Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Coalition

Under coalition forces it only shows the US, while 40 countries were part of the coalition at one point or another. It should show more than just the US. --Conor Fallon (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

US Coalition Victory?

The main info box accompanying this article includes the following phrase: "US Coalition Victory." Huh? Then why does the U.S. still have hundreds of thousands of troops and contractors in Iraq? And if the war is over, why are our troops still getting shot and blown up? It's true: the current war is not "classic" military textbook-style war; the U.S. is facing asymmetric warfare. But asymmetric warfare is war, nonetheless. Respected military writers like Thomas Ricks have documented how, not only is the war still ongoing, but it will likely last many more years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to mention Tom Fox in the list of people killed alongside Margaret Hassan in the section entitled Insurgent groups. Is there any objection? Thank you. 86.203.17.169 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the surge

One of the things on the to-do list is to provide more information on the success of the surge. The surge as a turning point in the war has been widely acknowledged across media and policy sources, but this article mostly seems to avoid the issue, instead focusing on failures to draw down troops as promised and more violence in the section about the troop surge. This section seems particularly biased by specifically ignoring much information, including information that is by now the accepted consensus. For this article as a whole to read in a neutral manner (which it doesn't really right now) this section definitely needs to be fixed first. Bonus Onus (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

British commanders

Such as HM Queen Elizabeth II and Major General Andy Salmon?

They should be on the commanders list, should they not? Flosssock1 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrible POV in intro, rewrite needed?

The information in the introduction pretty much consists of the following, in order:

  • see also link to legality of the war in Iraq
  • Definition of "Iraq War"
  • War casualties
  • Number of oprphans
  • Number of uprooted Iraqis
  • Opinions of illegality of the war and war crimes
  • The UN had no evidence of WMD but "the US government announced that "diplomacy has failed", abruptly advised the UN weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Iraq and decided to wage war on Iraq."
  • No evidence supporting the reasons for invasion was found
  • Other reasons for the invasion
  • Occupation
  • Sectarian violence and insurgency
  • Civilians killed in 2007
  • One vague sentence on improvements
  • Failed state index
  • Coalition withdrawl
  • Relevant government agreements
  • US withdrawl

Does that really look like a neutral presentation of information to anyone? Not only is the information presented in a negative way, the style and tone of the introduction seem to be negatively biased. I think a rewrite is needed, or at the very least, some of the more specific information needs to be removed from the introduction. The intro is too long as it is; it should be shortened to a brief background and outline of the conflict, and it's current status, what it's accomplished, etc. There's no need for statistics such as the number of orphans caused by the war to be presented in the first paragraph of the introduction. --Abusing (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

do you think there is a positive way of presenting information about the war? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, all I know is that there's a neutral way of presenting information, and that's how it's supposed to be.--Abusing (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

UN weapon inspectors were denied access by the Iraqi government they weren't ordered out by the US thats utter crap. Reference is Peter Costellos autobiography - ahhh but we live in the disinformation age. The sheer ignorance of the anti-war majority is astounding. Put yourself in Bushes position. Your country has been attacked by terrorists, a country suspected of supporting terrorists kicks out UN weapon inspectors, you've got the worlds most powerful military at your control - would you sit on your hands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.129.190 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This has since been  Done --Abusing (talk)

Automobile

May I add link to Automobile because US & UK need their oil, & might be the cause of this whole war? Stars4change (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Article Bias?

This article mentions that President Obama has announced a strategy for withdrawal. What it does not show anywhere (I have checked other articles for this too) is that President Bush was the one who signed the withdrawal deal with Maliki, giving a timetable for Iraqi withdrawal. [1]

Also I have seen countless, countless references to hatred of Bush in Iraq and the humanitarian situatioin there (this article mentioned the number of orphans at least twice) but I haven't seen any examples of gratitude which the troops no doubt encounter on a daily basis. Even if most Iraqis are against the occupation, there are most definitely those who are glad that Saddam is out of power. If this article is going to point out critics, it should at least mention supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.237.17 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Start Date of War

We know now that the beginning of military operations in Iraq started at 5:25AM, March 19th 2003, with the bombing of the Presidential Palace and the address of the nation by Pres. George W. Bush that same day, as this report shows. Why is the start date of the war still March 20th? Outback the koala (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no comment in the next day or two, then I will go ahead and change the date. Outback the koala (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It may have been March 19 in the US, but it was March 20 in Iraq. Here [2] sixth aniversary of invasion clearly celebrated on March 20, not 19.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable quotes

I was just reading through this section and I noticed a few quotes from what appears to be non-notable people, two of which aren't even named. They all seem to be making the same point, IE the US is bad, caused terrorism, etc. I agree, but I don't think these quotes should included in the article as in doing so we're giving them undue weight. I'm probably gonna delete them if no one has any objections. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the quotes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkey as belligerents?

Turkey did not actually take place in Iraq invasion coalition (in 2003). The turkish parliament have rejected the involment of turkish troops into the Iraq War on 1 March 2003. The clashes with PKK ist not a part of the Iraq War, this crisis resumes for nearly 30 years. So I think Turkey should not be in Belligerents List of the Iraq War, neither the PKK. I tried to change it but i could not manage to do. Can someone change it correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.22.18 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The US military in Iraq provided intelligence to the Turks about the PKK so they can strike them. This was greed to previously by editors.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Commanders

Can someone answer why George W Bush and Obama are listed as commanders in the war? I thought the title of CIC is just a title and doesn't give jurisdiction over the armed forces? If anything, the commanders are the ones that plan the strategic elements in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.252.33 (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a title. The President of the United States is the highest commander of the US military. They literally have direct command over the entire military. The president commands the generals.--Abusing (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


89.216.236.127's Unconstructive Edits

Comments moved from My Talk Page.

