Talk:Iraq War/Archive 15

Ambiguous Subtitle

The subtitle "2006: Permanent Iraqi government and civil war" seems a bit ambiguous. When I read it, I immediately thought,"Not very optimistic, now, are they?" Considering the ambiguity, and also the order that the two topics are discussed, it seems reasonable to me to change the subtitle to "2006: Civil war and the permanent Iraqi government".

--The pirate game (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Boowah59 (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Now dont get me wrong I'm not proposing a name change for the article, but dont you think that the name "Iraq war" is very vauge. I relise that there is a disambig at the start and it tells you that this about the 2003 war. But personaly i think that having the name "iraq war" somehow makes you think that it is the ONLY iraq war. Am i right for thinking this? Feel free to tell me if im competly wrong. BonesBrigade 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the name isn't good. Perhaps "2003 Iraq War" would be better. At the same time I don't think it is a big deal. Really it is a continuation of the previous Iraq war. Many wars are like this for example the Korean war largely had 2 parts under Truman and then under Eisenhower. Also it is the current struggle, as such by default the "Iraq War" stands for the current war. One more thing to consider is this was not the traditional war. In that the Iraq war civilians as a whole had no malice or decent to the war about half considered the US as liberators which technically is inaccurate. Perhaps the "War in Iraq" or the official name of the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I think the name should be familiar to to the average reader and specific of the current conflict. My vote is for "2003 Iraq War" or "Iraq War 2003". In the end it is largely irrelevant what we call it.Mantion (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actualy thinking that the "Second Gulf War" would be a better title but those work just as well if not better. BonesBrigade 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the "Second Gulf War". The Gulf war was named as such because we didn't go to war with Iraq, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was staging to attack Saudi Arabia. The UN gave Iraq gave a 5 month deadline to withdraw from Kuwait. The US sent troops to Saudi Arabia to defend against further Iraq aggression and possibly to liberate Kuwait. After the deadline the US took action to liberate Kuwait including the bombing and ground operations in Iraq. Scud missiles were launched at Saudi Arabia, Israel and other nations of the region. The gulf war was exactly that, It involved the whole gulf. Operation Iraqi Freedom was really nothing of a traditional war. It avoided all military engagements when ever possible. It was push to Remove Saddam from power and establish a presence in Baghdad. In all traditional messures it wasn't a war, it was maybe an engagement, conflict or operation. Still I think war is the best term to use even though military aggression was avoided when ever possible. Authorization in congress was to remove Saddam and the Bath party from power. That being said the operation was isolated to Iraq. There was limited staging from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, our Air operations originated mostly from Turkey, main land USA and aircraft carriers. The "war" might of been in the gulf but did not include the gulf. So if were going to change the name, great, but definitely not "Second Gulf War" all operations were directed at Saddam and Baghdad. Sorry for my length and grammar.Mantion (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I concur. 2003 Iraq War is better. smb (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I’ve just gone through a complete list of all conflicts through history. What we call the “Gulf War” is actually “The Second gulf War” and the current conflict is called “The Third Gulf War” on several military sites that list wars throughout history. This doesn’t suit the conflict as it has a completely different rationale to the previous Gulf Wars and doesn’t include other Gulf states. The following are all grammatically correct proper names for the war based on normal naming practices for past conflicts.
2003 Invasion of Iraq.
2003 Iraq Invasion.
2003 Iraq War.
2003 U.S Iraq Conflict.
War of 2003.
George Bush War.
2003 Intervention in Iraq.
Any one can be used and I’ve put them in order of appropriateness more or less based on past conflicts. At the very least the year should be added. Wayne (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the term "Iraq War" is used 22 times more frequently than "2003 Iraq War".[1][2] We don't put a year in front of Vietnam War or Korean War. And there's about a thousandth fewer mentions of "third gulf war" -- and many referring to a war that has not yet occured.[3] And "George Bush War" is just terrible. To begin with, there are two of them each with their own war in the same area. Boowah59 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with keeping the more common Iraq war name. While the "Second Gulf War" might be a more historically accurate name for an American audience, what then about the Iran-Iraq war-which took place along their shared border, especially in the northern end of the Persian Gulf and with US naval involvement in the middle of the Gulf(see: Tanker war). That could have been called the Gulf War as well, which would make the current war the Third Gulf War. But for whatever reason, it received the Iran-Iraq war name, the war over Kuwait--most of which took place in the desert not the Gulf, received the "Gulf war" name, which bring us to today.Publicus 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohh 2003 Iraq War: how stupid. The war didn't last only in 2003 --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lancet Article now in dispute in News Media

The Sunday Times in the UK just published:Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study.

"A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros."

The Lancet study had to be a source of exceptional status, which it clearly now is not. (if it ever was)

I am removing the Lancet numbers from the Iraq War Info Box.

Notice: Restoring the Lancet article will place the burden WP:PROVEIT of sourcing on the person that does the restoration at the time they do the restore. Have your case ready before hand. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. All 3 surveys in the infobox are disputed. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints are expressed in the form of X says Y. The narrative tone of Wikipedia can't be used to favor any viewpoint. The readers make up their own minds. There are criticism sections in the wikipedia survey articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This news is from today. There has been no discussion of it. You have the burden of showing the Lancet Study is an exceptional source. If you do not wish this burden, do not restore. It is that simple. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One critical newspaper article does not discredit a scientific paper. Withdrawal by the authors or rejection by the scientific community are the only grounds it could be considered unusable. Removal could be considered vandalism. GiollaUidir (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The notion of discrediting is not what applies here. It is Wiki policy. See WP:REDFLAG as a place to start. Also, the policy/guidelines for exceptional sources would be in play in this case. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to place bets on how long this user lasts before being permanently banned? See his user talk page to see why I ask this question. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the page that WP:REDFLAG links to. All the info in the infobox meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability. It has been discussed by hundreds of users over years. Look at my user page. I have over 11,000 edits on wikipedia. That should tell you something. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of new editors jumping into controversial topics go through the same thing. It is easy to see what you want to see in the policies when you don't read them carefully. I'm betting on a few more weeks of turbulence, but you have to be deliberately malicious to warrant a permanent ban. Pushing a POV is not the same thing. Boowah59 (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pushing a POV as a sockpuppet, or as part of a dedicated tag team, can get a topic or site ban for a very long time, or even permanently if egregious enough. But I agree that a single new user pushing a POV is likely to get lesser sanctions. Probably WP:3RR blocks, followed by longer and longer WP:3RR blocks. If his alleged tag team partner(s) step in here, then even longer blocks. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are seeing in WP:REDFLAG that you think implies that the Lancet studies should be removed. They were both peer-reviewed, and in this context a peer-reviewed source from a top-tier medical journal like the Lancet is as reliable as possible. Also, the Lancet estimates are about halfway between the Iraqi government's and the ORB's, so it is hard to consider them "exceptional claims." Boowah59 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The story says, "The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship." And it doesn't call in to question the results or suggest they were influenced or inaccurate. The article is appropriate for the articles on the Lancet studies, but it in no way supports removal of mention of the studies. Boowah59 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryder Spearmann. You have only been a registered user for a few days, and your user talk page is already filled with warnings. I suggest you do some less controversial editing at first, and learn more about wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, Timeshifter. WP:PROVIT states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You, as the restorer of the material is clearly charged with the burden of showing the Lancet work to be an exceptional source, but you are not taking that burden it seems to me. This is a matter of policy. I think you made a very inappropriate statement here claiming my page is filled with warnings. In fact, yours is the only one. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I put this warning on your talk page: {{uw-delete3}} - If you continue to remove sourced info you can be blocked or banned. I will report you to WP:ANI. You obviously don't understand the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy page that you link to from WP:PROVEIT. All the info in the infobox is well-sourced and verifiable. It is also highly-disputed in many cases. That does not mean it can be removed. Note that several editors have already disagreed with you. That should tell you something. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz you are already mentioned as being part of a tag team. That is not a good way to begin editing as a registered user. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I take very strong objection over your statement "your user talk page is already filled with warnings", yet yours is in fact the only one. See WP:BITE and please explain yourself here. Thank you. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I count 5 warnings. Please don't start your wikipedia editing career by gaming the guidelines, and claiming WP:BITE problems as a license to do so. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not even reading them, Timeshifter. 4 are informational, one of those 4 is explicitly encouraging bold edits. Yours is in fact the only warning, and it stands out like a sore thumb. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I count 4 warnings. I see also a message from your alleged tag-team partner or sockpuppet master, User:Raggz. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What are we talking about here? A new disclosure about the funding source for a controversial study was reported today. It seems that there is NO harm in having controversial and exceptional claims removed from the article while the status of the Lancet work is in discussion. It can always be restored later. I would like to understand the steadfast imperitive that controversial and questioned work must remain visible in the wiki, defended at all costs. I don't see how that conforms to 5 pillars. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires presentation of all significant viewpoints. Again, how is an estimate at the midpoint of the range an "exceptional claim"? Are there any reliable sources who think that Soros's funding influenced the outcome of the study? Boowah59 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the revelation that the Lancet study was funded in large part by a notoriously liberal, anti-Bush, and anti-Iraq War activist seems to disqualify it from use as a respectable source. The most recent and accepted figure we have is the World Health Organization study, conducted by a neutral body, which again is very different in method and scope from both the IBC and Lancet studies. 72.200.221.133 (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, The Lancet is a respectable, scientific source. The funding doesn't appear to have affected their research and unless there is a withdrawal of the paper or it can be shown that the funding source biased the outcomes then there is no reason to remove it.GiollaUidir (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• As said, the funding doesn't matter much if it is published in a respected paper. Saying that it is unusable because the anti-war Soros funded it is about as silly as saying that the WHO report must be biased because the WHO is partly funded by the pro-war US goverment.
• The most recent figure may be the WHO report, but the most up to date figure is the Opinion Research Business, which says 1,2 million have died.
• Thinking that the Iraqi goverment is neutral on this issue is rather naive to do. The legitimacy of the Iraqi goverment depends a great deal on if it is able to stop the violence. For a good while, the Iraqi goverment actually relied on the IBC count.

