Talk:Iraq War/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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?88.15.59.243 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Create a section called 'Al Qaeda Victories' and then note the withdrawl of Spanish forces.Corporaljohnny 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Small mistake

The paragraph "Criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war" misses a blank between "and" & "Human". --User:89.58.6.137 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. --User:89.58.51.173 20:30, 3 November 2006 (CET)

Big mistake

under Criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war: "[62] 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.

i am fairly certain that the Iraq war is referred to as the second gulf war(gulf war II)not the third gulf war

Coalition Military Operations

Please stop adding the list of various operations to this article. There's another article,Military operations of the Iraq War 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 Operation Red Dawn then linking to it within the text is a good solution as well. Publicus 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? ~Rangeley (talk) 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. yandman 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? ~Rangeley (talk) 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, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 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 Gulf War, 6 Day War, or Iran-Iraq War 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. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you SURE? http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX http://www.currentstateofaffairs.org/Iraq.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.243.140 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's hear other thoughts, and at least put an other picture showing fighting. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 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 Vietnam War 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. :) --Timeshifter 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. ~Rangeley (talk) 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.--Timeshifter 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. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 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. ~Rangeley (talk) 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. --Timeshifter 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. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 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. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal issue. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. --Timeshifter 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. ~Rangeley (talk) 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. --Timeshifter 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) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 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 Iran-Iraq War. 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. ~Rangeley (talk) 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/wiki/World_War_II
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. --Timeshifter 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Woah

What happened. Somebody fix it.

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

Iraq War
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Militants: Ba'athist Iraq File:White flag icon.jpg Ba'ath Loyalists Al-Qaeda in Iraq Other insurgent groups and militias	Coalition Forces: United States United Kingdom Australia South Korea New Iraqi Army Kurdish forces Multinational forces in Iraq SCIRI others Shia Militants: Mahdi Army The militia of SCIRI (Badr Organization)
Commanders and leaders
Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Militants: Saddam Hussein others Al-Qaeda: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi† Abu Ayyub al-Masri	George W. Bush Tommy Franks George Casey Brian Burridge Peter Wall others Shia Militants: Moqtada al-Sadr Mujahideen Shura Council

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

--Merat 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.--csloat 20:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

we should have three-sided infobox! ok? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 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):

--Merat 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. yandman 12:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Iraq War
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Militants: Ba'athist Iraq File:White flag icon.jpg Ba'ath Loyalists Al-Qaeda in Iraq Other insurgent groups and militias Coalition Forces: United States United Kingdom Australia South Korea New Iraqi Army Kurdish forces Multinational forces in Iraq SCIRI others Shia Militants: Mahdi Army The militia of SCIRI (Badr Organization)

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. --Timeshifter 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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. --Merat 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --Timeshifter 01:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Need to put the Iranian flag next to Al Sadr's name since Iran is waging a proxy war with the US through him and his militia.Corporaljohnny 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an important person, so take my comment however you will. I just skim this article every now and again, and I just wanted to make the comment to the person above who said the Bush does not belong in the commander slot. Officially, the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Regardless of whether he does anything or not, he belongs there. T.z0n3 03:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to implement your idea Merat. Basically separated the Saddam-era info-box side from the occupation/insurgency side. Still on the same side, but there's now a line so people can(hopefully) see the distinction. Publicus 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Death stats. Passive versus active methods of counting.

Iraq War
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
"There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq." Total deaths of Iraqis (civilians and non-civilians) due to war. Includes all excess deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.. (Johns Hopkins University): 655,000 (392,979 to 942,636--95% Confidence interval) Civilian deaths attributable to insurgent or military action in Iraq, and to increased criminal violence. As recorded from English-language media reports. Iraq Body Count project stats: 43,850-48,693. 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. See also: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003

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.--Timeshifter 20:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

"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.71.246.104.28 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 Iraq Body Count project (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 Associated Press (AP) and IBC:

• AP.
• 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 [2003] through April [2004]. 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 [Baghdad] 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 [2004]."