Outback the koala, please listen. My edit to the Iraq war article was not unconstructive, on the contrary. The infobox was like that for years. However, Kassjab recently messed up the infobox in a way that the civilian casualties are in the Mahdi Army row (his way it looks like that 1,000,000 Mahdi army insurgents died and not civilians) and the overall insurgent casualties are only in the Sunni faction row (the number of insurgents killed provided includes both Sunni and Shia). Leave it as it is please. At the very least if you have a problem please discuss it before reverting. Thank you.89.216.236.127 (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your User contributions page shows that you have begun to edit wikipedia as of today (26 October 2009), please consider creating a user account in the future, this way when you change computers the edits you have made will be identified as from you. The info box identifies that the killed are civilians, the box you are concerned with does not apply to the Mahdi army and is clearly under the Casualties and losses section. I will be reverting these edits and will be placing notification on your talk page as well. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not started editing on Wikipedia today, I have edited for four years...It's just that my cable network changes my ip every week or so. As for my edit in the South Ossetian Conflict, you said and I quote refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia which can be considered vandalism, that is so untrue. You didn't even check the reference I provided since you claim this. The reference I provided is from the official Georgian Ministry of Defence site which cleary states that 161 soldiers have been listed as killed up to date and 9 are missing, which is in contrast with the reference you are reinserting that states 185 dead. Please check the reference before accusing me of vandalism. As for the Iraq war article. I was only reverting Kassjab's edits. He put the civilian casualties in the Mahdi army coloumn in the infobox. Also, the Mahdi army has been separated from the Sunni faction of the insurgents, while the casualties provided in the Sunni coloumn on the number of dead insurgents is for both the Sunni and the Shia insurgents killed, not just Sunni. Do you understand me? The main point here is that the number of insurgents in the box is for both Sunni and Shia, and Kassjab separated them without consulting other editors. And yes I have an account I just wasn't in the mood to log in if that's so much of a problem to you than I will log in and make my edits but please don't revert me since my edits clearly don't constitute vandalism, I don't know where you got that idea, maybe because I was an anonymous editor and it looked like to you that I started working only today. I am sorry if we got of on the wrong foot. But there is no reason for hostilities and you accusing me of vandalism from the very start. I am sure we can work this out reasonably through discussion. 89.216.236.127 (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will revert until other editors have a chance to discuss these changes in that case as some may think I am in the wrong. Upon reaching a consensus then the part of the article that you want deleted/altered and format changes can be made. Please wait for other editors to comment before making these changes. Outback the koala (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you explain to me what is so unconstructive about my edit? You have not pointed out anything about that. And why are you defending Kassjab's edits so much? Kassjab's edit was the one that was made without discussion, not mine. His edits should be discussed if they are to be implemented and not my actions which are simply to keep the infobox as it was for six years before Kassjab came. Please give me answers to all these questions. And until than if you have the right to revert to an unagreed and undiscussed version of the infobox than I also have a right to defended the original and agreed to infobox. Also, if you continue reverting you are going against the revert rule of Wikipedia.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from My Talk Page. Outback the koala (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "by the way, let an administrator protect it, like I said before I have a username and so that will not do you much good.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "

You moved that one comment of mine from your talk page bud didn't answer my questions, answer the questions.89.216.239.108 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Has the change into a three-side i'box been discussed?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that was a totaly undiscussed edit by Kassjab.89.216.239.108 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You want to block me now Koala without discussion just because I have a different opinion? Is that your way of resolving the problem? Just kill the competition so nobody oposses you? And what are those unconstructive edits, you still haven't answered my questions?89.216.239.108 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Koala, editors do not need your permission to edit the page. I see that you reverted several times without giving an explanation in the edit summary nor on 89.216.239.108's talk page. Further, I do not see what is gained by requesting 89.216.239.108 to create a Wiki account. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 89.216.239.108 is correct in that the new organization creates an unnecessary third column specifically for the Mahdi army. I have reverted to the previous version pending further discussion of Kassjab's version. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The changes being made were substantial changes to the page, page format, and removal of useful information, such as; the continued removal of info from the commanders section of the infobox; adjusting correct grammar in the caption for the lead photo to incorrect grammar. For me, these justify as being unconstructive edits, even though they had what some might see as a useful editing within them. The focus was not on the changes to the infobox layout, so much as the parts of the edits that were detrimental to the page. I did not feel, and still do not, that the box identifying that the statistics that showed one million civilians killed, the box 89.216.239.108 was so concerned with, did not appear to apply to the Mahdi army and as it clearly was under the Casualties and losses section listed as civilians. I also felt that a distinction between the Sunni and Shi'ite factions would be beneficial to the page, however I see that the lack of stats for this third column, and that said stats might be difficult to find. In light of this I would not object to continuing with two columns currently, but we should indicate(in brackets) that the different insurgents belong to different branches of Islam and that Shi'ite insurgents are supported by Iran, another thing lost in 89.216.239.108's editing frenzy. In addition, what is gained by requesting 89.216.239.108 to create a Wiki account, is that, other than benefiting this anon user's tracking of pages, is that statements like, "I have edited for four years," won't appear to be so baseless, as his history show the opposite. And indeed, at first I was skeptical, as would any wikipedian confronted by an anon user claiming to have edited for years, but who couldn't be bothered to log into their own account, but maintains they have one. I do not contend to make wikipedia a closed encyclopedia, and don't feel like I acting in a way that made it so, as I believe it's openness is one of its greatest strengths. note: I will not reply to 89.216.239.108 or 89.216.236.127, depending on where he is today and still cant bother to login to his account that exists, until he starts to follow WP:etiquette. Thank You.Outback the koala (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's talk about etiquette shall we? Initially, after the edit by Kassjab, 89.216.236.127 reverted it with a lengthy explanation in the summary. You then reverted with no explanation. Following that, 89.216.236.127 reverted with another lengthy explanation in the summary and a comment on your talk page. You responded by reverting without an explanation in the summary, commenting on his edit history, and leaving an unconstructive edit warning on his talk page. This was followed by yet another cycle of his explained reversion and your wordless reversion. I can understand your skepticism of anon users as about 90% of vandalism comes from anons, but this anon is being more careful in his documentation and more cooperative in the discussion than you are. Even if this was his first edit, your zeal would be unwarranted; we should avoid biting the newcomers. Honestly, I do not see how he has been uncivil. It seems to me that you have not assumed good faith. Let's try and follow the dispute resolution process and keep the discussion focused on the article rather than eachother's editting history.
I think that your suggestion about the parenthetical comment regarding the Shi'ite and Sunni factions would be a suitable compromise for now while we discuss further changes to the infobox. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 10:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I hear your constructive criticism of my response in this matter and will in the future attempt to provide more of an explanation as to my actions that I am taking in my editing and reverting. Although I think we should stop the talk about WP:UNCIVIL and start to spread some wiki love. As far as the info box goes, I don't think anyone else is still arguing for a 3 column info box anymore so we can probably stick with it, but I couldn't seem to figure out how to get the Iranian support flag back into the box without reverting before, so someone else will have to do that. This all seems like a fair compromise that keeps a maximum amount of the info in a clear and concise way. Thanks Azure. Outback the koala (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've re-added the Iranian support flag back to the belligerents section of the infobox. Is this what you were envisioning? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That is indeed what I was thinking. Do you think it would be overkill to put their religion in brackets, as Iran only supports the Shi'a militias and not the Sunni. For example: Baath Party Loyalists (Sunni) . Outback the koala (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added the belligerents' denominations to the infobox. Look good? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It is 100% good. Thank You Azure for the great work! Outback the koala (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to have the belligerents' denominations mentioned? "Iraq War" generally refers to the Coalition and Iraq vs. the insurgency, while what can be called the "Iraqi Civil War" refers to the conflict between religious factions. In other words, this infobox only needs to list the combatants that make up the insurgency, not necessarily their respective religious faction. I don't think it's necessary to include the denominations in the infobox at all. We can easily present the same information without it:
...
...
That's how it was before, and it might be simpler than using the denominations in the infobox.--Abusing (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't feel strongly about it one way or another, but let's see what koala has to say before we make any significant changes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, I think it is irrelevant to the article as the Iraq Civil War is a part of the Iraq War, as per the main infobox on the Iraq Civil War page. As well, we should note that while all insurgents are hostile toward the Coalition, only some are hostile toward each other, usually along religious lines. It seems to me, that it was, and still is in some ways(in its impact), an important part of the war. Perhaps a small link to the Iraq Civil War page could be slipped in at the bottom of that section. It would most likely be something like;
"For fighting between insurgent groups, see Iraq Civil War."
Would this be a good improvement to clarify, Abusing? Outback the koala (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely, and I like your idea. Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the information isn't relevant to the article, just that its relevance to the "belligerents" section of the infobox is unclear. I think that would be a good improvement, so I'll slip that in. Abusing (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done--Abusing (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Update needed?

