Talk:Iraq War

	Pending tasks for Iraq War:
	Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done: convert "200x in Iraq" articles (x==2...7 e.g. 2007 in Iraq) to Wikipedia:Summary style Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

Criticism section: Professor Chip Pitts

There is a lengthy paragraph in the intro to the criticisms section that describes the views of Professor Chip Pitts. This seems like undue weight, especially because Pitts is talking about much broader issues than what this section is about. This section is about criticisms of the prosecution of the war. Pitts is talking about U.S. foreign policy in general. I woudl like to remove this paragraph, but want to propose doing so before I make the change. I think I have removed it before and someone put it back in, so I welcome their thoughts on why it belongs. Cheers --Mackabean 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the change.--86.25.50.222 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to just reduce it's size.--86.29.246.148 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

.

Bibliography

I've added a bibliography botty section. Ricks' 'Fiasco' and Gordon's 'Cobra II' look like the most up-to-date and comprehensive books on the conflict so far, but feel free to add. Colin4C 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's Make the Opening Paragraph Change

I've read a great deal of support for changing the opening paragraph to reflect a more neutral tone. It's time we make the change. I'm willing to make the edit myself in the next fews days if I sense I have the support of the contributors in the discussion. --Clayc3466 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a contributor to this article. So I might be out of line for replying here. But I feel it is needed, regardless.

The suspect lines are perhaps:

"The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush and supporters in the Republican and Democratic parties, was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat[29] to the United States, its allies and interests. In George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, he claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Saddam Hussein became imminent.[30][31]"

These might hint at an anti-war bias, but they are also facts that are reliably sourced. The primary rationale for the war in March 2003 was unarguably the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. Terrorism, liberation, and other reasons were mentioned but the focus of the President's speeches were on the possibility of Iraq gaining nuclear technology and on the possibility they would give these weapons to terrorist groups.

"After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons. To support the war, other U.S. officials cited claims of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda connection. Yet others pointed to human rights abuse in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the need to establish democracy in Iraq as reason for the war. They have also claimed that the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply limited non-military options. Many critics of the war have alleged that this was a primary reason for the invasion.[32]"

This is where I start seeing an obvious bias in the choice of words the article uses. But again, these are facts. No evidence was found that Iraq was actively developing a weapons of mass destruction program. This is all a matter of government record in which the conclusion has been that Iraq ceased such programs in the years following Gulf I. The line fart about oil not being sourced is particularly troubling to me, and I feel it should be removed unless it can be sourced or quoted. All of this is relevant, but this is more about the political implications of the war (for which there are numerous articles) than the history of the war itself.

"The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq. The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq.[33][34] As a result of this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have withdrawn troops from Iraq.[35] The causes and consequences of the war remain extremely controversial.[16][36][24]"

Failure to restore order is the only anti-war language I can see here. T

he war is controversial. That is a fact that is undeniable. Order was not restored. This is also an undisputable fact.

Assymetric warfare broke out. The Pentagon itself has stated this.

The US coalition occupies Iraq and tries to establish a democratic government. This is fact.

The force has been and remains to be primarily American and British.

That being said, my vote is that it is completely rehauled. Not because of bias, but because it is too long-winded and repetitive like my post here. I think about 2/3 to 1/2 of what currently exists could be there.

What do you mean specifically about 'neutral tone'? Which parts of the paragraph are non-neutral? Colin4C 08:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to nitpick a little bit here. Consider the following statements:

After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons.

I'm not disagreeing with this, but you need a reference. Without a reference it is a worthless statement.

The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq.

Considering the operation to restore order is ongoing, I think my friends who are deployed there would be quite surprised to learn that they've already failed. This is a broad and dangerous statement, and the author has provided absolutely no external support for it.

The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq.

No one attacked Iraq. The allied forces invaded the land and fought (and are still fighting, fyi) Iraqi military and paramilitary organizations. Iraqi civilians have never been harmed without first showing intent to harm others, except in a few tragic accidents and but for a handful of immature young troops who take potshots at passing Iraqis because they want action. I know this is a bit too nitpicky, but honestly that language (attacked Iraq) seems very immature. Its like something a ten year old would say. Lets use adult language to describe adult situations.

I'm not suggesting that the introduction needs to be entirely overhauled, but if you are going to make dramatic and controversial statements you must word them thoughtfully and you absolutely must include references. Mrmb6b02 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your allegation that only immature people use the word "attack" is, um, entertaining. Perhaps you could take your crusade against the word "attack" to the World War II articles; it is used quite heavily there. Then you could proceed to many other articles on wars and battles. Harvard yarrd

Hehe. I'll concede that one to you. I debated whether or not to include that in the first place. Perhaps I didn't debate long enough? A momentary lapse in judgement. I know we aren't supposed to remove talk page content, but what is the policy on striking? ;) Still, I stand by the difference of what I wrote. Cheers. Mrmb6b02 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To support the war, other U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No such link ever existed.

There are a few problems with this statement. First, there is no source. A statement this broad would need maybe at least two. Second, it hasn't been proven true. How can anyone ever say for sure that there was no link between them? And some people think that there was a link...

[1] Read both pages here. The author boldly claims a major link between Hussein and al-Qaeda.