Iraq War
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
*Total deaths of all Iraqis, Johns Hopkins: 392,979 - 942,636 War-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs. Iraq Health Minister: 100,000-150,000 Civilian deaths due to insurgent/military action and increased criminal violence, Iraq Body Count (IBC): 43,850-48,693
*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. For more info, casualty estimates, and explanations for the wide variation in results, see: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003

---

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.--Timeshifter 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This compromise proposal[1] by Timeshifter seems to be just the solution we needed, very impartial, lists only facts and avoids any sides weasel words or POV, good thinking. Freepsbane 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.--Timeshifter 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. --NuclearZer0 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." --Timeshifter 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.php71.246.104.28 12:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

71.246.104.28 (User contributions) has been doing anonymous blanking vandalism of almost everything concerning undercounting in the Iraq Body Count project page. On the talk page there is an ongoing discussion about his blanking:

Talk:Iraq_Body_Count_project#Discussion_about_anonymous_blanking

His previous IP was 72.68.212.175 (User contributions) 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. --Timeshifter 14:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 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: --Timeshifter 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.71.246.104.28 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.71.246.104.28 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/w/index.php?title=Iraq_Body_Count_project&oldid=87045262 --Timeshifter 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.php71.246.104.28 18:03, 11 November 2006 (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 Wikipedia. And you can still be anonymous. You don't have to sign up with any personal info at all. Wikipedia only needs a username and a password. --Timeshifter 18:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --NuclearZer0 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Instead of this:

Such passive counts typically report 5% to 20% of all deaths ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . This indicates 250,000 to 1,000,000 actual civilian deaths.

I just substituted this:

For more info, casualty estimates, and explanations for the wide variation in results, see: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 --Timeshifter 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me, since its not attempting to use IBC to justify Lancets obsurd numbers. --NuclearZer0 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --Timeshifter 15:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Bosnian civil war 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. Gzuckier 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. --NuclearZer0 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Timeshifter 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. I just added the 150,000 civilian deaths estimate by Iraq's Health minister today. --Timeshifter 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the Iraq Health Minister estimate and its description in the infobox. It is 100,000 to 150,000. A more recent article reported on the new numbers from him. It is linked in the full infobox on the article page. Article with updated number:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773 --Timeshifter 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Notes section added to end of infobox

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 Template:Infobox Military Conflict. The compromise shortens the length of the infobox. --Timeshifter 05:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

George Bush

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? yandman 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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.--Timeshifter 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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. yandman 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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 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.

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. --NuclearZer0 13:37, 7 November 2006 (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. yandman 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --NuclearZer0 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

POLAND

Why there's no info about Poland as third country of coalition, after USA and GB?

• You forgot Poland! Gzuckier 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the "Criticism" section first after the introduction?

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. Moncrief 02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a partisan issue, good luck getting it moved. --NuclearZer0 03:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. There's no point giving criticisms before we've even said what happened. yandman 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? --NuclearZer0 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. yandman 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:

Criticism

criticism of military strategy

leave

stay

criticism of news

CNN (if it stays)

Human rights abuses

US troops

Iraqi forces

Insurgents

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. --NuclearZer0 13:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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 2003_invasion_of_Iraq_media_coverage). But apart from that, your structure seems fine. You've got my green light. yandman 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. --NuclearZer0 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Left-side images in top part of page getting stuck at bottom of infobox

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:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=86934634

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.

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

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. --NuclearZer0 14:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem does not occur in MS Internet Explorer 7 browser either when I open that revision linked above.

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.

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. --Timeshifter 14:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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. --NuclearZer0 14:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=86937664

That Sunni Triangle image also got stuck weirdly at the bottom of the infobox. --Timeshifter 14:43, 10 November 2006 (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 :) Octopus-Hands 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• 600+ pictures from a soldier posted to Iraq

SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH BATTLEBOX.

