wikipedia.    If    the    Wikipedia    foundation    does    not    disclose    its    funding    affiliations    with    Bomis,    it    can    face    prosecution    under    Florida    laws.    If    you    have    several    reasons,    state    them.    Otherwise,    since    Bomis    is    the    primary    sponsor    of    Wikipedia,    and    Bomis    directs    visitors    to    sites    that    raise    money    for    1st    Marine    activities    in    Iraq,    disclosure    is    both    appropriate    and    consistent    with    typical    ethical    practices.    CNN    still    discloses    its    affiliations    with    former    owners    when    its    stories    involve    those    sources,    even    though    management    has    distanced    itself    from    those    sources.    I    moved    the    disclosure    to    the    talk    page    to    accompany    your    unexplained    revert    of    a    meaningful    contribution.    TruthSayer    18:31,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
::A    disclosure    would    only    be    useful    if    Bomis    had    any    sort    of    editorial    control    over    Wikipedia.        It    does    not    and    most    users    have    no    idea    what    Bomis    is    or    what    it    does.    Also    when    did    USMC    operations    start    being    funded    by    web    donations?    -    SimonP    18:59,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)
:::A    disclosure    would    be    useful    for    me    because    it    would    have    spared    me    having    to    discover    these    relevant    funding    affiliations    on    my    own.    An    interest    in    a    better    understanding    of    when    the    1st    Marines    started    relying    on    private    funding    solicited    through    on-line    sources    is    irrelevant    to    the    consideration    of    direct    evidence    that    Bomis    sponsors    Wikipedia    and    that    Bomis    affiliates    itself    with    sites    raising    funds    for    war-time    propaganda.    It    is    especially    useful    in    the    context    of    an    article    about    the    flash-point    of    a    likely    explosion    of    resistance    in    Iraq.    Until    this    disclosure,    the    article    only    reported    that    "Marines"    (not    which    division)    discovered    things,    but    did    not    qualify    that    the    information    was    based    solely    on    1st    Marine's    claims    to    have    discovered    these    things,    repeated    in    freindly    news    sources.    
:::The    fact    that    "most    users    have    no    idea    what    Bomis    is    or    what    it    does"    -    especially    what    it    does    for    Wikipedia        -    suggests    articles    that    overlap    Bomis'    propaganda    interests    are    uniquely    in    need    of    a    disclosure.    A    disclosuer    could    be    best    developed    in    articles    describing    Bomis,    but    lacking    any    other    way    to    report    the    information,    it    is    specifically    relevant    to    articles    in    which    the    1st    Marines    tactical    and    propaganda    interests    are    considered,    and    in    which    Bomis    is    specifically    directing    its    visitors    to    sites    that    support    that    specific    unit's    propaganda    interests.    
:::For    guidance    on    when    disclosures    are    typically    offered,    developed    from    the    CNN    example,    Ted    Turner    has    long    since    surrendered    editorial    control    over    CNN,    but    CNN    continues    to    offer    disclosures    in    stories    that    report    Turner's    activities,    including    the    activities    of    foundations    he    endowed    and    organizations    they    fund.
:::Bomis'    contribution    to    Wikipedia's    editorial    and    administrative    direction    is    debatable.    Administrators    have    continually    turned    to    Bomis'    owner    for    guidance    and    absolution    in    execution    of    policies.    His    work    under    the    title    "God    King"    for    several    years    encouraged    new    Wikipedia    leaders    to    use    cult-like    language    that    discouraged    opposition    to    his    views,    and    to    disparage    those    who    offer    counterveiling    policies.    Bomis's    owner    Jim    Wales    set    the    direction    away    from    a    peer-reviewed    encyclopedia,    and    presents    as    a    primary    pundit    against    the    pheasibility    of    reviewed    encyclopedias    in    numerous    interviews.    That    policy,    driven    by    Bomis'    desire    for    rapid    development,    made    Wikipedia    more    available    to    those    who    present    election-time    and    war-time    misinformation.    Though    other    editors    ostensibly    correct    misinformation,    there    is    no    procedure    to    assure    correction    and    when    corrections    are    made,    it    can    happen    hours,    days    or    weeks    after    the    misinformation    has    been    served    and    forked    to    readers    and    to    other    web    services.    During    election    or    war-time    propaganda    campaigns,    a    few    hours    of    misinformation    can    be    useful.    Bomis    set    the    stage    on    which    such    misinformation    can    be    presented.    Bomis'    CEO    also    states    in    interviews    he    hopes    to    profit    from    commercial    release    of    a    Wikipedia    CD,    which    instead    could    provide    revenue    to    advance    the    independant    non-profit    interests    of    the    Foundation.    
