This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Under coalition forces it only shows the US, while 40 countries were part of the coalition at one point or another. It should show more than just the US. -- Conor Fallon ( talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The main info box accompanying this article includes the following phrase: "US Coalition Victory." Huh? Then why does the U.S. still have hundreds of thousands of troops and contractors in Iraq? And if the war is over, why are our troops still getting shot and blown up? It's true: the current war is not "classic" military textbook-style war; the U.S. is facing asymmetric warfare. But asymmetric warfare is war, nonetheless. Respected military writers like Thomas Ricks have documented how, not only is the war still ongoing, but it will likely last many more years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 ( talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be good to mention Tom Fox in the list of people killed alongside Margaret Hassan in the section entitled Insurgent groups. Is there any objection? Thank you. 86.203.17.169 ( talk) 16:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the things on the to-do list is to provide more information on the success of the surge. The surge as a turning point in the war has been widely acknowledged across media and policy sources, but this article mostly seems to avoid the issue, instead focusing on failures to draw down troops as promised and more violence in the section about the troop surge. This section seems particularly biased by specifically ignoring much information, including information that is by now the accepted consensus. For this article as a whole to read in a neutral manner (which it doesn't really right now) this section definitely needs to be fixed first. Bonus Onus ( talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Such as HM Queen Elizabeth II and Major General Andy Salmon?
They should be on the commanders list, should they not? Flosssock1 ( talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The information in the introduction pretty much consists of the following, in order:
Does that really look like a neutral presentation of information to anyone? Not only is the information presented in a negative way, the style and tone of the introduction seem to be negatively biased. I think a rewrite is needed, or at the very least, some of the more specific information needs to be removed from the introduction. The intro is too long as it is; it should be shortened to a brief background and outline of the conflict, and it's current status, what it's accomplished, etc. There's no need for statistics such as the number of orphans caused by the war to be presented in the first paragraph of the introduction. -- Abusing ( talk) 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
UN weapon inspectors were denied access by the Iraqi government they weren't ordered out by the US thats utter crap. Reference is Peter Costellos autobiography - ahhh but we live in the disinformation age. The sheer ignorance of the anti-war majority is astounding. Put yourself in Bushes position. Your country has been attacked by terrorists, a country suspected of supporting terrorists kicks out UN weapon inspectors, you've got the worlds most powerful military at your control - would you sit on your hands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.129.190 ( talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This has since been Done -- Abusing ( talk)
May I add link to Automobile because US & UK need their oil, & might be the cause of this whole war? Stars4change ( talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This article mentions that President Obama has announced a strategy for withdrawal. What it does not show anywhere (I have checked other articles for this too) is that President Bush was the one who signed the withdrawal deal with Maliki, giving a timetable for Iraqi withdrawal. [1]
Also I have seen countless, countless references to hatred of Bush in Iraq and the humanitarian situatioin there (this article mentioned the number of orphans at least twice) but I haven't seen any examples of gratitude which the troops no doubt encounter on a daily basis. Even if most Iraqis are against the occupation, there are most definitely those who are glad that Saddam is out of power. If this article is going to point out critics, it should at least mention supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.237.17 ( talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
We know now that the beginning of military operations in Iraq started at 5:25AM, March 19th 2003, with the bombing of the Presidential Palace and the address of the nation by Pres. George W. Bush that same day, as this report shows. Why is the start date of the war still March 20th? Outback the koala ( talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading through this section and I noticed a few quotes from what appears to be non- notable people, two of which aren't even named. They all seem to be making the same point, IE the US is bad, caused terrorism, etc. I agree, but I don't think these quotes should included in the article as in doing so we're giving them undue weight. I'm probably gonna delete them if no one has any objections. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the quotes. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Turkey did not actually take place in Iraq invasion coalition (in 2003). The turkish parliament have rejected the involment of turkish troops into the Iraq War on 1 March 2003. The clashes with PKK ist not a part of the Iraq War, this crisis resumes for nearly 30 years. So I think Turkey should not be in Belligerents List of the Iraq War, neither the PKK. I tried to change it but i could not manage to do. Can someone change it correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.22.18 ( talk) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The US military in Iraq provided intelligence to the Turks about the PKK so they can strike them. This was greed to previously by editors. 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone answer why George W Bush and Obama are listed as commanders in the war? I thought the title of CIC is just a title and doesn't give jurisdiction over the armed forces? If anything, the commanders are the ones that plan the strategic elements in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.252.33 ( talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not just a title. The President of the United States is the highest commander of the US military. They literally have direct command over the entire military. The president commands the generals.-- Abusing ( talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments moved from My Talk Page.
