Talk:Iraq War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Iraq War is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 1 September 2006

	Pending tasks for Iraq War:
	Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:

Iraq War is part of the Terrorism and counter-terrorism WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of terrorism and counter-terrorism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Contents 1 Suggestion on the Campaignbox Iraq War 2 Minor suggestion 3 Is this a war on Terrorism? 4 Front line of Iraq war 5 Current event template...? 6 Fishy figures 7 Discussion groups? 8 Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an "estimate" 9 Three points 10 Iraqbodycount and Iraqi health ministerim/Iraqi government count is not the same thing 11 Spain and "pulling out" 12 Casualities 13 Small mistake 14 Big mistake 15 Bush considers changing tactics in Iraq 16 Commanders Infobox 17 Coalition Military Operations 18 Why? (Images discussion) 19 Woah 20 Combatants/commanders: Having Hussein, al-Sadr and al-Qaeda on the same side 21 Iraq Body Count 22 October 2005. Car bomb incident with suspected Americans 23 A question about Pre Bremmer Iraq 24 pkPat 25 Death stats. Passive versus active methods of counting. 26 Notes section added to end of infobox 27 George Bush 28 War Rationale 29 POLAND 30 Why is the "Criticism" section first after the introduction? 31 Left-side images in top part of page getting stuck at bottom of infobox 32 650+ Photos 33 SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH BATTLEBOX. 34 REALPOLITIK angle: Iraq War as response to 9/11 35 External links

[edit] Suggestion on the Campaignbox Iraq War

I have a suggestion to add two more battles to the Campaignbox Iraq War. The battle of Ramadi, April 6 2004, and The battle of Husaybah April 17 2004, both were minor engaments, not on the scale of Fallujah, Baghdad or Najaf, and lasted only a day, but the soldiers themselves said that they were fierce fights, and in both battles more than a dozen Marines were killed, 12 in Ramadi and 5 in Husaybah, and also 150 insurgents per battle were involved. They were notable battles like the Battle of Mogadishu. So if anybody's for this say it. I think it would be a good add to the Campaignbox Iraq War, and also would help to diffirentiat these casualties from the casualties suffered in the first battle for Fallujah because they have been included in that battle because these battles were initiated by the insurgents to relive pressure from the siege of the city.

[edit] Minor suggestion

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

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

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

The US did not fight the war alone, the UK parliament fully supported the 'war' and gave it official status as a 'war'. Also the Iraqis probably thought tanks swarming across their boarder was an act of war as well. Out of interest when I first read the title of this discussion I immediatly thought some American was going to suggest calling it a liberation instead! DarthTanner

Ok well by that logic you could also call 9/11 a war. That was considered an act of war. Acts of war doesn't make it a war that power stands alone with congress. What about panama? What about somalia? Kosovo? Agreed that the scale of this conflict is much larger and more relavent to a actual declared war.

[edit] Is this a war on Terrorism?

Several users have asked to discuss this issue so here is my opinion: By definition, a war on terrorism must be declared, and have a specific enemy who has committed a crime. It has been proven that Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda, or 9/11, or that Iraq had WMD's. The Iraq war has never been officially declared. Therefore, it isn't even a war. However, Saddam did violently repel an uprising after the first gulf war which killed civilians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkpat2011 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

I agree that the term is part of a line of similarly named US policies of ongoing vigilance. I question it's use in an encyclopaedia, unless qualified as a US policy name. Considering the international nature of the coalition, taking the US protagonists term might be seen as clear POV, rather than the best non-controversial description of the phenomenon, which I guess would be War in Iraq, or similar. Looking back at other wars, the umbrella campaign name or term would appear not to be used. Although that's a gut feeling, so if there's any history buffs reading this, please enlighten. Widefox 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of countries call it the War on Terror. Cerebral Warrior 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm from UK, we don't call our actions that. Tony Blair uses it as part of alignment with the US, but you'll not find him using such terms with IRA negotiations, or some such! It is a US term, with alignment. Widefox 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One has to look at it in the context of how it was portrayed by the two primary aggressor* nations, the US and UK. Both refer to it as part of the wider War on Terror(ism)**. Thus, the appelation is correct.

*Before anyne gets their knickers in a twist, this is not a pejorative use of the term -- as the invaders they are in fact the aggressors, no matter what the provocation, real, perceived or imagined.