:::Wikipedia    Foundation    could    easily    distance    itself    from    Bomis    by    finding    other    contributors    to    fund    purchases    of    bandwidth,    back-up    and    primary    servers,    house    servers    and    server    maintenance.    Failing    to    do    so,    it    is    in    keeping    with    common    journalistic    practices    to    disclose    who    pays    for    publication    --    Bomis.com.    Perhaps    a    savy    investigator    needs    to    review    Wikipedia    Foundation's    501(c)(3)    and    state    non-profit    reports    to    assure    that    its    primary    source    of    revenue    -    in-kind    donations    from    Bomis.com    -    are    accurately    disclosed.    The    foundation    could    act    in    good    faith    by    publishing    those    reports    under    the    Wikipedia    namespace.
:::In    response    to    the    question    of    when    US    forces    started    using    private    funding    to    support    propaganda    operations,    the    practice    goes    way    back,    but    was    widely    reported    during    the    Iran/Contra    debate,    when    missles    were    privately    traded    to    hostile    nations    in    exchange    for    money    used    to    support    illegal    Contra    activities    in    Central    America.    The    use    of    on-line    fundraising    might    be    a    new    tactic,    which    again    points    to    a    need    for    disclosure.    TruthSayer    20:01,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
::::This    is    all    still    irrelevant    in    that    no    one    who    helped    write    this    article    is    paid    by    or    associated    with    Bomis.    -    SimonP    19:52,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)
:::::Who    pays    for    the    printing    of    a    newspaper    is    as    relevant    to    some    readers    as    is    who    wrote    the    articles.    Journalists    typically    concur    it    is    not    the    publishers'    decision    to    decide    when    fiscal    affiliations    are    relevant;    instead    journalists    typically    concur    the    information    is    best    provided    to    readers    who    can    individually    make    judgements    about    what    is    relevant    to    them.    TruthSayer    20:01,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
:::::From    an    article    in    American    Journalism    Review:
::::::The    online    financial    publication    TheStreet.com    discloses    its    investors    and    business    partners    and    posts    its    stringent    conflict-of-interest    policy    on    stock    ownership    by    employees.    
::::::CNET:    The    Computer    Network    discloses    its    investors    and    business    partners    and    plans    to    post    its    in-house    code    of    conduct.    The    model    ethics    code    covers    employee    freebies    and    stock    transactions,    disclosure    of    the    company's    affiliations    in    news    stories,    even-handed    use    of    hyperlinks    and    how    to    forthrightly    correct    errors    online.    
:::::I'm    looking    for    some    more    sources    on    ethical    practices    and    standards    of    disclosure    in    new    media.    
:::::Bomis'    general    interest    that    would    suggest    a    need    for    disclosure    include    a    policy    of    rapid    development    that    resulted    in    a    lower    standard    of    credibility    in    Wikipedia,    coupled    with    Bomis    interest    in    profiting    from    rapid    development    of    Wikipedia.    Bomis'    support    for    rapid    development    of    a    new    information    format    that    lacks    the    methodically    enforced    standards    of    credibility    in    better    funded    sources,    while    also    promoting    military    alternatives    to    traditional    regional    information    sources    suggests    it    might    best    be    left    to    readers    to    decide    the    implications    of    Bomis    critical    role    in    funding    Wikipedia's    ongoing    operation.    TruthSayer    20:17,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
:::::From    the    American    Society    of    Magazine    Editors    new    ethics    guidelines    for    on-line    publications,    developed    largely    without    discussion    of    very    new    media    such    as    Wikipedia,    deal    primarily    with    the    relation    between    advertisers    and    on-line    content:
::::::To    protect    the    brand,    editors/producers    should    not    permit    their    content    to    be    used    on    an    advertiser’s    sitewithout    an    explanation    of    the    relationship    (e.g.“Reprinted    with    permission”).
::::::6.E-commerce    commissions    and    other    affiliate    fees    should    be    reported    on    a    disclosure    page,    so    users    can    see    that    the    content    is    credible    and    free    of    commer-cial    influence.    Exact    fees    need    not    be    mentioned,    of    course,    but    users    who    are    concerned    about    underly-ing    business    relationships    can    be    thus    reassured.
:::::::TruthSayer    comments:Bomis    links    to    Wikipedia    in    the    same    sidebar    that    links    to    the    Marine    fundraising    sites,    but    does    not    disclose    in    that    space    either    its    creation,    on-going    in-kind    support    or    future    profit    interets    in    Wikipedia.