Outback the koala, please listen. My edit to the Iraq war article was not unconstructive, on the contrary. The infobox was like that for years. However, Kassjab recently messed up the infobox in a way that the civilian casualties are in the Mahdi Army row (his way it looks like that 1,000,000 Mahdi army insurgents died and not civilians) and the overall insurgent casualties are only in the Sunni faction row (the number of insurgents killed provided includes both Sunni and Shia). Leave it as it is please. At the very least if you have a problem please discuss it before reverting. Thank you. 89.216.236.127 ( talk) 05:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not started editing on Wikipedia today, I have edited for four years...It's just that my cable network changes my ip every week or so. As for my edit in the South Ossetian Conflict, you said and I quote refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia which can be considered vandalism, that is so untrue. You didn't even check the reference I provided since you claim this. The reference I provided is from the official Georgian Ministry of Defence site which cleary states that 161 soldiers have been listed as killed up to date and 9 are missing, which is in contrast with the reference you are reinserting that states 185 dead. Please check the reference before accusing me of vandalism. As for the Iraq war article. I was only reverting Kassjab's edits. He put the civilian casualties in the Mahdi army coloumn in the infobox. Also, the Mahdi army has been separated from the Sunni faction of the insurgents, while the casualties provided in the Sunni coloumn on the number of dead insurgents is for both the Sunni and the Shia insurgents killed, not just Sunni. Do you understand me? The main point here is that the number of insurgents in the box is for both Sunni and Shia, and Kassjab separated them without consulting other editors. And yes I have an account I just wasn't in the mood to log in if that's so much of a problem to you than I will log in and make my edits but please don't revert me since my edits clearly don't constitute vandalism, I don't know where you got that idea, maybe because I was an anonymous editor and it looked like to you that I started working only today. I am sorry if we got of on the wrong foot. But there is no reason for hostilities and you accusing me of vandalism from the very start. I am sure we can work this out reasonably through discussion. 89.216.236.127 ( talk) 07:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment moved from My Talk Page. Outback the koala ( talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "by the way, let an administrator protect it, like I said before I have a username and so that will not do you much good. 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "
You moved that one comment of mine from your talk page bud didn't answer my questions, answer the questions. 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Has the change into a three-side i'box been discussed?-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that was a totaly undiscussed edit by Kassjab. 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You want to block me now Koala without discussion just because I have a different opinion? Is that your way of resolving the problem? Just kill the competition so nobody oposses you? And what are those unconstructive edits, you still haven't answered my questions? 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I don't feel strongly about it one way or another, but let's see what koala has to say before we make any significant changes. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The information on the strength of the insurgency (in the infobox) is apparently from 2006 and 2007 at the latest, as is contractor strength. Updated info is needed on the strength of the combatants.-- Abusing ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing a change of title to Occupation of Iraq because this would be a more accurate title than "Iraq War". Izzedine ( talk) 02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Occupation is clearly the more appropriate, since conflict in Iraq involves foreign forces vs. indigenous forces. The term "Iraq War", in the context of the "war" definition, almost implies a civil war where all parties are Iraqi, which isn't the case. Of course, it is called this to give the impression that the state of Iraq is fighting the war, which is not the case. I'm voting for a change of title to "Occupation of Iraq". 82.0.220.117 ( talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The most appropriate name is the name most commonly used, which is Iraq War. Publicus 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The article's infobox says there is an invasion phase and an insurgency phase. Is this information verifiable at all? Are there any sources that say the war took part in two distinct phases, with the insurgency phase beginning the day after the invasion ended? If not, it needs to be removed and listed as one date, since "Iraq War" generally refers to both the invasion and occupation.-- Abusing ( talk) 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a subject on not finding WMD(Weapons Of Mass Destruction)? George Bush's intelligence said that their were WMD but none were found or claimed to be. Is it that hard to believe that Iraq had WMD, when saddamm Hussein had already used these weapons on his own people. The nation of Iraq used,possessed, and made efforts to aquire WMD. Duramax ( talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The information provided is sufficient, just over read the article. Im aware of this now "buddy". thanks Duramax ( talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC) It was a simple questions that needeed to be answered. If i recall that is what talk protion is here for.No disrespect is needed. Duramax ( talk) 20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This article discusses how the UK and US started bombing Iraqi positions in 2002. I can't seem to find any mention of it in this article or in other related articles but it seems like it should definitely be included. Should it go in the Iraq_War#Preparations_for_war section? 131.111.30.22 ( talk) 15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine published weekly in London. Founded in 1913, and connected with leading members of the Fabian Society, the magazine reached a circulation peak in the late 1960s. In the 29 May 2006 issue, then editor John Kampfner stated that the New Statesman remained "true to its heritage of radical politics".