The information on the strength of the insurgency (in the infobox) is apparently from 2006 and 2007 at the latest, as is contractor strength. Updated info is needed on the strength of the combatants.--Abusing (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Title

I am proposing a change of title to Occupation of Iraq because this would be a more accurate title than "Iraq War". Izzedine (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. "Iraq War" is the only term I have heard for the entire conflict so I believe that is the most appropriate name for the article. Andy120290 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point, but the article does describe the background leading up to, the invasion of, and the occupation of Iraq. Simply calling the whole article "Occupation of Iraq" would be kind of a misnomer. Especially when there already exists an article dealing solely with the occupation period (Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present). Andy120290 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So we have 2003 invasion of Iraq and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present. In that case, we don't need [Iraq War]. I propose we make it a disambig page to the invasion and occupation articles. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with proposed change. every occupation starts with an invasion, so calling it occupation is not a misnomer. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, this wasn't just an occupation. There was an invasion and occupation, but unlike the invasion of Panama or the occupation of Japan, the occupation included a large scale conflict -- a war -- in addition to the occupation. The invasion, the occupation, and the war are not the same thing. The conflict is certainly notable enough for its own article, without question. However, I do think the sections that cover the invasion and the occupation need to be greatly shortened, with more emphasis placed on their respective main articles. The Iraq war covers all of the topics we're discussing, but this article doesn't need to give complete coverage of something that has its own article.--Abusing (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion on this leaves the impression that the occupation was intentional or @least part of the original warplan. It was not.
But as too often happens in govt. & industry, tactics were heavily revised without regard to strategy or to a timetable (which was originally 6 wk or March 20 thru May 1, 2003; as in "Mission Accomplished"). Am. forces occupied mainly Baghdad, then Iraq, because of a series of tactical blunders (e.g., allowing unimpeded looting & chaos for the first month, moving 10s of thousands of troops back to Kuwait) that culminated with our guys battling insurgents. "Occupation Iraq" implies intentionality: the war was intentional; the occupation was not; altho for the honchos to deny it would mean 'fessing to the tactical blunders, which's happened but so gradually that no one's noticed. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Definition of "occupation":
1. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory.
7. the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces
Definition of "war":
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Occupation is clearly the more appropriate, since conflict in Iraq involves foreign forces vs. indigenous forces. The term "Iraq War", in the context of the "war" definition, almost implies a civil war where all parties are Iraqi, which isn't the case. Of course, it is called this to give the impression that the state of Iraq is fighting the war, which is not the case. I'm voting for a change of title to "Occupation of Iraq". 82.0.220.117 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The most appropriate name is the name most commonly used, which is Iraq War.Publicus 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Invasion/Insurgency phases

The article's infobox says there is an invasion phase and an insurgency phase. Is this information verifiable at all? Are there any sources that say the war took part in two distinct phases, with the insurgency phase beginning the day after the invasion ended? If not, it needs to be removed and listed as one date, since "Iraq War" generally refers to both the invasion and occupation.--Abusing (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapons of mass destruction!