::::::A    website    should    respect    the    privacy    of    its    users.If    a    site    intends    to    collect    information    about    its    visi-tors––whether    the    data    will    be    disseminated    to    thirdparties    or    not––it    must    offer    users    a    chance    to    decline    if    they    choose,    through    an    “opt-out”    option.    As    part    of    its    privacy    policy,    the    site    should    explain    its    use    of    cookies    and    other    data    collection    methods    and    tell    what    it    intends    to    do    with    the    information    it    gleans.
:::::::TruthSayer    comments:Wikipedia    offers    no    assurance    Bomis    does    not    share    its    router    logs    with    intelligence    interests    supporting    the    Marines    in    Iraq.    Bomis    pro-military    stance    raises    a    suspicion    it    could    be    inclined    to    use    information    about    Wikipedia    contributor    interests,    especially    in    controversial    articles    about    the    Middle    East,    to    serve    the    military    interets    of    one    side    in    that    conflict.    Bomis    appears    to    be    a    pro-Israel    site,    by    the    content    of    advertisements    on    its    pages.    Israel    has    a    long    history    of    tracking    journalists'    activities    to    identify    the    location    or    identity    of    its    opponents,    including    some    so    identified    then    targeted    for    assassination.    Wikipedians    might    need    to    know    every    keystroke    they    enter    goes    through    Bomis'    T1    lines    and    routers    before    it    arrives    at    the    Wikipedia    server.    Bomis    has    made    no    assurance    of    privacy    to    Wikipedia    users,    and    has    not    promised    to    keep    private    user    information    beyond    that    that    appears    in    the    SQL    database.    This    lack    of    privacy    assurance    implies    a    need    for    disclosure,    especially    on    pages    where    Bomis    favored    military    units    are    discussed.
How    does    privacy    fit    into    this,    how    does    Bomis'    supposed    links    to    the    military-industrial    complex    threaten    the    privacy    of    its    writers?    -    SimonP    20:56,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)
:Did    you    actually    read    the    comments    and    attempt    to    follow    the    reasoning    of    professional    associations    that    have    developed    standards    for    privacy    assurances    in    on-line    publications?    Your    question    has    already    been    answered    in    the    comments    above.    And    the    comments    are    not    about    the    "military-industrial    complex"    as    you    snidely    misconstrue,    but    rather    specifically    about    an    ongoing    practice    of    some    forces    in    the    region    to    track    journalists    activities,    and    specifically    about    Bomis's    access    to    router    logs    that    are    not    available    to    anybody    who    does    SQL    dumps.    Are    you    asserting    that    Wikpedia    has    no    need    to    review    its    position    vis-a-vis    industry    standards    regarding    privacy    and    disclosuer    of    business    affiliations?    JillP    21:07,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
::Jill,    this    is    a    typical    administrative    practice    at    Wikipedia    of    harrassing    contributors    with    questions    while    refusing    to    respond    to    substantive    debate,    especially    when    the    debate    might    in    any    way    tarnish    the    reputation    of    this    less-than-credible    information    source.    This    tactic    was    well    developed    in    Stalinist    show-trial    purges    and    in    Maoist    ritual    forced    self-criticisms.    Billigerant    propaganda    is    easy    to    recognze.    This    practice    offers    ample    evidence    of    Jim    Wales    influence    on    the    project,    in    which    all    opponents    are    treated    as    evil    and    rhertorically    shot    on    site.    TruthSayer
I    do    not    believe    Wikipedia    is    a    member    of    any    professional    associations.    -    SimonP    21:43,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)
Do    you    hold    in    contempt    the    ethics    developed    over    several    decades    by    professionals    who    have    dedicated    their    lives    to    pursuing    the    endeavor    you    seek    to    administer    as    a    hobby?    Is    it    about    whatever    you    can    get    away    with?    Do    you    have    anything    substantive    to    add    to    this    discussion,    are    you    on    a    power    trip    protected    by    your    status    as    an    administrator?    SaltyDog    21:46,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
:Apparently    the    later,    based    on    his    five    reverts    in    contravention    of    the    three-revert    rule,    and    his    refusal    to    respond    to    the    substance    of    concerns    raised    in    this    discussion.    TruthSayer    21:49,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
