Misplaced Pages

Talk:Iraq War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:00, 12 November 2006 editTisthammerw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,242 edits →Casualities: What about the UN estimate?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 January 2025 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors63,016 edits →Should John Howard be added as a leader?: rm dupe 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{{controversial}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{FailedGA|1 September 2006}}
{{American English}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{Article history
|-
|action1=GAN
! rowspan="2" valign="top" |
|action1date=September 1, 2006
! align="left" |
|action1result=failed
<big> ] for ]:</big>
|action1link=Talk:Iraq War/Archive 4#GAC
| align="right" |
|action1oldid=73281431
|-
|action2=GAN
| colspan="2" valign="top" style="background:#FFEFDF; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" |
|action2date=February 14, 2007
Use <nowiki> <s> and </s></nowiki> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:
|action2result=failed

|action2oldid=107945964
|}
|action2link=Talk:Iraq War/Archive 10#GA nomination on hold
{{WPTCT}}
|currentstatus=FGAN
{{WPMILHIST|class = B|War-on-Terrorism-task-force=yes}}{{V0.5|class=B|category=Socsci}}
|itndate=1 September 2010
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center" colspan="2"|]<br/>]
----
|-
|
], ], ], ], ]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

==Minor suggestion==
Change the flag by Zarqawi's name to ]...the Al Qaeda flag...Zarqawi may have been Jordanian but he was a member of Al Qaeda first and foremost.

:I don't think that would be necessary. They are listing the countries they come from, not neccesarily what terror group they are apart of.

ok I think I will put this here. I am absolutly appalled by the title of this article. "Iraq War" no there hasn't been a US war in iraq ever. Let me explain myself. If you have ever had a civics class they would tell you that congress and only congress can declare war on any country. The president has the power to send in troops into a country with a plausible reason. Which I am sure is a very hot topic on this page. Anyways I cannot remember congress declaring a war on Iraq> EVER. Not desert storm. Not even vietnam. and as I remember not even world war 2. The last declared war was world war 1. Know I understand the reasoning behind the calling it a war but since this is a encyclopedia I believe it should be entitled conflict:Iraqi Freedom. as desert storm was classified this woulb make more sense then calling something that isn't something.

==Is this a war on Terrorism?==
Several users have asked to discuss this issue so here is my opinion: By definition, a war on terrorism must be declared, and have a specific enemy who has committed a crime. It has been proven that Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda, or 9/11, or that Iraq had WMD's. The Iraq war has never been officially declared. Therefore, it isn't even a war. However, Saddam did violently repel an uprising after the ] which killed civilians. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Yes, it is part of the so-called "''War on Terror''". Yes, anyone's semi-intelligent knows that there never was any link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda etc. However, it suited the Bush administration's agenda (and the PNAC etc) to attempt to link them to give their oil grab the veil of legitimacy.] 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

::The War on Terrorism is equivalent to ] or ]. It is not literally a declared ], but is rather proper noun to describe a government policy, so a declaration of war is immaterial. Whether or not Iraq actually had ties to al Qaeda or 9/11 is also immaterial, the Bush administration pushed supposed ties and sold it as the overall package of why the Hussein administration had to be removed. So while it is true that there is no evidence that Iraq had any connection to al Qaeda now (and there's actually evidence to the contrary), at the time those connections were made. It's also difficult to say the occupation of Iraq is not part of the WoT now due to the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq and other foreign jihadists. So even if the 9/11 and al Qaeda links were fabricated when Iraq was invaded there are ties now. All in all, it's best to view "War on Terrorism" as a ] term used by the US and its allies. --] 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree that the term is part of a line of similarly named US policies of ongoing vigilance. I question it's use in an encyclopaedia, unless qualified as a US policy name. Considering the international nature of the coalition, taking the US protagonists term might be seen as clear POV, rather than the best non-controversial description of the phenomenon, which I guess would be War in Iraq, or similar. Looking back at other wars, the umbrella campaign name or term would appear not to be used. Although that's a gut feeling, so if there's any history buffs reading this, please enlighten. ] 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:A lot of countries call it the War on Terror. ] 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, I'm from UK, we don't call our actions that. Tony Blair uses it as part of alignment with the US, but you'll not find him using such terms with IRA negotiations, or some such! It is a US term, with alignment. ] 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::One has to look at it in the context of how it was portrayed by the two primary aggressor<nowiki>*</nowiki> nations, the US and UK. Both refer to it as part of the wider War on Terror(ism)<nowiki>**</nowiki>. Thus, the appelation is correct.
::<nowiki>*</nowiki>Before anyne gets their knickers in a twist, this is not a pejorative use of the term -- as the invaders they are in fact the aggressors, no matter what the provocation, real, perceived or imagined.
::<nowiki>**</nowiki> The US Administration refers to it as the War on Terror, for reasons I don't want to go into other than to say that it's the same basic reason that covers why the RS-71 was renamed the SR-71, and why the EIC became the EITC. ] 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::I think, instead of "aggressors", "protagonists" is the correct term. GWOT is more UK, or support for GWOT or some other watered down supportive phrase. ] 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::The very concept of "aggressors" brings with it negative connotations. Remember, despite our personal views, we are writing an encyclopedia article. I agree with Jim62sch in that they are, in fact, the aggressors, but the term carries too much perjorative with it to be of use. Protagonists, while striking me as something from a novel, is better, though I'm open to suggestions on how to fix it. Silverlocke980, 3:25 p.m., November 2006.

:On a note of the actual topic, I say this: it is *part of* the War on Terror of the U.S. While properly called the War in Iraq, it as a whole is part of a larger strategy, that of the U.S. War on Terror. Just as history looks on individual battles as part of a larger war, so too does this smaller war figure in a bigger political whole. That's my take, anyway. If you can shoot it down, go for it- I'm open to suggestions.

==Front line of Iraq war==
Visit www.youtube.com, search Iraq IED. US soldiers in Humvees, M1A1 tanks, Bradleys, Strykers, trucks, and other vehicles are getting blown up by IED's. Unfortunately, the perpetrators are often not caught. However, US soldiers often mistake insurgent terrorists for civilians, which increases the civilian death toll.

== Current event template...? ==

I think there should be a current event template at the top of the page. I know it seems obvious that the Iraq War is going on, and therefore, it could be argued that it is unneeded. But I disagree. Please comment. Also, I do not know how to do it, so if I could get some consensus that would be great.

== Fishy figures ==

During the ] news reports always said something along the lines of "Oh, at this offensive, hundreds died and at that battle thousands lost their lives."

Is the number of Iraqi deaths like that?--] 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:No. Although there is a section in the article (or was anyway, editing's happening so fast currently!) about different operations by the US army. Although I think it would be extremely difficult to categorise deaths by Operation etc. Esp given the under-reporting of deaths.] 08:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

==Discussion groups?==
Deos anybody have any information on any discussion groups that are going on for those with loved ones or family members in Iraq? I'm writing a paper on the problem that there is a lack of them for those of us who are in that situation so I need to make sure that there is a sufficient enough lack to make a paper out of it. Thanks!

==Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an "estimate"==
In the text it says that "estimates" vary from Iraqbodycounts minimum death count to the recent report. I think that's rather wrong. Iraqbodycount is not an estimate of how many people that have died because of the war, but of how many that has been reported killed, and that's a huge diffrence. Sure, use IBCs number as a number of confirmed deaths, but not as an estimate because that's not what it is. --] 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. The only actual verifiable figures are the recent ones in the Lancet-all other figures/estimates/guesses/propaganda should be removed from the article.] 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you. Yes, I suggest that we put the confirmed number of deaths somewhere else in the article together with information about the difficulties of estimating the death toll etc, and use the Lancet study in (and other estimates of the total death toll, if there are any) in the beginning of the article and in the information box. Although with respect to IBCs work, using their numbers there is like saying that an unrecorded deaths is not a death at all. --] 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

::Exactly. The figures used for Darfur etc were obtained using the same methods as the Lancet study for Iraq so should be included as the death toll in the info-box. The Iraqi Health Ministry and IBC have roughly the same number... I agree with a new section for documenting the controversy.] 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. --] 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I would like to see some range, the 655,000 alone doesn't represent the fact that nobody knows for sure how many have died. I don't think we should simply find the study with the highest amount imaginable and use that as fact. ] 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::::First off, the Lancet study is, from what I know, the only study of it's sort. The US-led coalition has said that they "don't do body counts" (which is in violation of the Genève Conventions) and therefore information of this sort is scarce. Secondly, some range is given in the study. It says that they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died, but came up with 655 000 as a reasonable number (And there you also see that 655 000 isn't the "higherst amount imaginable"). --] 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::To me, that brings into question the methodology of the report. How can anyone say that they are 95% sure that between 392,979 and 942,636 people have died? There's a gap of almost 550,000 in there, meaning that they are 95% certain of bupkus. Notwithstanding an official DoD count, there are other methods, like IBC, that have more verifiable ways of confirming deaths, such as using multiple sources. ] 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Saying that one is 95% sure that a figure lies within a certain range is just about the best way to present statistics. It's not an empty statement, or "bupkus", at all. It means it's very unlikely that the casualty rate is as low as 200,000 or as high as 1,000,000, and it acknowledges just how much uncertainty there is in the count - a lot. Having studied some statistics, I would question the methodology of a report that doesn't present its results in terms of a ]. Omitting the error bars is one of the most common ways to mislead with stats; let's not do that. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, I suppose I expressed myself a bit bad. Instead of "they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died" , it should rather be "according to their research, the chance that the number of deaths is between 392 979 and 942 636, is 95 %." If you have questions on methodology then read the report. As I have previously said, IBC states that it only counts reported deaths, which makes it useless in this context. --] 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
::I guess what I fail to realize is why we shouldn't simply use a count of confirmed deaths. At least then the number has some veracity, because otherwise it's conjecture. ] 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I've already told you why we shouldn't use IBC's numbers. Look at any other war article with a large number of casualties, do you think they are less conjecture? Do you just distrust this special report, or statistics on the whole? --] 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm a little confused, we shouldn't use IBC because those deaths are documented, but we should use this study because there not? Honestly the Lancet report seems a bit suspect to me. I don't doubt that there have been deaths that haven't been reported yet, but these numbers are beyond what is even remotely possible. The Lancet study was conducted over a period of three months which is hardly enough time to gather data for over 40. The Lancet study also mentions the fact that the DoD does in fact conduct body counts, "despite initially denying that they did." ] 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, there we have it. You seem to think the Lancet study is suspect because it gives too high numbers. Why would three months not be enough to do a statistical study, and where are that DoD body count then? --] 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::I don't know, ask Lancet where the DoD count is. Of course it gives too high a number! There is absolutely no way that there are that many undocumented deaths. It defies reason. That's what I've been saying all along. And next week or month when a study comes out with 2.5 million deaths or 3 million deaths, y'all will most likely accept that one as fact as well. ] 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think that there cannot be so many undocumented deaths? It's close to civil war in Iraq, do you think a few western journalists have coverage over the whole country? Compared with IBC, the Lancet study says that abouth one tenth of the Iraqi deaths have been reported by western media, which I think is quite plausible. --] 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Because counts conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry, Interior Ministry, Brookings Institution, the AP and virtually every other count don't even approach the numbers in the new lancet study. Listen, I don't question the fact that too many civilians are dying, but I think that it is irresponsible to display one study as fact when its' numbers vary significantly from others. That's all, I would just like to see some other studies used in the article for balance. ] 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not saying and I have never said that the Lancet study is right, but rather that IBC isn't very interesting for the infobox and the introduction of this article. They accept this themselves ("It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war." - quoted from the IBC homepage). Anyway, I proposed that we create a new section in the article where we can put forward the difficulties and controversies with the death count, and there we can have the IBC numbers. --] 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Another section in the article will be fine, but do you still want to use the Lancet study in the infobox? ] 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Absolutely, but if there are other interesting estimations of the total death toll available then we can include them there as well. --] 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::I would like to see maybe the Brookings and Iraqi Health Ministry counts if possible, they would take a line apiece at most. ] 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:*Let's clarify a few things. You may indeed find the ''Lancet'' study suspect, but statistically the chances that the death toll is under 400,000 is 2.5%, likewise the chance that it is above 1,000,000.
:*The DoD figures say that from May to August the average number of civilian deaths per day in incidents that the Coalition forces responded to was 117. Given that there are certainly huge numbers of incidents that they do not respond to (and either Iraqi police do or no-one does) such as sectarian murders, it seems safe to assume that the daily death toll in Iraq has been running at a '''minimum''' of 200 deaths per day from May to August, and by the U.S. Army's own admission it has gotten substantially worse since then, so perhaps at least 300 per day for the past two months. That alone produces a death toll of 36,000 for the past five months. If we use only the average number that the coalition responded to then it is still at least 21,000 since May. It shows just how poor a source Iraqbodycount or the Health Ministry are - neither of these sources is suggesting that half the total casualties have occured in the past 5 months; so either the DoD has got it wrong or neither of these are even close to accurate estimates of the death toll.
:*If you have queries about the reliability of the ''Lancet'' study, I suggest you read this analysis performed by a (conservative) British polling analyst who works for the highly respected British polling company Yougov . ] 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::So given the fact that all these studies differ so much, which should we use? ] 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:::IBC is not a study; it is a tabulation of deaths reported in the media. Personally I think it is just fine the way it is, though maybe the footnote could be expanded. ] 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Study-tabulation, I really don't care much for semantics. ] 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== Three points ==