--82.183.224.40 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Financial costs removed from lead

There was less information on the financial costs of the war in the article body than in the last introduction. Untill that is fixed, if it is deemed important, it has no place in the introduction in my opinion. I have removed the sentence. Please note that there has been a previous discussion on the relevance of describing the financial costs eleborately in the article. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The same totals appear in the "Criticisms and costs" with no more or no less information, just sources. At 160+ kilobytes, we can't follow Wikipedia:Summary style as precisely as in shorter articles. The sentence links to Financial cost of the Iraq War which has the details. Making a separate section would be pointless, because most people will only care about the totals. Boowah59 (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The British cost estimate is not in the article, that is what I mean with less information. Furthermore the selection of the US and UK cost estimate for current expenditure seems arbitrary. Why not use the total estimate for the US tax payer (1.9 trillion), why not use the costs made in any other countries (primarily Iraq). And the question that remains is whether it is important enough to put it in the lead. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the U.K. figure not being in that section; it should be mentioned there as well. The $1.9 trillion figure is a rough estimate projection that depends entirely on how long the U.S. stays in. Because Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, that kind of projection is inappropriate for the introduction. Boowah59 (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still not sure about whether this sentence deserves a place in the introduction. It is not in the introduction (and usually not even in the body) of any other wiki articles on wars. Why do you think it is important enough? Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a remarkably large number. WWII cost the U.S. $288 billion[4] and the Vietnam War cost the U.S. $120 billion (says its article) over eight years. (Those numbers would be higher adjusted for inflation.) It is also the kind of thing that people are likely to come looking for, because, for example, it's the largest expense in the U.S. outside of entitlements. Boowah59 (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in the sense that it is notable for many people, especially considering that many consider it too high. That is the reason why it is listed under criticism in the article body. Perhaps my problem is more with how the costs are incorporated in the article body as opposed to the introduction. The two do not really match right now. I will look into it later, at this point I will leave it as it is. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nation quotes

under human rights abuses section there is quotes from U.S soldiers about either participating or witnessing planting of weapons on war dead, this isn't something that was invented recently, it's a rather old tactic it seems from various conflicts, however I reverted the attempt to remove it because of claimed leftist bias because the quotes themselves do not make a political statement, even if 2 U.S soldiers alleged that he/she participated or witnessed an act that some may deem to be a human rights abuse, it's a reliable source regardless of who did the interview, I have not read that these quoted soldiers retracted their statements, or proof that the credibility of the soldiers in question was in doubt. I'm also pretty sure these allegations could be further substantiated with more sources, let's give it some time to see if any can be found. Thisglad (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If these are legitimate testimonies, then there should be no problem finding a mainstream source to back them up. Perhaps something about an official investigation into these alleged occurrences. If you'll look at what I wrote as justification for removal, I had also noted that the inclusion of the large block quote was a violation of WP:WEIGHT when no such citation is used for other human rights violations. A far more widespread violation (the killings of thousands of civilians by insurgent forces) is given a mention far shorter than that by The Nation, which uses the words "several interviewees" to describe the one soldier who actually describes this practice. As I said, find something more reliable than an outspokenly anti-war publication to justify mentioning these alleged occurrences. It will take far more beyond that to justify the inclusion of a large quote along with it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

we list beheading and torture as an insurgent or terrorist human rights abuse when probably only a minority participated in such actions, if you think it's undue wright to list the planting of weapons allegations the entire human rights abuse section would have to be deleted. Thisglad (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

there are several Fox news sources in the article, your bias against the nation (and this is just quoting a soldiers words rather than an editorial) is unwarranted Thisglad (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the personal attacks didn't take very long to surface.

Word of advice, don't make it a practice to make assumptions about other editors on Wikipedia. I have not made any mention of Fox News, much less attempted to use it as a citation. Pointing out that one possibly biased news source appears elsewhere in the article does not excuse the usage of another, outspokenly biased source from the opposite end of the political spectrum in the section we are actually discussing. If you wish to dispute the usage of Fox News citations elsewhere in the article, feel free to do so in a separate section and time, but for now I would ask that we would please remain on topic.