There is a problem in the battlebox especially in the civilian casualties,I know that there are many sources of them, but the estimates of 650 000 to 950 000 killed are really out of context. The numbers given by the U.N several months ago and the Iraqi Health minister figures have a difference of 50 000 killed(100,000 and 1500,000 respectively), but the independient number of 650 k to 950 k is just too wide and should not be considered seriously.

The number of U.S and coalition casualties as November 14 its ok, but the number of post saddam (New Iraqi Army)casualties of nearly 6 thousand have gone!!! Alonside the number of Insurgent casualties wich i consider to be correct not to consider because the figure showed killed and captured as a solid number, and other casualties where separeted.

I know that there are sources for the New Iraqi Army casualties(http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx) there are aproximations, better to have them than nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.176.46 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I added the numbers and the link to the infobox. From that linked page: "This is not a complete list, nor can we verify these totals. This is simply a compilation of deaths reported by news agencies. Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site." The talk page decided to put up the numbers and links for the various estimates and let people decide for themselves. By the way, the Lancet range is actually 392,979 - 942,636. I have studied the issue, and I happen to think the Lancet numbers are correct. And I am not a pacifist, nor am I against all wars. I was actually glad to see Saddam overthrown. But I knew things were going to hell when the looting was allowed to occur. Told me right away what Bush, Rumsfeld, et al really thought about the Iraqi people. But Wikipedia is not a political forum, so let's stop political discussion. It is not allowed. I only mention my viewpoints to point out to NuclearUmpf that thinking that the Lancet report is correct is not always about being antiwar. I am for smart wars when needed, run by smart people, who don't lie us into war. And so reporting the Lancet number is not some POV violation in order to prop up antiwar pacifists. --Timeshifter 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down now, noone said its a POV violation and noone said only antiwar people use Lancet either. --NuclearZer0 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-war people love Lancet, its really that simple and they will never give it up. They will argue that going door to door is actually a good means, then argue that the people who issue death certificates cant keep track of the dead themselves and so Lancet's numbers make more sense. They will then argue that passive counting only gets 5% and so if you multiple 50k x 20 you get Lancets numbers. So in the end its apparent that the people who count corpses are stupid the people who hand out death certificates, which should require a corpse to get one, are apparently doing fine. --NuclearZer0 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lancet didn't count death certificates to get their numbers. They asked for death certificates as further verification. They surveyed 1849 households across Iraq to find out how many people died and when. Quote below is from the Lancet study:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

"The survey listed current household members by sex, asked about births, deaths, and migrations into and out of the household since 1 January 2002. (For more information on the survey methods and collection of data, see Appendix A and Appendix B.) Deaths were recorded only if the person dying had lived in the household continuously for three months before the event. In cases of death, additional questions were asked in order to establish the cause and circumstances of deaths (while considering family sensitivities). At the conclusion of the interview in a household where a death was reported, the interviewers were to ask for a copy of the death certificate. In 92% of instances when this was asked, a death certificate was present." --Timeshifter 03:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha so they asked and hoped the people were telling the truth, good to know that its more verification. I am not going to argue the point anymore I have already done it, if 90% had death certificates then the people issuing them should have a number close to the people who have them right? There is obviously something wrong then, obviously double counting as more then 1 person gets the death certificate, or corruption where certificates are being given without actual proof of death. --NuclearZer0 11:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The record keeping in Iraq is bad, especially since the war started. That is why the Lancet study did not depend on Iraqi records. There is no double counting since the Lancet study didn't count death certificates as their means to find out who died in those 1849 households. --Timeshifter 20:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Right so they simply asked people if someone in their household died, considering the porous nature of many towns thats an obvious flaw. Families dont simply stay in their own homes, its not like the US where kids get married and move across the country etc. The fact that their study also fully relied on word of mouth is another obvious flaw. 90% of the people had death certificates to support their claims then wouldnt the Iraqi government have a number that contained 90% of the deaths Lancet found? The fact that people had death certificates shows their is obviously a problem here, how does 90% of these people have death certificates when 80% fo these deaths dont exist according to the people issuing the death certificates? The number should be reasonable closee, reasons why it wouldnt be are double counting:

• The government knows that it hands out doubles and triples etc of death certificates but only counts 1 death as 1 person, whereas the study counted each persons claim of someone dead as 1 person.
• People are lying about how many people from their house hold died
• The nature of some villages and communities does not allow for this question to be answer decisively, people often travel between homes.
• The study managed to find the only locations where the Iraqi government had counted corpses from, hence the high turnout of death ceritificates to death ratio.

