This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Opposition to the Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here are several examples of extreme POV pushing by user Trackerwiki:
Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency...
Low casualty rates? Patently absurd. And considered a model of modern counterinsurgency by whom exactly? No source is provided. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[I]nternational organizations like the U.N. have hailed the Coalition for liberating the Iraqi people from a totalitarian regime which "preyed on the Iraqi people and committed shocking, systematic and criminal violations of human rights".
The UN did not hail "the coalition" for liberating Iraq. The source does not support this statement. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement within the anti-war movement as to whether the cause of armed insurgents within Iraq is worth supporting did lessen considerably as the anti-Western values and brutal and criminal methods of the insurgents became too pronounced over time to ignore.
"Anti-Western values" is a lazy generalisation; also unsupported. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Iraq's government and its Palestinian allies were the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion, as there was little chance the Sunni-minority regime would be able to withstand the military might of the US and its coalitional allies.
France, Germany, Russia (etc.) opposed the invasion. Palestinians too. Who says the latter were "the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion"? Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Prior to the war, the major intelligence agencies all failed to realize that Iraq's forces did not have operational WMDs
What is the source for this statement? The leaders of France, Russia and Germany all said they had no proof of WMD. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The post-war [ISG] survey outcome discredited the pre-war WMD threat consensus of all major intelligence agencies
There was no consensus. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately for U.K. PM Blair [...] this was only discovered after post-war investigation confirmed the massive intelligence failure.
This is POV pushing. Pure and simple. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
But for geopolitical reasons Saddam could not allow his hostile neighbors, in particular Iraq's long-time enemy Iran, to discover how weak his army was in this respect.
Presumably the point being made is that Saddam tricked the unfortunate Mr Blair into invading Iraq. That is but one (contested) point of view. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hussein always rejected accusations that the Iraqi government played a part in the 9/11 attack [...] although the presence in Iraq of terrorist groups and the contrary assertions of prominent foreign leaders like Russia's Putin show otherwise.
Saddam was behind 9/11. What rot! Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Saddam's key people believed they could rebuild the Army and re-arm with WMD once sanctions were lifted. ... [T]hus they sought the help of Iraq's former Russian mentors and other foreign leaders who could influence via the UN Oil-for-Food scheme. [...] To this end saddam's agents (sic) and those of friendly states such as Russia sought the services and cooperation of disaffected Westerners to support the professional anti-war opposition.
Are you now trying to smear the anti-war movement? Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
British MP George Galloway in particular [...] was covertly rewarded for his spirited use of legal warfare in opposition against both the U.K. and U.S. over the Iraq War and other issues.
This is disputed. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This type of opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just before the Iraq invasion starting on March 20, 2003.
"This type of opposition"? Good grief. The anti-war movement was in the pay of Saddam Hussein! Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[R]egimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war because it sets a precedent for the dominant Western powers to target such "pariah" regimes with little recourse to the Westphalian checks of the U.N. (sic)
Do I really need to explain the problem with this sentence? Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Western marxist-progressives thinkers feared that the successful embrace of liberal-democratic modernization in yet another country would further weaken the millenarian movement in the modern global order.
Progressives fear liberal-democratic modernization? Here is a tip: when attempting to smear people, it would help if you understood your target audience. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Their overarching need for a viable mythos to challenge the overwhelming narrative of the U.S.-dominated New World Order has led them to oppose most American policy and military actions, even if it means opposing U.S. actions which result in security or economic benefits for their own countries. The U.S. War on Terror, launched as a global initiative to tamp down the capacities of Islamist movements and to eventually demoralize their Caliphatist hardcore, is the current example.
The main marxist (progessive)- socialist strategy was to undermine the faith of Coalitional polities in their respective governances through aggressive use of the Cold-War informational strategies of forum-shaping of public debate and continuous legal hindrances, the idea being to sow doubt and confusion about their governments' standards of honesty, competence, and conduct as the war progresses. This course of affairs naturally suited the interests of irredentist hegemony-seeking state actors such as Russia, whose agents had a hand in initiating anti-Coalition protests worldwide.
It's all true. User Trackerwiki adduces an opinion piece from Ion Mihai Pacepa in the National Review to prove it! The same Ion Pacepa who claims Saddam is hiding WMD in Syria, and who also knows the identity of the person who ordered the assassination of JFK. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
But recent years have seen an erosion in [Cindy] Sheehan's popularity as icon of the antiwar, anti-American (sic) as details of her support for foreign dictators
Oh, I see. Foreign Dictators like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The popular President Obama has replaced Sheehan, Wright, [Michael] Moore, and other questionable figures as an apologetic symbol for the many on the left who wish for America's leading role in world affairs to be diminished
Say what?
[Joseph C.] Wilson's haphazard work and dishonest claims were eventually discredited, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal
The rest is the same. Egregious POV pushing. Please don't restore this stuff. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the material removed by Dynablaster has now been restored. I don't think the above discussion established a consensus for it. A few examples:
The bottom line is that a very large proportion of the material makes statements which are simply not to be found in the sources. We can't draw inferences of the type "Cube and Venezuela are friendly and dislike the U.S. so they must have opposed the war because of precedent about 'pariah' regimes": either we have a source which says exactly that or we don't say it. The same goes for almost all of the recent additions which I've investigated the sourcing for in detail; some I haven't dug into.
I've removed the Galloway bit per WP:BLP. I'm not removing the rest at the moment, but please try to provide sources which directly support the claims in the article. Thanks. Olaf Davis ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Another of Trackerwiki's additions is:
Iran's government was unique in that its theocratic regime publicly opposed the war but covertly encouraged Coalition efforts along with the majority of the Iranian people, many of whom hoped the Coalition would next liberate Iran after Iraq.