Now I don't want an edit war here. But to date, I have cited standing Wikipedia policy to justify my actions. You have not. I am not opposed to including this content in the article: All I am asking for you to do here is to produce a single mainstream source to corroborate the account. If the practice of framing innocent Iraqis to look like insurgents post mortem is anywhere near as widespread as you just implied, then it really shouldn't be a difficult thing to do. Editorial or not, The Nation's outspoken bias on the matter disqualifies them as a reliable source. In the meantime, per weight, there is still no justification to include the blockquote which accompanies this statement, and as such, I have removed it once again. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The killings of three civilians by US soldiers does not merit longer mention in this list than the killings of over 12,000 by insurgents. I left the part which was reliably sourced, but removed excess detail per WP:WEIGHT. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a straight-news investigative reporting piece in a publication with a reputation for accuracy. It's not an op-ed. The op-eds in the Wall Street Journal are universally acknowledged as right-wing, but we use their news stories without question even when they are on the same subject. This is a similar situation. Boowah59 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Straight-News Investigative Reporting" Boowah? Authored by the daughter (and activist on his behalf) of a confessed Terrorist Financier? -- Laila Al-Arian was activist in her terrorist father's Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) cause, Now ... her book – or any other of The Nation’s related-spew is supposed to be "Straight-News Investigative Reporting"? Or responsible? Get real Boowah. You will simply throw any garbage into here that you like --- if you can get away with it. In the UK, Laila Al-Arian would have been DEPORTED years ago (along with her “book”) for her association with her terror-money-confessing Dad. Bwebb00 (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't solving anything, Bwebb. Now, Boowah, Thisglad, being as reliable sources have been found for the rest of the text as it exists, I am willing to make a compromise. This section of the article is a list, and per WP:WEIGHT we do not want to offer extensive details on one subject and one subject alone, especially considering how the presence of this added detail causes the mention to overshadow that of the 12,000+ civilians murdered by insurgents listed later in the section. But being as the new additions are reliably sourced, there seems to be enough information to go on here (even excluding the Nation blockquote) to justify creating a stub article about the detailed incident in which to place the existing paragraph. This will preserve the present material without giving it undue weight in the context of the wider list. Besides, being as every other Coalition item on this list links to a larger article, this would seem to be an accepted practice. Let's see if we can agree on this for now and deal with the Nation business later. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is current corroboration here. MilesAgain (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That appears as a blank page. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It was there a few days ago. Archive here. MilesAgain (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkey and the PKK

Why are they included. Their fight is maybe part of the WoT, but not of the War in Iraq--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well they fight in Iraq, I guess you can say that they are part of A war in Iraq. Whether this fight is part of THE war in Iraq may be a different matter. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

well, the Turkey-PKK conflict has its own article and is by no means connected to the Iraq War. Pkk is not allied with any of the insurgents.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The conflict is reasonably part of the larger asymmetric warfare and certainly brought about by it. Boowah59 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Turkey/PKK conflict is a direct result of the new autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan, whose increased power is a direct result of the removal of Saddam. This conflict has nothing to do with the US war on terrorism--other than there is a war and there are terrorist tactics being used on both sides, i.e. PKK bombs civilian facilities, then Turkey bombs villages. Publicus 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the same could be said of the PEJAK/Iran conflict on the other border. PEJAK, who may or may not be supported by the coalition, would not be able to conduct operations without a weakened central government or a central government split along factional lines-both of which are the result of the Iraq war. Publicus 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Thirty Years War is a good example of a war with many different combatants entering and leaving the arena at different times, with various motivations. Wars have a tendency to go 'off course'. Maybe one day politicians will understand that? Colin4C (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Publicus 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

British commanders

Tony Blair is not the PM of britain anymore and even Gordon browns name should not appear on the list.

The commanders of the British army are always millitary personel (technicaly the Queen) but the names of the actual military commanders should be used —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.128.84 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Preemption

Am seeking information on the legality (or lack of it) of America's preemptive launching of the invasion. If my memory serves me right, we hanged members of the German high command post-WWII for the launching of "wars of aggression" (eg. Poland, where specious reports [created by the Germans themselves] were utilized to "justify" the invasion?). How does the U.S. legally justify launching an attack against a nation that did not attack it first? Or was this just the ending of an American "tradition" of only responding with war to a foreign attack (we will leave the U.S./Mexican War out for the moment)? It now seems that the claims of Axis defendents at the Nuremburg/Tokyo Trials (that the proceedings were merely the "revenge of the victors") has now been proven correct. This opinion is now bolstered re the above and by the execution of Japanese troops post WWII for utilization of the same torture methods now applied legally by the U.S/Coalition. Or am I wrong? If you have an answer, please respond on my user page. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See legality of the Iraq war for further information. But for future reference, this is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead of Article

This article and the article Gulf War should be combined. There is much information missing regarding the essentially continuous state of war, especially the terrible degradation of humanitarian conditions in Iraq beginning in 1991, and escalated in 1995. Over half a million Iraqi children are estimated to have died needless deaths between 1995 to 2003 due to the escalations in badly designed and badly run sancations. It abetted Al Qaida's recruiting efforts during that time. Significant escalations in the continuous airwar during the twelve years should be mentioned. The political motivations during those times and the political consequences need to be discussed. The anti-Soviet alliance that was still almost intact for the first Gulf War fell apart rapidly during this continuous confrontation over Iraq. And Arab and global hatred for the United States and the United Kingdom grew steeply during the entire decade, peaking with the March 2003 operations. Resource material is plentiful and expansion of the article can easily occur, but the effective misnomer of both articles makes the information homeless. The hostilities that began in 2003 need to be kept in context with its decade-long run-up, which had no shortage of human cost.Ep9206 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article lead currently starts with "Invasion and Occupation of Iraq." However in the other related pages many say what the previous lead said, "Iraq War". There should be a consistency, either "Iraq War" or "Invasion and Occupation of Iraq." What do the rest of you feel? Hello32020 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the first sentence should start with "Illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq"99.229.163.64 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The original designation for this operation was 1003V ("ten-oh-three-victor"), and should perhaps be included in the lead. Doing a Google search of 1003V site:.mil yielded 36 results for me. I was serving in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion and all I ever heard it called was "ten-oh-three-victor", and no one called it "Iraqi Freedom". On a few occasions at the beginning of this Iraq war several TV news reporters in Kuwait/Iraq also referred to the operation as "ten-oh-three-victor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primeris (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is so Extremely Biased that it is not a reasonable record of the Iraq war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwebb00 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is so extremely biased, that it is not a reasonable record of the Iraq war. The article text, and also the photographs used on the article are so selectively tilted in an “Anti-U.S.” opinion that most readers will quickly dismiss the page as propaganda or worse. The entire Wikipedia site has such extensive problems with media-bias (Wikipedia is a collection of pulp from the media, not an authoritative Encyclopedic reference) that no one will ever credit the Wikipedia as an Encyclopedic, or historical reference. Bwebb00 (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the ORB study is listed as the first (and by inference, most reliable) account of Iraqi civilian dead, attests to this article's left-wing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.1.245 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it's wrong to write that the war is known as the "occupation of Iraq". The reference for that is a speech by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia! I honestly can't think of a more POV source than the Saudi king. This phrase should be removed, or at the very least moved to the criticisms section. LK (t|c) 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can think of some more POV sources; Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally for starters. "Occupation of Iraq" gets 1.4 million Google hits, and currently 419 Google News hits which are full of mainstream news publications. Feel free to use one of them as a replacement source, but it is almost impossible for consensus to remove something with that many uses to develop. MilesAgain (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

However, "Iraq War" gets 22,054 Google News hits and 18.7 million Google hits. Iraq War is certainly the more commonly used term. Ursasapien (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No argument, but compare to "second gulf war" that we include with only 81,600 ghits and 21 gnewses. MilesAgain (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So we have:

Name	Google hits	Google news hits
Iraq War	23.6 M	22,054
Operation Iraqi Freedom	2.52 M	505
Occupation of Iraq	2.1 M	425
Second Gulf War	0.97 M	19
1003V	0.05 M	0

Seems like the most popular titles are already included in the lead. I do not see a need to change it currently (unless someone wanted to re-order the titles). Ursasapien (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is liberal bias.Maxpower37 (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

CNN

Casualties

There have been 4,266 coalition deaths -- 3,960 Americans, two Australians, 174 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of February 13, 2008, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department. At least 29,133 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View casualties in the war in Afghanistan and examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html

Coachbeing21 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"OIL as a motivation" MUST be added for a non-biased view

Their is no talk of oil as a motivating factor in the Iraq war page. Most everyone knows that oil played a major factor. I wrote a lot of the role of oil as a motivating factor in the "Rational for the Iraq war" page.