[2] This author is on the opposite side of the argument; he or she admits a link but says that it was minor. However, it's still a link, which would make the quoted statement untrue.

This quote is based on the writer's point-of-view and is not a neutral Wikipedia-worthy statement. Possibly it could be replaced as, "It is disputed whether such a link actually existed." Then, cite sources from both sides of the argument. Mantipula 00:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Suddenly calling all opposing forces "al-Qaida"

This is bizarre. Does a summary of it belong in the article? 75.35.79.57 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Topically Related Imagery

The so-called topically-related imagery on this page is pathetic. It does not feature the war's victims in one single photograph, yet there are at least 5 tame, unrevealing photos of American forces.Nwe 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree about that gallery of images at the end.--Timeshifter 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems have been corrected. --Timeshifter 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Propose Removal of "Topically Related Imagery"

The Topically Related Imagery section at the end of the article serves informative purpose. It merely takes up space. I have not encountered such a section in any other article and since we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile, it is really of no use to anyone. Nwe 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile" - i disagree. Any photos/diagrams etc that aid Shushnig? understanding of the issue should be allowed to be on wikipedia, under a suitable subtitle or sub article.Chendy 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean there don't seem to be any good images that have been licenced by the copyright holder.Nwe 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are image galleries in wikipedia articles. I have seen them. The question is how many images should there be in the image gallery here. We can't fit anymore images in the right and left side columns. I tried a few days ago. I had to alternate sides in order for there not to be blank white spaces in the 2 browsers I checked (latest Firefox and latest MS Internet Explorer v7.x). I assume all the images are allowed in this wikipedia article, or someone would soon delete them. --Timeshifter 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are, they are not common to every article, and there is no reason why we should have them in this one, particularly when the images are so unsatisfactory, and the article is already so long and likely to expand. Don't bother adding any images if they're anything like the ones we have at present. And I'm sure these particular images are allowed, I only said that no good images were licenced.Nwe 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this rag-bag of images serves no particularly useful purpose in the article. Colin4C 10:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I substituted a couple photos. Feel free to substitute more. I found a collection of images here:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Iraq_War --Timeshifter 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely the proper place for an 'image dump' of Iraq war related images is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War. Otherwise we should integrate appropriate images with appropriate text in the body of the article. Makes sense? Colin4C 10:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Galleries are common, and are not image dumps. I think by continued substitution of better images, this gallery will be fine. 12 4-kilobyte gallery images take up only 48 kilobytes. Removing one of the larger-kilobyte, inline images from the text can save 30 kilobytes. --Timeshifter 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite other articles with similar image galleries? I still don't see the point of including images just because they exist, without immediate relation to the content. I know it's a great thing when it is established that the wikipedia actually has the rights to use an image, but that is no reason to go overboard with the sheer thrill of it...Colin4C 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"sheer thrill of it". Please ease up on the hyperbole. It is uncivil, and does not assume good faith. Offhand, here is a page with a photo gallery in it: Mexican general election 2006 controversies. Photos are just another form of sourced info useful to encyclopedias. Let us move on, please. --Timeshifter 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture gallery you cite in the Mexican instance is explicitly and thematically related to content in the text about a political rally. It is not a rag-bag of vaguely related images. As for incivility and bad faith, I have not directed any personal comments at any editor here, I am merely discussing the issue and I assume the good faith of anyone who has added pictures to the gallery or who created the gallery itself, even if I disagree with it on the grounds I have mentioned before. Colin4C 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I found a galary on the Headscarf page to.--Freetown 01:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)

In the latest Firefox browser, and in the Microsoft Internet Explorer v7.x browser, it says

"Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

at the top of the browser when I am viewing this talk page. Does anybody know why? And how do we fix it?

Here is some linkbar code followed by the linkbars:

{{article|Talk:Iraq War}}

Talk:Iraq War (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Iraq War|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

{{article|Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)}}

Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maybe the history and log links can help figure this out. --Timeshifter 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah?

Is Hezbollah a player in the Iraq war? I note that an editor recently inserted it into the multiconflict insurgency side. There is the political movement Hezbollah Movement in Iraq which, if that article is to be believed, is not affiliated with Hezbollah. Anyway, since the article doesn't treat either of these groups, I am reverting the edit until it can be suitably referenced and clarified. Silly rabbit 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Officials: Hezbollah agent played deaf before confessing
2. U.S.: Iran helped in deadly Iraq strike
3. Michael Ware report here. Robbskey 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm still not convinced that Hezbollah should be identified as one of the combatants, although certainly they are deserving of some mention in the text. So far, there is evidence that the group assisted in training and arming Shiite resistance forces as a proxy for Iran. I don't think this is quite enough to justify identifying Hezbollah as a combatant: (1) Iran is already listed; (2) until evidence surfaces that Hezbollah actually has soldiers on the ground, it seems to attach undue significance to the role Hezbollah is playing in the war; (3) this is all rather recently revealed in the media, and still feels sort of speculative. That said, it probably is justified bringing this recent news up in the article somewhere. Silly rabbit 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disability Claims