This is sourced to an opinion piece - I think we need much more than that to make such claims about 'the majority of the Iranian people'. Olaf Davis ( talk) 15:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
And this:
Geopolitical and legal rationales for the continuation of Saddam's neototalitarian regime, which favored its Sunni minorities provided the main grounds for foreign opposition to invasion, as the moral rationale for it's continuation was weak
(Emphasis added) I certainly don't think we can say the moral rationale was weak. We can talk about who thought it was - many people did but many people didn't - but that requires sources, of which there are currently none. But even then it's not the encyclopedia's place to say what is or isn't a good moral argument. Olaf Davis ( talk) 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad we seem to have agreement on the 'slow additions' policy. Shall we all discuss them below and wait to reach consensus before making any other changes to the article? Hopefully that can save us from too many more reverts. Now, the first addition:
Iran was unique in that its theocratic regime publicly opposed the war while the mostly pro-U.S. Iranian public [1], innured to years of failings of despotic clergy, quietly welcomed Coalition efforts [2] and hoped that American interventions would lead to freedom in Iran [3][4][5].
...even though Iranians at large are suspicious of the United States, they are not fundamentally anti-American. In fact, American symbols are popular with Iranians at large, and most people have been supportive of a U.S.-Iran dialogue and the establishment of relations...-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Olaf Davis ( talk) 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As of 2009, widespread sentiment for ending the war on advantageous terms ensured enough support for the 2006-2007 Surge strategy to see it through. [6] The security and stability gains sustained Iraq's ongoing economic boom as the Iraqi government took over security and governance duties all over Iraq. [7] Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency, the success came at a steep cost in material expenditures and worldwide US force availability which severely limited US options for intervention elsewhere. Despite large drawdowns, sizeable US-MNF forces must remain to secure the fragile gains achieved for the foreseable future. [8]
Iran was unique in that its clerical ruling class publicly opposed the war while large segments of society, in particular the younger pro-American generations, expressed hope that it would help bring about desired regime changes. 130 131 discontented with the failings of the Islamic regime, 132quietly support the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia 133[www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/opinion/05KRIS.html?ex=1084872849&ei=1&en=5a2cf1144fdf04ee 134] with the hope that American interventions would lead to freedom in Iran 135
Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq." 131, WINEP, does not support the text, if anything it contradicts it saying "many [Iranians] fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War." It does contain a general statement, in a footnote, that America "is very popular" in Iran, but so what.
Source 132 does not discuss Iranian opinion on the invasion of Iraq. And it's a piece in FrontPageMag, which is a far-right Internet tabloid with a reputation for publishing total nonsense.
Source 133 does not discuss opposition or support to the Iraq war per se, and it certainly doesn't support anything about "the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
Source 134 is a gee-whiz op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof wherein he claims that "many Iranians seem convinced that the U.S. military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going great." Of course there are no hard facts cited, no surveys, it's not about pre-war opposition or support but about what "many Iranians" supposedly thought in 2004...
Source 135 is a Guardian news piece in which is quoted an anonymous source - "one senior western diplomat based in Tehran," who explains that "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well." Of course "one senior western diplomat" does not explain how he knows "the secret hope" that "no one is saying out loud," but we're supposed to take his word, I guess. Meanwhile, a 2006 poll [3] found that 48% of Iranians say that the invasion was "a mistake" against 33% saying it was the "right decision," and 77% say it's increased the danger of terrorism, but that's in the prosaic world of what people say to pollsters, not their "secret hopes" as discerned by anonymous "senior western diplomats."
My point here is if you want to make claims about Iranian public opinion, you have to actually go find sources that credibly support those claims, rather than just tacking on a citation to some vaguely related article. EvanHarper ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
EvanHarper questioned:
Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq."
131, WINEP, does not support the text, if anything it contradicts it saying "many [Iranians] fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War."
-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)...Many Iranians appear to withdraw their support for the nuclear program when it comes to military nuclear development, mostly for fear of the potential costs such a program would incur in terms of international isolation, sanctions, and a possible military strike against Iran... ...Furthermore, many fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War... ...Inadvertently, this poll does not tell the story that the regime wanted to tell...
It does contain a general statement, in a footnote, that America "is very popular" in Iran, but so what.
-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"...Second, a more aggressive reaction by the international community -- a U.S. or Israeli attempt to strike Iran's nuclear facilities -- could well have the unintended consequence of antagonizing a highly nationalistic and largely pro-Western populace and convincing Iranians that a nuclear weapon is indeed in their national interests. Such a reaction would be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region, especially given Iran's key location between Iraq and Afghanistan..."
Source 132 does not discuss Iranian opinion on the invasion of Iraq. And it's a piece in FrontPageMag, which is a far-right Internet tabloid with a reputation for publishing total nonsense.
Source 133 does not discuss opposition or support to the Iraq war per se, and it certainly doesn't support anything about "the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"...The survey, which was the first of its kind, found two-thirds of Iranians believe that regime change in Iraq has been a positive for both neighboring countries: with 66% believing that it served Iran's national interests, while 65% believed the Iraqi people will, in the long-run, be better off..."
Source 134 is a gee-whiz op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof wherein he claims that "many Iranians seem convinced that the U.S. military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going great." Of course there are no hard facts cited, no surveys, it's not about pre-war opposition or support but about what "many Iranians" supposedly thought in 2004...
Source 135 is a Guardian news piece in which is quoted an anonymous source - "one senior western diplomat based in Tehran," who explains that "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well." Of course "one senior western diplomat" does not explain how he knows "the secret hope" that "no one is saying out loud," but we're supposed to take his word, I guess. Meanwhile, a 2006 poll [5] found that 48% of Iranians say that the invasion was "a mistake" against 33% saying it was the "right decision," and 77% say it's increased the danger of terrorism, but that's in the prosaic world of what people say to pollsters, not their "secret hopes" as discerned by anonymous "senior western diplomats."
My point here is if you want to make claims about Iranian public opinion, you have to actually go find sources that credibly support those claims, rather than just tacking on a citation to some vaguely related article. EvanHarper ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq."