It appears the article leaves out the fact that the US forces found 550 metric tons of yellow cake from Iraq, which was subsequently removed. While the yellow cake would not be the optimum choice for a nuclear bomb, it could be used in a 'dirty bomb' by insurgents and elements determined to mount an attack on Western nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.126.62 ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the neutrality of this article is well...not neutral. I get the feeling that when reading this article, the wording makes it seem like the US and her allies are the bad guys. Wikipeida is here to not put in a bias but to rather state the facts. Can someone try to look over this article and fix any of these issues?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are just 4 that I came across. in a few minutes. Can these be addressed?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have again added the POV template. The purpose of the template is explained here. An explanation of a POV dispute can be found here. The template should not be removed until a consensus has been reached that the article's problems have been fixed and the dispute is resolved.-- Abusing ( talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A heated discussion on incivility |
---|
:::Per Coldplay's first comment, I was under the impression that they were disputing the neutrality of the article, and not just those four points they mentioned. It seemed the specific points they listed were simply an answer to the demands for them to do so -- and not the only statements they were disputing. Although it is certainly helpful to address specific, individual problems you see, Coldplay Expert was in no way wrong to bring an argument to the talk page against the article itself, and place the "POV" template at the top of the page. It seems their legitimate concern was met with hostility and
incivility, at one point even being accused of simply calling "the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism." That aside, there is a minor template dispute brewing, so I ask Coldplay: are the four statements you mentioned on the talk page what you are disputing, or are you indeed disputing the neutrality of the whole article? Based on your comments, I would assume it's the latter, but apparently your dispute is unclear. I would just like to clear this up once and for all, so the appropriate template can be used without being disputed or removed again.--
Abusing (
talk)
23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, we shouldn't need to repeatedly link to WP:civility, because I actually did read it. I didn't just throw the link at you, I read it, and wrote the link, in hopes that you would read it and understand why I was saying what I was saying. However, you accused me of a personal attack, seemingly "throwing the link" at me (as it is a completely different page than WP:Civility. That's why I urged you to actually read it; you clearly did not see that I was simply arguing straight from the guidelines. The point is, the problem is not that you corrected Coldplay, but that you did it uncivilly. I am surprised you can not recognize this. ("Uhhh, how about you read over the article, find some issues, and then add the template. You can't just call the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism.") It wouldn't have been hard to get your point across while being nice. There was absolutely no reason to be abrasive or take a hostile tone. You could have put the issue to rest with a civil explanation of why they need to give specific examples in order to fix the problem, and a polite request to do so, without hostile comments like: "Anyway, we're not going to stigmatize the whole article because you feel it is POV and then wait for you to get around to actually reading it and come up with actual complaints. If you feel there is something that needs improvement, let's hear it." If you did dispute an article's neutrality, how would you feel if other editors assumed bad faith and were rude to you? Anyway, I've made my point, and I will say no more about it.
|
(Unindent) I'd like to see some more discussion in this POV dispute about the specific POV. As has already been pointed out, of four examples cited, three were actually ref-tag issues and one was a misunderstanding of what constitutes POV. I haven't read the article and don't doubt there would be a few dodgy sentences in an article of this sort, so this isn't an argument for or against the assertion, but let's present a discussion about the alleged POV in the article and less of a discussion about the discussion about it. It would be helpful to see what sorts of things are being changed and to what else, so objective editors can determine whether POV issues existed prior to—or after—the revamping.