Shouldn't these be mentioned somewhere? According to Veterans Affairs documents there have been 192,000 claims for disability by returned veterans. 110,000 were accepted, 21,000 rejected, 17,000 ruled as unrelated to war service and 44,000 still pending as of January 2007. That's a discrepancy of almost 140,000 in the number of injured compared to the info box. Wayne 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the source on that? Also, something specifically related to casualties might be better suited for a mention on this page with an in-depth reference on the Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 page. Publicus 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We need an offical sorce to back up the, infact true, claims. I heard it was about 115,000 recently.I'll look up a source for you.--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some intresting links on U.S. war dead, wounded and disabled-

[[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] --Comander E.I. Davis2 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Protests against war in Iraq

An editor has just changed some wording in the article from 'protests against war in Iraq' to 'protests against the war in Iraq'. I think that the latter wording is incorrect because the protests started before the war began. What do people here think? Colin4C 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

People were protesting the war in Iraq, i.e. the invasion by U.S. forces, which is - as far as I know - referred to as the war. If they wanted to protest war in Iraq they would've been rallying against the Kurdish conflict, the invasion of Kuwait leading to the First Gulf War (at that time), and whatever else there's going on there. Generally people don't care enough to actively protest a war that doesn't involve their nation somehow, although globalism is changing this. Nonetheless, the U.S. being a superpower, its citizens don't really have to care about other less important nations warring. But I'm starting to rant here, so I'll stop, and also, I don't see how 'the war' implies present times more than simply 'war'. Jack the Stripper 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we were protesting about war in Iraq. I had been protesting against the oppression of the Kurds, I was present at anti-war demos for the first time around calling for the Iraqis to get out of Kuwait and the UK to stay out of the war either way, and the majority of anti-war protesters appear to have protested against war in, on, and around Iraq. I would, however, argue that better wording would be "protests against the invasion of Iraq by the coalition". ~AnarchoPaddy --86.20.233.149 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jack the Stripper 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I say, 'Pro-Iraq' or 'pro-Saddam' protests.--86.29.242.195 13:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Crunch!--86.29.242.195 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Crunch indeed! --86.29.244.15 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a Typo

In the section "Calls for withdrawal from Iraq," there's a typo. "hile" for "while". D. Winchell 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For spelling mistakes just change it without discussion and put minor edit its no big deal no one will challenge u(ForeverDEAD 23:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Strong majorities

In the section International opinion of the War on Terrorism It is said that "In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia." What are these majorities? Government Majorities? News polls? Credible sources? Or taken after bias reporting? Please indicate the nature of the "majoraties".

As far as I can tell, polls and have elections have indicated that- Turkey is concerend about El-Queada; France, Germany and Russia suport Iraq; Japan and India want a diplomaic resalution to the despute; the U.S.A. wants to give up and leave, while the U.K., Australia, Poland and Denmark want to stay in Iraq to compeat the job! --Comander E.I. Davis2 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reality proves you wrong. Kensai Max 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WW1

According to my 'original research' (i.e. ability to count) the Iraq War has lasted longer than the First World War, in which, incidently, Iraq was involved. In general terms it might be worth keeping tabs on duration of war, compared to other conflicts. Colin4C 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting research Colin4C, I wasn't aware of the connections between the length of the Iraq War and WWI. Before you add this it might run into some problems with a straight comparison of time. Since Bush et al stated that major combat ops were over 4 years ago in May 2003, some editors may look at that as the end of the "war" and the beginning of the "occupation" phase. So your edit comparing these two very different wars might run into some trouble. On the other hand, having a section that compares the duration of the Iraq war with other notable conflicts might be worthwhile and useful. Just my two cents. Publicus 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that e.g. the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004 was bloodier than the initial invasion and that things seem to ratcheting up in a major way lately. Iraq is certainly a guerilla war if not necessarily a conventional one. Colin4C 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worth while to include a comparison of insuries and deaths between the different wars. Perhaps these comparisons should be a separate article though.--Kumioko 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think this isnt important and more pull out of iraq kinda thing. Comparing the two is like comparing the AK47 and the m16 its pointless. WW1 and iraq war are completly differnt wars as one is a convetional war and one is a guerilla war. obivously as geurilla tactics are usaly small local ambushes itss going to take longer to take. i have heard from experts(cant rember the source) that to effectivly crush a geurilla resistance it will at least take 10 years while a more convetional war can be more eaisly crushed as u have to take in account 1. public soport 2. military capibilty 3. being blockaded so therds my point if u wanna tell me sometin about my thery tell me on my talk page as i probaly will forget i posted this(ForeverDEAD 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

War Status

Its interesting how this event is so commonly reffered to as a "war", even though the mission is to target specific groups of people within the country, not the country itself, meaning there is no hostility directly between countries.

And thus an official declaration of war by any country hasn't happened, so how can this article be named with the simple "Iraq War" tittle, not "Iraq-US insurgency", or something to that affect.I imagine atleast other names must have been proposed in the past, and the only reason for the current tittle must simply be the common,but inaccurate way to refer to the situation by the media and public. Rodrigue 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Because "war" is not limited to declared conflict between nations.