** The US Administration refers to it as the War on Terror, for reasons I don't want to go into other than to say that it's the same basic reason that covers why the RS-71 was renamed the SR-71, and why the EIC became the EITC. •Jim62sch• 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, instead of "aggressors", "protagonists" is the correct term. GWOT is more UK, or support for GWOT or some other watered down supportive phrase. Widefox 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The very concept of "aggressors" brings with it negative connotations. Remember, despite our personal views, we are writing an encyclopedia article. I agree with Jim62sch in that they are, in fact, the aggressors, but the term carries too much perjorative with it to be of use. Protagonists, while striking me as something from a novel, is better, though I'm open to suggestions on how to fix it. Silverlocke980, 3:25 p.m., November 2006.

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

[edit] Front line of Iraq war

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

[edit] Current event template...?

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

[edit] Fishy figures

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

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

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

[edit] Discussion groups?

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

[edit] Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an "estimate"

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

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

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

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

Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. --Merat 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some range, the 655,000 alone doesn't represent the fact that nobody knows for sure how many have died. I don't think we should simply find the study with the highest amount imaginable and use that as fact. Rmt2m 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, the Lancet study is, from what I know, the only study of it's sort. The US-led coalition has said that they "don't do body counts" (which is in violation of the Genève Conventions) and therefore information of this sort is scarce. Secondly, some range is given in the study. It says that they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died, but came up with 655 000 as a reasonable number (And there you also see that 655 000 isn't the "higherst amount imaginable"). --Merat 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To me, that brings into question the methodology of the report. How can anyone say that they are 95% sure that between 392,979 and 942,636 people have died? There's a gap of almost 550,000 in there, meaning that they are 95% certain of bupkus. Notwithstanding an official DoD count, there are other methods, like IBC, that have more verifiable ways of confirming deaths, such as using multiple sources. Rmt2m 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that one is 95% sure that a figure lies within a certain range is just about the best way to present statistics. It's not an empty statement, or "bupkus", at all. It means it's very unlikely that the casualty rate is as low as 200,000 or as high as 1,000,000, and it acknowledges just how much uncertainty there is in the count - a lot. Having studied some statistics, I would question the methodology of a report that doesn't present its results in terms of a confidence interval. Omitting the error bars is one of the most common ways to mislead with stats; let's not do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I suppose I expressed myself a bit bad. Instead of "they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died" , it should rather be "according to their research, the chance that the number of deaths is between 392 979 and 942 636, is 95 %." If you have questions on methodology then read the report. As I have previously said, IBC states that it only counts reported deaths, which makes it useless in this context. --Merat 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I fail to realize is why we shouldn't simply use a count of confirmed deaths. At least then the number has some veracity, because otherwise it's conjecture. Rmt2m 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already told you why we shouldn't use IBC's numbers. Look at any other war article with a large number of casualties, do you think they are less conjecture? Do you just distrust this special report, or statistics on the whole? --Merat 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, we shouldn't use IBC because those deaths are documented, but we should use this study because there not? Honestly the Lancet report seems a bit suspect to me. I don't doubt that there have been deaths that haven't been reported yet, but these numbers are beyond what is even remotely possible. The Lancet study was conducted over a period of three months which is hardly enough time to gather data for over 40. The Lancet study also mentions the fact that the DoD does in fact conduct body counts, "despite initially denying that they did." Rmt2m 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there we have it. You seem to think the Lancet study is suspect because it gives too high numbers. Why would three months not be enough to do a statistical study, and where are that DoD body count then? --Merat 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, ask Lancet where the DoD count is. Of course it gives too high a number! There is absolutely no way that there are that many undocumented deaths. It defies reason. That's what I've been saying all along. And next week or month when a study comes out with 2.5 million deaths or 3 million deaths, y'all will most likely accept that one as fact as well. Rmt2m 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that there cannot be so many undocumented deaths? It's close to civil war in Iraq, do you think a few western journalists have coverage over the whole country? Compared with IBC, the Lancet study says that abouth one tenth of the Iraqi deaths have been reported by western media, which I think is quite plausible. --Merat 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Because counts conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry, Interior Ministry, Brookings Institution, the AP and virtually every other count don't even approach the numbers in the new lancet study. Listen, I don't question the fact that too many civilians are dying, but I think that it is irresponsible to display one study as fact when its' numbers vary significantly from others. That's all, I would just like to see some other studies used in the article for balance. Rmt2m 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying and I have never said that the Lancet study is right, but rather that IBC isn't very interesting for the infobox and the introduction of this article. They accept this themselves ("It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war." - quoted from the IBC homepage). Anyway, I proposed that we create a new section in the article where we can put forward the difficulties and controversies with the death count, and there we can have the IBC numbers. --Merat 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Another section in the article will be fine, but do you still want to use the Lancet study in the infobox? Rmt2m 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but if there are other interesting estimations of the total death toll available then we can include them there as well. --Merat 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see maybe the Brookings and Iraqi Health Ministry counts if possible, they would take a line apiece at most. Rmt2m 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Let's clarify a few things. You may indeed find the Lancet study suspect, but statistically the chances that the death toll is under 400,000 is 2.5%, likewise the chance that it is above 1,000,000.
• The DoD figures say that from May to August the average number of civilian deaths per day in incidents that the Coalition forces responded to was 117. Given that there are certainly huge numbers of incidents that they do not respond to (and either Iraqi police do or no-one does) such as sectarian murders, it seems safe to assume that the daily death toll in Iraq has been running at a minimum of 200 deaths per day from May to August, and by the U.S. Army's own admission it has gotten substantially worse since then, so perhaps at least 300 per day for the past two months. That alone produces a death toll of 36,000 for the past five months. If we use only the average number that the coalition responded to then it is still at least 21,000 since May. It shows just how poor a source Iraqbodycount or the Health Ministry are - neither of these sources is suggesting that half the total casualties have occured in the past 5 months; so either the DoD has got it wrong or neither of these are even close to accurate estimates of the death toll.