This is a problem, because someone reading this Iraq war page won't consider the role of oil.

I propose we add the following:

There is evidence that oil was a major motivating factor in the Iraq invasion. The US "called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields"[103] and planned for a coup d'etat in Iraq began long before September 11th. [104] It was also alleged by BBC's Greg Palast that the "new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas",[105] but in reality Iraq oil production decreased with the neoliberal strategy and had the opposite effect.[106] However, oil production in Iraq is expected to increase greatly over the upcoming years. [107]

U.S. oil industry consultant Falah Aljibury alleges that soon after U.S. President Bush took office in 2001 he took part in secret meetings in Washington, the Middle East, and California involving an overthrow of the Iraq regime. Falah Aljibury also told BBC's Newsnight that he actually "interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration." [108]

In April 2001, six months before September 11th, Bush stated a plan to use "military intervention" in Iraq, because "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East." [109] This was much before September 11th (September 11th was used as a rational to invade Iraq. [110])

103 ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

104 ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

105 ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.

106^ http://www.metamute.org/en/Apocalypse-and-or-Business-as-Usual.-The-Energy-Debate-After-the-2004-US-Presidential-Elections

107^ http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business&articleid=260957

108 ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

109 ^ http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

110 ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

--Luke (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the Iraq war being for oil, where is all the oil? Elhector (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? But the point is, oil was a motivating factor. Also, the US plans to drill intensively in Iraq soon. Look at my references. --Luke (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in there, with four refs, at the end of the second paragraph in the intro. But I don't have a problem with your proposal. I've added an abridgment[5] to fit in the chronology and without the subsequent background of the first paragraph and other topics which are already in the article. Let me know what you think. Boowah59 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. Also, how come you get to change the article, but not other people? Im new to Wikipedia, and was just wondering. Thanks. --Luke (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to this suggestion, beginning with the title itself. "a non-biased view" discredits the proposition from the start. The Wikipedia is NOT a place for the sharing or debating of "views" and is more properly regarded as a repositiory of fact and informaion.

Next, "oil" is not a motivation. dictionary.com says that "oil" is: "any of a large class of substances... used for anointing, perfuming, lubricating... etc.". Far from being a "motivation", oil is simply a substance. My point is, your assertion is far too vague. It is likely that you mean something along the lines of "Theft of oil" or "Controling prices of oil" or "maintaining the stable trade of oil" or something that has intellectual merit as a motivation. I think that it should be required of you to state clearly, in the title and in text, the clear motivation in the form I describe. My guess is that once you do this... you will find the matter comes quickly to a close. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We have four official source in the intro saying that Iraq's oil reserves were part of the reason for the invasion, and we aren't supposed to be putting things in to the intro that aren't substantiated in the body of the article. Do you have an issue with either of the sources cited in the abridgment I added? Boowah59 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that there are four official sources that claim that part of the motivation of sending Military to Iraq, was to destroy the oil reserves there, to plunge Iraq into fiscal crisis, is that correct? Please show a verifiable citation for this? I see that such a view can be soundly substantiated. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but the article doesn't say anything like, "part of the motivation of sending Military to Iraq, was to destroy the oil reserves there" -- Where are you getting that? The one paragraph that is in there speaks of plans for a coup and that the "new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas." Massive increases in production is nothing like destruction of reserves. Boowah59 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I see; "destroy the OPEC cartel" is the actual goal then. Should the proposition here then, not read "Destruction of OPEC" ????? In other words, to encapsulate: The US entered Iraq with intent to destroy OPEC, having gained control of Iraqi production." The four citations (links) would all then support the statement.

The only hurdles I see are: Iraq has not flooded the market with oil. Is it clear that Iraq has tried? Does the US in fact control Iraqi oil production? Prices for oil have gone up. Also OPEC has not been destroyed. Is it clear that OPEC, though not destroyed, is in distress due to US efforts to destroy it?

The point is, for the proposition, which claims that US goals for the war included, perhaps primarily, the destruction of OPEC, it would be most helpful to that proposition to see events were unfolding that showed effect following cause. Cause and effect is what distinguishes reality from speculation. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC Newsnight source makes it clear that those plans were abandoned shortly after the invasion by former Shell Oil Company CEO Philip Carroll, who refused to be involved with privatization. US oil firms feared privatization, it says, because it might have led to the exclusion of US firms; they preferred the state-run oil ministry which exists today. I will add a sentence to that effect. Boowah59 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So you seem to be saying that the plans were owned/controled by Shell Oil CEO Carroll, and he abandoned his plans. At this point, I am not sure how plans to destroy OPEC, hatched by private oil firms, but later abandoned, has anything to do with the US prosecution of the Iraq war. Are you saying that Carroll had enough influce in the Bush administration to sell a "destroy OPEC" plan through the creation of a war, and then later abandoned the plan just as hostilities were getting off the ground? I honestly can not believe that such a thing is even being considered for inclusion into an Encyclopedia. Remember, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Has Carroll said that he has done all these things, either verbally or in print? Ryder Spearmann (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(back left) No, I'm not saying that, and neither is the paragraph in the article. Carroll was charged with implementation and refused, just as he said on camera. I'll try to clarify that. Boowah59 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(Note, there is not video of Carroll on camera available at the BBC links above, that I could find) Boowah, the problem with your responses here, is that they are not fitting. The idea here is that US *officials* had a plan to break OPEC through a war to gain control of oil. I point out that this has never happened. You responded that this is because a private individual abandoned the plans of US officials. He can't do that, as they were not his plans. You can't abandon something you do not personally have. What you have NOT said, is that US OFFICIALS abandoned the plans. All you have said is that an oil industry official said he would not take part in them. Until someone can show that the plans were positively abandoned by US officials, then we still have the original problem that I cited, which is: The US is accused of trying to achieve an objective, but as yet, there is not indication that they have even tried. I could accuse you of planning to subvert the wikipedia... but if I can't point to actions, clearly yours, toward that aim, my claims start to look foolish. I could later claim that you intended to, but you changed you mind. Minus some document where you admit to abandoning plans to subvert the Wikipedia... then even my second assertions simply crumbles. This is now the case with the US Government. Claims they intended to do something, no evidence that they have ever tried, new claims that they changed their minds, but no direct evidence of that either.

The next problem is this, the BBC link states that the "destroy OPEC" plan was drafted just before hostilities began, intended to displace the plan favored by big oil. This means that the "destroy OPEC" plan was drafted long after war preparations were substantially underway, in fact, just before hostilities began. How then, is it possible, that the late creation of plan to "destroy OPEC" was a motivation for a conflict what was already being staged at the Iraqi border?

In other words, the citations for the assertions you have personally made to me, are not in agreement with what you are saying. All one might possibly say is: as the war loomed, neo-cons saw an opportunity to exploit it and force the break up of OPEC once the US was in control of reserves. One can not travel back in time, and claim that this newly hatched plan motivated a war already at hand. It plainly defies all reason.