War (noun) - a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country;

a sustained campaign against something undesirable

Concise Oxford English Dictionary

-- VegitaU 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rodrique, also what other titles would you give the Vietnam war or the Korean war? Wikipedia is just going by the common usage here, nothing wrong with that. Reference materials bow to popular usage all the time. Publicus 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an international armed conflic, which was a war, untill Saddam fell, and a counter terrorisum/insergancy mission afterwards.--Freetown 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying the WW2 article should be changed to "The European conflict was an international armed conflict, which was a war, until France fell, and a counter terrorism/insurgency mission afterwards". Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting you down, but pointing out that usage is more important than what some politicians may call it. Wayne 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not feed the trolls. -- VegitaU 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whayne your wrong for comparing ww2 toa conflict as it was a war on all the axis nations in Europe after france fell the U.K. still had a decleration of war and when the U.S. joined Germany declared war on the U.S so making it still war, but anyway i personalyy think that the thing about the Vietnam and Korea should be called wars as thats the common name but techincaly they are conflicts ans should be called that(ForeverDEAD 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I agree that it should be called a war. First, this is the most common and popular usage. When you turn on your TV, you see news about the Iraq War, never the "Mission in Iraq". I think that if the name of the article is changed, many users will not be able to find what they think is the article they want to read. Second, a conflict like the one in Iraq does meet the definition of a war, "a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country" like VegitaU pointed out. The coalition forces use tanks, armored transports, gunships and helicopters. They are constantly under attack by heavily armed enemies with AKs, RPGs, mortars, explosives and other weapons. It may be a "postmodern war", but it is still a war. LK 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for the moment, we're not in a real war. We're not fighting Iraq itself, but terrorist insurgents that operate in Iraq. A real "War" would be America trying to destroy that very expensive democracy we set up. The War ended when Iraq surrendered and Saddam went into hiding. AznWarlord 10.35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is reflected in the sub-articles, i.e. invasion/occupation, but this the all-encompassing is named Iraq War because that's the popular usage which we must follow per WP:NC. ←Ben^B4 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I thank User:AznWarlord over the war's status.--Pine oak 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:AznWarlord, the war is over and a very bloody counter-insurgency campaign is now under way.--Pine oak 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The 4 pictures in the template for Iraq war

Does anything think it is a bit of "systematic bias" to have only photos of US soldiers? Can we have multinational forces and Iraqi civilians and terrorist (all of which who are playing important roles in this war) too? What do other people think?--Flamgirlant 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason I have always opposed having a split image - it falsely conveys the idea that we are trying to capture the entire war,, or all aspects of the war, in one image. This would be impossible, even if we had a million image split. Instead of putting 4 pictures there, which is unattractive anyways, the best thing to do is simply pick one decent quality picture and use it. It wont represent everything, any more than this 4 way split does, but it will be more aesthetically pleasing, and wont give false impressions. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the 4-way image, but I see your point that it could appear to be a "systematic bias" when at the top. So let us move the 4-way image down farther in the article. --Timeshifter 10:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the 4-way photo down in the article. The article has some insurgent photos to balance it. The 4-way photo has one photo with Iraqi soldiers in it. Need some photos in the article of soldiers from other nations in the multinational force. --Timeshifter 11:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, we dont have to capture everything in an image, and we shouldnt pretend we have to by using a split image. We can use one image, we dont need to use a map, and further, we shouldnt use a map. Maps are used when there are no other images available. I have restored the image used before the split image was introduced. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rangley. There's no way a map of Iraq illustrates the Iraq War better than the split image. I think it's pretty good in my opinion, though. Maybe get a shot of an insurgent in there. We should come to a reasonable consensus before just throwing away good photos. -- VegitaU 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent). OK. I was trying to put a neutral map image at the top to avoid systematic bias. I moved that map back down in the article. I also moved Rangeley's image down in the article since it has the same problem of systematic bias as the 4-way image. I moved the car bombing image to the top. It has both Coalition and insurgent elements to it. So it is a balance without systematic bias. And it certainly represents a key factor in this war. I don't want to lose any good images, and all of these are good. I myself especially appreciate having a map on the page. --Timeshifter 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the point is, we do not have to capture everything in an image. It is not a "systemic bias" to have an image that has just American soldiers, just Iraqi soldiers, just Insurgents, just Saddam Hussein. If someone rejected images not because they were otherwise bad, but because they portrayed a side they did not want portraying, that would be violating NPOV, and that is the systemic bias that sometimes exists. If we purposely only choose images for this article showing Americans, thats one thing. But we arent, I beleive we have a variety of images within the article itself. But thats whats needed - variety in the article.

Thats why we should drop the guise of trying to find an all encompassing image - none exists. We should just opt for a good one, typically one that is a good lead in for the article. The one from 2005 which you moved up doesnt strike me as a better image than the previous one which you have moved down. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. So that is 2 out of 3 wanting a more balanced image on the top. Your preferred image may be more dynamic and exciting, but this is a war we are talking about, and avoiding systemic bias in the first photo people see is far more important than trying to grab people's attention with a less-balanced photo at the top. --Timeshifter 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For the third time, my point is that you have misdefined systemic bias, and we do not have to have only all encompassing images. It is a systemic bias to purposely reject images representing a side when images are available, but noone is suggesting this. The article should have a variety of images - but each image doesnt have to have everything in it. No image has everything in it, and no image can possibly represent all there is in a war. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We disagree. Sorry. 2 out of 3 people in this conversation thought your image at the top showed a systemic bias. A 4th person would have been happy with the split image if it had an insurgent in one of the 4 images in the collage. The variety of images that follow farther down in the article have a better balance, but even there they show mostly Americans. Others have discussed similar problems concerning the gallery of images. Wars consist of multiple sides, and the photos should not favor any side. --Timeshifter 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait - where did I say that? ~Rangeley (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, so, without further ado:

Using a collage of images to "represent" a war is somewhat problematic for one this recent. For WWII, for example, the approach works fairly well because there are a decent number of iconic photographs of the war; here, on the other hand, most of the images are unlikely to be instantly recognizable. (The systemic bias issue is a valid one, but caused more by a lack of freely licensed photographs than anything else. If the insurgency were releasing a pile of PD images, as the US government does, it'd be a lot easier to create a "balanced" grouping of images.)

The idea of using a map is not a bad one, but a simple geographic map of Iraq is not really helpful to the reader. What would be the better approach, I think, would be a map of the war; see, for example, Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618). Essentially, you'd need to start off with a (fairly large) map of Iraq and then mark it up with the locations of battles and military movements, important zones of control, etc.

Obviously, this will require more work than just uploading a simple map; but I think the end result would be both more useful and more visually appealing. Kirill 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that war map example is a good idea. --Timeshifter 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the 4-way collage image. Image:IraqWarHeader.jpg - I replaced the 4-way collage image with one of the images making it up. Image:Iraqwarimage.jpg - Another image from that collage is already in the article. Image:Car bomb in Iraq.jpg - Removing the collage image saves over 83 kilobytes (at the 300-pixel-wide size at which the image was in the article). This frees up kilobytes for use in downloading the many 3 to 5 kilobyte images in the gallery at the end of the article. --Timeshifter 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created and posted the war map with the major operations and attacks. There's no way I could include everything, but I'm fairly satisfied with what I made. What do you all think of it? -- VegitaU 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For the image at the top of the article it is a definite improvement. I put below a 300-pixel-wide version of your Iraq War map, Image:Iraq-War-Map.png. It is the same size as at the top of the article infobox. Keep clicking the image to enlarge it more and more. I suggest making the text a little larger in the title box on the image so that it is readable even in the 300-pixel-wide version of the image. So people know what the map is about before clicking it. --Timeshifter 17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks very nice. Good work. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks very useful. And will be even nicer IMHO when the labels on the map denoting military operations etc are correlated with mentions of them in the text of the article. Colin4C 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The operations and attacks image is very dry, and also practically illegible unless clicked on. I strongly believe one excellent photo showing people directly involved in the war should be used as the headline photograph. There are many possible iconic photographs that could immediately give the average user a sense of the war, whether they recognize it or not. It need not be all encompassing.67.163.209.247 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you think the picture is "dry", but it illustrates exactly what it is supposed to: the major operations in Iraq since 2003. Whether or not it should be up at the top is what the debate is all about. Secondly, I haven't seen any operations and battle maps encompassing an entire campaign that are particularly legible. In fact, let me give you some examples of images that are on featured or high-quality articles:

• Battle of Cannae
  Battle of Cannae
• 
  Second Punic War
• 
  Battle of Stalingrad
• 
  Battle of Kursk
• 
  Western Front (World War I)
• 
  Western Front (World War I)
• 
  Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618)

None of the above pictures are legible at 300 px. Furthermore, having created this image, enlarging everything on the map to make it absolutely legible on the front page, would crowd out the map with icons and text. The suggestion of having a campaign map like this was brought up and the idea was lauded by several users. This was the reason I created it. If you feel there is a better picture available, by all means, post it or suggest it. -- VegitaU 21:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think then that your map image should be moved to an appropriate location in the article, and either a past image reinstated or a new one selected. As someone said above, map images are usually used when no good photos are available, and I see that the images you posted are all from battles that took place during WWII or even earlier, putting most of the events in a time period during which photography was more difficult and thus less common. Although your map image is indeed un-biased, the first image visible on the page should be as compelling as possible, while also remaining appropriate and not overly-biased. The rest of the article is excellent, and I would like people to be compelled to read through it when they stumble upon it and see the top of the page. There just isn't anything at all compeling about a cartoon map of Iraq that shows a few major battles that have taken place. I didn't find the old 4-pictures image to be biased, and I didn't get the impression that it was meant to be all-encompassing. I would probably suggest simply reinstating it, but maybe there is something else in the PD that would work also, if there are still objections to the quad image. Also, perhapse it could be considered biased to have a top image that is not attention-grabbing and may result in fewer people reading through this article, although I don't think that that is your intention. It could be said that there is a risk of going too far and sensationalizing the events of the war if there is too much emphasis placed on making the article interesting and exciting to the reader. However, I really don't think placing one or a few interesting and emotional real photos from the war at the top of the page is going too far. This war is a very important issue that everyone should be informed about, so lets make sure that we do as much as we can to get people to read about it.Josh60798 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. I think people wanted a neutral image that did not favor any side in the conflict. If an image is wanted that would draw the reader more into the article, I would prefer an image showing some of the harrowing Iraqi casualties of the war. I can't find any good ones on wikipedia. I mean photos such as the ones I found recently here:

http://www.lowculture.com/archives/2005/12/

I found that page while browsing around looking for some more images for

Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003

Here are some categories with photos:

Category:2003 Iraq conflict

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Iraq_War

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_US_Army

Here is a non-bloody photo, that is harrowing nevertheless:

Staff Sgt. Kevin Jessen checks the underside of two anti-tank mines found in a village outside Ad Dujayl, Iraq.