Dating of the piece is 2004, well after onset of the Iraq War. At a time when an insurgency was emerging and the Coalition ruled directly, it is not just suggestive but telling that the BBC would report that younger Iranians remained favorably disposed towards the U.S., while the forceful liberation and occupation of their neighbor next door by the same proceeded apace.
Trackerwiki has now
reinserted this part, with the wording of the contested part (the sentence cited at the beginning of this section: "Iran was unique .... would lead to freedom in Iran") unchanged. The only difference (compared to the version cited above on Dec 13, or to the
November 15 version) is in two references: One, the NYT article was removed,
another one is now cited for the same statement as Source 132, and the same objection that has been brought against Source 132 above also applies to this one: It does not even mention the Iraq War, let alone discusses Iranian opinion on it.
This despite the highly misleading edit summary "reworded Iran" (except for the references, the wording is the same) and the objections above. I am reverting this and ask Trackerwiki to seek consensus here first. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
DynaBlaster is obviously correct, the massive edits over the past few months have massively distorted the article with polemical, unsupported statements, dubious sourcing, and all manner of other nonsense. I've reverted to 12:46, 27 September 2009. When you look at the diff it's pretty clear.
This is just a selection of a few highlights, and I stopped only because I don't want argumentam ad nauseam, not because there aren't pages and pages more of this shit. EvanHarper ( talk) 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As the article badly needed an infusion of history and context,the effect of adding more explanations alongside verifiable cites from reliable sources will serve to bring a NPOV balance to what until recently appeared to be little more than a political screed for a 2003 audience. However, it has been pointed out that many of my explanatory additions may have overly relied on synthetic as opposed to summary conclusions which cannot be easily supported by the associated cites no matter how reliable or verifiable these cites and their sources may be. The remedy is a thorough review with eye the towards better formulation and referential support while following ever more strictly the Wikipedia guidelines governing important articles such as this. Thus I'm putting greater weight on finding and posting analyses and cites published by academic and governing institutions, starting with article on Iran.
With the slow but ongoing improvement of its content though significant historical updates, hopefully the information will increse in utility. -- Trackerwiki ( talk) 05:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay I'm starting another section because god knows what's happening in the discussion above, tracker / 112 has left so many unsigned, unindented, interleaved comments that I don't know what's what.
I'm reverting all of his edits, again. They strike me as entirely incompatible with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. They strike me as political polemics interspersed with largely irrelevant citations. If there is any non-polemical material in there, anything useful and compatible with policies, I haven't seen it - and at this point I think the burden is on Tracker to start here, on talk, proposing specific changes and discussing them before editing the article. ( WP:BRD.)
For example - because I've already examined the Iran section in detail - let me say what I would like to see established here, on talk, before any of that material is restored. I would like to see citations:
1) from reliable sources 2) which directly discuss Iranian public opinion vis-a-vis the 2003 invasion of Iraq 3) which evince a substantive basis for the claims they make on that subject.
None of the citations I've seen thus far meet those three criteria. Many of them meet two out of three - for example, reliable reports of opinion polls conducted by reputable organizations, but which relate to general Iranian attitudes towards the US and the West circa 2006, rather than specific Iranian attitudes towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's not good enough.
I'm sorry to excise some 40K of material contributed in good faith, really, I am. But I really am not prepared to let an important article remain in a condition that is frankly embarrassing. EvanHarper ( talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My point is, a review of historical propositions when evaluated against succeeding actual events on the ground can result in a narrative unkind to the original underlying premises. In the most famous example, we all know that the initial political opposition of France against the Coalition mission in Iraq was later transformed into political acceptance of and support for its continuing mission to secure and uplift post-Saddam Iraq, under renewed UN Mandate.
A recounting of events along the timeline cannot but work to cycle this contrasting sub-narrative into prominence. Only a most selective, outside-context reinterpretation from an ideological or religious POV could present the full recounting as anything other than a history of France de facto obviating its past record of opposition in the course of realigning de jure its foreign policy into supporting the international mission. The result of course isn't pretty for those who had figured that France's original opposition would remain in the face of convincing Coalition efforts on the ground to stabilize and rebuild Iraq it into a more modern democracy. If you perceive an irrelevant polemic fashioned out of this narrative in support of something other than "Opposition to the Iraq War", well, that's vexing history for you.-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 05:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
On unintentional obstruction of editing flow: If in case you didn't know, using convenient edit tools to wittle down from latest content to just the bare outline headers was my strategy for managing this 3rd review. It should be obvious from the log.-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation. There is no need for petty proscriptions in a great commons like Wikipedia.-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (added here, re-added here):
Although the haphazard work and dishonest claims of Wilson were eventually discredited <ref>{{cite web |http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/02/opinion/oe-boot2 |title="Plamegate's real liar" |publisher=latimes.com |date=2 November 2005}}</ref>, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal which, although it turned out to have no basis, nevertheless enabled political opponents to assail the integrity of Bush cabinet members and distract them in their conduct of the War.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html |title='End of an Affair' |date=1 September 2006 |publisher=washingtonpost.com}}</ref>
The description "haphazard work and dishonest claims" is clearly an opinion, violating WP:NPOV. The latimes.com link does not work. "the long-run Plamegate scandal which, although it turned out to have no basis" - a scandal in which the Chief of Staff of the Vice President is sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 has "no basis"? The wording is not even supported by the very opinionated article that is being cited. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Max Boot: Plamegate's real liar ...But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn't seem to fit the act's definition of a "covert agent" — someone who "has within the last five years served outside the United States." By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president's chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn't a crime...
If you take issue with my editing, though, please suggest a re-wording, I'm open to anything reasonable.-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for providing a working link. This makes the problems with this sentence even clearer, as it shows this reference to be an opinion article by a pundit on, let's say, one end of the political spectrum (whose polemical nature was already evident from the title, though). A one-sided viewpoint like this may or may not be mentioned in a main article about the subject ( Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson) if it is clearly marked as an opinion and balanced with other, differing views (see e.g. this comment published in TIME in 2007, i.e. long after the two opinions you cited). But it is certainly not appropriate for the purpose of representing a general, consensus view of the subject in a one-sentence summary like the one above. See WP:UNDUE.