More issues remain. I decided to follow the citation for this passage: "In April 2001, six months before September 11th, Bush stated a plan to use "military intervention" in Iraq, because "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East." [109] This was much before September 11th" Following the citation, I was led to a UK based page that carried the quote without context, cited to yet another UK based page. Following this link, the page does not exist. One hopes that the global english Wikipedia does not plan to use second hand citations to documents that do not exist. Undaunted, I searched more generally for the quote attributed to Bush (above), and have found that it was never said by President Bush, nor does it come from his administration, apparently originating from the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. If my snooping is correct, it would make this proposed entry to the Iraq War an astoundinly misleading, inaccurate, unprofessional stain on the Iraq War page, and the Wikipedia in general. This is a horrific job of citation. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The video linked on the Newsnight program page is not working, but when it comes back you can view it and see if it addresses your concerns. It is clearly linked from the BBC page cited. It has multiple interviewees, speaking plainly on camera, and in agreement on the subjects in question.

Your except (beginning "In April 2001, six months before....") does not appear in the article. Please refer to the content of article instead of the draft above. — Boowah59 — continues after insertion below

How on earth did this draft get approved in any form? The violations to Wiki practices and guidelines are many. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which practices and guidelines? You are making accusations but not being specific. Boowah59 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You concern about the allegation that there were plans to "destroy OPEC" is more than reasonable. However, I have found additional sources which independently corroborate[6] and explain the details[7] and so I am adding them to the article. Boowah59 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Boowah, I am a little confused as to why you are searching for "sources" for someone else's proposal. Wiki policy under verifiability clearly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Not that you may NOT assume this burden, but why are you? Regardless, your citations do not meet basic wikipedia practices and guidelines, nor your proposed purpose. The first link at the Observer, makes no mention of Bush administration nor Congress (the bodies that prosecute and approve of the the US military action) adopting, approving, or otherwise using a "destroy OPEC" plan of any kind, regardless of origin, as far as I can see. If you can find it, please let us know. A clear, verifiable "paper trail" from the "plan" to the US government decisions ***must*** be provided to make claims that the destruction of OPEC was a motivating goal of the United States. Your next link is is more problematic, as it clearly violates objectivity guidelines. Your link does not a news source, but rather an editorial/invesigative piece. Wiki treatment of Objectivity requires: "Unequivocal separation between news and opinion." News is always sourced. Always. Palast writes investigative pieces that, while containing *some* sourced material, is still constructing a "case" based on investigaion, and is not in fact news reporting. (see wiki guidelines). Allow me to link for you a properly written "news" story, that I happened to read today, that adheres to journalistic standards for "news". [8] In it you will see that every quote is clearly attributed. All facts are simply stated, and should have been verified through two independent sources. No opinion of any kind is offered. The Palast link, on the other hand, is FILLED with opinion, and is written in that style. It does not pretend to be news, and is therefore outside the realm of an objective source for citation. I feel at this juncture that I will have to write a piece concerning the Wiki policy, practices and guidelines, and the need for deep knowledge and adherence to them. A page such as this, which is tagged as a controversial article must, in my view, not only adhere in the strictest sense to Wiki policy, but must meet the highest standards with regard to meeting guidelines as well. Anything less is a profound disservice to the Wikipedia, and the world that reads it. Respectfully. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Observer article says: "US plans to ditch industry rivals and force end of Opec" and "Planning for Iraq's post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC officials who have long enjoyed their support. Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq's oil would help deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil producers' cartel, which they argue is 'evil' - that is, incompatible with American interests." It is difficult to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is apparently not reading the sources in question. Those quotes are the first two appearances of "opec" in the thing, so you didn't even use Ctrl+F. Boowah59 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Boowah, ok, I am a little shocked here. Do you know what you have linked as a source?

First, you have to be able to differentiate between sourced news stories, and editorials or investigative pieces. They are worlds apart and treated very differently by Wikipidia policies and guidelines.

The 2nd wiki pillar on NPOV: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics."

There is nothing at all authoritative about your source. They are just the beliefs of the two authors neither of which are in authoritative positions. Boowah, do you not understand, that for the writers to be authoritative, they must have been part of the Bush administration itself, or having found and fully cited either witnesses or available documents from within the body to be authorative? All you have it two guys that have beliefs based on what they think they know. They never even PRETEND to tell you how they know it. My friend, this is about as far away form an authoritative as you can get. Any two persons could have written this... and not be authorities of any kind! BEING PUBLISHED IS NOT AUTHORITY.

You have published an OpEd as a source for US military policy. Nothing could be more inappropriate. How can you possibly justify using Peter Beaumont and Faisal Islam as authorities to US military policy? Now, if they had quoted, as NEWS reporters, statements from US military leaders, or the President, or members of his administration *in a position* to know the origins of military policy, and if such authoritative sources were given full citation in the article... THEN you would have something!

You simply have Peter and Faisal, two guys you don't know, saying what they believe about a military organization, in another country, that they have no role it. They could say anything, and as they offer no cititations, you can't even check.

Let's look at one of your quotes that you have personally claimed to me represents knowledge of the motivation of US intent: "Planning for Iraq's post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC officials who have long enjoyed their support."

Boowah, who have I just quoted? An authority on US military policy? A renowned reporter that has served us a direct quote and attributed it to someone of the necessary authority to know the facts of the matter? Sir, this is a quote from Peter and Faisal... who can say whatever they want, about whatever they want, for any reason they want. They make no claims about their ability to know these things. They simply start talking, and hope you believe them. Do you not see this? Do you not see that they are not scholars? Do you not see that there is nothing substantive or relevant to your citation in their work that you can verify? Do you not see that they do not even pretend to tell you how they "know" the things they claim to be fact?

Citing this article as an authoritative source for the policies of the United States Military, is a gross violation of everything that the Wikipedia stands for. You should never have even considered citing it. Give me a direct quote from President Bush. Give me a memo form the Joint Chiefs that betrays their intentions, somehow "obtained" by the press. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, The Observer published that article in their "World News" section, not in "Comment & Leaders" or with anything to indicate it wasn't straight news. Peter and Fasial are respected reporters and the Observer meets all of the reliable source criteria for current events. Boowah59 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, My, God. There is nothing to indicate that it was not straight news? My friend, they provided NO CITATION WHATSOEVER. It can NOT be straight news, even if God himself came down and told you it was. The Observer piece is, through lack of any external citation, saying that THEY are the source of authority.

I mean no condesention, but at this point, I have to show you what an actual NEWS ARTICLE is, that follows journalistic practices. THE WORK ITSELF TELLS YOU WHAT IT IS:

Brief Quoted excerpt begins (my comments in bold)

"SIOUX CITY -- Two girls found dead in a smoke-filled house Sunday were the victims of a ritual slaying, police said Monday."

Notice the attribution, not only is the reporter NOT saying it, (s)he it telling you that the police, who are in authority to know, are the source

"Their stepfather, Lawrence Douglas Harris Sr., 25, has been arrested and charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Kendra Suing, 10, and Alysha Suing, 8."

This is a statement of fact by the reporter, of non subjective matters that can be verified. This is where reporter reputation comes in. Can you trust them to have gotten these straight-forward facts correct? Are they in a position to know?

"Police Lt. Marti Reilly said Harris had been performing "some strange ritual." Harris told investigators he was casting a spell that "had gone bad" and the spell "could have had severe consequences," according to Sioux City Police Chief Joe Frisbie."

Here the the authority for this statement are Police Lt. Reilly and Chief Frisbee. They are the authority. What is being reported here is NOT what Harris was doing. What is being reported is the statement by the police, again, of which the reporter IS in a position to know. The reporter can be seen as an authority on this. They have also told you who provided the quote.

Harris is being held at the Woodbury County Jail in lieu of $2 million bond and is set to appear in court Jan. 17."

Again, a statement by the reporter, of plain facts, that are of public record, and therefore the reporter is, once again, in a position to know. This is easily verified.