These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:

*"Massive civilian casualties" is an emotional opinion, which is why it was removed.
*"Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" is not documented in the link given, which is why it was removed.
*A badly done ref in the first paragraph has caused 3 paragraphs to dissappear, which is why it was replaced.

] 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::I think "massive civilian casualties" was rather good, and i can't see any emotional part in, but okay. We can change "Massive civilian casualties" to "The deadliest conflict of the 21th century as of now, (according to the Lancet study)" if you like that better. And I'll find another link to support "Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" if you want it. --] 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::Agree with all of CJK's points. ] 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be claimed that it is the deadliest conflict that ''started'' in the 21st Century (which is only 6 years old), but the deadliest conflict to take place in the 21st Century would be in the Congo.... Actually, now that I think about it, one could argue that the Iraq War began in 1998 with Clinton's bombing campaigns which continued up to OIF... that is, if we go by a strict definition of ] which simply involves two nations attacking each others forces, not neccessarily regime change. ] 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::Much as I like and use that definition of warfare, the Iraq War we have right now is a tight, closed-circuit thing that is actually unrelated to the bombing campaigns. It's got a definite beginning and end, with the reasons behind it unrelated to the Clinton bombings. The bombings would fit under a different category- though I am currently unaware of what it would fit under. Silverlocke980, November 2006.

:::The fix was very simple...no one broke the ref with a / <nowiki><ref name=IBC/><ref name="Second Lancet Study"></nowiki> should be <nowiki><ref name=IBC/><ref name="Second Lancet Study"/></nowiki>. ] 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Iraqbodycount and Iraqi health ministerim/Iraqi government count is not the same thing ==

Some people are talking about "Officially Iraqi government count" and "Iraqi health ministerium count" and later only linking to Iraqbodycount again, which is a rather useless count for estimating the casualties in Iraq (see discussion above: "Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an 'estimate'"). Unless you provide links directly to information about the Iraqi government count or Iraqi health ministerium count, I will remove the 40-thousandsomething estimates. --] 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So much attention towards Iraqbodycount is diverting from the realities of the conflict. Rather than an estimate of casualties, it represents a bottom line, a minimum, only those accounted via the media and other first hand reports. For example, we quote estimates of 400k-600k of dead iraqi children as a result of UN sanctions, but none of those would have qualified for the iraqbodycount.] 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Spain and "pulling out"==

In the article there is only one reference to spain as a member of the coalition, but there is not reference to the antiwar stance of Zapatero, his pledge to remove the troops if elected, 11-M, or the subsequent removal of the troops. Spain was the first to pull out, Italy is doing so and the UK may do so soon. The issue has repeatedly been raised in the US with questions to the president as to the return of the troops. Dont you think that this deserves to be tackled in the main article?] 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:Some good points there. Why not add a section yourself?] 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== Casualities ==

Part which I removed from infobox:
:''Civilian deaths officially reported by the Iraqi health ministry <ref name=IBC>{{cite web | url=http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position | title=Iraq Body Count}}</ref>.''': 43,850-48,693 <ref>{{cite news|title=Iraq Body Count: War dead figures |publisher=BBC |date=] |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm}}</ref><br><br>

The article cited, in an infobox, "civilian deaths officially reported by the Iraqi health ministry". Such counts are known to be extremely unreliable. According to the famouse second Lancet article , which merely repeats scientific consensus on this point, they are almost invariably underestimating by factor of 5, and often by more than 10x.

Long quote from Lancet article:
:Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures.1,5 This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally hidden. Aside from Bosnia,21 '''we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods'''. In several outbreaks, disease and death recorded by facility-based methods '''underestimated events by a factor of ten or more''' when compared with population based estimates.11,22–25 Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence.26

Figure that is known to be underestimated by at least 5x and most likely more has really no place in the infobox.
It can of course be included with complete explanations later in the article.
But as very few readers are aware of scale of inaccuracy and bias such methods have,
a raw figure can easily create a mistaken impression that it is an estimate of total number of civilian deaths,
a position which as far as I can tell, not a single person with relevant expertise holds. ] 04:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:There is no doubt that IBC does not catch all the deaths; however it is also extremely likely that the Hopkins study is on the high side (see, e.g. 655,000 War Dead? I myself have located at least one factual error in the opening three paragraphs of the Lancet study, and apparently according to its authors "the appendeces were written by students and should be ignored." How much else should be ignored? This study is not the last word on the issue and should not be treated as such. ] 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Validity of Lancet study is not relevant at all. The relevant points are:
* Counting number of deaths in conflict based on passive surveillance is not a reasonable estimate of total number of deaths by at least 5x any typically more.
* Inclusion of such number in infobox without full discussion can '''easily lead to mistaken impression that such number is a reasonable estimate''' of total number of deaths.
* There's not enough space in the infobox to fully explain why such number is not a reasonable estimate of total number of deaths.

Do you disagree with one of these points, or do you want to include a number knowing it can easily be misleading ? ] 14:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::*The validity of the Lancet study is very important, since you are quoting it as the source for the assertion that passive sureveillance techniques are out by 5x. There are many good arguments why 655,000 may not be a reasonable estimate either, so we either take them both out, or leave them both in with explanations in the footnotes.
::*Passive surveillance picked up most deaths in Bosnia - who is to say they aren't being picked up here?
::*It is not factually incorrect to say that the civilian casualty toll is somewhere between 50,000 and 665,000.
::*Personally I don't think 50,000 is anything like an accurate count, but it seems to most observers that the real death toll is certainly much closer to the bottom range of the C.I. for the Lancet study than the stated 655,000, so - as you yourself say - do you want to include a number knowing it can be easily misleading? ] 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Although I think the Lancet survey is the most significant currently available number, I have to side with Cripipper here. The Lancet number needs to be included in any responsible discussion, but the infobox has a duty to present only npov, independently verifiable data."Officially reported civilian deaths" is encyclopedic; to put the contested 655k figure in the infobox, as though it had the same authority, is potentially misleading. The WSJ editors, a group who have no small bias of their own, ask some valid and important questions of the Hopkins researchers' methods. There is a much less substantial criticism of the study in ''Science'' 20 October 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5798, pp. 396 - 397. ] 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::::to clarify: quoting an "officially reported number" is acceptable to me, even though this number may fall drastically short of the real toll. WP infobox must leave suspicion of official bodycounts up to the reader. Putting the 655k number in the infobox is a different issue. Maybe there is some way to infobox 655k with the proper qualifications? I guess there's no reason for the infobox not to have a range of conflicting, similarly qualified estimates? ] 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::having trouble saying what I mean here. What I mean is that there's no dispute that ~50K was officially ''reported.'' There is dispute whether 655k have ''died.'' ]

:::*Personally I'd like to see it return to this version:

{{casualties3='''Estimate of Total Iraqi civilian deaths of Iraqis (civilian and non-civilians) due to war''':<br>43,850<ref name=IBC>{{cite web | url=http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position | title=Iraq Body Count}}</ref> to 655,000 <small>(95% ] 392,979–942,636)</small><ref name="Second Lancet Study">{{cite news|title=Second Lancet Mortality Study |publisher=Lancet |url=http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf|date=]}}</ref>}}
] 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::::*{{casualties3='''Total Iraqi deaths due to war'''::<br>43,850<ref name=IBC>{{cite web | url=http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position | title=Iraq Body Count}}</ref> to 655,000 <small>(95% ] 392,979–942,636)</small><ref name="Second Lancet Study">{{cite news|title=Second Lancet Mortality Study |publisher=Lancet |url=http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf|date=]}}</ref>}}
::::seems like a concise and accurate presentation of available facts. ] 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:There is ongoing controversy "main street bias" over the Lancet article methodology , so I consider it is not statistically valid to use it as an upper bound. If the method has a systematic flaw "main street bias", it cannot represent anything. The criticism of the data size being small is not however systematic, so that part of the criticism must be ignored, and is only useful for giving error limits on the value i.e. value +- error ] 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::: Two quick points. 1. The John Hopkins team canvassed homes in residential streets that ran off main avenues. This is an important distinction. 2. Main roads by their very definition attract people from all areas. A similar conclusion can be drawn with regard to attacks on street markets, mosques, office blocks, police/army recruitment centers, police stations, etc. The victims are likely to be a random cross section of society. And so I am not convinced that this potential 'main street bias' is entirely applicable. But let's see what they come up with and we will test the results. SMB 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

::actually, there are a few papers out there (on cluster sampling generally, not on Iraqi wars) that mathematically demonstrate that the distribution of errors as number of clusters drops does become biased, but more likely towards underestimates; the "balance" is restored by the fewer number of overestimates being of larger magnitude.