Shouldn't there be a subject on not finding WMD(Weapons Of Mass Destruction)? George Bush's intelligence said that their were WMD but none were found or claimed to be. Is it that hard to believe that Iraq had WMD, when saddamm Hussein had already used these weapons on his own people. The nation of Iraq used,possessed, and made efforts to aquire WMD. Duramax (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the first section following the overview: Iraq_War#2001.E2.80.932003:_Iraq_disarmament_crisis_and_pre-war_intelligence. This is a link in that section: Iraq disarmament crisis. This is a subsection of that section: Iraq_War#Alleged_weapons_of_mass_destruction. Might try reading the article before you make claims about what is or is not in it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Duramax, I reverted your addition on this topic per WP:BRD, and left a note on your Talk page. Let's discuss. As noted in my edit summary, my main concerns were that the addition did not fit the style of the rest of the article, and included no citation(s). Regarding the latter, I'm sure you could find appropriate references. Regarding the former, I'm sure someone could help re-write. However:
  • As noted by User:AzureFury, there is already a section on this in the article. Is this section insufficient?
  • Is there consensus for your addition?
Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The information provided is sufficient, just over read the article. Im aware of this now "buddy". thanksDuramax (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC) It was a simple questions that needeed to be answered. If i recall that is what talk protion is here for.No disrespect is needed.Duramax (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

2002 military action

This article discusses how the UK and US started bombing Iraqi positions in 2002. I can't seem to find any mention of it in this article or in other related articles but it seems like it should definitely be included. Should it go in the Iraq_War#Preparations_for_war section? 131.111.30.22 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the article. It is mainly written as an allegation against the US and UK. There are some facts which are tied together by the editor to form a conclusion which may or may not be true. While we can publish allegations on Wikipedia, we may only do so if they have been widely reported on by many reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we avoid publishing things of questionable accuracy. So step number one if you want to get this allegation included is find multiple, mainstream, reliable sources that attest to this allegation's accuracy. Then we can work forward from there. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the link whilst not logged in (Wikibreak). I can't see how WP:CRYSTAL applies to this - it happened 7 years ago it is nothing to do with what might happen in the future. I've never heard that things need to be reported in multiple reliable sources either to be included in an article. New Statesman seems like it is a "mainstream, reliable source" so I think the article can be used. I'd like to add something stating that MoD records show that bombs where dropped in Iraq during 2002 - I think that this is pretty clear from the article and could be included in a neutral way without being an "allegation against the US and UK". Did some searching and found this at the time, this in 2005 and even coverage on Wikinews. I need to go to bed but I'll add it sometime. Please try not to bite newbies too.... Smartse (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how my response was in the least bit "bitey" but regardless, the article is guessing. This is their evidence that the US and UK bombed Iraq, "The MoD response shows that in March 2002 no bombs were dropped, and in April only 0.3 tonnes of ordnance used. The figure rose to 7.3 tonnes in May, however, then to 10.4 in June, dipping to 9.5 in July before rising again to 14.1 in August. Suddenly, in other words, US and British air forces were in action over Iraq." We have no official confirmation. Just some guy at some newspaper's educated guess that that was what was going on. It may or may not be true. And when something "may or may not be true" we treat it as an allegation. All allegations on Wikipedia trivially need multiple mainstream reliable sources to get published. You can take that to any noticeboard and ask whether it is based in policy if you wish, but I don't think that should be very surprising. If some random person somewhere makes an allegation, it is not worthy of publishing in Wikipedia. In addition, I was concerned with the reliability of the New Statesman, as their Wiki page says

The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine published weekly in London. Founded in 1913, and connected with leading members of the Fabian Society, the magazine reached a circulation peak in the late 1960s. In the 29 May 2006 issue, then editor John Kampfner stated that the New Statesman remained "true to its heritage of radical politics".

Self-admitted radicals tend not to be the source of objective reporting. Additionally, of your two additional sources, one is authored by the same guy as the first, and the other only says there is evidence of a secret bombing campaign. Even logically, you have to wonder about the claims made in the article. Why wouldn't Saddam have said anything if Iraq was already being bombed? We can't treat this as established historical fact as you seem to imply. If you are unconvinced, we can start an RfC or get some of the other editors watching this page involved in the discussion, but this seems to me to be a kind of WP:FRINGE theory. Thus we have to consider its WP:WEIGHT carefully. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You say "We have no official confirmation" but the multiple reliable sources say that this information came from the MoD - surely they are "official"? It's also worth remembering that we only need information to be verifiable, which this is, rather than necessarily being the truth. The fact that it was mentioned in The Times suggests to me that it can certainly be included, Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations says it is at the "high-quality end of the market" of news organisations. That the same journalist wrote the article in New Statesman suggests that they are hardly a "random person" but a respected journalist. I don't think that this is particularly a minority view either, as demonstrated by the coverage in multiple reliable sources. I can't guess why Saddam wouldn't have said anything, maybe he did but it wasn't reported, who knows? I'll add it later on once I can log in, feel free to make some edits if you think my wording is not neutral.
This article was published in March 2002 talks of how threats to Allied aircraft had decreased recently which may also be relevant. 131.111.30.22 (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (User:Smartse logged out)
Ah, found 2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion which already mentions this, I think it definitely deserves a line in this article though. 131.111.30.22 (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done No need to use the New Statesman article in the end either. What I really don't get is how the 2005 stories make it seem like new news when it was reported in 2002 anyway! Smartse (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations also says, "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." So if it was an allegation as I was assuming, there would be grounds for deletion since the bombing campaign had not been verified, only the increase in ordinance. But it looks like the campaign itself has been verified by Tommy Franks so I have no objections. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapons of Mass Destruction

It appears the article leaves out the fact that the US forces found 550 metric tons of yellow cake from Iraq, which was subsequently removed. While the yellow cake would not be the optimum choice for a nuclear bomb, it could be used in a 'dirty bomb' by insurgents and elements determined to mount an attack on Western nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.126.62 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear that then?! I'd guess that the US and UK governments would have made quite a lot of noise about it if they'd been right all along! If you have a source for this then please add it below. Smartse (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
A quick Google search was all it took.[3] I don't know how this isn't in the article, it needs to be, ASAP. 24.12.93.206 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This is from that very article, "While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, this is from Iraq_War#Alleged_weapons_of_mass_destruction: "Prior to the Gulf War, in 1990, Iraq had stockpiled 550 short tons (500 t) of yellowcake uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Baghdad." Why do editors come here and complain about something not being in the article that is already in the article? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clicking on the link provided. I stumbled into this page and am unfamiliar with the article and recent revisions. I was reacting while AGF on the part of 70.164.126.62. My mistake.24.12.93.206 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries, this is an emotional article and anons like 70.164.126.62 sometimes make comments without thinking clearly. I don't think the article mentions that the yellowcake has been removed, if you're still interested in contributing.AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