Image:VS-1.6 anti-tank mine.jpg

Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. So we can put any image we want at the top. I vote for showing the reality of war with some bloody photos of casualties from all sides. --Timeshifter 09:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats good, I agree with what you said. I would like the top photo to show Iraqi people in some manner, since the war effects them the most out of any group. The first photo doesn't need to be extremely harrowing or bloody, but it should tap into people's feelings about the war and compel them to read further. I would hope that nobody would consider a photo of that nature biased, as it would merely show a record of an event that took place as a result of the war. A photograph of an operation or a battle or attack is simply a document of something that happened, analagous to the Iraq map showing major combat events. But a photograph shows much more vividly the human aspect of such events in this war.Josh60798 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this one: Image:Army.mil-2007-03-27-114351.jpg. I have been showing the images in this section at the 300-pixel-wide size of the infobox in the article.

A soldier carries a wounded Iraqi child into the Charlie Medical Centre at Camp Ramadi, Iraq, on March 20, 2007.

--Timeshifter 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a very appropriate image. It features female soldiers in Iraq, which in my understanding is not a very common site in published war photographs. It also features Iraqi civilians. I think it is a well-balanced photo, in regards to viewpoints or emotions regarding the war. Its a sad photograph, but it also has a certain glimmer of hopefulness to it. The people in it appear worn out, but also determined. I think it would be hard to argue against that photograph.Josh60798 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I've redone the war map to consolidate information per Publicus' request. -- VegitaU 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on the picture?Josh60798 10:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the photo to the one of the female soldier and Iraqi child. The battle map it replaced still needs to be repositioned. If there is any opposition to this change or choice of photo, please state your concerns. Thanks.Josh60798 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo looks good at the top of the infobox. I am going to let others place the map. They seem to be having discussions on other talk pages about the various maps, combining them, etc.. --Timeshifter 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

-I hate the be the asshole here but I just dont like the picture. The photo compilations that are usually used for War articles are widely used for a reason, most wars are very complex. I dont doubt the authenticity or the intentions of the soldiers in this photograph but it should not be used as the centerpiece picture for the entire article... this is the kind of picture that the Department of Defense would release and therefore isnt neutral. Someone should make a photo compilations and include this picture in it. - Blake

If you can find a better photo, more power to you. I looked, and there are very few good photos of the Iraq War on wikipedia or the commons. I mean photos that show some of the reality of the casualties of the war. Not just the typical gungho photos of tanks, attack helicopters, and guys on patrol. Please encourage people to upload more casualty photos.

Here is the reality. There is a disturbing May 2007 New York Times slideshow of American casualties after an IED bombing. It is linked from the story here:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/07/1719/ - story

Slideshow: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/05/22/world/20070523_SEARCH_FEATURE.html

There is another casualty photo here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0412-07.htm

Due to the lack of detail visible on a 300-pixel-wide compilation photo at the top of an infobox such compilation photos are not compelling enough to be a lead photo for a wikipedia article about an ongoing war.

I agree with you about photos found on U.S.-military-associated websites. Most are cheesy. See

http://www.army.mil/mediaplayer/armyimages/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter --Timeshifter 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the lead picture here.

One of several old Iraq War header photos

--86.29.246.148 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the compilation photo at 300 pixels wide that was used for awhile at the top of the infobox:

Image:IraqWarHeader.jpg

Another problem with it is that it uses 84 kilobytes even at this width. Various images have been used at the top of the infobox over time. We keep looking for better, less-cheesy ones to use there. --Timeshifter 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Use a dramticly smaller version or reduce the resalution to save on memory Kilobites.--Freetown 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to draw people into the article. It is not a very compelling photo collage even at the current 300-pixel-wide setting used for the Iraq War header photo. A smaller version will make it even less interesting. --Timeshifter 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The best hedder image could be this, it's so apropriate---86.25.50.222 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the headder picture is boring, but it's not naff. I think this reprisents the true meaning of the war for me.

File:Saddamstatue.jpg

Happy Irqaie rebels pull down the immage of there opressor, in the famous 9 April 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Firdos Square in Baghdad.

--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:30, 25 July 2007 (U

The picture is too pro-triumphalism, is staged as a P.R. Stunt and peace of anti-Iraqi propaganda.TC)--Atlanic wave2. 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool it, nurds!--86.29.248.245 11:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You warn us about etiquette and then call us "nurds". -- VegitaU 11:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking if you think a picture of an American soldier carrieing and Iraqi child is appropriate! This doesn not show how the war is at all. You are giving people the impression the Americans are doing good and that's not neutral (and not true). The Honorable Kermanshahi 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely misleading to have that picture of the Soldier carrying the child at the top of this article. I can't believe anyone thinks that is NPOV. It makes it look like the Americans are engaged in some kind of humanitarian rescue mission. Whatever anyone's feelings on the war, a wikipedia article should not show such bias. —The preceding comment is by Gerrynobody (talk • contribs) 14:59, 31 July 2007: Please sign your posts!