End Quotation -----------------------

You can easily tell when you are reading news. It is presented in precisely the format you see above. It is typically boring as hell, full of who said what, and devoid of any opinion whatsoever. That, for better or worse, is *news*.

Boowah, you have to listen to what you are saying, which is, in effect, that since the Observer meets some guidelines generally, that they are, for purposes of meeting the requirements of the Wiki Second Pillar, themselves, AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES for ANY KNOWLEDGE. Why? Because they can write about anything. Anything at all. Not only does this stretch credibility, it is by any resonable measure fully impossible.

You also have to be careful of what you consider "the source". The source is NOT the Observer. It is ONE article, that appeared in the online edition of The Observer. The article must stand on it's own with regard to it's content. The reputation of The Observer, can add to the reputation (or take from) of the article, as can the specific reporters.

As the authors of the article you cite, present themselves as the source of authority, I am including this link that you might find helpful as a guide on how to read a Primary Source.

==External links==

*How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.

Pay particular attention to discovering credibility. You must, as the USER of the article you cite, be able to make a determination on THE ABILITY OF THE AUTHOR TO KNOW WHAT THEY CLAIM.

So here is my task for you, given that you have freely chosen this one article as a reliable and *AUTHORATATIVE* source, can you tell me, how the authors know what they say they know? What is it about them, who they are, and what they present, that allows you feel reasonably certain that they in fact can know what they say they know?

Also remember, from the wikipedia on verifiability: OFFICIAL POLICY .

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources "

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:"

"surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;"

...

You are tasked, specifically, by WIKI POLICY, by the obvious red flag, to examine your source article. That you have failed to even notice that the source is not in a position to know what is says it does, and that you have failed to notice that the source failed to offer citation, is a clear deriliction of your duties as an editor! Wiki policy is NOT toilet paper! The policy is there for a very good reason, and represents an accumulation of wisdom and experience spanning the existance of the Wikipedia.

I see your work on this article to incorporate a nearly wholesale abandonment of the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia for the reasons I cite above. I have given you materials, and patient means of examining, and there is little more I can do. All I can ask is that you take your duties here seriously, know and use the full width and breadth of the Wiki policies and guidelines. I am sorry for not sugar coating all of this. I am a straight shooter, and don't wish you to see what I have said as being harsh or rash.

ALL EDITORS. The reason why the Iraq War wiki article is the dung heap that it is, horribly out of character with the vast bulk of the Wikipedia, is due to, in my view, horrifically LOW standards in an area where nothing but the HIGHEST standards are called for. It seems to me that editors found here generally use Wiki policy ONLY when it suits their needs, and abandon it readily when it does not. Certainly many are trying, and many have tried and no doubt given up.

For this article to mean anything worthwhile, it will take the VERY BEST YOU CAN GIVE, to cut through mounds of BS, Gigibytes of wild, unsubstantiated theories, in order to produce a document that will gain respect.

Do yourselves a favor. Do the world a favor. Go to the Library. Pick up an Encyclopedia... any volume. Open it to any article. Notice the difference? Most Wiki articles are excellent. This one, however, brings shame to us all. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see from your userpage that you have already had a look at "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," which is the source mentioned in the corroborating sources. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, is verifiability, not truth, so whatever you think of the quality of writing, the fact remains that the Observer article meets the reliable source criteria. The journalists in question are the Observer's foreign affairs editor and an award-winning economics editor. You know that we have the BBC source which says the same thing.

You can see how many people come here from both sides of the political spectrum, saying the article is terribly biased. I am sorry that you think I suffer from "nearly wholesale abandonment of the policies and guidelines" but I disagree, and note that you have presented zero sources that agree with you that the Observer article was somehow in error. Boowah59 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not confuse authoritative with truth. As you said, the standard for inclusion is verifiability, so it has to come from an AUTHORITATIVE source. If the source is a news article that doesn't event present any authoritative source, you shouldn't present it as the absolute truth; the common thing to do is to say "according to The Observer....." Jesusbrea (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholly and completely support your ideas to post your new WIKI article of "facts" (which you perceive) about oil.... Because it will continue to "LEFT-TILT" your left-article on the Iraq War -- to such degree that it will simply fall off of the table of all common sense. Views like this have savaged this page so badly that it is practically the worst WIKI in the Wikipedia now. The page is disorganized, ugly, and heavily biased in liberal VIEWPOINT, not necessarily in facts. It remains a high disgrace to the entire concept of the Wikipedia forum. This may seem great to many who write here, because it discredits the west, the US, US leadership, the prosecution of the war, and so-on. But considering the “articles” which are used to present this left-slant (including some from the BBC , and particularly the radical piece from The Nation) this mess actually only serves to misinform and discourage readers (including ANTI-Iraq-war contributors) who read, (possibly contribute) and want to believe this page. Bwebb00 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed the Nation interviews, and as I said, if you had any combat experience, I doubt you would be the least bit surprised by them. This section is about oil as a motivating factor. Do you have any specific complaints about the sources involved?[9][10][11][12][13][14] Boowah59 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bwebb00--As far as I can see, based on facts, control of oil was certainly a motivating factor. Bush planned to invade long before 9/11. Iraq has the world’s second or third largest oil fields (I can’t remember exactly). Also, Bush even stated that he wanted a more favorable oil policy. Just read what I wrote on top. What I'm saying is not "left wing" or "anti-American" or anything. It's facts. --Luke (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is Leftist POV, and you will not escape that. These viewpoints in the way you "select" these articles, tilt-and taint this entire article to the left. Why not cite references from moveon.org, and Michael Moore as truuly-authoritative sources as well? Funny for anyone here to think of / consider that you want to be taken seriously when you site anything from Anti-War www.commondreams.org . Are you kidding? TILT ! Bwebb00 (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the previous section on this talk page. As you can see, we get people from the left claiming a rightward bias, and people from the right claiming a leftward bias. Do you have a specific fact, story, reliable source, or perspective you think is not covered or covered improperly? MilesAgain (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how one leftist source out of five sources given makes it "leftist POV". Anyway, here's another good (and recent) source for you Boowah59. Looking at the deal western oil companies are getting Iraq not only loses control of it's oil for 30 years but pays the oil companies for the privilege. Wayne (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ross / Wayne. OFF the subject, but very relevant for a minute here. It helps me, and some of the other readers come to grasp with subjects which you question or defend in the Wikipedia. Why on earth would you defend -- and question the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, a CONFESSED financier of a radical Palestinian Terrorist Group (the Palestinian Islamic Jihad)? You have underlined and undermined your own POV fairly well with that statement you made on the comments pg. All anyone has to do is simply go to the Sami Al-Arian (WIKI) discussion page, and look at the bottom and read on. Your quote; “It says he was convicted of conspiracy to help Palestinian Islamic Jihad without mention that it was legal to do so when he did it. It should indicate it was a retrospective law.” April07. You have got to be kidding me. Are you going to defend this position? One of sympathies for the terrorist PIJ financier? I cannot comprehend your position to defend Sami Al-Arian at all. THE REASON THIS IS RELEVANT -- his daughter, Laila Al-Arian was a POLITICAL ACTIVIST in defending her father in all of the terrorism charges in Florida. This Wiki, quotes garbage from her radical book “The Other War”. Just as all of you see nothing tilted, radically to the left in the fact that you all support that radically-left-propagandized book (written by a Palestinian Activist) … obviously you cannot see anything “POV” or tilted in anything else you dredge up. A landslide of your references are from British media sources. And although you cite “the rest were not from Left-POV, almost ALL of them are. Even the Wiki here, refers to many of those media outlets as “LEFT” or LIBERAL. Go read! I cannot comprehend you writing or editing from a moderate or neutral point of view here, because of things like this. And (Mr. Boowah) when you cite Liberal British Newspapers (tiltedly critical of the US for years) you simply think nothing of it. It is all center-of-the road to you, and how much it is NOT to the rest of us.... nor to any "neutral point of view". Oh, by the way: "Oil" ... should be added, but not in the irresponsible (and radically-left) ways that you gentlemen will report on it... based on the subjects I see you defend and criticize. And the outlets I see you using as "source". Bwebb00 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets put it this way: We have several reliable sources which say oil was a motivating factor.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Are there any reliable sources that say it was not? Boowah59 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, none at all, unless you look in a radical, right-wing, neo-conservative publication of some sort--Luke (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