As to choosing to tag the whole article instead of the specific instances because the latter would be the worse defamation of the article, that's a convoluted misunderstanding. It's supposed to be the opposite. A person seeing the whole article tagged might well avoid the whole article, while a person reading until they see a section tagged can (correctly) presume the untagged sections are determined to be free of POV. Abrazame ( talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Coldplay: Come back when you have read the article and are actually able to cite examples of POV. I have removed the tag until then. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 16:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why are we refering to the situation in Iraq as a war instead of a conflict although the US never officially declared war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.183.130 ( talk) 20:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|
See the final post for the reasoning. Re-open at 4:45 on the 7th of December minimum. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 04:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Not helping matters, either of you. Both of you have rubbed each other entirely the wrong way. I've done it myself and eventually formed peace with the IP address. If you believe that you absolutely, cannot ever co-operate, then dispute resolution is that way. However, I would advise both of you to ignore this page until you have truly calmed down. Remove it from your watchlist if you have to. Please, stop antagonising each other. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This was brought to the attention of WP:WQA, which explains why I am here, since I otherwise have no interest in this topic. But perhaps I can intervene to help establish some ground rules for the POV allegations.
1) If an editor slaps up a POV tag which is disputed, the proper place to resolve that dispute is the talk page. If the tag is challenged, 3RR violations (whether in deed or spirit) are not helpful. So, first point, work through the issues here and stop tag-mongering around on the main article page.
2) If an editor feels an allegation is POV because it is unsourced or from a biased sourced (which may also be WP:OR), s/he should attempt to source the statement to corroborate the POV/OR charge. In the event s/he cannot locate a source, that issue should be brought to the attention of editors here on the talk page. Supplying the google searches or other efforts made would be a salutary gesture of conciliation in this matter. Simply stating an article is POV (as happened here), without providing specifics is not likely to be taken very seriously, as User:Coldplay Expert has discovered. Make specific suggestions and comments.
3) It is never acceptable to resort to ad hominim attack. If you feel that heated about the topic, you are best advised to walk away until you cool down.
Gentlemen, let's get the conversation back on track. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
As of December 7th, 2009, the "2003 Invasion Forces" list included Spain. This was an obvious mistake, as Spain hadn't any military involvement on the invasion. Not only the spanish' army didn't participate, but also the U.S.' military bases in Spain weren't used for the 2003 war - as opposite to the 1991 one, when they were active warbases. Spanish troops were sent later, after both George W. Bush declared the end of major operations and the resolution from United Nations allegedly legitimated the invaders and their allies to occupy the country.
In order to get the mistaked ammended, I created this section on the discussion page. One week later, not seeing any changes or replies (other that words from this section being erased by an unknown hand), I erased the name of Spain from the invaders list. Well, I think it is right now. Let's hope it stays the same - and if someone starts erasing my contribution, at least says who he/she is and why he/she does it.-Ignacio Agulló
Okay, I found a source that confirms that Spain took part in the invasion with logistical support: [5] Spain continued to be a member of the coalition from that point until 2004; it can probably be included. I'm still trying to find sources from help at the Reference Desk, so I'll hold off.-- Stinging Swarm talk 04:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
For those involved in updating this article, this reliable source reference may help. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 11:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Should a monarch be listed as a commander despite the British Armed Forces being controlled de facto by the Prime Minister of the UK rather than the queen? Would it be advisable to remove her from the list? G. R. Allison ( talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The constitutional position of the UK armed forces is that their government and command are vested in Her Majesty. Direct control of the armed forces under the Sovereign is divided between the Government and the Defence Council. Parliamentary control of the armed forces is based primarily on the need for annual renewal by Parliament of the Acts which govern enlistment and discipline in the armed forces. Acts of Parliament also affect the use of armed forces within the United Kingdom...
...For overseas operations, the political decision to deploy the armed forces rests with the Prime Minister or Cabinet through their exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It is the Defence Council which has the power of command over the members of the armed forces and the power to make appointments within the armed forces. The Defence Council is also responsible for such matters relating to the administration of the armed forces as the Secretary of State directs.