::A few ways to show this; the estimate from the Hopkins guys is a death rate of 2.5% (critics argue that in fact it's less than 2.5%); the absolute minimum possible estimate you could get, whether accurate or by error, is 0% and the maximum possible estimate is 100%, obviously. Equally obviously, therefore, even if the '''actual''' rate were as high as 2.5%, the minimum possible estimate would be low by -2.5%; the maximum possible estimate amount would be high by +97.5%. Clearly, if the mean of the errors has to equal zero, which is the entire basis of statistical theory, there have to be a lot more -2.5%s to balance out a few +97.5%s. All the more so if you are saying the actual number is really less than 2.5%.

::Or, to work through an example, imagine a minefield which (you do not know) has 10% of the area actually mined, into which you toss a sample of 1 rock (which we can all agree is too low and produces an inaccurate result) to get an estimate of how mined it is. Obviously, there are only two possibilities; you have a 90% chance of not hitting a mine and getting an estimate of 0% mined, an error of -10%, but a 10% chance of hitting a mine and getting an estimate of 100% mined, an error of +90%. With this too-small sample size you are obviously 9 times more likely to UNDERestimate than you are to OVERestimate, although when you do overestimate it's a whopper. So, OK, you say that this 650,000 death rate could very well be one of these rare but huge overestimates. But...... don't forget this is the second time they've done the study, using independent samples, and the two generally agreed on death rates. What're the odds that you toss in '''two''' rocks and hit '''two''' mines, having both samples overestimate? 1%. But what're the odds that you toss in two rocks and '''neither''' hits a mine, having both samples underestimate? 81%. Doing the too small study twice and having them agree, you are 80 times more likely to underestimate than overestimate. Obviously this is an extreme example, but the same argument goes for the Hopkins studies; if there is any bias because of small sample size, it is much more likely to be in the direction of UNDERestimation. Or the sample size is adequate, and the estimate is not biased.

::To sum up, whether or not the criticism of too small sample size has any validity, the estimate is virtually certainly not biased high. And if you add in the researchers' having assigned zero deaths to the three clusters which were not sampled, the possibility of this being an overestimate becomes even less. It's either in the correct neighborhood, or it's an underestimate. ] 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Or 50 clusters was not enough. When they conduct an opinion poll in Ireland, with a population of 4 million, they use 100 sampling points. Can 50 clusters be enough to be representative of a population of 25 million?

::::Again: if a spoonful is enough for me to test the saltiness of a bowl of soup, then it's enough for me to test the saltiness of a tureen of soup, I don't have to drink a cupful. Again: the size of the population being sampled appears nowhere in the mathematics, only the number of samples or clusters. Again: the confidence interval is calculated from the variance in the sampled clusters ''a posteriori'', so reflects the actual variance between the clusters. If there is a huge variation in death rates, then the effect will be that the confidence interval is very wide, as in Hopkins study 2004, indicating you need more clusters. Again: if there really are insufficient clusters, then the most likely bias would be to '''UNDERSTATE''' the death rate. Again: in most cases, 50 is plenty to count whatever it is you are studying, as a general rule of thumb. More is nice, as it further insulates you from anomalies, but probably not worth getting shot over. ] 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am against using Lancet, and highly against it being used alone. Lancet is a flawed method of counting, I am not sure how there can be a complaint against the official government agency doing the counting and a group of random people knocking on doors asking if someone died, and if so how. The thing I would clarifying on is ... The Lancet people claim most of the families had death certificates, if those are handed out by the ministry of health ... how can there be more certificates then bodies? Wouldnt this mean that
*A) bodies are being counted multiple times in Lancet
*B) Someone is handing out certificates that shouldn't
*C) There is a massive conspiracy
--]] 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:Death certificates are not issued by the Ministry of Health, but by local doctors. The Lancet study authors claim that local doctors are still issuing them, but that the structures for centrally collating the information within the country have broken down, which does not seem unreasonable. ] 08:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, I forgot to point out to Nuclear that the method used by the Lancet, rather than being a 'flawed method of counting', is the method the U.S. government uses for performing similar tasks. The the method is indesputably the global standard, the question at hand is whether there was a flaw in how it was carried out. ] 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
::Can you show me proof that the US uses this method to count country wide dead? No because the truth is they use it for a census, which is entirely different. Calling someone and asking how many people live in the house is different then asking them how many dead they know or lived there. Having a death certificate is a flawed method further because the mother will get the certificate as well as the father and the wife, what prevents duplicates? these people do not all necessarily live together. Multiple doctors seeing the same body is also another problem since there is no central reporting location that prevents duplications. Do you honestly think that going door to door asking is a more reliable method then actually counting bodies? --]] 12:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:You forgot
*D) your house got blown up by a bomb and the only thing left of Grandpa and Baby Sue is a handful of bloodstained linen.
That'll get you a couple of death certificates in the US, I imagine it would also in Iraq. Now, tell us more about this "flawed method of counting" ] of which you speak. ] 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
::That is the flaw, you admit above that doctors arent following procedures and just issuing death certificates to people who show a pile of blood and guts, who is to say they arent issuing duplicates if they arent following procedure and reporting those deaths back, with the police infiltrated would it be a surprise that one doctor is spitting out death certificates incorrectly. Again No lancet alone, preferably no Lancet. Thank you for supporting my point --]] 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, then how is it that the IBC numbers include a maximum and minimum? If they're actual counts of actual deaths? How is it that different sources on the scene report different numbers which the IBC is good enough to report? Could it be that '''SOMEBODY''' is just reporting piles of blood and guts to the IBC as deaths? And somebody else is ignoring those piles as no deaths? Could it be that they are missing quite a few deaths? Newborns who die after a few hours? People without a family who are killed on backstreets and dumped in the Tigris? ] 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth here is an Oct. 21, 2006 Reuters article with several other researchers backing up the Lancet study:
*http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061021/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc
And from the ] is this: "In a letter to The Age, however, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the studies 'methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously.'"
*

I suggest using a range of deaths (from low to high) as others have suggested. The Lancet range. I don't hear any real dispute about whether it is the best estimate so far. If a better estimate comes up then we can use it. --] 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:How about an estimate from the UN? After reading the section, I can see why the neutrality dispute tag was added. In the ] entry, this was mentioned:

::These numbers have been controversial and were immediately denounced both politically and within the statistical analysis community. The methodology used by Burham et al, known as cross-sectional population-based cluster sampling, is respected among ] for estimating mortality rates in war-torn countries. However, questions have arisen regarding the sufficiency of the sample size for the extrapolations made in the Lancet survey.

::The Lancet estimate is significantly higher than estimates from other organizations. In 2004, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688, to arrive at their estimate of between 18,000 and 29,000 civilian deaths from the war. The Lancet survey used 47 cluster points, and a total of 1,849 interviews, to arrive at their estimate of 655,000 civilian deaths.

:These seem like very important and relevant facts to include regarding the Lancet study and the estimated number of casualties. --] 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)



----
Copying the questions here, because the discussion would be barely readable otherwise.

* The validity of the Lancet study is very important, since you are quoting it as the source for the assertion that passive sureveillance techniques are out by 5x. There are many good arguments why 655,000 may not be a reasonable estimate either, so we either take them both out, or leave them both in with explanations in the footnotes.
** They only state what is scientific consensus. Such claims if incorrect would be caught in peer review process (hopefully) or later. As far as I know nobody ever questioned this one.
* Passive surveillance picked up most deaths in Bosnia - who is to say they aren't being picked up here?
** '''No it did not'''. It picked about 30-40%, "with huge support for surveillance activities from the UN" and in much smaller and much better developed country . Let's add "in Saddam’s last year of his reign, only about one-third of all deaths were captured at morgues and hospitals through the official government surveillance network. So, when things were good, if only a third of deaths were captured, what do you think it’s like now?" (the same source) to that, and there's no way to believe such rates would be in Iraq.
* It is not factually incorrect to say that the civilian casualty toll is somewhere between 50,000 and 665,000.
** It is grossly factually incorrect. The lower bound by body count x5 is 250,000. The 95% CI of Lancet study is 392,979 to 942,636. So 250,000 to 942,636 seems like a reasonable range. If Lancet study is right, your range has 50% change of being missed. It also includes a lot of impossible figures (even if Iraq had Bosnian rates).
* Personally I don't think 50,000 is anything like an accurate count, but it seems to most observers that the real death toll is certainly much closer to the bottom range of the C.I. for the Lancet study than the stated 655,000, so - as you yourself say - do you want to include a number knowing it can be easily misleading? ] 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
** The Lancet study (392,979 to 942,636) is trying to estimate '''total number of casualties'''. It might be seriously flawed (many studies are), but it uses widely accepted methodology, and seems to have support of at least some people with relevant expertise. Official body count is '''not''' an estimate of '''total number of casualties'''. You won't find a single person with revelant expertise who claims so. It is known to be far below the right number. By using 5%-20% numbers (from various wars), the estimate extrapolated from it is 250,000-1,000,000. Using Bosnian 30-40% figure, which would be beyond reasonable optimism, we get estimates of 125,000-167,000. These numbers are estimates of '''total number of deaths'''. 50,000 is not one. If body count is given together with a short explanation and x5 figure, it wouldn't be that misleading. Without any - it's almost like we're purposedly trying to confuse the reader. ] 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

==Small mistake==
The paragraph "Criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war" misses a blank between "and" & "Human". --] 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph "2003: Invasion" states that the invasion began on March 19. The main article however says that it began on March 20. --] 20:30, 3 November 2006 (CET)

==Big mistake==
under Criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war:
" In the U.S., 73 percent of Americans supported an invasion."
If you go to the pdf-file refered to, you will find this sentence:
"If military action is taken, 73% of Americans feel that their country should support this action."
There is no data on the width and quality of the statistic, and, most importantly, there is a HUGE difference between what's in the wikipedia-article, and what this pdf-document says.
Anyone who is a registered user should delete that sentence from the article right away,
and if one is to use that statistic, one has to find the real source and not rewrite what the data is really saying.
"In 41 countries the majority of the populace did not support an invasion of Iraq without U.N. sanction (and half said an invasion should not occur under any circumstances.)"
The pdf-document doesn't state this, so this sentence should be deleted as well.