NONE, and I mean, NONE of these "civilian casualty" reports mention the THOUSANDS who die every month from US military war planes. In fact, check out this from "The Nation":

Not surprisingly, the use of air power in Iraq remains a non-issue in this country. How could Americans react, when there's no news to react to, when there's next to no information to be had--which doesn't mean that information on our ongoing air campaign is unavailable. In fact, the Air Force is proud as punch of the job it's doing; so any reporter, not to speak of any citizen, can go to the Air Force website and look at daily reports of air missions over both Iraq and Afghanistan. The report of November 15th, for instance, offers the following:

"In Iraq, U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18s conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Ramadi. The F/A-18s expended guided bomb unit-31s on enemy targets. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Forward Operating Base McHenry and Baqubah. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Baghdad.

"In total, coalition aircraft flew 32 close air support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions included support to coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities."

This was a pretty typical day's work in recent months; there were 34 "close air support missions" on November 14th, 32 on the 13th, and 35 on the 12th--and note that each of the strikes mentioned was "near" a major city. These reports can be hard to parse, but they certainly give a sense, day by day, that the low-level air war in Iraq is no less ongoing for being unreported."

Just HOW MANY THOUSANDS of civilian do you think these air strikes kill EVERY DAY? Why does a 2.5 million figure seem "outrageous" to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.243.140 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you have queries about the reliability of the Lancet study, I suggest you read this[1] analysis performed by a (conservative) British polling analyst who works for the highly respected British polling company Yougov [www.yougov.com]. Cripipper 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So given the fact that all these studies differ so much, which should we use? Rmt2m 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

IBC is not a study; it is a tabulation of deaths reported in the media. Personally I think it is just fine the way it is, though maybe the footnote could be expanded. Cripipper 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Study-tabulation, I really don't care much for semantics. Rmt2m 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three points

These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:

• "Massive civilian casualties" is an emotional opinion, which is why it was removed.
• "Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" [2] is not documented in the link given, which is why it was removed.
• A badly done ref in the first paragraph has caused 3 paragraphs to dissappear, which is why it was replaced.

CJK 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Agree with all of CJK's points. Cerebral Warrior 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The fix was very simple...no one broke the ref with a / <ref name=IBC/><ref name="Second Lancet Study"> should be <ref name=IBC/><ref name="Second Lancet Study"/>. •Jim62sch• 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqbodycount and Iraqi health ministerim/Iraqi government count is not the same thing

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

So much attention towards Iraqbodycount is diverting from the realities of the conflict. Rather than an estimate of casualties, it represents a bottom line, a minimum, only those accounted via the media and other first hand reports. For example, we quote estimates of 400k-600k of dead iraqi children as a result of UN sanctions, but none of those would have qualified for the iraqbodycount.88.15.59.243 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Casualities

Part which I removed from infobox:

Civilian deaths officially reported by the Iraqi health ministry ^[1].': 43,850-48,693 ^[2]

The article cited, in an infobox, "civilian deaths officially reported by the Iraqi health ministry". Such counts are known to be extremely unreliable. According to the famouse second Lancet article [3], which merely repeats scientific consensus on this point, they are almost invariably underestimating by factor of 5, and often by more than 10x.