For example? Boowah59 (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. CommonDreams is not an RS: it is admittedly a left-wing publication. Replacing one perceived bias with another does nothing to improve the quality of the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As answered below, Commondreams is used only because it archived a Washington Post story, and none of its content is cited. Even if that one source was biased, there are still five others. Boowah59 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok..OFF TOPIC but Bwebb00 needs to be replied to. Because Al-Arian is the enemy are we supposed to twist the article to make him look as bad as possible? How does my defending NPOV in regards to the article on Sami Al-Arian equate to supporting him? Point out a single thing I posted that is not factual and relevant.
Back on topic: From your claim that British media is left wing I am assuming you are American. I point out to you that what the rest of the world considers middle of the road media, America usually considers left wing so from a global perspective there is nothing wrong with most of Boowah59’s sources. Wayne (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Before dismissing me out of hand, I'll clarify that the reason I call CommonDreams a left-wing news source is because their slogan, presented as part of their logo at the top of the article you linked, is "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community." Though I may be American, the fact that the source wears its political orientation on its sleeve seems pretty definitive to me. Now, I am not dismissing this altogether. But since what they are referencing is an article from the Washington Post, it would be better to use the direct article as a source instead of the redirect. [21] The only problem is that the page (archived by the Post over five years ago) is now blank. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason Commondreams sources are used anywhere in the article is because they archived stories that were apparently inserted when they are fresh but are no longer available at their original URLs. Maybe I am missing it, but all I see is straight news archived at Commondreams, not commentary, opinion pieces, or anything they originally published. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Boowah59 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Start by looking at any of the articles directly linked from the main page, for starters. Like this David Lindorff opinion piece published today by CommonDreams, entitled 'What is this Iranian provocation BS?'. Lindorff is joined by Cindy Sheehan further down the page in another diatribe published directly by CommonDreams (All Power to the People).

Hyperbole aside, CommonDreams is a biased left-wing source by every conceivable definition, and denial will not change this. As such, is has no place as a source on this article or, for that matter, anywhere else on Wikipedia. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, we aren't linking to any of Commondreams' original content in the article. We are only using links to Commondreams' archive of the full text of news stories which were originally published by newspapers, not Commondreams, when the links to the original story URLs are not working. Is there a problem with that? Boowah59 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Being as the original text for the Post article can no longer be found on the paper's website, there is no way to confirm through cross-reference that the original text is accurately preserved on CommonDreams. Now, while it is highly unlikely in my opinion that the article was altered by CommonDreams, others may not see it this way. You must see that it detracts from the credibility of this article to direct a reader's attention to a site with such an outspoken point of view. Now, that is not to say that the Post article cannot be used. Simply cite it in its original, pure form: as a newspaper article (WP:CITE for reference). As with any newspaper article cited as a source, if someone cares enough to look for the article themselves, there are plenty of databases and library archives to accommodate them. In the meantime, stick to code and avoid partisan sources. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE#Convenience links says: "Where several sites host a copy of the desired resource, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content is most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability." For the articles in question, I see some of them on sites with in-line commentary and clearly more biased viewpoints (for example [22]), so I think using Commondreams is in compliance. Boowah59 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look again at the rest of the policy you cited:

"It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, emendations, edits or changes. When the 'convenience link' is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively easy to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible."

The policy goes on to say that a web site's general content must meet WP:NPOV standards to even be considered, and I have already demonstrated that CommonDreams as an organization fails to meet this standard. Being the least-worst partisan website to carry this article (a position which itself can be argued) does not improve CommonDream's credibility in light of NPOV. But more to the point, as the original article is no longer even available for cross-reference, policy forbids its use in the first place. So, the decision here is simple. We can either cite it as a newspaper article, or not use it at all. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You said, "it is highly unlikely in my opinion that the article was altered by CommonDreams," so I didn't think you were raising the issue. Where do you draw the line between least-worst and your absolute standard of NPOV? And the original article is still available in paper back-issue library collections, so of course it may be used. Boowah59 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what is absolutist about drawing the line at a site which regularly hosts anti-war diatribes written by Cindy Sheehan. The policy we're talking about applies less to websites of a political nature and more to, say, when such an article is adopted into a small-town newspaper. Now I still don't see what would be wrong with simply citing the Post entry as a newspaper article. There would be nothing controversial about doing so. On the other hand, I have already demonstrated CommonDreams' POV, and without either of us actually having made the comparison, it would not be a good idea to assume the reliability of a source which has been so vocal about its viewpoint on this matter. I don't automatically assume malicious alteration of the article. I don't. But being as the original is not readily available to make a comparison, I don't think it would be wise to take CommonDreams on faith, either. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we go back to making a proposed draft and developing consensus? I likeLuke's original wording better than what has been added recently. I think it is closer to neutral.

There is evidence that oil was a major motivating factor in the Iraq invasion. The US "called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields"[103] and planned for a coup d'etat in Iraq began long before September 11th. [104] It was also alleged by BBC's Greg Palast that the "new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas",[105] but in reality Iraq oil production decreased with the neoliberal strategy and had the opposite effect.[106] However, oil production in Iraq is expected to increase greatly over the upcoming years. [107]

U.S. oil industry consultant Falah Aljibury alleges that soon after U.S. President Bush took office in 2001 he took part in secret meetings in Washington, the Middle East, and California involving an overthrow of the Iraq regime. Falah Aljibury also told BBC's Newsnight that he actually "interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration." [108]

In April 2001, six months before September 11th, Bush stated a plan to use "military intervention" in Iraq, because "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East." [109] This was much before September 11th (September 11th was used as a rational to invade Iraq. [110])

Oil draft

It uses terms like "alleges" and "so and so states." I think the first sentence would be better worded, "There is some evidence that oil may have been a major motivating factor in the Iraq invasion." I honestly believe this is a fringe conspiracy theory, but I have no problem with it being mentioned as long as it is properly attributed and not presented as de facto "truth." Ursasapien (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is how it stands at present:

In April 2001, Bush's Cabinet agreed to use military intervention in Iraq, because it was considered a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.¹ Neoconservatives in the U.S. called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields and planned for a coup d'etat in long before the September 11th attacks, hoping a new government would use, "Iraq's oil to destroy the OPEC cartel through massive increases in production above OPEC quotas." Those plans were abandoned shortly after the invasion because former Shell Oil Company CEO Philip Carroll, who had been charged with their implementation, refused to be involved with Iraqi oil industry privatization because it could have led to the exclusion of U.S. firms,^2,3 unlike the state-run oil ministry.⁴ U.S. oil industry consultant Falah Aljibury alleges that soon after Bush took office in 2001, he took part in secret meetings in Washington, the Middle East, and California involving an overthrow of the Iraq regime. Aljibury told BBC's Newsnight that he, "interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration."⁵