== Bush considers changing tactics in Iraq ==

Oct. 20: President Bush acknowledges that "staying the course" in Iraq is not working and says he will consider a possible change in tactics in the war. (source: NBC)You guys got three days to include this, or that's it. I will.] 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC
:I encourage you to read up on ]. I have also left a message on your talk page regarding your comments on the ] page. ]] 22:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

==Commanders Infobox==
Erm, where did they all go? I presume Bush has been left as he is "commander in chief" of US forces but is the box not meant to reflect commanders ''on the ground'' or in the region??] 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==Coalition Military Operations==
Please stop adding the list of various operations to this article. There's another article,] that organizes all the operations which has been linked to here. The list that was on this page was incomplete and poorly organized-this other article does a much better job. Of course if the military operation was unusually important, like ] then linking to it within the text is a good solution as well. <font color="green">]</font> 00:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
== Why? (Images discussion) ==
I have seen a reason that the current image "better represents the scope of the war" in some edits, but to put it simply the 4 photos look pretty bad the way they are. The same thing was done for the Lebanon-Israeli conflict, and I was no more impressed there. Frankly, I think that these pictures make the article look unprofessional in comparison to having a simple high quality photograph at the start. I think if we want to better represent the scope, we should include an array of photos in the article itself, not a hodgepodge of different ones thrown into the main picture, which isnt meant to summarize all that goes on in one look. Is there something else going on that I am missing? ~'''] (])''' 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::I agree. And do we have any photos of Iraqi casualties? So far (apart from the prison photo), we've got a wounded american soldier, a deeply cheesy photo of an american with a kid, and nothing of the iraqi casualties. ] 07:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::One reason I liked the old main image was that it had Iraqi soldiers in it as opposed to the typical American soldiers, which seemed to be a good idea considering that more Iraqi soldiers have died than American, and further more Iraqis have died overall by far. As for casualties themselves, it would probably be harder to find them. But does anyone object to the replacing of the 4 spliced images with the old one? ~'''] (])''' 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I oppose this, as the Iraqi soldiers picture is included here, and the image covers many aspects. One picture cannot rapresent the whole conflict, --] (]) 23:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::Again, the main picture is not supposed to cover the whole conflict, its impossible to do. Yours doesnt do it, it just takes 4 pictures, and squeezes them together in an unattractive manner. Its better to keep with the precedent set by other wars such as the ], ], or ] and simply use one high quality photo. If you want to use pictures to represent the "full scope," add more pictures to the body of the article. ~'''] (])''' 01:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's hear other thoughts, and at least put an other picture showing fighting. --] (]) 13:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:I would like more photos, not less. There are very few photos in the article. Compare to the number of images in the ] page. Until there are more images in the article it doesn't make sense to lessen the number of images from 4 to 1 at the top. I will put the single image somewhere in the article. And I will put back the collage of 4 images at the top. I don't think Rangeley should have just changed to 1 image so abruptly without more discussion. Then again it got me to discuss it. :) --] 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont consider it abrupt to wait 4 days after the discussion began, especially considering the 4 pictures squeezed together image was added without '''any''' discussion. I agree fully with your sentiments that the article needs more images, however splicing them together just makes the article look unprofessional and made in MS Paint. I will look for additional images to add to the article, but they will be added to the article itself, not existing pictures. ~'''] (])''' 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:The last discussion in this section was only yesterday. I notice on your talk page that you have a lot of 3-revert rule violations, warnings, and discussions. Maybe you should have more patience. I don't find a collage of images to be unprofessional at all. In fact it takes more effort to create a collage. And clicking the collage image leads to links to the 4 images. The collage of 4 images has been up awhile. I know you may be wedded to your preferred image since you uploaded it. But let the discussion come to some sort of resolution instead of just taking the decision yourself. I put your image in the article in the 2005 section where it applies. Why did you revert that too? It makes a lot more sense there.--] 21:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
::There is a discernible trend that discussion has shown, and thats the fact this article needs more images. This is where we all agree. The way to do this is not to squeeze images together, its to add more images to the body of the article. I have added an additional image, and invite anyone else to do the same. ~'''] (])''' 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

--] 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC). I am transferring here this comment from you today on my user talk page. Rangeley wrote:

:I am curious where you found "a lot" of 3RR violations and warnings directed towards me. ~'''] (])''' 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

::I found them on your user talk page. Back to the discussion. I added some more photos to the article. I like the collage, so please leave it up too. I also put in the photo you uploaded. So everyone should be happy, because all the photos are in the article, and hopefully more will be added. --] 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:::No, everyone isnt happy, as the original point was my objection to the collage, not a request to have "my image" re-instated. I still fail to see how it looks professional, and if the image of the Iraqi soldiers is not seen as a suitable alternative, I think an alternate image such as Feargod suggested should be used. ~'''] (])''' 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:::--] 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC). Well then, let us discuss it first, rather than continually changing the top image. I am transferring this comment of yours from my user talk page:

Since this seems to be a personal issue, it does not belong on the talk page for the Iraq War. The reason I bring it up with you is because I see no 3RR warning or violation on my talk page, you have now twice claimed them to be there. All I am asking you is for links to the 3RR violations on my talk page to back up your claim. ~'''] (])''' 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:It is not a personal issue. Here is the link:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rangeley

:Then click the edit menu in your browser and find the word "revert". It is found many times on your user talk page. --] 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley wrote:
:Can you stop removing my comments from your talk page? I honestly wish to get to the bottom of things, and refuse to discuss personal matters in a discussion page for the Iraq war. You have made a rather serious accusation against me based on what is apperantly a search for the word "revert" on my talk page. What I am asking you is for specific links to specific sections proving your claim that I have "a lot" of 3RR violations and warnings. I can find one occasion in May where someone accused me of violating 3RR, and I probably did at such an early period of my time here, but this hardly qualifies as a lot. ~'''] (])''' 23:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
::OK. I noticed several sections on your talk page where you were accused of numerous reversions. Sounds like 3RR violations to me, even if they were not always called that. I started the reversion discussion here because it is relevant to the image reversions here. So it is not personal. It has to do with this page here. I don't have time for arguing on my user talk page just for the sake of arguing with you. Whereas discussing it here serves a purpose. --] 07:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::no, the article looks highly professional. See the world wars, the US civil and liberation wars. This is a highly covered and intense war, so it would be uninformative to have only one picture on the top (the same works for other highly-covered conflicts) --] (]) 11:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
]
:::A war as intense as this, and an article as sought after as this deserves a good picture in its lead. The current collage does not look professional or attractive, and this is all that this discussion pertains to. No image can represent the entire scope of the war, 4 images cant represent the entire scope of the war, 1 million images cant represent the full scope of the war. But you dont add 1 million images into one, or 2 million, or 3 million. You go with one eye catching one for the lead of this article that might draw peoples attention to it. The current collage does not do this and does not strike me as up to par with such articles as ]. Because the Iraq War is such an important part of today for a lot of people, and will be highly accessed, it deserves better then what it has now. Just on a first glance of images, I found this which depicts some action, which you seemed interested in finding. I would greatly prefer this to the current image if the Iraqi soldiers are no longer deemed suitable. ~'''] (])''' 14:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are links below to the pages that TheFEARgod mentioned. I really like collages of images at the top of wikipedia pages about wars. See these examples:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/World_War_II
*http://en.wikipedia.org/World_War_I
*http://en.wikipedia.org/American_Civil_War
*http://en.wikipedia.org/American_Revolutionary_War
I like some more than others. I think the images in the last link are a little too small. Compare to the images in the other pages. --] 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:I like Rangeley's picture. I would also support a new collage if this fails. --] (]) 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:P.S.: see also ]. I suggest making a collage for the US war in Afghanistan--] (]) 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Woah ==

What happenend. Somebody fix it.

== Combatants/commanders: Having Hussein, al-Sadr and al-Qaeda on the same side ==

{{Infobox Military Conflict
|conflict=Iraq War
|combatant1=Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Militants: <br> ] ] ] <br /> ] ]
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />

----

] ]<br />

----

]<ref name="DisbandMilitias">{{cite web|title=Iraq political groups warned on militias|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6128399,00.html}}</ref><br />
|combatant2=Coalition Forces: <br> {{flagicon|United States}} ] <br> {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} ]<br>{{flagicon|Australia}} ] <br> {{country|flagcountry|Republic of Korea}} <br>{{flagicon|Iraq}} ] <br> ] ] forces<br>]<br />]<ref name="DisbandMilitias" /> <br> others

----
Shia Militants: <br />
]
<br />The militia of ] (])

|commander1=Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Militants:<br />
{{flagicon|Iraq}}]<br /> others
<br />
<br />
<br />

----

Al-Qaeda:<br />
{{flagicon|Jordan}}]†<br />
{{flagicon|Egypt}}]<BR>

|commander2={{flagicon|United States}}] <br>{{flagicon|United States}}] <br> {{flagicon|United States}}] <br> {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} ] <br> {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} Peter Wall <br> others

----
Shia Militants:<br />
{{flagicon|Iraq}}]<BR>
]}}


It's very misleading and Bush-POV. I suggest we split it into (at least) four sides. Something like this (Well, ok, this isn't very pretty looking, but I suppose we can do it better in the article):

Ba'athist Iraq.. | US

Sunni Militants| UK etc

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Al-Qaeda........| Shia Militants


--] 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


:Agreed - it's not just misleading; it's idiotic. At this point there are a few different wars going on. I'd say "Baathists" and "Sunni militants" probably are in the same category; "Shia militants" and the Madhi army in another category; al Qaeda in Iraq in a third category, and the "coalition" in a fourth. That is still too simplistic but it's a hell of a lot better than pretending al-Sadr is on the same side as al-Juburi or that either of them would have anything to do with al-Masri.--] 20:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:we should have three-sided infobox! ok? --] (]) 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::How about ''something'' like this (I know that it doesn't look very good, and maybe we should add more sides etc, but look at it as a draft):

--] 12:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


::Looks much better. By the way, I think "George Bush" can go. Having him listed as a commander looks silly, makes it sound like something from a Republican convention, and means we'd also have to put Blair in. Keep this for the generals. ] 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

{{Infobox Military Conflict
|conflict=Iraq War

|combatant1=Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Militants: <br> ] ] ] <br /> ] ]

----

] ]<br />

----

]<ref name="DisbandMilitias">{{cite web|title=Iraq political groups warned on militias|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6128399,00.html}}</ref><br />