I am sure there are plenty of other reasons, but plenty of people have already said Lancet is flawed. --NuclearZer0 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC). Epidemiologists worldwide back up the Lancet study method and results:

Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq#Responses to criticisms

As I said the governance of Iraq is in chaos. Central authority has broken down. Local authorities can issue death certificates. What happens to their local statistics after that is anybody's guess. That is why these type of mortality surveys are accepted worldwide by many groups, government agencies, researchers, etc. as the best way to figure out casualties and excess deaths in a war zone. Think about it. When paperwork in a war zone is in chaos, how else would one figure out casualties and excess deaths? Even when there is paperwork, there may be politics involved in what is released, or in what disappears into the memory hole.

The Lancet study collected the names and ages of the dead. And the date of death. Duplicate names would be found. The 2006 survey interviewed different households, but came up with similar mortality rates as the first survey in 2004. I am talking about the increasing mortality rate from 2002 to 2004. That is the period that both surveys covered. The 2006 survey also got results through July 2006. Here is a quote below from the Lancet article:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

"The study population at the beginning of the recall period (January 1, 2002) was calculated to be 11 956, and a total of 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the study period; age was reported for 610 of 629 deaths, sex reporting was complete. During the survey period there were 129 households (7%) that reported in-migration, and 152 households (8%) reported out-migration."--Timeshifter 23:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You dont make any sense, how is paper work in chaos if 90% of the people had paper work? That is completely against your own reasoning, you argue earlier that the study is spot on because paper work is spot on. So if there is too much paperwork then there is double counting, if there is too little then somehow Lancet polled the perfect places to get such a high rating. If there are fakes then it goes again to the possibility of lies, 90% of the people who claimed someone died had paper work yet how much of it is fake then if that is the issue? In order for Lancet to be correct the paper work has to be correct or else there is no explanation for 90% of the people to have death certificates on hand. You cant have it both ways. --NuclearZer0 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are all over the map. I noticed in a section higher up that people stopped replying to you about this issue. I now see why. You just don't get it. Lancet didn't depend on any government paperwork. Lancet did a survey of 1849 households across Iraq. --Timeshifter 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, let me explain this slowly, you stated they surveyed 1849 house holds, of the people who said someone in their house hold was killed, 90% of those had death certificates. Now say 1500 said they had someone who died, thats 1350 that had death certificates. YOu now claim that the people who issue death certificates are not reliable because of the situation, then further claim that those offices and paper work in general is in a state of chaos. How can they be in a state of chaos if they managed to issue 90% of all Iraq deaths with death certificates, that is pretty spot on, specially since the real number was over 90%. So we take this door to door survey and take names and ages and date of death, then track down the duplicates. So what happens when the name is the same, age is the same but the date of their death is wrong? It stays because it has to match all. So with all the issues are you telling me the government can keep perfect track of when people die and inform people the exact date someone dies, even though what is found is normally corpses that have been dumped, yet you argue those same people informing citizens of the dead, cant keep track of how many died ... Your making circular arguements. The paper work is not reliable yet its 92% accurate if we are to believe Lancet. The survey method is better then the Iraqi numbers, yet the government is 92% accurate in providing death certificates, somehow however the Survey produces numbers 5x higher then the government. So how can the government be 92% accurate yet off by 80%? In circles we go about the flaws. --NuclearZer0 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, people who want to believe Lancet will do even when their own arguements make little sense. --NuclearZer0 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A local authority hands out a piece of paper called a death certificate. It is what happens afterwards that matters. Does the local authority keep records? Does their office get bombed, trashed, looted, burned, etc.? Do they pass up the stats to the next levels of government? Does that office get bombed, trashed, looted, burned, etc.? Does that regional office edit out some of the Sunnis that are killed because the numbers embarrass their local Shiite warlord and his militia? And so on up the chain of paper-pushers and death-squad collaborators. --Timeshifter 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am sure all the offices of people who hand out death certificates are destroyed on a daily basis, yet they manage to issue new death certificates the next day, they just cant pick up a phone and report a number or manage to keep records for more then one day, at what point do we stop stretching the imagination. As I said people who want to believe the one source the recorded numbers 5x higher then all others will do so, and those that don't, won't. --NuclearZer0 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also to assume that some Sunni's are deleting records to embarrass local Shiite warlords instead of assuming some people are lying to embarrass the US seems like you are willing to simply wave off any possible other reasons, one being a further stretch then the other, a Sunni conspiracy taking place in towns all accross the country involving medical offices as oppose to upset Iraqi's lying. Either way I am not arguing for its removal so I consider this conversation over, some will believe the door to door opinions of people who jus thad their entire country leveled, some people believe the bodies themselves. --NuclearZer0 13:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