Long quote from Lancet article:

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

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

There is no doubt that IBC does not catch all the deaths; however it is also extremely likely that the Hopkins study is on the high side (see, e.g. [4]655,000 War Dead? I myself have located at least one factual error in the opening three paragraphs of the Lancet study, and apparently according to its authors "the appendeces were written by students and should be ignored." How much else should be ignored? This study is not the last word on the issue and should not be treated as such. Cripipper 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Validity of Lancet study is not relevant at all. The relevant points are:

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

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

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

Although I think the Lancet survey is the most significant currently available number, I have to side with Cripipper here. The Lancet number needs to be included in any responsible discussion, but the infobox has a duty to present only npov, independently verifiable data."Officially reported civilian deaths" is encyclopedic; to put the contested 655k figure in the infobox, as though it had the same authority, is potentially misleading. The WSJ editors, a group who have no small bias of their own, ask some valid and important questions of the Hopkins researchers' methods. There is a much less substantial criticism of the study in Science 20 October 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5798, pp. 396 - 397. Cyrusc 14:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

to clarify: quoting an "officially reported number" is acceptable to me, even though this number may fall drastically short of the real toll. WP infobox must leave suspicion of official bodycounts up to the reader. Putting the 655k number in the infobox is a different issue. Maybe there is some way to infobox 655k with the proper qualifications? I guess there's no reason for the infobox not to have a range of conflicting, similarly qualified estimates? Cyrusc 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

having trouble saying what I mean here. What I mean is that there's no dispute that ~50K was officially reported. There is dispute whether 655k have died. Cyrusc

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

{{casualties3=Estimate of Total Iraqi civilian deaths of Iraqis (civilian and non-civilians) due to war:
43,850^[1] to 655,000 (95% CI 392,979–942,636)^[3]}} Cripipper 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• {{casualties3=Total Iraqi deaths due to war::
  43,850^[1] to 655,000 (95% CI 392,979–942,636)^[3]}}

seems like a concise and accurate presentation of available facts. Cyrusc 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is ongoing controversy "main street bias" over the Lancet article methodology [5], so I consider it is not statistically valid to use it as an upper bound. If the method has a systematic flaw "main street bias", it cannot represent anything. The criticism of the data size being small is not however systematic, so that part of the criticism must be ignored, and is only useful for giving error limits on the value i.e. value +- error Widefox 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am against using Lancet, and highly against it being used alone. Lancet is a flawed method of counting, I am not sure how there can be a complaint against the official government agency doing the counting and a group of random people knocking on doors asking if someone died, and if so how. The thing I would clarifying on is ... The Lancet people claim most of the families had death certificates, if those are handed out by the ministry of health ... how can there be more certificates then bodies? Wouldnt this mean that

• A) bodies are being counted multiple times in Lancet
• B) Someone is handing out certificates that shouldn't
• C) There is a massive conspiracy

--NuclearZer0 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a head in the sand argument. You mean the "official" government agency INSTALLED by the occupying power, who are DOING THE KILLING? Can you be any more intentionally misleading? WHY would the "Iraqi" government installed by the occupying US military NOT intentionally "forget" to mention the MASSIVE airstrikes that is primarily the cause of death of most of these civilians?

And about the IBC's "count" as you call it, here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20061120/cm_thenation/15142240_1

"Not surprisingly, the use of air power in Iraq remains a non-issue in this country. How could Americans react, when there's no news to react to, when there's next to no information to be had--which doesn't mean that information on our ongoing air campaign is unavailable. In fact, the Air Force is proud as punch of the job it's doing; so any reporter, not to speak of any citizen, can go to the Air Force website and look at daily reports of air missions over both Iraq and Afghanistan. The report of November 15th, for instance, offers the following:

"In Iraq, U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18s conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Ramadi. The F/A-18s expended guided bomb unit-31s on enemy targets. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Forward Operating Base McHenry and Baqubah. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Baghdad.