----

Coalition Forces: <br> {{flagicon|United States}} ] <br> {{flagicon|United Kingdom}} ]<br>{{flagicon|Australia}} ] <br> {{country|flagcountry|Republic of Korea}} <br>{{flagicon|Iraq}} ] <br> ] ] forces<br>]<br />]<ref name="DisbandMilitias" /> <br> others

----
Shia Militants: <br />
]
<br />The militia of ] (])
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Military history|class=c |B-1=y |B-2=n |B-3=y |B-4=y |B-5=y |US=yes |Middle-Eastern=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
Is there any way to get rid of the middle line so that there is only one column divided into 5 groups of combatants? I was playing around in one of my user sandboxes. I pasted the code here. The 2nd infobox is the one I am talking about to the right. Sorry if it extends down into the next talk section. --] 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Kurdistan|importance=High}}
:No idea... But is it preferable? On one hand it would maybe be a plus to keep all the combatants in one column, as the reader would be "forced" to realize that this is a war with more than two sides (which my version of the infobox still kind of suggests). On the other hand, it's a good side to see the major combatans on two diffrent sides (Iraq vs USA/coalition), and I guess that it looks a little better too. Personally, I'm open for both. --] 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|global perspective=yes}}
::I think either one is better than the existing combatants section with everything jammed together. I also think the results section would be better if it wasn't divided into left and right halves. With nothing but the word "results" on the left side. There needs to be some kind of code to override the default "Military Conflict" infobox setup. --] 01:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=High}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USMIL=yes|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}}
==Iraq Body Count==
{{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}}

Can you please stop reverting the infobox to say that the IBC gets is info from morgues and hospitals. It does not. As it says on its own website "Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources." ] 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:Only the US-led coalition troops use body counts and do everything exactly, Iraqis don't.--] 14:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

--] 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC). See http://en.wikipedia.org/Iraq_Body_Count_project

Mentioning only the media is not accurate. In my comment I asked that people check the IBC wikipedia page before deleting this:
:'''"Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media."'''

'''Here are some quotes from the IBC wikipedia page:'''

:IBC is also not an "estimate" of total civilian deaths. It is a compilation of documented deaths, meaning that any deaths not reported or which were not recorded or made public by '''morgues or hospitals''' will not be counted. Only the central Baghdad area morgue has released figures consistently. While that is the largest morgue in Iraq and in the most consistently violent area, the absence of comprehensive morgue figures elsewhere will likely lead to some undercounting. IBC makes it clear that, due to these issues, its count will almost certainly be below the full toll in its 'Quick FAQ' on its homepage.

:Another factor is that some reports emerge weeks or even months later - for instance the emergence of Baghdad city''' morgue''' reports for 2005 in early 2006. The 6 December line above was taken from the IBC total as it stood on 6 December 2005, but the emergence of the '''morgue''' figures later increased IBC's figures for that period to 31,818 - 35,747.]

You did not check the IBC wikipedia page, or you ignored what it said. As I mentioned in our previous discussion on another article talk page, I have noticed that you have several 3-revert violations discussed on your user talk page. In the future I suggest you bring disagreements to an article's talk page BEFORE reverting something where someone has given verifiable sources. A wikipedia page is a verifiable source. If you have disagreements with the wikipedia source page, then I suggest you take it up there first before doing reversions based on your own analysis. I believe that normally a wikipedia page will have done a lot more verification and analysis than you have on a particular topic.

I will report this to the official wikipedia mediators if you keep reverting this without discussion here first. Let others reading this act as mediators for now. Try having a little respect and patience before reverting stuff so fast. Our previous discussion was centered around the fact that you thought that you had a better vision of what wikipedia should be, and that you had "specialist" knowledge that you thought should possibly have precedence over current wikipedia rules. Or that your rules and/or knowledge and/or methodology should become part of wikipedia rules and guidelines. As I said then, the wikipedia guidelines have precedence for now. And one of those guidelines is about reversion:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/Three_revert_rule
:http://meta.wikimedia.org/Help:Reverting

Some quotes from that help page:

:Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.

:If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.

:Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
:Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor posess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith.
:Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

I have another idea. I took out any source explanation in the info box, since there is not enough room there to explain just how inadequate the IBC count is. Mentioning only the media, as you do, is not enough. There is a link to the wikipedia IBC page, so people can check for themselves about how IBC gets its count. I used the image caption instead for more explanation since there is more room to explain it a little better. And since the image is right under the infobox, then there is no need for duplicating the explanation in both places. Hope this helps.

Better yet, I will remove any explanation of what the sources are for the IBC count from both locations until further discussion. --] 15:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

:Oh stop talking rubbish. Our previous discussion centered around the fact you were trying to insert original research into an article. FYI, go check ] - '''Note: Misplaced Pages articles may not be cited as sources''' Therefore, it matters not one jot what the Misplaced Pages entry on the IBC says, it's what the IBC website says that matters, and they gather their death toll from reading online newspapers. Let us repeat, you cannot use wikipedia as a source in a wikipedia article. IBC get their figures from newspapers - it cannot be more clear. IBC has no contact with morgues or hospitals, as any cursory glance at their website makes clear. Use of the words '''official figures''', and '''morgues and hospitals''' gives IBC a veneer of official status and on-sight credibility that it does not deserve. Stick to the facts. IBC get their figures from reading newspapers - so what is your objection to the qualification '''based on media reports'''? ] 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::Remember what I told you about the word "assume"? ass-u-me You are making an ass out of u and me by making assumptions about me, others, etc.. I made no claims at all in the other article. I asked questions on the talk page, and you assumed I was going to make unfounded claims. Similar problem here. In the wikipedia article itself I did not claim a source for my statement '''"Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media."''' I stated it as a fact. There was a link nearby to the Iraq Body Count project so people could get further info in general on them, the count, etc.. But I did not tie the two together. In this talk page I am using the Iraq Body Count wikipedia page as a shortcut. That page has verifiable sources for THEIR claims that support my statement "Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media." You are playing a semantic game here. But to avoid further petty arguments, let us just leave out the sources. Let people go to the Iraq Body Count website, and the wikipedia page for it, and let them figure it out themselves. Both are linked in the infobox. By the way, I did not insert the words "official figures." Someone else must have done that. '''I find that "official figures" phrase laughable. Many morgues, hospitals, and media have only functioned sporadically in Iraq,''' as the IBC wikipedia page and many other sources have pointed out. And many of these sources do not report many of the insurgent deaths as that. Many are reported as simple murders, etc.. Try reading the IBC wikipedia page as I asked people to do in my comment. Follow their sources. --] 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::You have misread what the IBC entry on wikipedia says. The IBC '''does not''' use morgues and hospitals as a source for their numbers - the '''newspaper reports''' that the IBC relies on use morgues, hospitals as sources for '''their''' figures. Nowhere on the wiki IBC page does it say the IBC uses hospitals or morgues as a source for their figures. I can see how you could have misinterpreted the statement on the page that ''IBC is also not an "estimate" of total civilian deaths. It is a compilation of documented deaths, meaning that any deaths not reported or which were not recorded or made public by morgues or hospitals will not be counted'', (which I am about to correct), but that is why we do not cite other wiki pages (you can call it short-cutting if you want but it amounts to the same thing). The purpose of my edits was to clarify the misleading impression that the IBC bases its figures on sources from morgues and hospitals, which it does not. That statement has now been removed. ] 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are trying to clarify the IBC wikipedia page a little. My statement is still true though. "Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media." Maybe it should be clarified further though by saying this: "Sources are media reports (including their reports of morgue and hospital records)."

To see more clearly how morgue reports are used I found these mentions of morgues with a Google search of the IBC site:
:http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.iraqbodycount.net+morgue

To confuse things further here are quotes from critical articles about IBC's casualty counts:

:The contrast between the graph showing 400 violent deaths a month in portions of Baghdad served by this morgue, and oft-cited Iraqbodycount estimate of about 500 violent deaths per month in the entire country, could not be more dramatic.
:Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/31508

:Another valid criticism of IBC relates to its exclusively Western media sources, which tend to be large media organizations that do not report the day to day violence that occurs in Iraq. IBC requires a source to be an "English language site," excluding at the outset more than 500 Arabic and Persian news outlets that the people of the Middle East rely on for information.
:Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041306J.shtml

A quote from IBC itself:

:"We have not made use of Arabic or other non English language sources, except where these have been published in English. The reasons are pragmatic. We consider fluency in the language of the published report to be a key requirement for accurate analysis, and English is the only language in which all team members are fluent. It is possible that our count has excluded some victims as a result."
:Source: http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

So one would have to say "Sources are English-language, mostly-Western, media (including their reporting of morgue and hospital records."

The more I learn of the inadequacy of the IBC methodology the less I am willing to explain it in a single sentence on the Iraq War wikipedia page. Even the above sentence gives it a veneer of too much credibility. Because it is essential that people also know that morgues, hospitals, and media have only functioned sporadically in Iraq. Especially Western media. So I have changed my mind completely on this. I say don't say anything about their methodology on the Iraq War page. Just link to the IBC wikipedia page. It has info and links that explain the inadequacies much better. Just linking to the IBC site itself is inadequate because they don't point out all the problems with their methodology as well as outside sources do. Those sources are on the IBC wikipedia page.

'''I think we should seriously consider removing the Iraq Body Count numbers from the Iraq War wikipedia page altogether.''' Why should wikipedia favor it over all the other estimates of war-related deaths?

:"'''There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq.''' The source most favored by the war proponents (Iraqbodycount.org) is the lowest. Our estimate is the third from highest. Four of the estimates place the death toll above 100,000. The studies measure different things. Some are surveys, some are based on surveillance which is always incomplete in times of war. The three lowest estimates are surveillance based." (Roberts, email to Media Lens, August 22, 2005)
:Source: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php

I changed the infobox to read: "Civilian deaths recorded by the Iraq Body Count project as reported by English-language media"

That should give some idea of the inadequacy of the IBC count to newbies to the topic. Most thinking people will immediately wonder about the credibility of casualty numbers derived solely from English-language media in an Arabic-speaking nation.