This    is    one    of    the    weirder    discussions    I    have    seen    lately.    Isn't    it    remarkable    how    three    new    user    accounts    with    the    same    writing    style    have    all    appeared    at    once    to    argue    the    same    points    on    the    same    article?    I'm    not    sure    what    could    we    say    that    would    provide    conclusive    proof    that    we're    not    part    of    a    giant    Israeli/CIA/Alien    Abduction    plot.    Here's    a    hint:    if    you    are    this    paranoid,    it's    reasonable    to    assume    that    anything    you    type,    anywhere    on    the    Internet    is    tapped,    logged,    and    sent    to    the    black    helicopters    in    real-time.    --    The    Anome    21:50,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
::No,    understanding    the    truth    about    the    operation    of    political    intelligence    requires    a    little    more    savy,    some    homework,    and    some    patience    for    juveniles    who    hold    in    contempt    legitimate    widely    discussed    privacy    concerns.    One    might    start    with    a    read    of    Body    of    Secrets    by    James    Bamford,    to    get    an    idea    of    the    signint    processing    capacity    of    the    NSA.    Then    one    needs    to    review    actions    under    the    Homeland    Security    Act,    develop    a    general    knowledge    of    on-line    security    issues    in    the    context    of    current    Internet    technology,    then    -    to    cover    gaps    in    reasoning    unfillable    due    to    what    we    cannot    possibly    know    about    what    other    people    do    -    learn    a    little    bit    about    the    political    affiliations    of    on-line    services    one    uses.    Nope,    the    last    black    helicopter    I    saw    was    a    really    cool    McDonald    Douglas    MD520N    NOTAR,    which    I    quickly    identified    as    belonging    to    a    local    retailer,    a    fact    I    discovered    by    walking    into    the    airport    and    asking    the    manager    about    that    nimble    helicopter    conducting    manuevers    he    found    very    inappropriate    in    his    airspace.    
::Oh,    look,    somebody    has    been    so    busy    harrassing    other    contributors    they    haven't    bothered    to    write    articles    about    the    topic    of    all    those    red    links    above,    subjects    about    which    they    likely    know    nothing    anyway.    
::Hysteria    is    probably    a    lot    easier    for    you    than    is    substantive    contributions    to    a    meaningful    debate,    Mr.    "Anome".    What    part    of    the    conjectured    scenarios    are    you    calling    paranoid?    That    Israel    historically    tracks    journalists    to    locate    opposition    fighters?    That    Wales    has    access    to    router    logs    not    available    to    the    general    public?    That    industry    standards    encourage    promises    of    privacy    instead    of    bizarre    insults    lobbed    at    those    who    raise    legitimate    privacy    concerns?    You    seem    to    hold    in    contempt    any    discussion    that    goes    against    the    orders    of    the    beloved    God    King    of    your    cult.    Cult    allegiance    is    a    very    sad    alternative    to    intellegent    discussion.    Why    not    go    ride    your    imaginary    Black    Helicopter    back    to    your    fictional    UFO    and    leave    discussion    of    serious    publishing    standards    to    the    grown-ups,    okay?    Your    childish    insults    offer    little    currency    in    mature    debate.    JillP    22:15,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
Being a Brit with no horse in this race, I have to say I think at least _some_ disclaimer should be present in the article. It emphasises WP's neutrality and allows me/others to research further if interested. If I hadn't happened to stumble across this talk page, I wouldn't have known. That said, perhaps something a little briefer, eg: 
:Full Disclosure: The main provider of bandwidth for Wikipedia (Bomis) does have a financial connection to the U.S. 1st Marine Division which is responsible, in part, for the siege of Fallujah. For more information please see the Talk Page.
That way, those who are intersted know to look. Those who are not don't get a wall of ominous text. I wouldn't even object to describing it as a "tenuous financial link", just don't hide it entirely. 86.181.160.187 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclosure    discussion

message: When    the    juvenille    followers    of    Jim    Wales'    God    King    cult    get    over    their    fear    of    information    that    would    disclose    Wales    right-wing    Zionist    ideology,    the    following    paragraph    needs    to    be    inserted    to    replace    the    one    that    erroneously    calls    the    former    special    forces    soldiers    (and    action    adventure    television    producer,    in    one    case)    employs    for    KB&R.
::The    US    asserted    that    it    hopes    for    a    negotiated    settlement    but    will    restart    its    offensive    to    retake    the    city    if    one    is    not    reached.    Military    commanders    said    their    goal    in    the    siege    was    to    capture    those    responsible    for    the    March    31    killings    of    four    veterans    of    US    special    forces    groups    employed    by    Blackwater    Security    Services.    US    forces    were    unable    to    determine    in    early    April    whether    those    shown    in    news    images    attacking    the    company's    elite    security    team    had    remained    in    the    city    or    fled.    