Another issue I hadn't mentioned yet is that the sources do not support the wording "enabled political opponents to assail the integrity of Bush cabinet members and distract them in their conduct of the War", which again seems to be your own synthesis and editorializing. Please remember that the purpose of this article is to describe the opposition to the Iraq War in a factual, distanced way without stating our own opinions, arguments or interpretations. The article is not supposed to be an essay on "why I think the opposition to the Iraq War was misguided".
You are asking for my suggestion on how to deal with this sentence. I am suggesting to leave it out completely, for the various reasons described above.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (re-added here):
... the election of a [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party|Socialist]] government was brought about by the damage inflicted by the 2004 al-Qaeda bombings of Madrid, which were meant to intimidate the Spanish electorate into withdrawing support for the War.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6357599.stm |title=The legacy of the Madrid bombings |accessdate=15 February 2007 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=15 February 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3511540.stm |title='Darkest hour' haunts Spain elections |accessdate=15 March 2004 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=15 March 2004 }}</ref>
The first source says:
In other words, it directly contradicts the statement that Trackerwiki is citing it for. Similarly for the second source.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Al-Qaida planned to carry out attacks to sever Madrid from the U.S. and its other allies in the war on terror, according to a document published months before Spain's national elections. CNN said it obtained a copy of the document, posted in December on an Internet message board used by al-Qaida and its sympathizers. "We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al-Qaida document says, according to CNN. "If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed – and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto." On Sunday, that prediction was fulfilled when the Socialists overcame a late deficit in the polls and ousted Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party just three days after 10 bombs ripped through Madrid's central rail station, killing at least 201 people. Then, yesterday, Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to pull out 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq by June 30 if the United Nations "doesn't take control of Iraq." Zapatero called the Iraq war a mistake and said Spain's participation in it "has been a total error."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackerwiki ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
...The Socialists won a shock poll victory after voters appeared to turn on the government over its handling of the Madrid bombings that killed 200 people... ...The BBC's Chris Morris, in Madrid, says the bombings did more than shock Spain to the core; they proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government... ...Our correspondent says the late swing to the Socialists raises one disturbing thought - if al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy...
Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (added here, re-added here, with a misleading edit summary):
Renowned antiwar activist Galloway proposed forging a forceful alliance between Muslims and Western progressives in support of various Islamist goals in the Middle East against US, UK, French, and Israeli interests, citing Iraq as the example. He was quoted in his interview:
<blockquote>''"...Not only do I think it's possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries... ...Our enemies are very powerful and they are currently ruling the world and if we don't stop them they will finish both of us and they will be the new tyrants... ...‘And I include in the worldwide anti-war movement the absolutely epic magnificent demonstration in Beirut yesterday (8 March, 2005) called by Hizb’ullah and supported by the Arab Nationalist parties from the Sunni minority in Lebanon in which more than a million people marched to tell Israel, France and America to get out of Lebanon and to stand by Syria in its hour of need as a country being threatened openly by the United States with invasion and occupation, of the same kind of treatment that Iraq suffered..."''<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001238.html |title='Britain's progressive alliance' |date=3 June 2005 |publisher=melaniephillips.com}}</ref></blockquote>
No such "forceful alliance" has been forged. These are nothing but some controversial remarks in an interview by one of hundreds or thousand of politicians worldwide who were opposed to the Iraq War, the subject of this article, and certainly on the fringe of that. They might merit a short mention in the article George Galloway, but are certainly given undue weight if they are mentioned in a general article such as this one.
What is more, the interpretation "in support of various Islamist goals" is not supported by the quote (cf. WP:SYNTH). Also, blogs are not a suitable source for such a matter per WP:BLP.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
...First of all, it was the first left of Labor victory in English politics since 1945. Respect is powerful amongst immigrants who are overwhelmingly Muslim in the East End of London...If it can be achieved, it's important to find unity among the different antiwar forces, which requires some sacrifice programmatically and tactically, but is well worth the effort. We also should work to bring the Muslim population fully and wholeheartedly on board. There are many millions of Muslims in America. There are two million in Britain, and we have the support of the vast majority of them, and we have the active engagement of a very significant number of them. And that, too, I think, is likely to pay dividends if it is followed in the U.S. And that means not picking fights with the Muslim population on the issues which may be important but which are inevitably of a lesser order than war or occupation, and leaving those issues at the door for later. That's the approach that we take, and I recommend it to others...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackerwiki ( talk • contribs)
By now, this whole talk page is full of detailed examples (given by several editors) of edits by Trackerwiki violating several important Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and other quality issues, such as citing sources for statements that they do not support.
Trackerwiki, you have already been asked to to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, meaning that since your changes have been proven to be very controversial, you should propose and discuss them here on the talk page first, and obtain consensus before reinserting them. You continue to ignore that advice, making massive changes without discussing them first (or, in case of the Iran statements, reinserting controversial parts without respecting detailed objections).
In light of the earlier comments by EvanHarper, Dynablaster and Olaf Davis, I suggest that from now on
This is a somewhat unusual suggestion, but given the hundreds of problematic edits by this user to the article during the past months, resulting in severe quality problems as demonstrated above, and his failure to cooperate in the ways suggested above ("slow additions" etc.), there seems to be no viable alternative.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
One thing that's missing from the page is Iraqi opinion towards the war. It would be nice if someone could add what the stance of the Iraqi anti-Saddam opposition organizations was/is, and that of other Iraqi political groups, and opinion polls of Iraqis, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 ( talk) 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
How's about a list of Senators and Congressman that voted against it? RicoRichmond ( talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please add to Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 ( talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Opposition to the Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here are several examples of extreme POV pushing by user Trackerwiki:
Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency...