It is my opinion that the neutrality of this article is well...not neutral. I get the feeling that when reading this article, the wording makes it seem like the US and her allies are the bad guys. Wikipeida is here to not put in a bias but to rather state the facts. Can someone try to look over this article and fix any of these issues?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the US and its allies are the bad guys in this situation. Regardless, it is not helpful to say "article is NPOV, fix it." If you have specific issues, list them. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with you, the article does sound biased. It's not a problem with specific parts, it's more of the fact that most of the article clearly has a biased tone. I suppose I can dedicate myself to a project of going through the article, section by section, and making information with a tone neutral and appropriate. For the most part, I'll focus on rewording statements that have a biased tone, removing questionable statements that aren't sourced, and removing information that is obviously presented in an inappropriate way. However, if you have anything specific you think should be corrected, feel free to put it on the talk page and I'll be more than happy to go over it. Feel free to put the appropriate template ({{POV}} at the top of the at the top of the page. This project really has no reasonable end in sight, due to the length of the article, and I have no illusions about fixing the whole thing, but I will do as much as I can in the long term.
Oh, and there are no bad guys.--Abusing (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
*There are no good guys. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
what does that mean? Look All I was saying is that this article is biased. A lot of articles that deal with events that are ongoing and are in the news every day will be biased its not an attack on your part its just a statement. Now ill go ahead and put the template on. Ill also read over the article eventually and post any issues that I come across.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Uhhh, how about you read over the article, find some issues, and then add the template. You can't just call the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes the tag shouldn't be added unless some specific problems are first mentioned here. Personally I can't really see the problem anyway. Smartse (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
AzureFury, you do seem to have a way with trying to be uncivil do you? Its no feeling of patriotism as I myself never supported staying a nation where we are not welcome however this is getting off topic. I put the tag on because I was told I can (see above). You cant call an article not a POV even if it contradicts you political feelings as well.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember calling the article POV. Anyway, we're not going to stigmatize the whole article because you feel it is POV and then wait for you to get around to actually reading it and come up with actual complaints. If you feel there is something that needs improvement, let's hear it. Then you can include the tag if need be. Until then, I do not believe you have sufficiently justified its inclusion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No you never did say that you belive the article is POV. (I never said you did) but you did say (off of your comments and statements) that the article has no bias and is fine. Its not. To prove it, in the comming days or so ill give you a list of POV statements. Here's some by just skimming over the article itself:
You: "You cant call an article not a POV even if it contradicts you political feelings as well." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. During 2002, Bush repeatedly backed demands for unfettered inspection and disarmament with threats of military force. (Portrays the Bush administrations as a group or war mongers. Come on now. Weather or not they are warmongers does not matter. Couldn't this be reworded to say During 2002, the Bush administration continued to demand unfettered inspection and disarmament with military action being the alternative if the Iraqi Government refused. It states the facts (Bush's administration wanted disarmament and will invade if the demands were not met) and is in my opinion neutral.
  2. Most of his crimes were committed when he was an ally of the US and UK. (this may be true but it has no source)
  3. On November 23, the deadliest attack since the beginning of the conflict occurred. Suspected Sunni Arab militants used suicide car bombs and mortar rounds on the capital's Shia Sadr City slum to kill at least 215 people and wound 257. This attack was retaliated by Shia militias who fired mortar rounds at various Sunni neighborhoods and organizations. (once again no source)
  4. However, the failure to restore basic services to pre-war levels, where over a decade of sanctions, US and UK bombing, corruption, and decaying infrastructure had left major cities barely functioning, contributed to local anger at the IPA government. (No source. Looks POV by implying that the sole reason for "the failure to restore basic services to pre-war levels" was due to US and UK intervention.)

Here are just 4 that I came across. in a few minutes. Can these be addressed?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The first is a non-issue. You want to replace the word "threat" with a much softer, unclear, and unnecessary phrase that has the same meaning as "threat." Of the rest, you simply say that they are unsourced (which I will look into shortly). Note that this is different from being POV and appropriately has a different tag. Overall, I don't see anything that implies a problem with POV. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Most of his crimes were committed when he was an ally of the US and UK how is that not a POV? and does it even have anythig to do with the article itself? the answer Yes and No. Now most of all it has no source! Ever heard of WP:RS? It we cannot find a source it needs to be removed. Now I have found several of these unsourced statments. Perhaps it sould have the lack of sources tag instead.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the second issue you've mentioned. It did seem out of place there and no doubt is covered in one of the many articles about Saddam Hussein. The other two are from sections with main articles. The citations are most likely in those articles. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
OK thank you. Now we need to get those citations before someone else brings up the same problem.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have again added the POV template. The purpose of the template is explained here. An explanation of a POV dispute can be found here. The template should not be removed until a consensus has been reached that the article's problems have been fixed and the dispute is resolved.--Abusing (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the article wide template and added NPOV section templates to the sections in dispute. Please don't mark entire large articles as under dispute when the talk page already lists the specific points being disputed. Thanks! Sperril (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Ill agree to remove the templates once all paragraphs in the said sections have at least one citation to back up the claims. Some rewording might also help but I dont think that it is that much of a deal. As AzureFury said. Some of the sections have main articles that might have the missing citations.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I'd like to see some more discussion in this POV dispute about the specific POV. As has already been pointed out, of four examples cited, three were actually ref-tag issues and one was a misunderstanding of what constitutes POV. I haven't read the article and don't doubt there would be a few dodgy sentences in an article of this sort, so this isn't an argument for or against the assertion, but let's present a discussion about the alleged POV in the article and less of a discussion about the discussion about it. It would be helpful to see what sorts of things are being changed and to what else, so objective editors can determine whether POV issues existed prior to—or after—the revamping.