I think this picture is so true to life in Iraq-

File:IraqiKilledApr2003ByMarinesDefendingBridge.jpg

A dead Iraqie soldier.

--86.29.255.39 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the dead Iraqie mentioned by User:86.29.255.39!--Toddy Ball 2 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'boreing' battel-map is best.--86.29.247.13 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I think the I.P. Numbers on this page may be meat or sock puppets.----Atlanic wave2. 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Try this one, it's very topical--86.29.241.253 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the lead picture here.

Stop posting below this line. -- VegitaU 12:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

POV photo

I think the current leading pic is US-POV and could imply that americans are there to help Iraqi civilians. It could better fit into a humanitarian mission, not in a conflict infobox. --TheFEARgod (?) 10:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this discussion? Please read the subject above. I don't think we're ever going to agree on one picture. -- VegitaU 11:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with TheFEARgod, and I picked the photo. I was looking for a wikipedia photo that showed some of the casualties of the war, but could not find any graphic ones on wikipedia. This is the best I could find. I hope somebody uploads some more realistic photos of Iraqi casualties. See the previous discussion mentioned by VegitaU. We may never agree on a photo, but we can keep trying to put better ones on the page. --Timeshifter 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How would a graphic photo of a disemboweled civilian be more neutral than the current one? The current photo is as good as it can be, IMO. It shows that civilians are being injured due to the instability caused by the invasion (+1 for the left), while showing the humanity of the invading soldiers (+1 for the right). Plus 1 for both sides equals a net gain of zero for both sides. That is neutral by definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.203.209 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than try and find the perfect picture that says in a thousand words that "This is the Iraq War" why don't we use the Iraq Operations Map in the Infobox and use the other pictures as appropriate throughout the article. Since this article is about the Iraq war and not about the casualties or humanitarian mission this should aleviate the picture discussion.--Kumioko 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about all aspects of the Iraq War: casualties, mission, maps, etc... No photo would be perfect. --Timeshifter 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The only leading pic I can think of that encompasses all aspects of the conflict would be the operations map, as it depicts the entire area in which all aspects of the conflict take place. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) My point was that no image can encompass all aspects of the conflict. So we have to choose what aspects to cover. I agree with previous comments that we should use a compelling image in order to interest more readers into delving into the article. Several other comments have been made that we shouldn't use obviously biased photos that seem to be glorifying one side or the other. Or their weapons. So I prefer photos of the reality on the ground. Such as the current header photo for the Vietnam War:

File:Burning Viet Cong base camp.jpg

I think the above photo is better than the typical tanks or helicopters photos. As at 2003 invasion of Iraq. Its current header photo of helicopters:

--Timeshifter 21:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, no picture will perfectly capture all aspects of the war (leave it to the article to do that), and we should instead opt for a picture that is compelling and, if possible, creates interest. I agree with you that generic photos of helicopters are not the best (or photos of destroyed buildings, as is a trend lately), simply because they could be in any war or battle. Whatever image is gone with should ideally have some identifying qualities. My original choice was one which showed Iraqi soldiers - the most numerous combatant, and my second showed an oil fire and convoy - two of the most attacked areas in the war. The current image is of good quality though, and does catch attention. It depicts the aftermath of what appears to be a car bomb attack on civilians, displaying the nature of the victims, the attackers, and the inability to restore order on the part of the coalition. These are identifying aspects of this war that do not necessarilly define others. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

how about this one?

I don't like the map because it represents just a few days of a five year event in such a sterile way. How about Baghdad burning at right? ←Ben^B4 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's graphic and intrseting.--86.29.247.13 07:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If we could get a more ground-level photo of Baghdad burning, and a few bodies lying around, then that would show more of the reality of the war. Either during the invasion, or around the time of the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and the looting anarchy. --Timeshifter 08:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we being either- Functionalistic, NPOV, pro-Coalition of the willing, POV, pro-Iraq, pro-Al Qaeda, 'Ramboistic' or anti-war? I vote for either the dead Iraqi and the American coffins, either would do!--86.25.54.26 11:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote? Wikipedia is not a democracy. We come to consensus here by logical arguments, not by votes. -- VegitaU 11:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

...and dose power lie with a ruling clique, not the prolateriate and membership?--86.25.54.26 11:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To find out, read this. -- VegitaU 11:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the lead picture here.

Stop posting below this line. -- VegitaU 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Consensus Discussion

The following discussion is a debate to reach consensus on what the leading infobox picture will be. All users all welcome to participate and all relevant arguments will be heard. Please do not just vote for one picture on the sole basis of "liking it" or disregard a picture on the basis of "disliking it". Offer your arguments based on close analysis and the criteria available. Please refrain posting pictures more than once. When submitting a picture for review, please post as [[Image:IMAGENAME.EXT|300 px]]. Please don't make thumbnails as they will warp the text when further pictures are added.

---

We have changed images so many times, and many people's arguments have shifted so many times, that this is extremely confusing and has a real sense of going nowhere fast. I have a few criteria which I will put out there for people to consider, as well as a few "non criteria," which we should not be using to disqualify images.