Low casualty rates? Patently absurd. And considered a model of modern counterinsurgency by whom exactly? No source is provided. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[I]nternational organizations like the U.N. have hailed the Coalition for liberating the Iraqi people from a totalitarian regime which "preyed on the Iraqi people and committed shocking, systematic and criminal violations of human rights".
The UN did not hail "the coalition" for liberating Iraq. The source does not support this statement. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement within the anti-war movement as to whether the cause of armed insurgents within Iraq is worth supporting did lessen considerably as the anti-Western values and brutal and criminal methods of the insurgents became too pronounced over time to ignore.
"Anti-Western values" is a lazy generalisation; also unsupported. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Iraq's government and its Palestinian allies were the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion, as there was little chance the Sunni-minority regime would be able to withstand the military might of the US and its coalitional allies.
France, Germany, Russia (etc.) opposed the invasion. Palestinians too. Who says the latter were "the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion"? Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Prior to the war, the major intelligence agencies all failed to realize that Iraq's forces did not have operational WMDs
What is the source for this statement? The leaders of France, Russia and Germany all said they had no proof of WMD. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The post-war [ISG] survey outcome discredited the pre-war WMD threat consensus of all major intelligence agencies
There was no consensus. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately for U.K. PM Blair [...] this was only discovered after post-war investigation confirmed the massive intelligence failure.
This is POV pushing. Pure and simple. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
But for geopolitical reasons Saddam could not allow his hostile neighbors, in particular Iraq's long-time enemy Iran, to discover how weak his army was in this respect.
Presumably the point being made is that Saddam tricked the unfortunate Mr Blair into invading Iraq. That is but one (contested) point of view. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hussein always rejected accusations that the Iraqi government played a part in the 9/11 attack [...] although the presence in Iraq of terrorist groups and the contrary assertions of prominent foreign leaders like Russia's Putin show otherwise.
Saddam was behind 9/11. What rot! Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Saddam's key people believed they could rebuild the Army and re-arm with WMD once sanctions were lifted. ... [T]hus they sought the help of Iraq's former Russian mentors and other foreign leaders who could influence via the UN Oil-for-Food scheme. [...] To this end saddam's agents (sic) and those of friendly states such as Russia sought the services and cooperation of disaffected Westerners to support the professional anti-war opposition.
Are you now trying to smear the anti-war movement? Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
British MP George Galloway in particular [...] was covertly rewarded for his spirited use of legal warfare in opposition against both the U.K. and U.S. over the Iraq War and other issues.
This is disputed. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This type of opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just before the Iraq invasion starting on March 20, 2003.
"This type of opposition"? Good grief. The anti-war movement was in the pay of Saddam Hussein! Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[R]egimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war because it sets a precedent for the dominant Western powers to target such "pariah" regimes with little recourse to the Westphalian checks of the U.N. (sic)
Do I really need to explain the problem with this sentence? Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Western marxist-progressives thinkers feared that the successful embrace of liberal-democratic modernization in yet another country would further weaken the millenarian movement in the modern global order.
Progressives fear liberal-democratic modernization? Here is a tip: when attempting to smear people, it would help if you understood your target audience. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Their overarching need for a viable mythos to challenge the overwhelming narrative of the U.S.-dominated New World Order has led them to oppose most American policy and military actions, even if it means opposing U.S. actions which result in security or economic benefits for their own countries. The U.S. War on Terror, launched as a global initiative to tamp down the capacities of Islamist movements and to eventually demoralize their Caliphatist hardcore, is the current example.
The main marxist (progessive)- socialist strategy was to undermine the faith of Coalitional polities in their respective governances through aggressive use of the Cold-War informational strategies of forum-shaping of public debate and continuous legal hindrances, the idea being to sow doubt and confusion about their governments' standards of honesty, competence, and conduct as the war progresses. This course of affairs naturally suited the interests of irredentist hegemony-seeking state actors such as Russia, whose agents had a hand in initiating anti-Coalition protests worldwide.
It's all true. User Trackerwiki adduces an opinion piece from Ion Mihai Pacepa in the National Review to prove it! The same Ion Pacepa who claims Saddam is hiding WMD in Syria, and who also knows the identity of the person who ordered the assassination of JFK. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
But recent years have seen an erosion in [Cindy] Sheehan's popularity as icon of the antiwar, anti-American (sic) as details of her support for foreign dictators
Oh, I see. Foreign Dictators like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The popular President Obama has replaced Sheehan, Wright, [Michael] Moore, and other questionable figures as an apologetic symbol for the many on the left who wish for America's leading role in world affairs to be diminished
Say what?
[Joseph C.] Wilson's haphazard work and dishonest claims were eventually discredited, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal
The rest is the same. Egregious POV pushing. Please don't restore this stuff. Dynablaster ( talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the material removed by Dynablaster has now been restored. I don't think the above discussion established a consensus for it. A few examples:
The bottom line is that a very large proportion of the material makes statements which are simply not to be found in the sources. We can't draw inferences of the type "Cube and Venezuela are friendly and dislike the U.S. so they must have opposed the war because of precedent about 'pariah' regimes": either we have a source which says exactly that or we don't say it. The same goes for almost all of the recent additions which I've investigated the sourcing for in detail; some I haven't dug into.
I've removed the Galloway bit per WP:BLP. I'm not removing the rest at the moment, but please try to provide sources which directly support the claims in the article. Thanks. Olaf Davis ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Another of Trackerwiki's additions is:
Iran's government was unique in that its theocratic regime publicly opposed the war but covertly encouraged Coalition efforts along with the majority of the Iranian people, many of whom hoped the Coalition would next liberate Iran after Iraq.
