![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Note: This archive was broken using Werdnabot. It is not in chronological order.
Sockpuppet maybe? Rmt2m 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
In this edit I cleaned up a number of typos and attempted to repair POV issues. The biggest one was the title of the section near the beginning called "War Rationale Post 1991 Gulf War," which was a remarkable misnomer since none of the events mentioned involved calls for invasion of Iraq. Aside from the PNAC, there weren't any groups putting up a rationale for invading Iraq until around 2002. There were several other fixes. I haven't touched the external links section yet, but those often need pruning. We also still need to clean up the repetition in the sections "Events following the 1991 Gulf War" and "= War Rationale Post September 11, 2001 ". I think there the article still echoes itself on Hans Blix's assessment of Iraq right before the invasion, and also on some other information. -- Mr. Billion 07:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Whenever you put a link to an article hosted by Yahoo News, you're posting a link that will no longer work in about a month. I'm not sure it's exactly a month; maybe it's two. But every Yahoo News article I've seen has disappeared after several weeks.
Here's an example of a dead link from January 17 this year. As far as I know, Yahoo does not archive most of the articles it hosts at all.
In
this edit I changed a Yahoo link to a permanent link to the same article hosted by The Guardian newspaper, and avoided linking a URL twice by giving it a ref-name and having the second time it's cited refer to the original reference.
User:Patchouli
changed the text <ref name="DisbandMilitias"/> to another link to the same article hosted on yet another site, giving the edit summary "Added more link. I believe Yahoo! News are archived properly and they are pemanent links". I'm pretty sure that is a mistaken belief, since every article I've seen has not been properly archived. Yahoo temporarily hosts news articles from other websites. I predict that at the end of this year this link will be
broken. Regardless, I don't see any point in duplicating a link. Somehow the URL wound up getting linked and listed in the references a third time. I've changed it back to the way it was.
See
MetaWiki's entry on the ref element if there's any confusion on why it's better to use the ref name instead of multiple references to the same source. --
Mr. Billion
05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Patchouli has again reverted the edit, apparently not understanding that the text <ref name="DisbandMilitias"/> places a superscript with a link just like the text <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6128399,00.html Iraq Political Groups Warned on Militias]] ''The Guardian'' [[5 October]] [[2006]]</ref> does, only this way it avoids having multiple entries for one URL in the Notes section. The version to which he reverted also has the ref text twice in a row for some reason. -- Mr. Billion 05:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, part of the confusion was coming from bad formatting on my part. It's fixed now. :p -- Mr. Billion 05:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Reference in the intro is made to the "Iraq War", also known as "the Second or Third Gulf War (and by the U.S. military as Operation Iraqi Freedom)".
What do the Iraqis call it? Should this be added for balance?
Gibberer 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Gibberer. I was wondering the same thing, does anyone have any idea what the Iraqis are calling this? Publicus 13:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted a section in this page because it sounded like it had a weasel-worded POV. If I am wrong, please send me a message; I will revert it.-- Blue Moon Dragon 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The article doesnt seem to mention the desertions that have been happening aswell as AWOL personel, i will add such a section, any comments? i think War Resisters Support Campaign and Darrell Anderson are good examples. Qrc2006 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe not as exactly written, but i think its important to mention that many soldgiers marines airmen and seamen have deserted or gone awol over these past 4 years. Qrc2006 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't include people that were jailed.
They are routinely released such as part of Iraq's "national reconciliation plan" or other bogus plans. Furthermore, there are surely some who have been jailed multiple times.
Just focus on reported deaths.-- Patchouli 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Insurgents dead or jailed : 67,000+
[1]
Total combatants dead or jailed due to war: 72,000 - 100,000
[1]:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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)
New study out claiming as many as 655,000 civilian deaths thus far. Someone want to add this in? — ceejayoz talk 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Cripipper makes what I think is the only crucial point. Yes, the latest body count is an estimate, and as such we must acknowledge its limitations. It may even an estimate produced by scientists with an interest in publicizing negative aspects of the war--no disinterested party is likely to be issuing body counts. On grounds of methodological integrity, however, there is not a single competing estimate. Not a single one (please correct me on this if you can). To reject this study on any basis other than that of the presence of a more reliable estimate strikes me as nonNPOV and nonencyclopedic in the extreme. Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the title should be changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since that is the term used by America to refer to the ongoing freedom-struggle in Iraq. Would you guys agree? Cerebral Warrior 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I updated the various troop deployments in the Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment. Hopefully this clears up the questions about current strengths and withdrawals. Publicus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I also added the strengths for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). These are seperate troops not counted in the overall coalition deployment for the involved countries. Publicus 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
All the figures came from either the Multinational force in Iraq page or the old section on this page called "troop deployments." I just took the info and stuck it in a template. Publicus 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. -- Merat 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This has no relevance to the article and I see no reason to include it. If anyone disagrees with it's removal please say why here. GiollaUidir 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Whereas when it comes to the Americans, we make sure that every single person has authentically died via a body count + Social Security number, etc.
Whereas when it comes to the Iraqis, people just make estimates — albeit mathematical or not.