JillP
: FWIW Any time I see "right-wing Zionist" in a comment, I immediately assume the poster has an agenda and quite often stop paying attention. Without making any comment on the facts you present, you're likely alienating readers just by sounding so fervent and entrenched in your position. I humbly suggest that a more neutral approach would help you. And no, I didn't actually read the argument 86.181.160.187 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinformation    littering    Wikipedia

message: "There    is    some    evidence    that    millennia    ago    a    branch    of    the    Euphrates    divided    off    at    that    point,    and    that    this    is    the    source    of    the    name,    but    today    that    branch    has    disappeared."    This    fantasy    etymology    is    matched    by    the    impossible    geography,    perhaps    related    to    the    canal    that    joins    the    Tigris    to    the    Euphrates?    Wetman    04:48,    21    Oct    2004    (UTC)
:Why    do    you    question    this?    I    got    the    origins    of    the    name    from    an    article    in    JSTOR    on    the    region    in    Persian    times.    -    SimonP    05:36,    Oct    21,    2004    (UTC)
The Euphrates DID branch at Fallujah, sending an arm to join the Tigris at Kadhimain/Khadhimiyya. This branch silted up and had to be dredged frequently in the Sasanian and the Abbasid time. The branch was known as the "Royal Canal" or King's Canal or locally as the "Nahar Shahi" (a mix Aramaic-Persian construct)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.184.225 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymological    fantasy

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_battle_of_fallujah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah
the first and second battle of Fallujah are probably the greatest and bloodiest battles in human history similar in comparison to Stalingrad.Why are they not even mentioned in this article.What is wrong with Wikipedia.Talk Pages are always better than the articles.
Mention these battles in the article or provide links to them as they are the greatest part of the history of Fallujah.Ht67890 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Greatest Battles in Human history not mentioned at all in this article

message: The paragraph on cancers is a clear violation of the WP:MEDRS guideline on medical sources. Specifically what it does is violate the section on popular press by using a popular press article as the source for the conclusions of a published academic study. For instance, "the types of cancer were 'similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout'" is taken from the popular press article but it or anything like it cannot be found in the academic source. In fact the cited Independent article misrepresents the academic source; it quotes the report/article as saying the types of cancer were "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout", but this is not found in the published study.  92.2.91.151 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another comment. The paragraph cites statistics from the study, but the authors of the study explicitly caution against quantitative interpretations of their results, saying only that they believe them to be qualitatively convincing. I don't think the article should mention quantitative results per the authors comments and also as the study is a low quality source under WP:MEDRS anyway, being primary research of low quality i.e. a questionnaire. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancers, popular press & [[WP:MEDRS]] 

message: In the paragraph pertaining to the discovery of the mass grave in Fallujah on 17 May 2011 it states "The US Military declined to comment." This is misleading based on the article cited. As per the article cited, the US military declined to immediately comment. Please change the sentence to "The US Military declined to immediately comment." This would be a fairer and more accurate statement.
Dm10025 (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. To make an informed decision on this, we really need to know whether they commented subsequently. Even if they did, the sentence is still accurate as written, but inserting "immediately" implies that they did. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to article re: discovery of mass grave on 17 May 2011 incomplete and misleading 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081224080505/http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu:80/history/seminar/benjamin/benjamin1.htm to http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/benjamin/benjamin1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * Spiegel.de: Irak beginnt Militäroffensive zur Rückeroberung von Falludscha (German)
* NBCNews: Iraqi Forces Begin Massive Offensive to Retake Fallujah
In May 2016, Iraq army started fights against IS for reconquest of Falludscha. --92.72.103.154 (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq army attacks IS in May 2016 

message: Fallujah has been fully captured by Iraqi army. I wanted to edit the article to show this but I am unable to edit it as I don't have an account and I found out even if I create one it will take days before I am able to edit this. So can someone with a confirmed account please edit this? Thank you. 117.199.82.121 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallujah fully captured by Iraqi army; please edit the article

message: "Unfortunately due to the study Methodology the authors had to include a significant qualifier by saying "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively"
This seems like a very biased sentence ( Starting with "Unfortunately....") 174.16.7.48 (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... most scientific studies have some sort of qualifier, but this entry seems designed as a somewhat unwarranted attempt to dismiss the findings. I have toned down the sentence. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fallujah. 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/20050418094059/http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-31-voa6.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-31-voa6.cfm
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) 13:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fallujah. 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/20120523183213/http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&des=gamelan&geo=-105&srt=pdnn&col=abcdefghimoq&msz=1500&pt=c&va=&geo=444082378 to http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&des=gamelan&geo=-105&srt=pdnn&col=abcdefghimoq&msz=1500&pt=c&va=&geo=444082378
*Added  tag to http://postimg.org/image/euj0qcxd/
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) 00:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Self explanatory. No useful info and a pile of bullshit. 209.171.85.32 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a piece of shlitz.