I have another idea. I will also mention that there are 8 other casualty number estimates, or however many are currently listed on this page:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
--] 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
::Come on! Who's going to read through all this?--] 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I feel your pain, Patchouli. :) I think Cripipper prefers now to leave the source out of the IBC infobox wording. So the problem may be resolved. --] 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

--] 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC). I see from one of your recent edit comments, Cripipper, that you now want to leave the IBC entry in the infobox without explanation as to source. Your edit said: "I thought we had agreed 'official' was out and that we'd offer no explanation." OK, that is fine by me. I had compromised and was willing to live with "English-language media" as being the source. Either one is fine by me now. Someone else (Freepsbane) keeps reverting back to older wording: "officially reported by media" in the infobox, and "reported by morgues, hospitals, and the media" in the IBC image caption. I wish Freepsbane would read, and/or join in, our discussion here before making further changes. --] 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

:JackNicholson today added this back to the infobox section on IBC: "Includes only deaths, officially reported by media". I noticed on his talk page several warnings and blocks by admins. One of the blocks occurring today. Cripipper fixed the infobox.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jacknicholson
:--] 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


the failed states index by foreign policy magazine was done in 2005 not 2006. and sudan did not top the list it was the Ivory Coast. Sudan was third. Iraq was fourth (as the wiki article says)HELPFULL

==October 2005. Car bomb incident with suspected Americans==

Two Americans disguised in Arab dress were caught as they tried to detonate a booby-trapped car in the al-Ghazaliyah residential neighborhood in western Baghdad. The men appeared suspicious and local residents apprehended the men as they left their Caprice car. The residents discovered that the two were Americans and called the police. Allied military authorities arrived at approximately the same time as the police and removed the two men before they could be questioned. (Free Market News, October 14, 2005 FreeMarketNew.com, www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1326 last visited 10/22/06.)

The above paragraph has been deleted from the article by ]. Nwe wrote this edit comment: "this incident does not deserve a mention, let alone a paragraph, in such a wide-ranging article. Put it somewhere more specific if you want to." I thought I would put the paragraph here for possible discussion. And also for archiving in case there is another wikipedia page it belongs on. I don't know who posted this originally. --] 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
*http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1326

:If there can be more then just one media source then the inclusion I wouldn't mind, but the media we all know unless posted by more then one and contains roughly the same content cannot really be used as a source ] 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

==A question about Pre Bremmer Iraq==

I would like to write an article on the U.S. general who ran Iraq for a brief time before Paul Bremmer took control. But I cant remeber his name. Can some someone here refresh my memory on what this persons name was. He was an ex general & was only in charge of Iraq for just a few weeks to a month. Thanks

:It was General ]. ～～～～

== pkPat ==

A user named pkpat has been re-adding George Bush under the list of generals, stating that the US constitution makes him commander in chief. While this may be true, according to the UK constitution, Queen Elizabeth the second is commander in chief of the UK forces...Shall I put her up too? I think it's better that we keep this for the actual generals. Anyone disagree? I have given pkpat a once-only warning for posting a very offensive edit summary. He's also removing links to refs from reuters without giving a reason. Anyone know why? ] 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

== Death stats. Passive versus active methods of counting. ==

{{Infobox Military Conflict
|conflict=Iraq War

|casualties3=<small>"There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq."</small> <ref>. ''].'' January 25, 2006.</ref>

'''Total deaths of Iraqis (civilians and non-civilians) due to war. Includes all excess deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.. (])''': <br>655,000 <br>(392,979 to 942,636--95% ]) <ref name="Second Lancet Study">{{cite news|title=Second Lancet Mortality Study |publisher=Lancet |url=http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf|date=]}}</ref>

'''Civilian deaths attributable to insurgent or military action in Iraq, and to increased criminal violence. As recorded from English-language media reports. ] stats: <br>''' 43,850-48,693. <ref name=IBC>{{cite web | url=http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position | title=Iraq Body Count}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title=Iraq Body Count: War dead figures |publisher=BBC |date=] |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm}}</ref><br>
During wars such passive methods typically report 5% to 20% of all deaths, so this passive count indicates 250,000 to 1,000,000 actual civilian deaths.
<br>
See also: ]}}

:I deleted the IBC chart, and incorporated its text into the infobox. See my idea to the right as it was posted to the article. It may not be the same in the article by the time you read this.--] 20:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

--] 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC). This note was added to the infobox by ]:

:"During wars passive methods typically report less than '''20%''' of all deaths, so this number most likely indicates over 200,000 civilian deaths."

:::This assertion about "passive methods" (made in the Lancet study) is not substantiated (claimed percentages are not backed up with specifics). Extrapolating from IBC counts based on such assertions is doubly ridiculous.] 12:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

'''I thought I read somewhere else on this talk page that it ranges from 5% to 20%.''' So let us say that. 20% means that one has to multiply the IBC number by 5 times. 5 times 50,000 equals 250,000. That would be the low end number. 5% means one has to multiply the IBC number by 20. 20 times 50,000 equals 1 million. That would be the top end number. '''That is a range of 250,000 to 1,000,000.'''

The IBC number is not really comparable to the Lancet number to begin with. The IBC number does not count excess deaths due to the greatly degraded infrastructure of Iraq due to the war. IBC only counts violent civilian deaths due to the war.

The ] (IBC) study is actually worse than some other passive counts done in other wars. Due to several reasons. The biggest one being that IBC only uses English-language media. Even its use of very-inadequate morgue data only comes through it being reported by English-language media. For example:

'''Morgue stats the year before Iraq War - compared to following years.'''

Several articles and websites refer to morgue stats in reference to Lancet and IBC casualty counts, excess deaths due to the Iraq War, etc.. Some use these references:

See these articles from the ] (AP) and IBC:
* .
* .
Google search of IBC site for the word "morgue":
*http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.iraqbodycount.net+morgue

IBC only records civilian death statistics from morgues if they are reported by English-language media.

May 23, 2004 AP article. Various quotes:

:The death toll recorded by the Baghdad morgue was an average of 357 violent deaths each month from May through April . That contrasts with an average of 14 a month for 2002, Hassan's documents showed. ...

:The figure does not include most people killed in big terrorist bombings, Hassan said. The cause of death in such cases is obvious so bodies are usually not taken to the morgue, but given directly to victims' families. Also, the bodies of killed fighters from groups like the al-Mahdi Army are rarely taken to morgues. ...

:The death toll recorded by the Baghdad morgue was an average of 357 violent deaths each month from May through April. That contrasts with an average of 14 a month for 2002, Hassan's documents showed.

:The toll translates into an annual homicide rate of about 76 killings for every 100,000 people.

:By comparison, Bogota, Colombia, reported 39 homicides per 100,000 people in 2002, while New York City had about 7.5 per 100,000 last year. Iraq's neighbor Jordan, a country with a population a little less than Baghdad's, recorded about 2.4 homicides per 100,000 in 2003.

:Other Iraqi morgues visited by AP reporters also reported big increases in violent deaths.

---

The May 23, 2004 AP article also reports: "Morgue records do not document the circumstances surrounding the 4,279 deaths - whether killed by insurgents, occupation forces, criminals or others. The records list only the cause of a death, such as gunshot or explosion, Hassan said. It is the police's responsibility to determine why a person dies. But al-Nouri, the official at the Interior Ministry, which oversees police, said the agency lacks the resources to investigate all killings or keep track of causes of death."

---

The AP stats are for VIOLENT deaths only.

"...the morgue figures, which exclude trauma deaths from accidents like car wrecks and falls,..."

"But the AP survey of morgues in Baghdad and the provinces of Karbala, Kirkuk and Tikrit found 5,558 violent deaths recorded from May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, to April 30 ."

{{Infobox Military Conflict
|conflict=Iraq War

|casualties3='''*Total deaths of all Iraqis, ]''': <br>392,979 - 942,636 <ref name="Second Lancet Study">{{cite news|title=Second Lancet Mortality Study |publisher=Lancet |url=http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf|date=]}}</ref>

'''Civilian deaths, ]:''' <br>150,000 <ref>. Stephen Hurst, ], Nov. 9, 2006.</ref>

'''Civilian deaths due to insurgent/military action and criminal violence, ]: <br>''' 43,850-48,693 <ref name=IBC>{{cite web | url=http://www.iraqbodycount.org | title=Iraq Body Count}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title=Iraq Body Count: War dead figures |publisher=BBC |date=] |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm}}</ref><br>

|notes= '''*'''Total deaths (civilian and non-civilian) include all excess deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.. The IBC count is from English-language media reports. <ref name=IBC /> For more info, casualty estimates, and explanations for the wide variation in results, see: ]
}} }}
{{To do|collapsed=yes}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 35
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(183d)
|archive = Talk:Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}


== "Second Persian Gulf War" ==
---

The Lancet survey also counted excess deaths in general since the Iraq War. The Lancet study counts ALL war-related Iraqi deaths in the broadest sense of the term. Both civilian and non-civilian. Including deaths due to the infrastructure degradation. Including deaths due to the increase in disease and lack of healthcare. Deaths due to lack of food, water, heat, airconditioning, shelter, sewage, electricity, you-name-it. Deaths due to inadequate, barely-functioning hospitals, medical clinics, etc.. Or not functioning at all in many cases.--] 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:This compromise proposal by ] seems to be just the solution we needed, very impartial, lists only facts and avoids any sides weasel words or POV, good thinking. ] 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::I have since found out that the IBC count includes civilian deaths attributable to increased criminal violence. So I am adding that to the infobox here, and in the article.--] 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I removed the bias note add to the bottom regarding IBC, its quite dishonest to discredit only IBC then extrapolate their numbers to be more inline with Lancet, which is obviously the preffered numbers by that editor. --]<s>]</s> 12:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I returned the notes section of the infobox since everybody but you agrees with having it. I took out the sentence you did not like (about passive counts being 5 to 25% of actual number of deaths) until specific citations are found. And possibly more discussion here. Please do not BLANK whole sections unless the talk page agrees first. Edit or cull please.