At the local level it is pretty easy to photocopy some more blank death certificates. Just think about all the games played in the US with statistics. Then multiply that many times over for a war zone. It is well reported about the local news media all over Iraq receiving numerous death threats from all sides concerning stories they print or broadcast. You can bet every bureaucrat and politician at every level is also under tremendous pressure. The militias have infiltrated all levels of government. This is widely reported. Just walking in to some government offices can mean disappearing if the militia people there decide you are not on their side. That is frequently in the news. Death squads run Iraq right now. Everything is political and religious. Including statistics. Sunnis and Shiites will try to massage or bury the data they don't like. Morgue directors are afraid to report death squad deaths. One of the Baghdad morgue directors left Iraq due to the death threats he received when he broke some stories about the huge number of death-squad bodies he was receiving: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030406D.shtml - Quote from the Guardian (UK) article:

"Thursday 02 March 2006. Faik Bakir, the director of the Baghdad morgue, has fled Iraq in fear of his life after reporting that more than 7,000 people have been killed by death squads in recent months, the outgoing head of the UN human rights office in Iraq has disclosed. "The vast majority of bodies showed signs of summary execution - many with their hands tied behind their back. Some showed evidence of torture, with arms and leg joints broken by electric drills," said John Pace, the Maltese UN official. The killings had been happening long before the bloodshed after last week's bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra. --Timeshifter 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are still arguing in circles, so now even though 90% of the people had death certificates, they are actually fakes, leaving us again with a door to door survey with no proof what so ever that the people were not lying, but you present further proof that people are pressured to lie ... yeah good job. There is a reason people don't believe Lancet, to each is own. --NuclearZer0 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they were fake death certicates. I said they were easy to produce locally by photocopying. So it is not like the local morgue doesn't have them to give to people. So I am not surprised that most of the dead found through the survey also had death certificates. It is what happens afterwards that counts. I am talking about the statistics, or lack of statistics, nationally concerning the deaths. --Timeshifter 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

REALPOLITIK angle: Iraq War as response to 9/11

In realpolitik, actors (a/k/a sovereign states) establish a pattern of behavior in order to demonstrate their national resolve and future course of action. Although some claim the Iraq Invasion was planned before 9/11 and some go so far as to claim the U.S. government actually sponsored 9/11, generally political discourse has accepted that any full invasion and overthrow of Saddam would be impossible in a pre-9/11 political climate. Thus, the obvious question is, how come this article doesn't acknowledge that the Iraq War came about in response to 9/11? Left-wing antiwar bias, perhaps? - RatSkrew 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

From the bottom of the "Prior to invasion" section you could link to more wikipedia pages on the subject: See Iraq War - Legitimacy, Failed Iraqi peace initiatives, 2003 invasion of Iraq, Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War. There are several other wikilinks already there. --Timeshifter 04:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