Basicly, long answer short: The Queen is head of the Armed Forces officially and allows others to make military decisions on her behalf. Also if it wasn't for the Queen, The UK and Australia would not have declared war because The Queen is the only person who can declare war in the UK The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Under coalition forces it only shows the US, while 40 countries were part of the coalition at one point or another. It should show more than just the US. -- Conor Fallon ( talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The main info box accompanying this article includes the following phrase: "US Coalition Victory." Huh? Then why does the U.S. still have hundreds of thousands of troops and contractors in Iraq? And if the war is over, why are our troops still getting shot and blown up? It's true: the current war is not "classic" military textbook-style war; the U.S. is facing asymmetric warfare. But asymmetric warfare is war, nonetheless. Respected military writers like Thomas Ricks have documented how, not only is the war still ongoing, but it will likely last many more years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 ( talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be good to mention Tom Fox in the list of people killed alongside Margaret Hassan in the section entitled Insurgent groups. Is there any objection? Thank you. 86.203.17.169 ( talk) 16:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the things on the to-do list is to provide more information on the success of the surge. The surge as a turning point in the war has been widely acknowledged across media and policy sources, but this article mostly seems to avoid the issue, instead focusing on failures to draw down troops as promised and more violence in the section about the troop surge. This section seems particularly biased by specifically ignoring much information, including information that is by now the accepted consensus. For this article as a whole to read in a neutral manner (which it doesn't really right now) this section definitely needs to be fixed first. Bonus Onus ( talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Such as HM Queen Elizabeth II and Major General Andy Salmon?
They should be on the commanders list, should they not? Flosssock1 ( talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The information in the introduction pretty much consists of the following, in order:
Does that really look like a neutral presentation of information to anyone? Not only is the information presented in a negative way, the style and tone of the introduction seem to be negatively biased. I think a rewrite is needed, or at the very least, some of the more specific information needs to be removed from the introduction. The intro is too long as it is; it should be shortened to a brief background and outline of the conflict, and it's current status, what it's accomplished, etc. There's no need for statistics such as the number of orphans caused by the war to be presented in the first paragraph of the introduction. -- Abusing ( talk) 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
UN weapon inspectors were denied access by the Iraqi government they weren't ordered out by the US thats utter crap. Reference is Peter Costellos autobiography - ahhh but we live in the disinformation age. The sheer ignorance of the anti-war majority is astounding. Put yourself in Bushes position. Your country has been attacked by terrorists, a country suspected of supporting terrorists kicks out UN weapon inspectors, you've got the worlds most powerful military at your control - would you sit on your hands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.129.190 ( talk) 12:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This has since been Done -- Abusing ( talk)
May I add link to Automobile because US & UK need their oil, & might be the cause of this whole war? Stars4change ( talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This article mentions that President Obama has announced a strategy for withdrawal. What it does not show anywhere (I have checked other articles for this too) is that President Bush was the one who signed the withdrawal deal with Maliki, giving a timetable for Iraqi withdrawal. [1]
Also I have seen countless, countless references to hatred of Bush in Iraq and the humanitarian situatioin there (this article mentioned the number of orphans at least twice) but I haven't seen any examples of gratitude which the troops no doubt encounter on a daily basis. Even if most Iraqis are against the occupation, there are most definitely those who are glad that Saddam is out of power. If this article is going to point out critics, it should at least mention supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.237.17 ( talk) 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
We know now that the beginning of military operations in Iraq started at 5:25AM, March 19th 2003, with the bombing of the Presidential Palace and the address of the nation by Pres. George W. Bush that same day, as this report shows. Why is the start date of the war still March 20th? Outback the koala ( talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just reading through this section and I noticed a few quotes from what appears to be non- notable people, two of which aren't even named. They all seem to be making the same point, IE the US is bad, caused terrorism, etc. I agree, but I don't think these quotes should included in the article as in doing so we're giving them undue weight. I'm probably gonna delete them if no one has any objections. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the quotes. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Turkey did not actually take place in Iraq invasion coalition (in 2003). The turkish parliament have rejected the involment of turkish troops into the Iraq War on 1 March 2003. The clashes with PKK ist not a part of the Iraq War, this crisis resumes for nearly 30 years. So I think Turkey should not be in Belligerents List of the Iraq War, neither the PKK. I tried to change it but i could not manage to do. Can someone change it correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.22.18 ( talk) 16:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC) The US military in Iraq provided intelligence to the Turks about the PKK so they can strike them. This was greed to previously by editors. 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone answer why George W Bush and Obama are listed as commanders in the war? I thought the title of CIC is just a title and doesn't give jurisdiction over the armed forces? If anything, the commanders are the ones that plan the strategic elements in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.252.33 ( talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not just a title. The President of the United States is the highest commander of the US military. They literally have direct command over the entire military. The president commands the generals.-- Abusing ( talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments moved from My Talk Page.