Also, on another day I moved this sentence from the notes section of the infobox to the casualties section at the end of the article (at the request of Publicus):

:"There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq."</small> <ref>. ''].'' January 25, 2006.</ref> --] 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:::The claim about "8 independent estimates" (some of which Les Roberts appears to have made up, others having no documentation), along with most of the other claims in the cited media lens article, have been meticulously debunked by IBC here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.1.php] 12:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::::71.246.104.28 () has been doing anonymous blanking vandalism of almost everything concerning undercounting in the ] page. On the talk page there is an ongoing discussion about his blanking:
::::]
::::His previous IP was 72.68.212.175 () and he started blanking stuff on November 6, 2006. Looking at the April 2006 IBC page he linked to in his above comment, there is a chart there listing 7 independent estimates. Close enough for government purposes to the number "8" mentioned by Les Roberts. --] 14:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:::--] 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC). In replying to my above comment 72.68.212.175 broke up my comment. It is considered a violation of wikipedia guidelines to change other people's comments on a talk page. I put back my above comment to the way it was. I consolidated the replies of 72.68.212.175 below. I deleted nothing from his comments: --] 16:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Lie. I've been reverting your blatantly POV edits designed to turn the IBC page into a promotional tract for the Lancet study and Media Lens. There was already discussion of the undercounting issue on the page, there's more now, and it's still in all of my reverts. You just keep adding more and more of the same line of stuff to bring it into accord with your POV.] 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:::"There is a chart there" doesn't mean there are actually "8 independent estimates". Anyone can just make up some chart. If you read through the IBC thing you'll see that the chart is bunk.] 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::::The IBC page you link to lists 7 estimates. The Les Roberts quote mentions 8. The quote does not discuss the value or methods of the studies. You are nitpicking over the number 8 versus 7. I have a lot more info in the undercounting section of the IBC page than just Lancet and MediaLens stuff. People can see for themselves here in my last revision before you blanked most of it:
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iraq_Body_Count_project&oldid=87045262 --] 17:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's not just the number 7 or 8. You haven't read the whole thing. One of the "studies" is a rumor originating with Les Roberts: "Until someone puts citeable evidence of this study and its methods into the public domain, our conclusion is that NCCI as cited in MIT 05 ("personal communication") and HPN 05 ("unpublished") has no place in a table that purports to be a serious academic analysis of a subject as important as mortality estimates." Another of the estimates was made up: "In fact, nowhere in the cited paper is there any reference to an estimated per-day rate of violent deaths, whether 133 or any other number". And another one has no information with which to evaluate what was (incorrectly) reported about it: "Even if this date discrepancy is overlooked, full details of the survey's methodology (including reliability of data-gathering methods, checks for double and triple-counting etc.) have never been described. It is therefore not possible to give this survey the same weight as studies whose methodologies are clear and auditable." Read up on this here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.4.php] 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Greetings, @]. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the ] was known as the First Gulf War, while the ] of 1990–1991 was in fact ]. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this ] name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. ] (]) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::The point is that there are a number of estimates. I wasn't using that quote to discuss the merits of those studies. Just the number of those studies. I will add a note to this Iraq War page next to the 8 estimates quote with a link to the IBC page you are discussing. Something along the lines of; .... "The merits, and even the existence, of those studies are hotly disputed. See this IBC page for example" http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.1.php - You could edit it yourself if you created a user account at Misplaced Pages. And you can still be anonymous. You don't have to sign up with any personal info at all. Misplaced Pages only needs a username and a password. --] 18:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. ] (]) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:I strongly disagree with that. The ] claim here is in fact that the ] is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the ] article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the ] article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the ]. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the ] article, not this one. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the ] article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." ] (]) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
==PP==
Will we need to ask for page protection if the ] gets too much? ] (]) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


== suggest we need a section on "political impact" ==
::I have no problem with this sentence, I do have problems with pointing out problems with IBC but not with a study that involved asking people if they knew someone died, which has even more flaws and more public crticism then any other study for coming up with numbers way beyond any other study, an obvious bias. --]<s>]</s> 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. ] (]) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
OK. Instead of this:
:For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. ] (]) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. ] (]) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. ] (]) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::obviously it seems that you ] this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. ] (]) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read ]. ] (]) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in ''all'' the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and ''all'' years, right up to the date today.
::::::so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. ] (]) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? ] (]) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., ] (]) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)


Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. ] (]) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Such passive counts typically report 5% to 20% of all deaths {{fact}}. This indicates 250,000 to 1,000,000 actual civilian deaths.


:ok, thats totally fair. ] (]) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I just substituted this:


*The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as ''political legacy''. As such, it is part of the aftermath. ''If'' we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in ''good quality'' sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to ]. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. ] (]) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:For more info, casualty estimates, and explanations for the wide variation in results, see: ] --] 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
*:the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. ] (]) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*:every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what ] means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. ] (]) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*::if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. ] (]) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::from, ]:
*:::<blockquote>
*:::A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
*:::...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.</blockquote>
*:::--] (]) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or ''point''. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. ] (]) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? {{small|{{strike|(My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.)}}}} ] (]) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. ] (]) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. ] (]) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. ] (]) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. ] (]) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)


===proposed text===
::That is fine with me, since its not attempting to use IBC to justify Lancets obsurd numbers. --]<s>]</s> 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
here is the proposed text:


<blockquote>
:::I have been studying the issue awhile, and I now believe Lancet's numbers are more in line with the truth. But there is no way to adequately make that point with a sentence and some citations in the infobox. So I now believe it is better to refer to the full wikipedia articles, and let people decide for themselves. --] 15:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


;Political impact
:::Obsurd numbers? what would be less obsurd? 30,000 dead, out of 26 million, over three years strike you right, as it does Bush? Then you must think the death count of 100,000 out of 5 million over three years in the ] is really absurd, right? No? Fact is, 625,000 out of 26 million over three years puts Iraq on the '''low''' side of civil wars, which historically are in the range of a few percent. A random wish-fulfillment guess like 30,000 is what's absurd. A civil war with a death rate of 1 per thousand per year? That really would be absurd. I presume GW and his supporters assert this remarkable low rate as a result of the general gentleness and resistance to violence of the Iraqi people, the security of our troops who have no need to be excessively trigger happy due to insufficient protection, the successful and well-organized administration of the Coalition, the highly functional health, sanitation, transportation, etc. infrastructure, the highly effective and well trained Iraqi police force we have raised up, and of course our precision smart bombs, right? People who don't know what civil wars are like shouldn't advocate them. ] 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::::There are many forums for you to take part in a political debate, this is not one of them. --]<s>]</s> 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


<s>The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. </s> at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the ] passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on |title=Situation in Iraq |publisher=Europarl.europa.eu |access-date=2018-08-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070213035323/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on |archive-date=2007-02-13 |url-status=live }}</ref>
I think Gzuckier makes some good points that are relevant to the Lancet wikipedia page. But they need to made mostly in that wikipedia article, since there is not much room in this wikipedia article. Except for a short section at the end of the article. The casualties section. And the points can't be made in either wikipedia article unless they can be verified as being already discussed in the media and other verifiable sources. And wikipedia talk pages are not supposed to be political forums. See ]. --] 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.
:Addendum. I just added the 150,000 civilian deaths estimate by Iraq's Health minister today. --] 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


;United States
== Notes section added to end of infobox ==


By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” <ref> ,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian. </ref>
After editing by others, and thinking about it some more, I prefer the second infobox to the right a little ways up. I added the notes section to the end of the infobox. It uses small text automatically. A notes section is allowed in ]. The compromise shortens the length of the infobox. --] 05:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. <ref> , By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News. </ref> <ref> By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico. </ref> When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,” <ref> , BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine. </ref> <ref> , By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo. </ref>
== George Bush ==


The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, ], labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous. <ref> , Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024. </ref>
Could I have some opinions on whether we should have Bush as a commander in the infobox. I don't want to keep reverting pkpat's changes if others agree with him. I know that as president, he is automatically commander in chief, but it is my opinion that this doesn't count (Queen Elizabeth would have to be inserted, as she is also technicaly commander in chief of the British Forces). Opinions, please? ] 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


;United Kingdom
:President Lyndon Johnson, in the Vietnam War, made both strategic and tactical decisions about how the war was run. It made a lot of people mad too. I have no doubt that George Bush is doing the same. At least now and then. I bet Tony Blair is doing the same. The Queen has very little power, if any, anymore. Also, Bush has final say, I believe, over who gets picked to be in the Joint Chiefs. And I believe some of the generals farther down seem to get "retired" if they disagree too strongly with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld strategy on troop strength. Who was that general that recommended several hundred thousand occupation troops? And who really gave the final decision about demobilizing the Iraq military just after "Mission accomplished". In hindsight that is considered the worst military decision of the war by many. That and allowing the looting, and allowing Abu Ghraib. Bush had to have some say in all that.--] 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.


One article in 2023 noted:
::Ok, I see what you mean. Although I doubt that it's really George Bush himself making the choices (I bet Rove's never too far away...), the examples you've shown make the case for including him. ] 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


<blockquote> By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.
The difference between the capabilities of the Administration under Bush and the capablilities of the professional Army are mentioned in this article about the terrorist attacks: http://www.medievalhistory.net/wtc7.htm
<p>
If the Army had been asked to organize an occupation administration to govern Iraq, before the order to invade, they would have done a damned good job of it. It was the Administration only who failed to think it about it. They thought that political friends could handle the job, like they did with Hurricane Katrina, and they did, just like with Hurricane Katrina.
Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war. <ref> . Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023. </ref> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
{{talkrefs}}


==War Rationale==
I content the war rationale section should contain the rationales given by the government for why they went to war ... is this really in debate? Also what I wrote was not quotes. Please read HJ res 114 if you believe they are. --]<s>]</s> 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


--] (]) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::The way it was written meant that it sounded like ''we'' were giving justifications. For example "The production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement". As an encyclopaedia, we know this to be PoV (and false), so to stick it into the middle of an article isn't appropriate. ] 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


== Military situation ==
:::Those are the rationales given, it doesnt say they are true, it actually specifically mentions where they came from and who gave them. A rationale is a reason, having the rationale section say there was many changing reasons, like WMD's, is not very detailed when you compare that to all the reasons given. Also its not false, because it was the rationale given. I think you are looking more for justifications or something, but the section isnt called justifications. --]<s>]</s> 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? ] (]) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)


==POLAND== == Rudeness ==
Why there's no info about Poland as third country of coalition, after USA and GB?
*]! ] 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Stop the rudeness to iran ] (]) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
==Why is the "Criticism" section first after the introduction?==
:What rudeness are you talking about? ] (]) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)


== New draft ==
Doesn't it make more sense to lead with a history of the war? I don't understand why the "Criticism" section is directly after the Introduction. That order seems skewed. ] 02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:Its a partisan issue, good luck getting it moved. --]<s>]</s> 03:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
::Done. There's no point giving criticisms before we've even said what happened. ] 07:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I bunched the Criticism together, putting it all under one heading that then breaks into military and news and breaks into smaller from there. I wanted to move it further down just before human rights abuses which I think should also be merged into criticism at the bottom of the article, but felt it best to discuss here. Seems what is being critique'd should be at the bottom after everythnig is explained ... thoughts? --]<s>]</s> 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Good idea. But what shall we do with the insurgents' human rights abuses? I can't see them going into "criticism of the war". I also think that the CNN criticism has no place here. This is for criticisms of the war, not for dodgy criticisms of news stations deemed not "patriotic" enough. ] 13:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree regarding the CNN issue, however felt I am the subject of too much attention to do away with it. The way I seen merging human rights into criticism was simply deprecating the headers, so you have:


I have an draft ] beacuse section in this article is too long.
Criticism
:criticism of military strategy
::leave
::stay
:criticism of news
::CNN (if it stays)
:Human rights abuses
::US troops
::Iraqi forces
::Insurgents


The draft is not yet completed. ] (]) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Basically following a similar pattern to how it is, maybe put news at bottom so human rights abuses follows military strategy, for that same fact news can be placed first with strategy and human rights trailing. --]<s>]</s> 13:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


== Addition of ] to infobox ==
:I think that criticism of news is redundant (What would we say? "Errr....US hawks criticised CNN for being too soft, everyone else criticised FOX for being sensationalist nationalists e.t.c..." we already say this at ]). But apart from that, your structure seems fine. You've got my green light. ] 14:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
::I will leave the media section as is, I have been called a deletionist before, so I will attempt to avoid that. I will also leave it for 2 days or so to give others time to chime in and if no major objections appear I will go ahead, thanks for your support and comments Yandman. --]<s>]</s> 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


{{U|Ben Azura}}, with , you would readd ] to the infobox. Per ], the infobox is to summarise key facts ''from the article''. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, ] applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: {{tq|Per ] - not supported by body of article}}. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, ]. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. ] (]) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
==Left-side images in top part of page getting stuck at bottom of infobox==


:I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? ] (]) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Images with left-side "floating" alignment (text wraps around to the right) are stacking at the bottom of the infobox. If more than one image they start filling in left to right in a line instead of one under the other. See this revision:
::Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: ], ], and ]. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iraq_War&oldid=86934634


:::{{U|Ben Azura}}, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. {{U|Swatjester}}, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. ] (]) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Notice that if you change the text size in your browser that the images are still stuck at the bottom of the infobox. They screw up the text near them too sometimes. I am using Firefox browser. I will see if the same problem is occuring with MS Internet Explorer browser also in a second.