Therefore, this makes the American casualties thus far seem minuscule and creates more expectation of the American and the coalition troops alike.-- Patchouli 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:
CJK 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
We shouldn't include people that were jailed.
They are routinely released such as part of Iraq's "national reconciliation plan" or other bogus plans. Furthermore, there are surely some who have been jailed multiple times.
Just focus on reported deaths.-- Patchouli 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Insurgents dead or jailed : 67,000+
[1]
Total combatants dead or jailed due to war: 72,000 - 100,000
[1]:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I think the title should be changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since that is the term used by America to refer to the ongoing freedom-struggle in Iraq. Would you guys agree? Cerebral Warrior 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Whereas when it comes to the Americans, we make sure that every single person has authentically died via a body count + Social Security number, etc.
Whereas when it comes to the Iraqis, people just make estimates — albeit mathematical or not.
Therefore, this makes the American casualties thus far seem minuscule and creates more expectation of the American and the coalition troops alike.-- Patchouli 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The article doesnt seem to mention the desertions that have been happening aswell as AWOL personel, i will add such a section, any comments? i think War Resisters Support Campaign and Darrell Anderson are good examples. Qrc2006 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe not as exactly written, but i think its important to mention that many soldgiers marines airmen and seamen have deserted or gone awol over these past 4 years. Qrc2006 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
New study out claiming as many as 655,000 civilian deaths thus far. Someone want to add this in? — ceejayoz talk 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Cripipper makes what I think is the only crucial point. Yes, the latest body count is an estimate, and as such we must acknowledge its limitations. It may even an estimate produced by scientists with an interest in publicizing negative aspects of the war--no disinterested party is likely to be issuing body counts. On grounds of methodological integrity, however, there is not a single competing estimate. Not a single one (please correct me on this if you can). To reject this study on any basis other than that of the presence of a more reliable estimate strikes me as nonNPOV and nonencyclopedic in the extreme. Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This has no relevance to the article and I see no reason to include it. If anyone disagrees with it's removal please say why here. GiollaUidir 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I updated the various troop deployments in the Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment. Hopefully this clears up the questions about current strengths and withdrawals. Publicus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I also added the strengths for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). These are seperate troops not counted in the overall coalition deployment for the involved countries. Publicus 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
All the figures came from either the Multinational force in Iraq page or the old section on this page called "troop deployments." I just took the info and stuck it in a template. Publicus 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
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) .
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)
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)
Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. -- Merat 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:
CJK 00:41, 17 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Note: This archive was broken using Werdnabot. It is not in chronological order.
Sockpuppet maybe? Rmt2m 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
In this edit I cleaned up a number of typos and attempted to repair POV issues. The biggest one was the title of the section near the beginning called "War Rationale Post 1991 Gulf War," which was a remarkable misnomer since none of the events mentioned involved calls for invasion of Iraq. Aside from the PNAC, there weren't any groups putting up a rationale for invading Iraq until around 2002. There were several other fixes. I haven't touched the external links section yet, but those often need pruning. We also still need to clean up the repetition in the sections "Events following the 1991 Gulf War" and "= War Rationale Post September 11, 2001 ". I think there the article still echoes itself on Hans Blix's assessment of Iraq right before the invasion, and also on some other information. -- Mr. Billion 07:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Whenever you put a link to an article hosted by Yahoo News, you're posting a link that will no longer work in about a month. I'm not sure it's exactly a month; maybe it's two. But every Yahoo News article I've seen has disappeared after several weeks.
Here's an example of a dead link from January 17 this year. As far as I know, Yahoo does not archive most of the articles it hosts at all.
In
this edit I changed a Yahoo link to a permanent link to the same article hosted by The Guardian newspaper, and avoided linking a URL twice by giving it a ref-name and having the second time it's cited refer to the original reference.
User:Patchouli
changed the text <ref name="DisbandMilitias"/> to another link to the same article hosted on yet another site, giving the edit summary "Added more link. I believe Yahoo! News are archived properly and they are pemanent links". I'm pretty sure that is a mistaken belief, since every article I've seen has not been properly archived. Yahoo temporarily hosts news articles from other websites. I predict that at the end of this year this link will be
broken. Regardless, I don't see any point in duplicating a link. Somehow the URL wound up getting linked and listed in the references a third time. I've changed it back to the way it was.
See
MetaWiki's entry on the ref element if there's any confusion on why it's better to use the ref name instead of multiple references to the same source. --
Mr. Billion
05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Patchouli has again reverted the edit, apparently not understanding that the text <ref name="DisbandMilitias"/> places a superscript with a link just like the text <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6128399,00.html Iraq Political Groups Warned on Militias]] ''The Guardian'' [[5 October]] [[2006]]</ref> does, only this way it avoids having multiple entries for one URL in the Notes section. The version to which he reverted also has the ref text twice in a row for some reason. -- Mr. Billion 05:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, part of the confusion was coming from bad formatting on my part. It's fixed now. :p -- Mr. Billion 05:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Reference in the intro is made to the "Iraq War", also known as "the Second or Third Gulf War (and by the U.S. military as Operation Iraqi Freedom)".