As to choosing to tag the whole article instead of the specific instances because the latter would be the worse defamation of the article, that's a convoluted misunderstanding. It's supposed to be the opposite. A person seeing the whole article tagged might well avoid the whole article, while a person reading until they see a section tagged can (correctly) presume the untagged sections are determined to be free of POV. Abrazame (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

True howwever, haveing multiple sections taged rather that just one tag rep. the whole artilce may be just as bad. Once I finish reading the article, ill post any POV concerns and the community as a whole can decide their fait.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying the whole article, which you haven't read, is bad? Is that why you want to tag the whole thing? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay: Come back when you have read the article and are actually able to cite examples of POV. I have removed the tag until then. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just now read the lead, I take note of the European way of styling US (in all but one instance), something that doesn't dissuade the impression of a POV exclusive of the U.S. (Not to mention a POV exclusive of the Manual of Style.) I would also specify that Hussein was tried by an Iraqi judge and jury before he was executed; this is the sort of thing that is a given in the free world but should be spelled out in an article like this one.
Assuming good faith is a default position for editors' first responses; generally somebody then has to earn the continuance of that faith by discussing edits to the article more than they do each other. This isn't a theater of war, nor a court of law, it's an editorial discussion, one where references and reason win. Abrazame (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
What you're describing is an example of WP:systemic bias, not POV. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

War or conflict

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why are we refering to the situation in Iraq as a war instead of a conflict although the US never officially declared war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.183.130 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That just makes the war illegal and Bush a war criminal, it doesn't change the fact that it is a war. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments like the one above further my case that you have injected POV like comments to the article. Bush was authorized by congress to invade the nation. Nothing was illegal.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That was indeed a completely uncalled for, nonconstructive and inappropriate statement, as well as unacceptable behavior for a talk page; even liable to be removed completely. However, in answer to the question, despite not being a "declared war", it matches the definition of a war, and is referred to as a war in the media. It's most widely recognized as a war in society, so it would be inappropriate to primarily refer to it as something else.--Abusing (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Lol loosen up guys. To Coldplay: There are so many things wrong with your one line argument. 1: I didn't write the article. 2: The talk page is different from the article itself in both the policies that apply and the way I treat it. Btw, have you finished reading the article yet?
To Abusing: There is nothing in WP:TPO that says, "editors can't express opinions." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is also a little thing called WP:CIVIL which you sir, seem to utterly lack. No offence but you are rude, and outright insulting to many editors that have an oposing viewpoint. And in case you dont know, you dont WP:OWN this article. I can edit it as much as you can. As to the other question, I am almost finished as I am currently engaged in a GAN for the World War II article Ill try to finish reading this one soon.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that I sir, am no gentleman? Please paste for me one "outright insult." Please paste for me any of my messages denying you the right to edit. I've only ever asked that you have specific POV issues for editors to address before you put up a POV flag. Well, I also asked that you read the article so that you know what you're talking about. I guess that's too much to ask. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No your comments (Like the one at the top) were rude and uncalled for. Your reception of my concerns were also not welcomeing. You need to stop injecting your own political and social views into the 5th largest site on the internet. This is why wikipeida has a bad name WP:BIAS. You need to realize that not everone is a left-wing/socialist. Some people (myslef) are centerists and dislike politics. This aritcle is about the Iraq War not about Bush's personal views and how you think that he is an idiot and a war criminal. That type of stuff should not and will not be acepted on this site. Now as for the pressing issue at hand I told you that Im buisy and ill get to it soon. However you continue your harassment of me and others that have an oposing view point. If your mainspace edits are a biased as your talk page edits then I cant trust this aritcle as far as I can throw it. Ill post any issues once Im done. In the mean time please try to not WP:BITE people even if they are not newcomers. Thank you. And PS, your comments to me at the begining of this discussion were telling me that you wanted me to go away.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you couldn't find any "outright insults." So you were wrong there. I see that you've not ony made a custom user page, but a custom signature. I assumed this meant you were not new to Wikipedia. Was this assumption incorrect? Did you need the policies of Wikipedia explained to you? You say that I am "injecting my political and social views" into the Wikipedia. Provide me with one dif in which I have included a biased statement in the article. You call me left-wing and socialist. I don't believe I've said anything about my views on economics. Where do you make the connection to socialism? Are democrats and socialists synonymous to you? I suppose that is implied by Fox News and Glenn Beck and such. This is not the case. You may wish to take a look at these articles so you can make a more accurate comparision:Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Ideology and Socialism (once you're finished reading this one, of course). AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