1. Mackay, N. (Oct 6, 2002) "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis," The Sunday Herald (Scotland)

2. Beaumont, P. and Islam, F. (November 3, 2002) "Carve-up of oil riches begins," The Observer (London: Guardian Newspapers)

3. Palast, G. (October 24, 2005) "OPEC and The Economic Conquest of Iraq," Harper's Magazine

4. Fortson, D. (7 January 2007) "Future of Iraq: The spoils of war," The Independent (London)

5. Palast, G. (17 March 2005) "Secret US plans for Iraq's oil," BBC Newsnight

All but the first and last two sentences had been removed, and I don't understand why. There is no question that the plan existed, and Carroll himself acknowledges refusing to implement it. Boowah59 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand why? Seriously? There is most certainly a question regarding the factual nature of said plan. What is not in doubt is that some have alledged that there was a plan and Carroll states that he refused to implement said plan. Now, are there any relaible, neutral sources for this information. I have a tough time believeing that if relaible sources were stating that such a plan existed, that this would not have been covered in the New York Times or CNN or CBS News for that matter. Ursasapien (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We have three sources (Harpers, Observer, BBC) corroborating that the neocon- and government-produced 101-page document "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth" contained just such plan, which was later included in the State Department's (USAID) "Options for Developing a Long Term Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy in Focus, and In These Times also agree. In fact, FPIF later explicitly corroborated Carroll's role:

January 2003: Phillip Carroll, a former chief executive with Royal Dutch-Shell, and a 15-member "board of advisers" were appointed to oversee Iraq's oil industry during the transition period. According to the Guardian, the group's chief executive would represent Iraq at meetings of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Carroll had been working with the Pentagon for months before the invasion—even while the administration was still insisting that it sought a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis—"developing contingency plans for Iraq's oil sector in the event of war."

One month after the invasion, Carroll took control of Iraq's oil production for the U.S. Government. He was joined by Gary Vogler, a former executive with ExxonMobil, in Iraq's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

Mr. Carroll made it clear to Paul Bremer, the U.S. occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that, "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while he was involved."

Are there any sources to the contrary? Boowah59 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to prove a negative. Are there any sources that run contrary to the fact that George Soros is attempting to seize global power for himself? Are there any sources that prove that the CIA did not shoot Kennedy? It is a specious argument. I could certainly show you multiple partisan or fringe sources that affirm both of the above, but very few would argue that these sources are reliable. The WSJ piece sounded intriguing, but the link you gave is not to an article but to an advocacy group (that I can not access at this time). Do you have the WSJ article that speaks about this secret plot to attack Iraq to get control of it's oil resources? Ursasapien (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion is verifiability of information from reliable sources. Here we have multiple sources meeting the reliable source criteria contradicting your position, and you are apparently unable to produce any sources which agree with your position. The Wall Street Journal link above is a convenience link to the full text of an article behind a subscription wall. Convenience links are discussed elsewhere on this talk page. The plot you refer to was never secret, but I suppose you think you can discredit it by calling it secret; you can not. Having said that, these are the articles you request:[23][24][25][26] Boowah59 (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oil was a motive since the West did not want it's suppys cut off, after all Hugo is a real nucence in Venezuala! O.K., all that said, Bush did not want to stamp the classic proverbial 'George Bush oil PLC' over it's oil industry either! Looting Iraq's oil fields is not on the war's agenda! --86.29.250.165 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead Reference Link

Under Criticisms

Rationale Based on faulty evidence

“As of the year 2007, President Bush's administration made a total of 935 false statements in a two-year period about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.[156]"

This statement appears to be a claim. It needs to be corrected or deleted. (935?) The source (“Yahoo News”) is a dead link, and I cannot find it. Bwebb00 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Setting the Record Straight!

The article is biased! Everyone here knows that it is; and the failure to make it as accurate as possible simply shows lack of maturity on the parts of those in control of writing it. Look, throughout our historical search for the truth in past events many historians have had great frustration in the battle of deciphering fact from opinions keeping today's students and the populous from being able to have any true clarity about a previous historical event. We, as a people, have matured intellectually and technically over many years but it seems that we have not matured responsibly. This article goes far beyond the opinions of one person or the collective whole of others. This article needs to show GREAT clarity and robust 360 degree informational detail so that 40, 60, 100 years from now when the TRUE impact of our actions are seen; those historians can look back and have a more FACTUAL understanding of what took place and the events that caused the action. If we are to grow as a people, then we must have BETTER historical data from the actions we take. To me, anything less than the undeniable WHOLE TRUTH is not only irresponsible for the editor’s involved but incredibly irresponsible to history of mankind itself!

You ask for direct information so that you can more closely examine the current articles effectiveness in telling the factual truth. I say if you need me to point out all the biased opinions here that you are not one without bias yourself! The entire article is riveted with false accusations, incorrect comments and purposely left out data which means this article DOES NOT directly reflect the war itself! And let’s not kid each other here. The panel of editors here knows what the concerns are. They know what has been left out of the article. And they know there is a biased viewpoint. And they know that the entire article leaves no room for open interpretation for future generations to draw their own conclusion.

Understand this. It is VERY clear that the editors took GREAT STRIDES in writing this piece so that it would not bend too much to the left but that it would in its entirety meet the painted picture that they wished it to achieve. Remember that a truth is NOT a truth unless the WHOLE truth and nothing but THE TRUTH is written in its entirety! Meaning that words that are written which stand alone do not within itself create a lie, however, when combined in its entirety and there is failure to include other information supporting an action, then it, in its entirety, becomes a lie!

I sincerely enjoy the Wikipedia idea. I find that it is one of the greatest creations for learning knowledge that exists today. However, if people start to write opinionated articles instead of fact, the very principle for which adds the value will be lost!!! Correct this article!!! Make it FACTUAL!!!!! Leave your opinions where they belong! On the other side of your work done here!!!

Let’s not debate the truths or the finite of each position. Let us instead reevaluate our efforts here and write this story so that future generations will know the entire story! That includes: WHICH Intelligence agencies failed with their reports that lead the president AND other nations to believe that the threats were real. WHY President Bush would possibly believe them to be factual based upon the previous actions and history of Saddam Hussein, The theories that truck loads of cargo left out for Syria days before the invasion, the FINDINGS OF AL QAEDA CAMPS IN IRAQ (Which your article says there were none!!!) AND many many more excluded pieces of this event! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisban35 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You wasted your time with that rant. -- Phoenix2 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• The perfect example of the "right" and "correct" viewpoint that has grown to occupy the center of American public dialog (and not just on Iraq). The "truth" and the "facts" of the article are decried, yet the author offers none to take their place. RM Gillespie (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see!--86.29.250.165 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your calls that it is biased, and yet you are giving us nothing concrete to work with. Please be more specific. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq and Osama bin Laden!

Osama bin Laden first took interest in Iraq when the country invaded Kuwait in 1990, raising concerns the secular Baathist government of Iraq might next set its sights on Saudi Arabia, homeland of bin Laden and Islam itself. In a letter sent to King Fahd, he offered to send an army of mujahedeen to defend Saudi Arabia, but the offer was rebuffed. After the war, Al Queada moved in on mass and even trained some children to commit terrorisum in the post-war power-vaccume in southern Iraq! Iran's Al Qouds devisions may also be helping them in southern Iraq to.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3320938.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3320938.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece

http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2007/8/11/captured-iraqi-terrorist-says-bin-laden-had-al-qaeda-camps-i.html

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enGB226GB226&q=AL+QAEDA+CAMPS+IN+IRAQ%22

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040705/corn

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Also see- Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Mujahideen Shura Council and the Islamic State of Iraq--86.29.250.165 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)