This is sourced to an opinion piece - I think we need much more than that to make such claims about 'the majority of the Iranian people'. Olaf Davis ( talk) 15:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
And this:
Geopolitical and legal rationales for the continuation of Saddam's neototalitarian regime, which favored its Sunni minorities provided the main grounds for foreign opposition to invasion, as the moral rationale for it's continuation was weak
(Emphasis added) I certainly don't think we can say the moral rationale was weak. We can talk about who thought it was - many people did but many people didn't - but that requires sources, of which there are currently none. But even then it's not the encyclopedia's place to say what is or isn't a good moral argument. Olaf Davis ( talk) 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad we seem to have agreement on the 'slow additions' policy. Shall we all discuss them below and wait to reach consensus before making any other changes to the article? Hopefully that can save us from too many more reverts. Now, the first addition:
Iran was unique in that its theocratic regime publicly opposed the war while the mostly pro-U.S. Iranian public [1], innured to years of failings of despotic clergy, quietly welcomed Coalition efforts [2] and hoped that American interventions would lead to freedom in Iran [3][4][5].
...even though Iranians at large are suspicious of the United States, they are not fundamentally anti-American. In fact, American symbols are popular with Iranians at large, and most people have been supportive of a U.S.-Iran dialogue and the establishment of relations...-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Olaf Davis ( talk) 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As of 2009, widespread sentiment for ending the war on advantageous terms ensured enough support for the 2006-2007 Surge strategy to see it through. [6] The security and stability gains sustained Iraq's ongoing economic boom as the Iraqi government took over security and governance duties all over Iraq. [7] Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency, the success came at a steep cost in material expenditures and worldwide US force availability which severely limited US options for intervention elsewhere. Despite large drawdowns, sizeable US-MNF forces must remain to secure the fragile gains achieved for the foreseable future. [8]
Iran was unique in that its clerical ruling class publicly opposed the war while large segments of society, in particular the younger pro-American generations, expressed hope that it would help bring about desired regime changes. 130 131 discontented with the failings of the Islamic regime, 132quietly support the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia 133[www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/opinion/05KRIS.html?ex=1084872849&ei=1&en=5a2cf1144fdf04ee 134] with the hope that American interventions would lead to freedom in Iran 135
Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq." 131, WINEP, does not support the text, if anything it contradicts it saying "many [Iranians] fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War." It does contain a general statement, in a footnote, that America "is very popular" in Iran, but so what.
Source 132 does not discuss Iranian opinion on the invasion of Iraq. And it's a piece in FrontPageMag, which is a far-right Internet tabloid with a reputation for publishing total nonsense.
Source 133 does not discuss opposition or support to the Iraq war per se, and it certainly doesn't support anything about "the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
Source 134 is a gee-whiz op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof wherein he claims that "many Iranians seem convinced that the U.S. military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going great." Of course there are no hard facts cited, no surveys, it's not about pre-war opposition or support but about what "many Iranians" supposedly thought in 2004...
Source 135 is a Guardian news piece in which is quoted an anonymous source - "one senior western diplomat based in Tehran," who explains that "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well." Of course "one senior western diplomat" does not explain how he knows "the secret hope" that "no one is saying out loud," but we're supposed to take his word, I guess. Meanwhile, a 2006 poll [3] found that 48% of Iranians say that the invasion was "a mistake" against 33% saying it was the "right decision," and 77% say it's increased the danger of terrorism, but that's in the prosaic world of what people say to pollsters, not their "secret hopes" as discerned by anonymous "senior western diplomats."
My point here is if you want to make claims about Iranian public opinion, you have to actually go find sources that credibly support those claims, rather than just tacking on a citation to some vaguely related article. EvanHarper ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
EvanHarper questioned:
Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq."
131, WINEP, does not support the text, if anything it contradicts it saying "many [Iranians] fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War."
-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)...Many Iranians appear to withdraw their support for the nuclear program when it comes to military nuclear development, mostly for fear of the potential costs such a program would incur in terms of international isolation, sanctions, and a possible military strike against Iran... ...Furthermore, many fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War... ...Inadvertently, this poll does not tell the story that the regime wanted to tell...
It does contain a general statement, in a footnote, that America "is very popular" in Iran, but so what.
-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"...Second, a more aggressive reaction by the international community -- a U.S. or Israeli attempt to strike Iran's nuclear facilities -- could well have the unintended consequence of antagonizing a highly nationalistic and largely pro-Western populace and convincing Iranians that a nuclear weapon is indeed in their national interests. Such a reaction would be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region, especially given Iran's key location between Iraq and Afghanistan..."
Source 132 does not discuss Iranian opinion on the invasion of Iraq. And it's a piece in FrontPageMag, which is a far-right Internet tabloid with a reputation for publishing total nonsense.
Source 133 does not discuss opposition or support to the Iraq war per se, and it certainly doesn't support anything about "the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia."
-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"...The survey, which was the first of its kind, found two-thirds of Iranians believe that regime change in Iraq has been a positive for both neighboring countries: with 66% believing that it served Iran's national interests, while 65% believed the Iraqi people will, in the long-run, be better off..."
Source 134 is a gee-whiz op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof wherein he claims that "many Iranians seem convinced that the U.S. military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going great." Of course there are no hard facts cited, no surveys, it's not about pre-war opposition or support but about what "many Iranians" supposedly thought in 2004...
Source 135 is a Guardian news piece in which is quoted an anonymous source - "one senior western diplomat based in Tehran," who explains that "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well." Of course "one senior western diplomat" does not explain how he knows "the secret hope" that "no one is saying out loud," but we're supposed to take his word, I guess. Meanwhile, a 2006 poll [5] found that 48% of Iranians say that the invasion was "a mistake" against 33% saying it was the "right decision," and 77% say it's increased the danger of terrorism, but that's in the prosaic world of what people say to pollsters, not their "secret hopes" as discerned by anonymous "senior western diplomats."
My point here is if you want to make claims about Iranian public opinion, you have to actually go find sources that credibly support those claims, rather than just tacking on a citation to some vaguely related article. EvanHarper ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq."