"In total, coalition aircraft flew 32 close air support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions included support to coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities."

This was a pretty typical day's work in recent months; there were 34 "close air support missions" on November 14th, 32 on the 13th, and 35 on the 12th--and note that each of the strikes mentioned was "near" a major city. These reports can be hard to parse, but they certainly give a sense, day by day, that the low-level air war in Iraq is no less ongoing for being unreported." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.243.140 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Death certificates are not issued by the Ministry of Health, but by local doctors. The Lancet study authors claim that local doctors are still issuing them, but that the structures for centrally collating the information within the country have broken down, which does not seem unreasonable. Cripipper 08:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to point out to Nuclear that the method used by the Lancet, rather than being a 'flawed method of counting', is the method the U.S. government uses for performing similar tasks. The the method is indesputably the global standard, the question at hand is whether there was a flaw in how it was carried out. Cripipper 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me proof that the US uses this method to count country wide dead? No because the truth is they use it for a census, which is entirely different. Calling someone and asking how many people live in the house is different then asking them how many dead they know or lived there. Having a death certificate is a flawed method further because the mother will get the certificate as well as the father and the wife, what prevents duplicates? these people do not all necessarily live together. Multiple doctors seeing the same body is also another problem since there is no central reporting location that prevents duplications. Do you honestly think that going door to door asking is a more reliable method then actually counting bodies? --NuclearZer0 12:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot

• D) your house got blown up by a bomb and the only thing left of Grandpa and Baby Sue is a handful of bloodstained linen.

That'll get you a couple of death certificates in the US, I imagine it would also in Iraq. Now, tell us more about this "flawed method of counting" meme of which you speak. Gzuckier 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the flaw, you admit above that doctors arent following procedures and just issuing death certificates to people who show a pile of blood and guts, who is to say they arent issuing duplicates if they arent following procedure and reporting those deaths back, with the police infiltrated would it be a surprise that one doctor is spitting out death certificates incorrectly. Again No lancet alone, preferably no Lancet. Thank you for supporting my point --NuclearZer0 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then how is it that the IBC numbers include a maximum and minimum? If they're actual counts of actual deaths? How is it that different sources on the scene report different numbers which the IBC is good enough to report? Could it be that SOMEBODY is just reporting piles of blood and guts to the IBC as deaths? And somebody else is ignoring those piles as no deaths? Could it be that they are missing quite a few deaths? Newborns who die after a few hours? People without a family who are killed on backstreets and dumped in the Tigris? Gzuckier 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth here is an Oct. 21, 2006 Reuters article with several other researchers backing up the Lancet study:

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061021/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc

And from the wikipedia page on the Lancet study is this: "In a letter to The Age, however, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the studies 'methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously.'[29]"

• Link to letter. Published Oct. 21, 2006.

I suggest using a range of deaths (from low to high) as others have suggested. The Lancet range. I don't hear any real dispute about whether it is the best estimate so far. If a better estimate comes up then we can use it. --Timeshifter 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How about an estimate from the UN? After reading the section, I can see why the neutrality dispute tag was added. In the Iraq entry, this was mentioned:

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

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

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

Addendum This article might also be of interest. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC). Thanks for the links. I happened to compile some quotes earlier today from the 2006 Lancet study article and supplement here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_Body_Count_project#2006_Lancet_study_quotes

These 2006 Lancet quotes below are relevant to the UN survey, etc. Here are some quotes below from the Lancet study supplement article here: http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

"Working for the U.N. Development Program, the highly regarded Norwegian researcher Jon Pederson led a survey that recorded between 18,000 and 29,000 violent deaths during the first year of occupation. The survey was not focused on deaths, but asked about them over the course of lengthy interviews that focused on access to services. While this was more than twice the rate recorded by IBC at the time, Pederson expressed concern for the completeness and quality of the data in a newspaper interview last year. The surveys reported in The Lancet were focused solely on recording deaths and count about two and a half times as many excess deaths from all causes over the same period. ..."

"In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimate that the number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000. That these two surveys were carried out in different locations and two years apart from each other yet yielded results that were very similar to each other, is strong validation of both surveys. ..."

"In the news media coverage of the 2004 survey report, much was made of the wide confidence intervals, which is a statistical technique that was frequently misunderstood. With the much larger sample of the 2006 survey, the confidence intervals are narrowed significantly. ..."