Outback the koala, please listen. My edit to the Iraq war article was not unconstructive, on the contrary. The infobox was like that for years. However, Kassjab recently messed up the infobox in a way that the civilian casualties are in the Mahdi Army row (his way it looks like that 1,000,000 Mahdi army insurgents died and not civilians) and the overall insurgent casualties are only in the Sunni faction row (the number of insurgents killed provided includes both Sunni and Shia). Leave it as it is please. At the very least if you have a problem please discuss it before reverting. Thank you. 89.216.236.127 ( talk) 05:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not started editing on Wikipedia today, I have edited for four years...It's just that my cable network changes my ip every week or so. As for my edit in the South Ossetian Conflict, you said and I quote refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia which can be considered vandalism, that is so untrue. You didn't even check the reference I provided since you claim this. The reference I provided is from the official Georgian Ministry of Defence site which cleary states that 161 soldiers have been listed as killed up to date and 9 are missing, which is in contrast with the reference you are reinserting that states 185 dead. Please check the reference before accusing me of vandalism. As for the Iraq war article. I was only reverting Kassjab's edits. He put the civilian casualties in the Mahdi army coloumn in the infobox. Also, the Mahdi army has been separated from the Sunni faction of the insurgents, while the casualties provided in the Sunni coloumn on the number of dead insurgents is for both the Sunni and the Shia insurgents killed, not just Sunni. Do you understand me? The main point here is that the number of insurgents in the box is for both Sunni and Shia, and Kassjab separated them without consulting other editors. And yes I have an account I just wasn't in the mood to log in if that's so much of a problem to you than I will log in and make my edits but please don't revert me since my edits clearly don't constitute vandalism, I don't know where you got that idea, maybe because I was an anonymous editor and it looked like to you that I started working only today. I am sorry if we got of on the wrong foot. But there is no reason for hostilities and you accusing me of vandalism from the very start. I am sure we can work this out reasonably through discussion. 89.216.236.127 ( talk) 07:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment moved from My Talk Page. Outback the koala ( talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "by the way, let an administrator protect it, like I said before I have a username and so that will not do you much good. 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC) "
You moved that one comment of mine from your talk page bud didn't answer my questions, answer the questions. 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Has the change into a three-side i'box been discussed?-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that was a totaly undiscussed edit by Kassjab. 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You want to block me now Koala without discussion just because I have a different opinion? Is that your way of resolving the problem? Just kill the competition so nobody oposses you? And what are those unconstructive edits, you still haven't answered my questions? 89.216.239.108 ( talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I don't feel strongly about it one way or another, but let's see what koala has to say before we make any significant changes. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The information on the strength of the insurgency (in the infobox) is apparently from 2006 and 2007 at the latest, as is contractor strength. Updated info is needed on the strength of the combatants.-- Abusing ( talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing a change of title to Occupation of Iraq because this would be a more accurate title than "Iraq War". Izzedine ( talk) 02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Occupation is clearly the more appropriate, since conflict in Iraq involves foreign forces vs. indigenous forces. The term "Iraq War", in the context of the "war" definition, almost implies a civil war where all parties are Iraqi, which isn't the case. Of course, it is called this to give the impression that the state of Iraq is fighting the war, which is not the case. I'm voting for a change of title to "Occupation of Iraq". 82.0.220.117 ( talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The most appropriate name is the name most commonly used, which is Iraq War. Publicus 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The article's infobox says there is an invasion phase and an insurgency phase. Is this information verifiable at all? Are there any sources that say the war took part in two distinct phases, with the insurgency phase beginning the day after the invasion ended? If not, it needs to be removed and listed as one date, since "Iraq War" generally refers to both the invasion and occupation.-- Abusing ( talk) 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a subject on not finding WMD(Weapons Of Mass Destruction)? George Bush's intelligence said that their were WMD but none were found or claimed to be. Is it that hard to believe that Iraq had WMD, when saddamm Hussein had already used these weapons on his own people. The nation of Iraq used,possessed, and made efforts to aquire WMD. Duramax ( talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The information provided is sufficient, just over read the article. Im aware of this now "buddy". thanks Duramax ( talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC) It was a simple questions that needeed to be answered. If i recall that is what talk protion is here for.No disrespect is needed. Duramax ( talk) 20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This article discusses how the UK and US started bombing Iraqi positions in 2002. I can't seem to find any mention of it in this article or in other related articles but it seems like it should definitely be included. Should it go in the Iraq_War#Preparations_for_war section? 131.111.30.22 ( talk) 15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine published weekly in London. Founded in 1913, and connected with leading members of the Fabian Society, the magazine reached a circulation peak in the late 1960s. In the 29 May 2006 issue, then editor John Kampfner stated that the New Statesman remained "true to its heritage of radical politics".