Dating of the piece is 2004, well after onset of the Iraq War. At a time when an insurgency was emerging and the Coalition ruled directly, it is not just suggestive but telling that the BBC would report that younger Iranians remained favorably disposed towards the U.S., while the forceful liberation and occupation of their neighbor next door by the same proceeded apace.
Trackerwiki has now
reinserted this part, with the wording of the contested part (the sentence cited at the beginning of this section: "Iran was unique .... would lead to freedom in Iran") unchanged. The only difference (compared to the version cited above on Dec 13, or to the
November 15 version) is in two references: One, the NYT article was removed,
another one is now cited for the same statement as Source 132, and the same objection that has been brought against Source 132 above also applies to this one: It does not even mention the Iraq War, let alone discusses Iranian opinion on it.
This despite the highly misleading edit summary "reworded Iran" (except for the references, the wording is the same) and the objections above. I am reverting this and ask Trackerwiki to seek consensus here first. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
DynaBlaster is obviously correct, the massive edits over the past few months have massively distorted the article with polemical, unsupported statements, dubious sourcing, and all manner of other nonsense. I've reverted to 12:46, 27 September 2009. When you look at the diff it's pretty clear.
This is just a selection of a few highlights, and I stopped only because I don't want argumentam ad nauseam, not because there aren't pages and pages more of this shit. EvanHarper ( talk) 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As the article badly needed an infusion of history and context,the effect of adding more explanations alongside verifiable cites from reliable sources will serve to bring a NPOV balance to what until recently appeared to be little more than a political screed for a 2003 audience. However, it has been pointed out that many of my explanatory additions may have overly relied on synthetic as opposed to summary conclusions which cannot be easily supported by the associated cites no matter how reliable or verifiable these cites and their sources may be. The remedy is a thorough review with eye the towards better formulation and referential support while following ever more strictly the Wikipedia guidelines governing important articles such as this. Thus I'm putting greater weight on finding and posting analyses and cites published by academic and governing institutions, starting with article on Iran.
With the slow but ongoing improvement of its content though significant historical updates, hopefully the information will increse in utility. -- Trackerwiki ( talk) 05:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay I'm starting another section because god knows what's happening in the discussion above, tracker / 112 has left so many unsigned, unindented, interleaved comments that I don't know what's what.
I'm reverting all of his edits, again. They strike me as entirely incompatible with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. They strike me as political polemics interspersed with largely irrelevant citations. If there is any non-polemical material in there, anything useful and compatible with policies, I haven't seen it - and at this point I think the burden is on Tracker to start here, on talk, proposing specific changes and discussing them before editing the article. ( WP:BRD.)
For example - because I've already examined the Iran section in detail - let me say what I would like to see established here, on talk, before any of that material is restored. I would like to see citations:
1) from reliable sources 2) which directly discuss Iranian public opinion vis-a-vis the 2003 invasion of Iraq 3) which evince a substantive basis for the claims they make on that subject.
None of the citations I've seen thus far meet those three criteria. Many of them meet two out of three - for example, reliable reports of opinion polls conducted by reputable organizations, but which relate to general Iranian attitudes towards the US and the West circa 2006, rather than specific Iranian attitudes towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's not good enough.
I'm sorry to excise some 40K of material contributed in good faith, really, I am. But I really am not prepared to let an important article remain in a condition that is frankly embarrassing. EvanHarper ( talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My point is, a review of historical propositions when evaluated against succeeding actual events on the ground can result in a narrative unkind to the original underlying premises. In the most famous example, we all know that the initial political opposition of France against the Coalition mission in Iraq was later transformed into political acceptance of and support for its continuing mission to secure and uplift post-Saddam Iraq, under renewed UN Mandate.
A recounting of events along the timeline cannot but work to cycle this contrasting sub-narrative into prominence. Only a most selective, outside-context reinterpretation from an ideological or religious POV could present the full recounting as anything other than a history of France de facto obviating its past record of opposition in the course of realigning de jure its foreign policy into supporting the international mission. The result of course isn't pretty for those who had figured that France's original opposition would remain in the face of convincing Coalition efforts on the ground to stabilize and rebuild Iraq it into a more modern democracy. If you perceive an irrelevant polemic fashioned out of this narrative in support of something other than "Opposition to the Iraq War", well, that's vexing history for you.-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 05:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
On unintentional obstruction of editing flow: If in case you didn't know, using convenient edit tools to wittle down from latest content to just the bare outline headers was my strategy for managing this 3rd review. It should be obvious from the log.-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation. There is no need for petty proscriptions in a great commons like Wikipedia.-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (added here, re-added here):
Although the haphazard work and dishonest claims of Wilson were eventually discredited <ref>{{cite web |http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/02/opinion/oe-boot2 |title="Plamegate's real liar" |publisher=latimes.com |date=2 November 2005}}</ref>, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal which, although it turned out to have no basis, nevertheless enabled political opponents to assail the integrity of Bush cabinet members and distract them in their conduct of the War.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html |title='End of an Affair' |date=1 September 2006 |publisher=washingtonpost.com}}</ref>
The description "haphazard work and dishonest claims" is clearly an opinion, violating WP:NPOV. The latimes.com link does not work. "the long-run Plamegate scandal which, although it turned out to have no basis" - a scandal in which the Chief of Staff of the Vice President is sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 has "no basis"? The wording is not even supported by the very opinionated article that is being cited. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Max Boot: Plamegate's real liar ...But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn't seem to fit the act's definition of a "covert agent" — someone who "has within the last five years served outside the United States." By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president's chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn't a crime...
If you take issue with my editing, though, please suggest a re-wording, I'm open to anything reasonable.-- Trackerwiki ( talk) 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for providing a working link. This makes the problems with this sentence even clearer, as it shows this reference to be an opinion article by a pundit on, let's say, one end of the political spectrum (whose polemical nature was already evident from the title, though). A one-sided viewpoint like this may or may not be mentioned in a main article about the subject ( Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson) if it is clearly marked as an opinion and balanced with other, differing views (see e.g. this comment published in TIME in 2007, i.e. long after the two opinions you cited). But it is certainly not appropriate for the purpose of representing a general, consensus view of the subject in a one-sentence summary like the one above. See WP:UNDUE.