IMO im not new but this can be argued by others. That is not the point. You see now you are trying to make it see link I have no idea what im saying. Well I do. I could find "Ourtight insults" and If you actually read your own statments you would see them. And left-wing does not have to dael with just politics it literally means that you are a supporter of left-wing politics. Now as of right now that political possistion is given to the Democratic Party of the United States. And seeing as they openly oppose the war and many of them thinkof bush "As a war criminal" then I would be correct to say that you support them in one way or another. Yes socialists are a seperate faction but many of the sopcialist platforms are suported by the Dems. (PS you may want to retract your statment I suppose that is implied by Fox News and Glenn Beck and such. what I watch on television has nothing to do with this. And I don't watch FOX and never will.) And if you want to get wiki-personal about things. I see that that your second most edited article is Political positions of John McCain. And seing that you oppose Bush, you probably put just as much BS in that article as there is in this one. And seeing that you were blocked for Edit warring@Political positions of John McCain it furthers my claims that you are trying to inject your POV's into the article. Not only that you to inject your views by evadeing the block. And may I point out that this took place During the 2008 US Presidential Election. Even more disturbing is that during your seventh edit, you said in the Edit summary box that No editor has had a reason to remove this edit. You do not have consensus and it is about his position. Remove it all you want, I will continue to put it back. This shows a lack of respect for your fellow editors and proves that you will not wiat for WP:CONCENSUS rather you will just put in what you like and keep it that way. Oh and as for inserting stuff in this article. Here you go.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:BITE specifically refers to newcomers. It assumes that people who have been here for awhile don't need to be coddled in order to stay and contribute. That is the point of the policy. So no, I'm not going to be welcoming and I'm not going to assume good faith when you tag an article you haven't even read. I see that you have yet again failed to copy and paste from this relatively small discussion a single example of my alleged insults. If you want to get into outright insults, you're the one namecalling. I don't see what digging around in my history has to do with improving this article. Though I must confess I looked at your comments at WW II out of curiosity and was amused by your "Germany wasn't responsible for the holocaust, Nazi Germany was" argument. I find it interesting that you would provide a link to supposed block evasion that doesn't even work. I suppose your haste to find fodder for your Ad hominen attacks prevented you from checking the link. Regarding your one sentence actually referring to the article in question, the dif you provided is me restoring material that was in the source. Though I see that I forgot to include the source and the quote in my restoration. I've fixed that now. So what is your complaint with that edit? Is it not neutrally written? Is it untrue? Is the source unreliable? Or are you complaining about the neutrality of a neutral statement because it reflects unfavorably on Bush and the US? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
First off theres nothing in WP:CIVIL that says that you dont have to be civil to older editors. And second, you said that I was a newbie? Didnt you? (See above). As a reuslt I do qualify for WP:BITE. Thrid, Assume bad fiath Is what you are doing when you said. I'm not going to be welcoming and I'm not going to assume good faith .... Fourth, almost every comment that you have said to ANYONE on this talk page has an insult in it. Fith, Your the one being defensive and calling a president a war criminal!!! YOur actions at this talk page alone proves that you can be a WP:DICK. Its plain and simple. Sorry to be crashing down on your "Im a know it all and ill out what I want on this article and I dont really care what you have to say" parade but im just being honest. Sixth, your comments are very hipocritical. Saying that I souldnt be "stalking" you (which I am not as I dont really care about your history other than your constant rudenes to others) when you just did the same. And as for my comment about Germany and Nazi Germany. take it to the talk page if you like. WP:CONCENSUS has been reached. Not that you would care seeing that you have no respect for your fellow editors whatsoever. Seventh, I should'nt have even given you a link seeing as you were the one blocked. (I see that you never learned your lession) Lastly, this is getting us nowhere on improveing this article. We either get over our disputes and work together or we continue pointing fingers and calling names. I have nothing wrong with the sentence now that is sourced.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've had to hurry this readthrough due to wanting to sleep, I'll admit. Both of your arguments have valid points (and I mean related to the article itself, though Bush and Nazi Germany both need to read WP:DICK too, in my opinion), but they are getting to be exactly that: arguments. We need debates on Wikipedia. Both of you are beginning to delve into personal attacks (if you haven't crossed the line already. The last two posts don't seem to have much to do with this article) and I think both of you need a time-out. Take some time away from this thread (and, if possible, this article). For now, I'm going to be bold and close this thread for twenty-four hours. Other editors may comment if they wish (including undoing my closure), but I believe it best that you two stay away from this thread and each other for at least this period of time. Sit back, relax, cool down. Come back tomorrow with a blank slate. Best case scenario is that this section stays closed and you start again completely, come to a consensus and improve the article together for the good of everyone. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See the final post for the reasoning. Re-open at 4:45 on the 7th of December minimum. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Eh, I've fed this troll enough. I'll stop. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That was exactly the type of comment I was attempting to avoid. Coldplay, don't reply if you can't keep it civil. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but that just crossed the line and ill not take this kind of BS directed at me. HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A TROLL WHEN YOUR DOING THE SAME THING You are the worst person to try to get along with when it comes to WP:CONCENSUS you give no ground and you continue to TRY to anger me. Well congrats you got your wish jerk.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not helping matters, either of you. Both of you have rubbed each other entirely the wrong way. I've done it myself and eventually formed peace with the IP address. If you believe that you absolutely, cannot ever co-operate, then dispute resolution is that way. However, I would advise both of you to ignore this page until you have truly calmed down. Remove it from your watchlist if you have to. Please, stop antagonising each other. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK ill try agian. AzureFury, even though I dont really like you I have to agree that ending this now is best. Ill call a draw if you do the same and we can both try to work together to fix this article. As long as you dont antagonize me ill be WP:CIVIL Sorry I exploded but you have to admit that your comment was trolling in of itself. At any rate I hope that we can work this out.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Struck part of your comment. That was what led to the argument to begin with. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 05:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the continued debate on Wikiquette alerts‎, I propose that this section remain archived for another three days or one day after the debate ends, whichever is the longer. Do not re-open until 04:47, December 9th. Thank you. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 04:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Settling POV disputes