It appears the article leaves out the fact that the US forces found 550 metric tons of yellow cake from Iraq, which was subsequently removed. While the yellow cake would not be the optimum choice for a nuclear bomb, it could be used in a 'dirty bomb' by insurgents and elements determined to mount an attack on Western nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.126.62 ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the neutrality of this article is well...not neutral. I get the feeling that when reading this article, the wording makes it seem like the US and her allies are the bad guys. Wikipeida is here to not put in a bias but to rather state the facts. Can someone try to look over this article and fix any of these issues?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are just 4 that I came across. in a few minutes. Can these be addressed?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I have again added the POV template. The purpose of the template is explained here. An explanation of a POV dispute can be found here. The template should not be removed until a consensus has been reached that the article's problems have been fixed and the dispute is resolved.-- Abusing ( talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A heated discussion on incivility |
---|
:::Per Coldplay's first comment, I was under the impression that they were disputing the neutrality of the article, and not just those four points they mentioned. It seemed the specific points they listed were simply an answer to the demands for them to do so -- and not the only statements they were disputing. Although it is certainly helpful to address specific, individual problems you see, Coldplay Expert was in no way wrong to bring an argument to the talk page against the article itself, and place the "POV" template at the top of the page. It seems their legitimate concern was met with hostility and
incivility, at one point even being accused of simply calling "the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism." That aside, there is a minor template dispute brewing, so I ask Coldplay: are the four statements you mentioned on the talk page what you are disputing, or are you indeed disputing the neutrality of the whole article? Based on your comments, I would assume it's the latter, but apparently your dispute is unclear. I would just like to clear this up once and for all, so the appropriate template can be used without being disputed or removed again.--
Abusing (
talk)
23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, we shouldn't need to repeatedly link to WP:civility, because I actually did read it. I didn't just throw the link at you, I read it, and wrote the link, in hopes that you would read it and understand why I was saying what I was saying. However, you accused me of a personal attack, seemingly "throwing the link" at me (as it is a completely different page than WP:Civility. That's why I urged you to actually read it; you clearly did not see that I was simply arguing straight from the guidelines. The point is, the problem is not that you corrected Coldplay, but that you did it uncivilly. I am surprised you can not recognize this. ("Uhhh, how about you read over the article, find some issues, and then add the template. You can't just call the article POV because it contradicts your feeling of patriotism.") It wouldn't have been hard to get your point across while being nice. There was absolutely no reason to be abrasive or take a hostile tone. You could have put the issue to rest with a civil explanation of why they need to give specific examples in order to fix the problem, and a polite request to do so, without hostile comments like: "Anyway, we're not going to stigmatize the whole article because you feel it is POV and then wait for you to get around to actually reading it and come up with actual complaints. If you feel there is something that needs improvement, let's hear it." If you did dispute an article's neutrality, how would you feel if other editors assumed bad faith and were rude to you? Anyway, I've made my point, and I will say no more about it.
|
(Unindent) I'd like to see some more discussion in this POV dispute about the specific POV. As has already been pointed out, of four examples cited, three were actually ref-tag issues and one was a misunderstanding of what constitutes POV. I haven't read the article and don't doubt there would be a few dodgy sentences in an article of this sort, so this isn't an argument for or against the assertion, but let's present a discussion about the alleged POV in the article and less of a discussion about the discussion about it. It would be helpful to see what sorts of things are being changed and to what else, so objective editors can determine whether POV issues existed prior to—or after—the revamping.