Another issue I hadn't mentioned yet is that the sources do not support the wording "enabled political opponents to assail the integrity of Bush cabinet members and distract them in their conduct of the War", which again seems to be your own synthesis and editorializing. Please remember that the purpose of this article is to describe the opposition to the Iraq War in a factual, distanced way without stating our own opinions, arguments or interpretations. The article is not supposed to be an essay on "why I think the opposition to the Iraq War was misguided".
You are asking for my suggestion on how to deal with this sentence. I am suggesting to leave it out completely, for the various reasons described above.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (re-added here):
... the election of a [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party|Socialist]] government was brought about by the damage inflicted by the 2004 al-Qaeda bombings of Madrid, which were meant to intimidate the Spanish electorate into withdrawing support for the War.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6357599.stm |title=The legacy of the Madrid bombings |accessdate=15 February 2007 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=15 February 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3511540.stm |title='Darkest hour' haunts Spain elections |accessdate=15 March 2004 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=15 March 2004 }}</ref>
The first source says:
In other words, it directly contradicts the statement that Trackerwiki is citing it for. Similarly for the second source.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Al-Qaida planned to carry out attacks to sever Madrid from the U.S. and its other allies in the war on terror, according to a document published months before Spain's national elections. CNN said it obtained a copy of the document, posted in December on an Internet message board used by al-Qaida and its sympathizers. "We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al-Qaida document says, according to CNN. "If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed – and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto." On Sunday, that prediction was fulfilled when the Socialists overcame a late deficit in the polls and ousted Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party just three days after 10 bombs ripped through Madrid's central rail station, killing at least 201 people. Then, yesterday, Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to pull out 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq by June 30 if the United Nations "doesn't take control of Iraq." Zapatero called the Iraq war a mistake and said Spain's participation in it "has been a total error."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackerwiki ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
...The Socialists won a shock poll victory after voters appeared to turn on the government over its handling of the Madrid bombings that killed 200 people... ...The BBC's Chris Morris, in Madrid, says the bombings did more than shock Spain to the core; they proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government... ...Our correspondent says the late swing to the Socialists raises one disturbing thought - if al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy...
Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (added here, re-added here, with a misleading edit summary):
Renowned antiwar activist Galloway proposed forging a forceful alliance between Muslims and Western progressives in support of various Islamist goals in the Middle East against US, UK, French, and Israeli interests, citing Iraq as the example. He was quoted in his interview:
<blockquote>''"...Not only do I think it's possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries... ...Our enemies are very powerful and they are currently ruling the world and if we don't stop them they will finish both of us and they will be the new tyrants... ...‘And I include in the worldwide anti-war movement the absolutely epic magnificent demonstration in Beirut yesterday (8 March, 2005) called by Hizb’ullah and supported by the Arab Nationalist parties from the Sunni minority in Lebanon in which more than a million people marched to tell Israel, France and America to get out of Lebanon and to stand by Syria in its hour of need as a country being threatened openly by the United States with invasion and occupation, of the same kind of treatment that Iraq suffered..."''<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001238.html |title='Britain's progressive alliance' |date=3 June 2005 |publisher=melaniephillips.com}}</ref></blockquote>
No such "forceful alliance" has been forged. These are nothing but some controversial remarks in an interview by one of hundreds or thousand of politicians worldwide who were opposed to the Iraq War, the subject of this article, and certainly on the fringe of that. They might merit a short mention in the article George Galloway, but are certainly given undue weight if they are mentioned in a general article such as this one.
What is more, the interpretation "in support of various Islamist goals" is not supported by the quote (cf. WP:SYNTH). Also, blogs are not a suitable source for such a matter per WP:BLP.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
...First of all, it was the first left of Labor victory in English politics since 1945. Respect is powerful amongst immigrants who are overwhelmingly Muslim in the East End of London...If it can be achieved, it's important to find unity among the different antiwar forces, which requires some sacrifice programmatically and tactically, but is well worth the effort. We also should work to bring the Muslim population fully and wholeheartedly on board. There are many millions of Muslims in America. There are two million in Britain, and we have the support of the vast majority of them, and we have the active engagement of a very significant number of them. And that, too, I think, is likely to pay dividends if it is followed in the U.S. And that means not picking fights with the Muslim population on the issues which may be important but which are inevitably of a lesser order than war or occupation, and leaving those issues at the door for later. That's the approach that we take, and I recommend it to others...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackerwiki ( talk • contribs)
By now, this whole talk page is full of detailed examples (given by several editors) of edits by Trackerwiki violating several important Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and other quality issues, such as citing sources for statements that they do not support.
Trackerwiki, you have already been asked to to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, meaning that since your changes have been proven to be very controversial, you should propose and discuss them here on the talk page first, and obtain consensus before reinserting them. You continue to ignore that advice, making massive changes without discussing them first (or, in case of the Iran statements, reinserting controversial parts without respecting detailed objections).
In light of the earlier comments by EvanHarper, Dynablaster and Olaf Davis, I suggest that from now on
This is a somewhat unusual suggestion, but given the hundreds of problematic edits by this user to the article during the past months, resulting in severe quality problems as demonstrated above, and his failure to cooperate in the ways suggested above ("slow additions" etc.), there seems to be no viable alternative.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
One thing that's missing from the page is Iraqi opinion towards the war. It would be nice if someone could add what the stance of the Iraqi anti-Saddam opposition organizations was/is, and that of other Iraqi political groups, and opinion polls of Iraqis, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 ( talk) 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
How's about a list of Senators and Congressman that voted against it? RicoRichmond ( talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please add to Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 ( talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)