Here is a quote below from the main article for the 2006 Lancet study:

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

"Information on deaths from 1,849 households containing 12,801 persons was collected. This [2006] survey followed a similar but smaller survey conducted in Iraq in 2004. Both surveys used standard methods for estimating deaths in conflict situations, using population-based methods."

A 2004 Lancet study quote below:

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

"All 33 randomly selected locations were visited and 988 households were chosen between Sept 8 and 20, 2004. These households contained 7868 residents on the date of interview."

So you can see the increase in sample size from 2004 to 2006. --Timeshifter 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

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

• The validity of the Lancet study is very important, since you are quoting it as the source for the assertion that passive sureveillance techniques are out by 5x. There are many good arguments why 655,000 may not be a reasonable estimate either, so we either take them both out, or leave them both in with explanations in the footnotes.
  • They only state what is scientific consensus. Such claims if incorrect would be caught in peer review process (hopefully) or later. As far as I know nobody ever questioned this one.
• Passive surveillance picked up most deaths in Bosnia - who is to say they aren't being picked up here?
  • No it did not. It picked about 30-40%, "with huge support for surveillance activities from the UN" and in much smaller and much better developed country [6]. Let's add "in Saddam’s last year of his reign, only about one-third of all deaths were captured at morgues and hospitals through the official government surveillance network. So, when things were good, if only a third of deaths were captured, what do you think it’s like now?" (the same source) to that, and there's no way to believe such rates would be in Iraq.
• It is not factually incorrect to say that the civilian casualty toll is somewhere between 50,000 and 665,000.
  • It is grossly factually incorrect. The lower bound by body count x5 is 250,000. The 95% CI of Lancet study is 392,979 to 942,636. So 250,000 to 942,636 seems like a reasonable range. If Lancet study is right, your range has 50% change of being missed. It also includes a lot of impossible figures (even if Iraq had Bosnian rates).
• Personally I don't think 50,000 is anything like an accurate count, but it seems to most observers that the real death toll is certainly much closer to the bottom range of the C.I. for the Lancet study than the stated 655,000, so - as you yourself say - do you want to include a number knowing it can be easily misleading? Cripipper 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Lancet study (392,979 to 942,636) is trying to estimate total number of casualties. It might be seriously flawed (many studies are), but it uses widely accepted methodology, and seems to have support of at least some people with relevant expertise. Official body count is not an estimate of total number of casualties. You won't find a single person with revelant expertise who claims so. It is known to be far below the right number. By using 5%-20% numbers (from various wars), the estimate extrapolated from it is 250,000-1,000,000. Using Bosnian 30-40% figure, which would be beyond reasonable optimism, we get estimates of 125,000-167,000. These numbers are estimates of total number of deaths. 50,000 is not one. If body count is given together with a short explanation and x5 figure, it wouldn't be that misleading. Without any - it's almost like we're purposedly trying to confuse the reader. Taw 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Bush considers changing tactics in Iraq

Oct. 20: President Bush acknowledges that "staying the course" in Iraq is not working and says he will consider a possible change in tactics in the war. (source: NBC)You guys got three days to include this, or that's it. I will.71.236.225.50 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC

I encourage you to read up on WP:Civility. I have also left a message on your talk page regarding your comments on the Talk:George W. Bush page. AuburnPilot^Talk 22:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commanders Infobox

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Woah

What happenend. Somebody fix it.

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

Iraq War
Date Location Result
Combatants
Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Militants: Ba'athist Iraq Ba'ath Loyalists Al-Qaeda in Iraq Other insurgent groups and militias[4]	Coalition Forces: United States United Kingdom Australia  Republic of Korea New Iraqi Army Kurdish forces Multinational forces in Iraq SCIRI[4] others Shia Militants: Mahdi Army The militia of SCIRI (Badr Organization)
Commanders
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
Date Location Result
Combatants
Ba'athist Iraq and Sunni Militants: Ba'athist Iraq Ba'ath Loyalists Al-Qaeda in Iraq Other insurgent groups and militias[4] Coalition Forces: United States United Kingdom Australia  Republic of Korea New Iraqi Army Kurdish forces Multinational forces in Iraq SCIRI[4] 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)

[edit] Iraq Body Count

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

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

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

Mentioning only the media is not accurate. In my comment I asked that people check the IBC wikipedia page before deleting this:

"Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media."