As to choosing to tag the whole article instead of the specific instances because the latter would be the worse defamation of the article, that's a convoluted misunderstanding. It's supposed to be the opposite. A person seeing the whole article tagged might well avoid the whole article, while a person reading until they see a section tagged can (correctly) presume the untagged sections are determined to be free of POV. Abrazame ( talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Coldplay: Come back when you have read the article and are actually able to cite examples of POV. I have removed the tag until then. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 16:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why are we refering to the situation in Iraq as a war instead of a conflict although the US never officially declared war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.183.130 ( talk) 20:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
|
See the final post for the reasoning. Re-open at 4:45 on the 7th of December minimum. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 04:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Not helping matters, either of you. Both of you have rubbed each other entirely the wrong way. I've done it myself and eventually formed peace with the IP address. If you believe that you absolutely, cannot ever co-operate, then dispute resolution is that way. However, I would advise both of you to ignore this page until you have truly calmed down. Remove it from your watchlist if you have to. Please, stop antagonising each other. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This was brought to the attention of WP:WQA, which explains why I am here, since I otherwise have no interest in this topic. But perhaps I can intervene to help establish some ground rules for the POV allegations.
1) If an editor slaps up a POV tag which is disputed, the proper place to resolve that dispute is the talk page. If the tag is challenged, 3RR violations (whether in deed or spirit) are not helpful. So, first point, work through the issues here and stop tag-mongering around on the main article page.
2) If an editor feels an allegation is POV because it is unsourced or from a biased sourced (which may also be WP:OR), s/he should attempt to source the statement to corroborate the POV/OR charge. In the event s/he cannot locate a source, that issue should be brought to the attention of editors here on the talk page. Supplying the google searches or other efforts made would be a salutary gesture of conciliation in this matter. Simply stating an article is POV (as happened here), without providing specifics is not likely to be taken very seriously, as User:Coldplay Expert has discovered. Make specific suggestions and comments.
3) It is never acceptable to resort to ad hominim attack. If you feel that heated about the topic, you are best advised to walk away until you cool down.
Gentlemen, let's get the conversation back on track. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
As of December 7th, 2009, the "2003 Invasion Forces" list included Spain. This was an obvious mistake, as Spain hadn't any military involvement on the invasion. Not only the spanish' army didn't participate, but also the U.S.' military bases in Spain weren't used for the 2003 war - as opposite to the 1991 one, when they were active warbases. Spanish troops were sent later, after both George W. Bush declared the end of major operations and the resolution from United Nations allegedly legitimated the invaders and their allies to occupy the country.
In order to get the mistaked ammended, I created this section on the discussion page. One week later, not seeing any changes or replies (other that words from this section being erased by an unknown hand), I erased the name of Spain from the invaders list. Well, I think it is right now. Let's hope it stays the same - and if someone starts erasing my contribution, at least says who he/she is and why he/she does it.-Ignacio Agulló
Okay, I found a source that confirms that Spain took part in the invasion with logistical support: [5] Spain continued to be a member of the coalition from that point until 2004; it can probably be included. I'm still trying to find sources from help at the Reference Desk, so I'll hold off.-- Stinging Swarm talk 04:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
For those involved in updating this article, this reliable source reference may help. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 11:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Should a monarch be listed as a commander despite the British Armed Forces being controlled de facto by the Prime Minister of the UK rather than the queen? Would it be advisable to remove her from the list? G. R. Allison ( talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The constitutional position of the UK armed forces is that their government and command are vested in Her Majesty. Direct control of the armed forces under the Sovereign is divided between the Government and the Defence Council. Parliamentary control of the armed forces is based primarily on the need for annual renewal by Parliament of the Acts which govern enlistment and discipline in the armed forces. Acts of Parliament also affect the use of armed forces within the United Kingdom...
...For overseas operations, the political decision to deploy the armed forces rests with the Prime Minister or Cabinet through their exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It is the Defence Council which has the power of command over the members of the armed forces and the power to make appointments within the armed forces. The Defence Council is also responsible for such matters relating to the administration of the armed forces as the Secretary of State directs.
Basicly, long answer short: The Queen is head of the Armed Forces officially and allows others to make military decisions on her behalf. Also if it wasn't for the Queen, The UK and Australia would not have declared war because The Queen is the only person who can declare war in the UK The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)