Resolved

This was brought to the attention of WP:WQA, which explains why I am here, since I otherwise have no interest in this topic. But perhaps I can intervene to help establish some ground rules for the POV allegations.

1) If an editor slaps up a POV tag which is disputed, the proper place to resolve that dispute is the talk page. If the tag is challenged, 3RR violations (whether in deed or spirit) are not helpful. So, first point, work through the issues here and stop tag-mongering around on the main article page.

2) If an editor feels an allegation is POV because it is unsourced or from a biased sourced (which may also be WP:OR), s/he should attempt to source the statement to corroborate the POV/OR charge. In the event s/he cannot locate a source, that issue should be brought to the attention of editors here on the talk page. Supplying the google searches or other efforts made would be a salutary gesture of conciliation in this matter. Simply stating an article is POV (as happened here), without providing specifics is not likely to be taken very seriously, as User:Coldplay Expert has discovered. Make specific suggestions and comments.

3) It is never acceptable to resort to ad hominim attack. If you feel that heated about the topic, you are best advised to walk away until you cool down.

Gentlemen, let's get the conversation back on track. Eusebeus (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What Eusebeus said. I have no real interest either, but I got called as someone uninvolved to calm things down. Please, let them stay that way? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Dispute's been over for awhile now. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it won't start up again. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good thinking. Is there an admin noticeboard we can take this to regarding "potential future disputes"? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of would be AN/I, getting topic bans for a certain period of time, but I think that, if you two cool down, that's overkill. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I sure hope no one reports me for disputes I might get into in the future. Admins might block me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The POV dispute's over. I don't see how any of the above statements address anything that was brought to WQA.--Abusing (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's as if this and the discussion at WQA were seperate. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this seems to be an unnecessary discussion. The POV dispute is completely settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abusing (talk • contribs) 02:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Now its just an issue as to CIVILITY--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I wont report you (despite the fact that you can be uncivil) as long as we can reac WP:CONSENSUS. If you ever get topic banned form this articele, then I should be too as we both contributed to the problem. However Im willing to compromise. (PS: its not over)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Lest all take this over to the WQA and talk there shall we? As other users may be unwilling to post anything because of this dispute.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction on "2003 Invasion Forces"

As of December 7th, 2009, the "2003 Invasion Forces" list included Spain. This was an obvious mistake, as Spain hadn't any military involvement on the invasion. Not only the spanish' army didn't participate, but also the U.S.' military bases in Spain weren't used for the 2003 war - as opposite to the 1991 one, when they were active warbases. Spanish troops were sent later, after both George W. Bush declared the end of major operations and the resolution from United Nations allegedly legitimated the invaders and their allies to occupy the country.

In order to get the mistaked ammended, I created this section on the discussion page. One week later, not seeing any changes or replies (other that words from this section being erased by an unknown hand), I erased the name of Spain from the invaders list. Well, I think it is right now. Let's hope it stays the same - and if someone starts erasing my contribution, at least says who he/she is and why he/she does it.-Ignacio Agulló

Let me explain a bit. Regarding your most recent edits, we can't tell who you are because you haven't made an account. Your IP changes periodically. Even if it didn't, we'd have to specifically remember your IP to understand that edits came from you. Further, you didn't sign your original comment, the signature was added by bot later. When you deleted Spain's flag from the list, you did so without explaining why in the edit summary. From our view while looking at the history, you are just some guy deleting Spain's flag without any reason. That would be vandalism from our perspective, even though you know that your edits are made in good faith. I don't know much about Spain's involvement in the war, so I'm not contesting or confirming your edits. Just saying that it's difficult for us to keep track of what's going on. One more thing, you should really avoid overwriting your own comments. If you want to update something, just enter it below them. Treat this pretty much like a forum, makes everything easier for all of us. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
When you make the change to the article, be sure to fill in the edit summary explaining the change and referring other editors to this discussion here on the talk page. — SpikeToronto 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who edited your comment, Ignacio, although I mistakenly did so logged out of my account. You can see my changes to your comment here[4]. I made two edits to your comment under the justification of Wikipedia:TPO. First, I removed a single statement that reflected your personal view of the war. This is not a place for personal stating personal opinions of any kind. You were warned by the template at the top of the talk page that any such statements will be removed. The statement was not part of your actual complaint, which was left completely alone. Second, I manually signed your comment. In the future, you don't have to sign your statements with your name. At the end of your comments, please type ~~~~. This will show up as a personal signature for your IP adress.
As to your actual complaint about the article, simply saying something is true doesn't make it so. If you think something is wrong in an article, you need to have a reliable source to support your information. You can't make changes to the article without doing so. However, I will see if I can find the facts from an expert or from the reference desk, and hopefully we'll get it sorted out quickly.--Stinging Swarm talk 02:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I found a source that confirms that Spain took part in the invasion with logistical support: [5] Spain continued to be a member of the coalition from that point until 2004; it can probably be included. I'm still trying to find sources from help at the Reference Desk, so I'll hold off.--Stinging Swarm talk 04:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Order of Battle

For those involved in updating this article, this reliable source reference may help. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Should a monarch be listed as a commander despite the British Armed Forces being controlled de facto by the Prime Minister of the UK rather than the queen? Would it be advisable to remove her from the list? G. R. Allison (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, she stays on. Read this (from the citation next to her majesty's name). "The Queen as Sovereign is Head of the Armed Forces... The Queen is the only person to declare war and peace... On enlistment, the Army and Air Force Acts require members of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Marines to take an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy as Head of the Armed Forces." Good to see she still has some power. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I did read that however it doesn't actually specify her role within the armed forces, I know it says she is head of them but does that really justify including her despite her likely having no involvement what so ever? She de facto can't act unless advised by ministers.G. R. Allison (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe she doesn't have any involvement barring declaring war, but she is still the head of the British Armed Forces. I think that is enough. I'd appreciate other people's views on this, though, especially since I only came along to resolve the above dispute. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Figureheads don't qualify as "commanders" imho. The monarch (informally) delegates all executive power to the government (right?) and as such has little or no "command" over the armed forces, despite being their formal head. And clearly it was Blair and not the Queen who was behind the UK involvement in the invasion? 96T (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this paper says,

The constitutional position of the UK armed forces is that their government and command are vested in Her Majesty. Direct control of the armed forces under the Sovereign is divided between the Government and the Defence Council. Parliamentary control of the armed forces is based primarily on the need for annual renewal by Parliament of the Acts which govern enlistment and discipline in the armed forces. Acts of Parliament also affect the use of armed forces within the United Kingdom...
...For overseas operations, the political decision to deploy the armed forces rests with the Prime Minister or Cabinet through their exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It is the Defence Council which has the power of command over the members of the armed forces and the power to make appointments within the armed forces. The Defence Council is also responsible for such matters relating to the administration of the armed forces as the Secretary of State directs.

The given source says, "The Queen is the only person to declare war and peace." Based on that, calling her a commander might even constitute as synthesis if the queen only commands the military de jure and not in practice.--Abusing (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Basicly, long answer short: The Queen is head of the Armed Forces officially and allows others to make military decisions on her behalf. Also if it wasn't for the Queen, The UK and Australia would not have declared war because The Queen is the only person who can declare war in the UK The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if the queen offered a formal declaration of war (which she didn't), it would still not necessarily make her a commander. In other articles, such as the American Revolutionary War or the Falklands War, the monarch is not listed as a commander. Being the head of the armed forces does not make them the commander of the forces in a particular war. Furthermore, this is a disputed statement in a highly controversial article, and it does not have a reliable source supporting it. A source that actually says that Queen Elizabeth II commanded the armed forces in Iraq is needed. Until then, I'm removing her name from the list.--Abusing (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_20&oldid=1142351893"