Here are some quotes from the IBC wikipedia page:

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_revert_rule

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting

Some quotes from that help page:

Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.

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

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor posess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

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

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

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

Remember what I told you about the word "assume"? ass-u-me You are making an ass out of u and me by making assumptions about me, others, etc.. I made no claims at all in the other article. I asked questions on the talk page, and you assumed I was going to make unfounded claims. Similar problem here. In the wikipedia article itself I did not claim a source for my statement "Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media." I stated it as a fact. There was a link nearby to the Iraq Body Count project so people could get further info in general on them, the count, etc.. But I did not tie the two together. In this talk page I am using the Iraq Body Count wikipedia page as a shortcut. That page has verifiable sources for THEIR claims that support my statement "Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media." You are playing a semantic game here. But to avoid further petty arguments, let us just leave out the sources. Let people go to the Iraq Body Count website, and the wikipedia page for it, and let them figure it out themselves. Both are linked in the infobox. By the way, I did not insert the words "official figures." Someone else must have done that. I find that "official figures" phrase laughable. Many morgues, hospitals, and media have only functioned sporadically in Iraq, as the IBC wikipedia page and many other sources have pointed out. And many of these sources do not report many of the insurgent deaths as that. Many are reported as simple murders, etc.. Try reading the IBC wikipedia page as I asked people to do in my comment. Follow their sources. --Timeshifter 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You have misread what the IBC entry on wikipedia says. The IBC does not use morgues and hospitals as a source for their numbers - the newspaper reports that the IBC relies on use morgues, hospitals as sources for their figures. Nowhere on the wiki IBC page does it say the IBC uses hospitals or morgues as a source for their figures. I can see how you could have misinterpreted the statement on the page that IBC is also not an "estimate" of total civilian deaths. It is a compilation of documented deaths, meaning that any deaths not reported or which were not recorded or made public by morgues or hospitals will not be counted, (which I am about to correct), but that is why we do not cite other wiki pages (you can call it short-cutting if you want but it amounts to the same thing). The purpose of my edits was to clarify the misleading impression that the IBC bases its figures on sources from morgues and hospitals, which it does not. That statement has now been removed. Cripipper 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

To see more clearly how morgue reports are used I found these mentions of morgues with a Google search of the IBC site:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.iraqbodycount.net+morgue

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

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

Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/31508

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

Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041306J.shtml

A quote from IBC itself:

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

Source: http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

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

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

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

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

Source: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php

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

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

I have another idea. I will also mention that there are 8 other casualty number estimates, or however many are currently listed on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

--Timeshifter 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on! Who's going to read through all this?--Patchouli 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

JackNicholson today added this back to the infobox section on IBC: "Includes only deaths, officially reported by media". I noticed on his talk page several warnings and blocks by admins. One of the blocks occurring today. Cripipper fixed the infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacknicholson

--Timeshifter 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] October 2005. Car bomb incident with suspected Americans

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

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

• http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1326

If there can be more then just one media source then the inclusion I wouldn't mind, but the media we all know unless posted by more then one and contains roughly the same content cannot really be used as a source Drew1369 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I dispute your contention that a contribution to WP cannot be based on a single RS alone. That is not what the rules say. A significant portion of WP should be deleted immediately if your contention were correct. As far as a single incident not being significant enough, I think if the US and UK occupation forces are setting off car bombs in Iraq it is quite significant. Also, since these two incidents were caught in a chaotic country like Iraq, it may be likely that there have been many more incidents that were not intercepted. Do you think if, say for purposes of illustration only, Russian agents were caught setting car bombs in Iraq it would be worthy of mention? I do. I would like to invite responses and comments. --NYCJosh 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This article just doesn't pass the smell test. One has to use common sense too. If it is true then it definitely belongs in the Iraq War page. Even its own wikipedia page. But I have found nothing else verifying it. It all goes back to one source. This is from the article:

"Realityzone.com has pointed out that since the source is a Russian news agency, it is possible the above 'may be disinformation.' Below is a U.S. press release which apparently refers to the incident. The original Mirror story - and reader commentary - may be seen here: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/66519 ..."