== Human Rights Abuses ==
I fixed the problem by stopping the text wrap. By putting "none" in the image code instead of "left" or "right" alignment. --] 14:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
:Must be a firefox issue because IE is displaying it fine, 1280x1024 resolution Version 6, yeah it seems Firefox Mobile 1.5.0.7 gives the described problem. --]<s>]</s> 14:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture ] (]) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 ==
::The problem does not occur in MS Internet Explorer 7 browser either when I open that revision linked above.


{{edit semi-protected|Iraq War|answered=yes}}
::But I could not find any other way to fix the problem in my Firefox 2 browser except by using the "none" code to stop the text wrapping around the image. Table conflicts are notorious problems in browsers. The infobox table and the caption table around the images are conflicting with each other when combined with the 3rd element of text wrap.
I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed.
Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda"


My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie."
::Microsoft is not as standards compliant as Firefox. So I think we should leave my fix, or just delete any images near the top of the page. But I like those images, and suggest leaving them there. The page still looks good. --] 14:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. ] (]) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025 ==
:::I have to agree, while it seems IE is actually better in this situation, there are too many users with Firefox to leave it as is and I think removing the image would degrade the educational value of the article slightly as the image is quite good at demonstrating visually where the no-fly zones were. --]<s>]</s> 14:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Iraq War|answered=yes}}
::::The Sunni Triangle image was having problems in Firefox too until I substituted the "none" code. The text wrapped around weirdly, inconsistently, and incorrectly depending on text size. See the revision where the no-fly image code had been fixed, but the Sunni Triangle image still had text that wrapped around it:
Article is too long shorten it. ] (]) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Iraq_War&oldid=86937664
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Should John Howard be added as a leader? ==
::::That Sunni Triangle image also got stuck weirdly at the bottom of the infobox. --] 14:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Seems like it would make sense ] (]) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
==650+ Photos==
A soldier back from a one-year tour of Iraq has posted 650+ photos of what it is really like in Iraq, I enjoyed the growl-ease pictures best :) ] 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


:What'd he do? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*

Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good article nomineeIraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 1, 2010.
Current status: Former good article nominee
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconIraq Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconKurdistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArab world High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountering systemic bias: Global perspective
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Global perspective task force.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Military history / History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconBush family (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family

To-do list for Iraq War: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2014-07-31

Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:

  • Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources
  • More detail about humanitarian projects throughout the conflict by U.S. troops and private organizations.
  • Remove as much bias as possible and site sources. One example is in the 5th paragraph from the top which starts with "Some U.S. officials accused..." Which officials? Also, the report cited at the end of that sentence is intended to dispel the myth of Iraq's direct connection (the "smoking gun") to Al-Qaida, but the sentence does not address that the report confirms direct connections between Saddam's regime to other terrorist groups and its perception of the West (namely, America) as its enemy. The appearance of bias comes from the omission of the proven fact that the Hussein regime was directly connected to terrorist groups who viewed America as an enemy. (This can be read in the cited source.) This entire Wiki entry comes off as argumentative (arguing that this was a war of agression by Western powers against Iraq) and not as unbiased. This is just one glaring example. Please remove this bias or remove this entry. Thanks.

One thing that I think would be extremely relevant would be a timeline of important events; they have much of the information needed for it in the article itself, but it would be easier to read and comprehend if it was contained in a timeline.

I also think it should clarify whether there are still U.S. troops in Iraq and what their purpose is there if they are still occupying parts of Iraq. --Tarzane (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Update/correct civilian casualties. Estimates off by several hundred thousand. Ideally use a source other than a media article.

Section sizes
Section size for Iraq War (74 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 41,300 41,300
Background 6,441 6,441
Pre-war events 19,377 28,031
Opposition to invasion 8,654 8,654
Course of the war 24 131,961
2003: Invasion 13,890 13,890
Post-invasion phase 114 118,047
2003: Beginnings of insurgency 3,438 11,953
Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraq Survey Group 6,638 6,638
Ramadan Offensive 2003 1,877 1,877
Capturing former government leaders 2,800 4,487
Looting of artifacts from Iraqi museums 1,687 1,687
2004: Insurgency expands 7,279 7,279
2005: Elections and transitional government 3,150 3,150
2006: Civil war and permanent Iraqi government 3,922 6,106
Iraq Study Group report and Saddam's execution 2,184 2,184
2007: US troops surge 4,382 24,893
Planned troop reduction 1,646 1,646
Effects of the surge on security 10,944 10,944
Political developments 2,005 2,005
Tensions with Iran 2,255 2,255
Tensions with Turkey 3,024 3,024
Blackwater private security controversy 637 637
2008: Civil war continues 7,307 24,705
Spring offensives on Shiite militias 2,467 2,467
Congressional testimony 2,113 2,113
Iraqi security forces rearm 3,277 3,277
Status of forces agreement 9,541 9,541
2009: Coalition redeployment 65 10,720
Transfer of the Green Zone 1,513 1,513
Provincial elections 3,692 3,692
Exit strategy announcement 1,531 1,531
Sixth anniversary protests 1,319 1,319
Coalition forces withdraw 1,207 1,207
Iraq awards oil contracts 1,393 1,393
2010: US drawdown and Operation New Dawn 12,725 16,757
Iraqi arms purchases 3,095 3,095
The UN lifts restrictions on Iraq 937 937
2011: US withdrawal 7,883 7,883
Aftermath 17 9,508
Emerging conflict and insurgency 9,491 9,491
Casualties 15 3,392
Casualty estimates 3,377 3,377
Impacts 12 26,135
Economic impact 22 6,435
Financial cost 5,021 5,021
Reparations 661 661
Economic recession in 2021 731 731
Humanitarian impact 26 4,361
Humanitarian crisis 4,335 4,335
Environmental impact 29 7,527
Oil pollution 1,786 1,786
Radioactive contamination 4,493 4,493
Ecosystem destruction 1,219 1,219
Impact on the Global War on Terrorism 6,008 6,008
Impact on geopolitics 1,792 1,792
Criticism 11,711 11,711
Human rights abuses 103 14,871
By Coalition forces and private contractors 6,544 6,544
By insurgent groups 6,710 6,710
By post-invasion Iraqi Government 1,514 1,514
Public opinion on the war 73 8,878
International opinion 5,148 8,805
Iraqi opinion 3,657 3,657
Foreign involvement 26 5,791
Suicide bombers 1,702 1,702
Role of Iran 3,214 3,214
Role of Israel 98 98
Role of Russia 751 751
See also 604 604
Footnotes 30 30
References 30 30
Further reading 4,169 4,169
External links 5,217 5,217
Total 298,069 298,069

"Second Persian Gulf War"

Greetings, @Swatjester. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the Iran–Iraq War was known as the First Gulf War, while the Gulf War of 1990–1991 was in fact also known as the Second Gulf War. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this WP:FRINGE name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. Skitash (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that. The WP:FRINGE claim here is in fact that the Iran-Iraq War is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the Iran-Iraq War article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the Gulf War article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the Iraq War. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the Iran-Iraq War article, not this one. ⇒SWATJester 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the Gulf War article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ⇒SWATJester 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." Dougjaso (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ⇒SWATJester 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

PP

Will we need to ask for page protection if the wp:disruption gets too much? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

suggest we need a section on "political impact"

I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
obviously it seems that you own this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read wp:AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in all the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and all years, right up to the date today.
so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, thats totally fair. Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as political legacy. As such, it is part of the aftermath. If we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in good quality sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to WP:OR. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what WP:OR means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    from, WP:OR:
    A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
    ...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
    --Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? (My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.) Gawaon (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. Sm8900 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. Sm8900 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

proposed text

here is the proposed text:

Political impact

The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".

Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.

United States

By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”

During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,”

The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, JD Vance, labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.

One article in 2023 noted:

By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.

Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war.

References

  1. "Situation in Iraq". Europarl.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
  2. [On the Iraq war, Jeb Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian.
  3. Donald Trump, Jeb Bush spar over Bush family legacy, By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News.
  4. Trump Goes Code Pink on George W. Bush: The Republican front-runner echoes Democratic talking points on 9/11, Iraq and Bin Laden By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico.
  5. Jeb Bush Reverses Himself: ‘I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq’, BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine.
  6. How Jeb Bush Triggered an Iraq War Watershed, By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo.
  7. JD Vance Criticizes Biden’s Support for Iraq War in 2003 But Pushes Hawkish Policy on China & Iran, Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024.
  8. How Iraq war destroyed UK’s trust in politicians and left Labour in turmoil. Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023.


--Sm8900 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Military situation

Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? Ali aj809 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rudeness

Stop the rudeness to iran 78.150.125.128 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What rudeness are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

New draft

I have an draft Draft:Course of the Iraq War beacuse section in this article is too long.

The draft is not yet completed. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Ayad Allawi to infobox

Ben Azura, with this edit, you would readd Ayad Allawi to the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, WP:ONUS applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, WP:BRD. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? Ben Azura (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: Ayad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ⇒SWATJester 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Ben Azura, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. Swatjester, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses

Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib. See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture 2600:1001:B128:A069:C805:F112:660F:A404 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed. Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda"

My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie." He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. 78.146.11.249 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Ultraodan (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article is too long shorten it. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Should John Howard be added as a leader?

Seems like it would make sense 68.199.243.137 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

What'd he do? Remsense ‥ 论 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Iraq War: Difference between revisions Add topic