What do the Iraqis call it? Should this be added for balance?
Gibberer 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Gibberer. I was wondering the same thing, does anyone have any idea what the Iraqis are calling this? Publicus 13:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted a section in this page because it sounded like it had a weasel-worded POV. If I am wrong, please send me a message; I will revert it.-- Blue Moon Dragon 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The article doesnt seem to mention the desertions that have been happening aswell as AWOL personel, i will add such a section, any comments? i think War Resisters Support Campaign and Darrell Anderson are good examples. Qrc2006 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe not as exactly written, but i think its important to mention that many soldgiers marines airmen and seamen have deserted or gone awol over these past 4 years. Qrc2006 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't include people that were jailed.
They are routinely released such as part of Iraq's "national reconciliation plan" or other bogus plans. Furthermore, there are surely some who have been jailed multiple times.
Just focus on reported deaths.-- Patchouli 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Insurgents dead or jailed : 67,000+
[1]
Total combatants dead or jailed due to war: 72,000 - 100,000
[1]:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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)
New study out claiming as many as 655,000 civilian deaths thus far. Someone want to add this in? — ceejayoz talk 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Cripipper makes what I think is the only crucial point. Yes, the latest body count is an estimate, and as such we must acknowledge its limitations. It may even an estimate produced by scientists with an interest in publicizing negative aspects of the war--no disinterested party is likely to be issuing body counts. On grounds of methodological integrity, however, there is not a single competing estimate. Not a single one (please correct me on this if you can). To reject this study on any basis other than that of the presence of a more reliable estimate strikes me as nonNPOV and nonencyclopedic in the extreme. Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the title should be changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since that is the term used by America to refer to the ongoing freedom-struggle in Iraq. Would you guys agree? Cerebral Warrior 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I updated the various troop deployments in the Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment. Hopefully this clears up the questions about current strengths and withdrawals. Publicus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I also added the strengths for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). These are seperate troops not counted in the overall coalition deployment for the involved countries. Publicus 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
All the figures came from either the Multinational force in Iraq page or the old section on this page called "troop deployments." I just took the info and stuck it in a template. Publicus 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. -- Merat 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This has no relevance to the article and I see no reason to include it. If anyone disagrees with it's removal please say why here. GiollaUidir 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Whereas when it comes to the Americans, we make sure that every single person has authentically died via a body count + Social Security number, etc.
Whereas when it comes to the Iraqis, people just make estimates — albeit mathematical or not.
Therefore, this makes the American casualties thus far seem minuscule and creates more expectation of the American and the coalition troops alike.-- Patchouli 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:
CJK 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
We shouldn't include people that were jailed.
They are routinely released such as part of Iraq's "national reconciliation plan" or other bogus plans. Furthermore, there are surely some who have been jailed multiple times.
Just focus on reported deaths.-- Patchouli 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Insurgents dead or jailed : 67,000+
[1]
Total combatants dead or jailed due to war: 72,000 - 100,000
[1]:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I think the title should be changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, since that is the term used by America to refer to the ongoing freedom-struggle in Iraq. Would you guys agree? Cerebral Warrior 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Whereas when it comes to the Americans, we make sure that every single person has authentically died via a body count + Social Security number, etc.
Whereas when it comes to the Iraqis, people just make estimates — albeit mathematical or not.
Therefore, this makes the American casualties thus far seem minuscule and creates more expectation of the American and the coalition troops alike.-- Patchouli 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The article doesnt seem to mention the desertions that have been happening aswell as AWOL personel, i will add such a section, any comments? i think War Resisters Support Campaign and Darrell Anderson are good examples. Qrc2006 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe not as exactly written, but i think its important to mention that many soldgiers marines airmen and seamen have deserted or gone awol over these past 4 years. Qrc2006 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
New study out claiming as many as 655,000 civilian deaths thus far. Someone want to add this in? — ceejayoz talk 05:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Cripipper makes what I think is the only crucial point. Yes, the latest body count is an estimate, and as such we must acknowledge its limitations. It may even an estimate produced by scientists with an interest in publicizing negative aspects of the war--no disinterested party is likely to be issuing body counts. On grounds of methodological integrity, however, there is not a single competing estimate. Not a single one (please correct me on this if you can). To reject this study on any basis other than that of the presence of a more reliable estimate strikes me as nonNPOV and nonencyclopedic in the extreme. Cyrusc 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This has no relevance to the article and I see no reason to include it. If anyone disagrees with it's removal please say why here. GiollaUidir 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I updated the various troop deployments in the Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment. Hopefully this clears up the questions about current strengths and withdrawals. Publicus 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I also added the strengths for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI). These are seperate troops not counted in the overall coalition deployment for the involved countries. Publicus 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
All the figures came from either the Multinational force in Iraq page or the old section on this page called "troop deployments." I just took the info and stuck it in a template. Publicus 17:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
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) .
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)
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)
Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. -- Merat 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:
CJK 00:41, 17 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)
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)
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)
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)