Even if the article is true about people being observed in Arab dress, how do they know they were Americans? Who said that? There has been a lot of disinformation from all sides. "Trust no one" :)

http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/66519 This page is weird:

Iraqis apprehend two Americans disguised as Arabs trying to detonate a car bomb in a residential neighborhood of western Baghdad’s al-Ghazaliyah district on Tuesday.

-

A number of Iraqis apprehended two Americans disguised in Arab dress as they tried to blow up a booby-trapped car in the middle of a residential area in western Baghdad on Tuesday.

-

Residents of western Baghdad’s al-Ghazaliyah district told Quds Press that the people had apprehended the Americans as they left their Caprice car near a residential neighborhood in al-Ghazaliyah on Tuesday afternoon (11 October 2005). Local people found they looked suspicious so they detained the men before they could get away. That was when they discovered that they were Americans and called the Iraqi puppet police.

-

Five minutes after the arrival of the Iraqi puppet police on the scene a large force of US troops showed up and surrounded the area. They put the two Americans in one of their Humvees and drove away at high speed to the astonishment of the residents of the area.

-

Quds Press spoke by telephone with a member of the al-Ghazaliyah puppet police who confirmed the incident, saying that the two men were non-Arab foreigners but declined to be more precise about their nationality.

-

Quds Press pointed out that about a month ago, the Iraqi puppet police in the southern Iraqi city of al-Basrah arrested two Britons whom they accused of attempting to cause an explosion in the city. The Britons were taken into custody by the Iraqi puppet police only to be broken out of prison by an assault of British occupation troops. That incident has created a tense relationship between the British and the local puppet authorities in al-Basrah, Quds Press noted.

Quds Day is an annual event in many Islamic nations to call for the end of the occupation of Jerusalem. Just so you know the bias of that article. Even that article says, "Quds Press spoke by telephone with a member of the al-Ghazaliyah puppet police who confirmed the incident, saying that the two men were non-Arab foreigners but declined to be more precise about their nationality." --Timeshifter 20:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on the Arab press, but a quick google search reveals that the London-based Quds Press reports are carried by the US gov't Radio Free Europe news http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2006/01/230106.asp (see heading "Son of Aide to Iraqi Defense Minister Kidnapped"), and by the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2986810.stm. When Quds Press journalists are detained, the Committee to Protect Journalists protests and issues press releases, http://www.cpj.org/attacks95/attlist95.middle.html . So if Quds Press is reliable enough for the US gov't's propaganda arm and for the BBC, it should be reliable enough for WP, particularly if our WP piece clearly cites Quds Press as the source. (I am sure if I spent 5 minutes more looking I could find additional major reputable news agencies that carried Quds Press reports). It is difficult to get Western reporters to cover war-torn Iraq (outside of the Green Zone, military bases, US military units, and the like) like a Western news outfit in a major US or European city. So the fact that this story was not reported by CBS or the like should come as no surprise. We should also add the US gov't denial of the story. --NYCJosh 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because various news services link to articles does not mean that the articles are accurate. Large news services often link to all kinds of other news organizations and their articles. It is not an endorsement. I still can't find anything else on this specific event. So it doesn't belong on the Iraq War page. Maybe some other wikipedia page. The Iraq War page covers so much stuff that most stuff gets a sentence, and then a wikilink to more info. I don't think this event deserves even a sentence at this point. If we could find something else on it, then it merits a serious mention on the Iraq War page. Wikipedia demands verifiability. --Timeshifter 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was responding the argument that Quds Press is not an RS per WP policy. WP demands a RS not "verifiablity" or "truth" as those terms are subject to various interprations (please see WP rules on RS). The relevance and importance of the article itself is another matter. Please see my Nov. 15 post a few paragraphs up on that issue.--NYCJosh 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Any other objections?--NYCJosh 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question about Pre Bremmer Iraq

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

It was General Jay Garner. ～～～～

[edit] pkPat

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

[edit] Death stats. Passive versus active methods of counting.

Iraq War
Date Location Result
Casualties
"There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq." [5] 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) [3] 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. [1] [6] 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
Date Location Result
Casualties
*Total deaths of all Iraqis, Johns Hopkins: 392,979 - 942,636 [3] [7] War-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs. Iraq Health Minister: 100,000-150,000 [8] Civilian deaths due to insurgent/military action and increased criminal violence, Iraq Body Count (IBC): 43,850-48,693 [1] [9]
*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. [1] 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[7] 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." ^[10] --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 ^{[citation needed]}. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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