TS, I went to look for those links and couldn't even find them for about 5 minutes. They were in one long italic sentence. I changed the formatting and title. Please take a look. If the article uses a constant style of italic links, please change back, but with each link on a separate line with bullet. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the bulleted list you set up. Someone else changed it back to the standard format. I think the standard format saves a lot of space in long articles such as this one. By putting the many links into one paragraph. Otherwise much of the article would be bulleted lists. Very confusing to readers. I wonder whether the template needs to use italic text, though. --Timeshifter 11:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I added breaks, As I said individual links to important related articles should not be condensed into one long sentence. I couldn't even find them for several minutes after reading your post above cause they didn't look like normal 'important' links. I will check to see if this style is even recomended for multiple links. I don't think it is. -F.A.A.F.A. 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For many links as at the end of that first section ("Prior to invasion") I like the breaks you added. The italics are not a problem now. I think several links in a single line, though, are fine. As in some of the other sections. They have 2 or 3 links in one line. I think that is OK, and not confusing. I don't want the length of the article to keep expanding except for the meat of the article. Too many bulleted links make for too much scrolling, and too much interruption of the readers. That is also why, whenever possible, images are set up to allow text to flow around them. --Timeshifter 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to those articles. More biased content that overlooks the over-riding realpolitik motivation. -RatSkrew 05:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It could easily be oversight. If you are vitally interested in the question, the only way it can be answered would be to examine the edit diffs one by one to possibly find an edit or two where an assertion may have been removed. If you did find such an edit, then it would be due to the editor responsible and could not be imputed to the collective group of all Wikipedia editors. Assume good faith is a foundation of Wikipedia. It has its limits in the face of blatant vandalism, but when it comes to issues of possible bias, the best way to proceed to not assume bias as the initial hypothesis. In Wikipedia, there are instances of every possible bias you could think of and many you might not imagine, but there are mechanisms for dealing with it and resolving it. Wikipedia is generally very successful at presenting information with a neutral point of view. Hu 05:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

This article is missing many links, i think this one should be added:

• american soldier james p barker gets 90 years in jail for rape and murder

Should this article be split?

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but should the initial invasion (that removed the old Iraqi government) be separated out? They seem to look like two, albeit closely related, conflicts, rather than one continuous one. Jd2718 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is already split into numerous parts. The problem being there is a ton of overlap between the sub-articles and this one. Here are a few of the larger one sub-articles.

• 2003 invasion of Iraq
• Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006
• Iraqi insurgency
• Sectarian war in Iraq

--Bobblehead 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The overlap is large. And I started asking because the conflict box has combatants from different time periods who never engaged each other looking as though they did. Is it non-standard to make different boxes for different phases? Jd2718 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lebanese Civil War does not look like a great model overall, but someone has started to separate the boxes for the different phases. That's what I'm talking about. Jd2718 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Good luck with that, but if you can get consensus to change the list of combatants to certain periods, it'd probably be an improvement to this article. --Bobblehead 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aussie troop numbers

In reference to the number of Australian troops in Iraq, the number is 1450, not 560. Can someone please change this, I can't seem to be able to.

Do you have a link to a reference showing 1,450 Aussie troops? A quick google news search brings back this article saying there is 1,300. I'll update with that number, but if you have another showing 1,450, we can go with that. --Bobblehead 21:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've only heard the Number on the news, but I'll try and find a reference for it.

Okay, I think I've found a better reference which cites 1,400. It's the Aussie Army page for Operation Catalyst, which is their name for their Iraq involvement. --Bobblehead 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Goldfishsoldier 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Style Error

When viewing this page in Firefox (problem not reproducible in IE), I see a style error where 4 edit links overrun article text under the section Post-invasion, early and mid 2003. (Screencap here [2]). Anyone else have this problem, and/or any idea how to fix it? Noabsolutes 16:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am using Firefox 2 and do not see the overlap problem indicated by the screen capture. I tried different text sizes from the view menu of the Firefox 2 browser. What version of the Firefox browser are you using? --Timeshifter 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm running 1.5.0.8, but the problem has been resolved for me now.Noabsolutes 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)