Criteria

• Good quality. The image should look good at 300px, which is the standard size for infobox pictures. Not only does this mean that the real picture should be 300px or more (to prevent pixelization,) but the original picture itself has to have been taken professionally. This criteria is fairly obvious, but should still be up here.
• Interesting/compelling. The image should also be interesting to look at. If its depicting a tank sitting by the roadside, this isn't that interesting unless the tank happens to be a new model of tank first introduced in that particular war, which played a pivotal part. In other words, a still life picture is not very interesting under most circumstances. It should have something going on, displaying action. War is defined by action and movement, and depicting this is key. Showing humans in the photo can also be compelling, and more interesting than one without humans.
• Uniquely relevant. The image should show something that is both relevant, and identifiable to the war. The Vietnam War example Timeshifter found above is a particularly good example, for all three of these qualities, but especially this criteria. It shows a napalm fire, in the jungle setting. Both of these things, when combined, almost instantly evoke the Vietnam war. Not every war has something so clear as that, but there are certainly things identifiable to the Iraq war.

Not Criteria

• All encompassing. A photo need not show all aspects of a war. The Vietnam War image is effective because it shows a few key elements of the war, in an interesting, good quality manner. It doesn't shove everything into the same photo, and doesn't try. It keeps the focus that it has.
• Depicts all sides. An image does not need to show all combatants. The days of both sides lining up in rows and shooting each other predated photography, and only rarely will both sides be in the same photograph. Such a photograph would obviously dangerous to take, and we should not wait for one to show up.

So with the criteria out of the way, here are a few ideas for what might be "uniquely relevant" to this particular war, and what we should avoid. Things that are uniquely relevant might be pictures of in the outside desert setting, pictures that show Iraqis (civilians, troops) convoys on roads, patrols, buildings of Iraqi architectural design. Things that are not uniquely relevant would be photos of death, photos of something inside with troops, simply photos of equipment not being used. There seems to be a trend lately to show destroyed buildings, but this is not unique to any single war and is in all. Troops in a room, or training at home, happen in every war. People die in every war. A photo need not show these things to be a good photo - and we should try and avoid them for that reason. Wikipedia is not censored, but there are things that make a good image, and things that make a bad image. So long as a photo meets to above criteria, I think it would be a solid choice.

Now finally, for a review of the last couple of images we have used.

• Good quality - Yes, I would say it meets that.
• Interesting/Compelling - Yes, it meets this as well. The wounded child is especially compelling, in addition to the Iraqi woman looking downwards in the background. This image is filled with emotions, and filled with humans interacting. It has a real feel of being a snapshot of something happening.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the Iraqi woman in the background in addition to architecture and desert setting lend themselves to this aspect. The fact that the child was wounded by a car bomb is yet another bit of relevance. Certainly these things aren't as identifiable as napalm in a jungle, but are probably some of the best ones we could get for this war at this point.

• Good quality - This is questionable. Its a nice map at full size, but certainly wasn't made for 300px. You cant read things at that size very well.
• Interesting/Compelling - Not really. At full size its interesting, but at 300px it is almost like a filler.
• Uniquely Relevant - Perhaps. At full size I would say it is, but again, at 300px, could you definitively say it was of this war and not any other war in Iraq? I suppose the red triangle is identifiable, but that's not enough to carry the whole image.

stupid, IMO. Some operations shown, some (more important) not. --TheFEARgod (?) 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal attack, but tell me, what "important" operations are left out? -- VegitaU 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Iraqwarimage.jpg

• Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
• Interesting/Compelling - It has a nice human element to it, especially the third soldier back who is looking right at the camera. You can get a good sense of their emotions from it. I think the wounded child image is more compelling, but this still fits the requirement in my view.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, it shows Iraqi soldiers with their "un-uniform" uniforms, a rather motley crew. Note that only some have camouflaged helmets. Its in a desert of course, which helps establish the setting.

• Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
• Interesting/Compelling - So-so. It lacks a human element, yet the photo carries a level of interest due to the nice setup. The smoke gives it an almost artistic quality, and the lack of negative space, and good placement of the Humvee and helicopter make it a good image in this sense. I don't know that this is enough to carry it though.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the convoy/oil fire combination is effective, in the desert, at establishing the setting as Iraq.

So, from this, I would have to say that the top image is the best we have so far. This is all just my analysis of course, but I hope that trying to put forward a concrete criteria of what makes a good image can help move things along. If others can find better images, we can compare using the criteria, and hopefully find an image that is the most agreeable. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing work, Rangeley! No matter what picture is chosen it is good that more photos are being found. I have been categorizing them here: Category:2003 Iraq conflict. I hope people categorize more images. Just put [[Category:2003 Iraq conflict]] at the bottom of the image page. I hope people upload more images, too. I believe all images from the military or individual soldiers anywhere in Iraq are considered public domain. --Timeshifter 07:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have solid criteria to follow. I applaud you.

I have an image sent home by a relative which I may submit for consideration. I haven't uploaded it yet, but it shows a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter parked beneath the distict "twin swords" monument under which Republican Guard troops used to parade. It is a high-quality photograph and, although it does not show any people, it cannot be mistakenly associated with any other war. From this description, do you think it would be worthy of consideration if I were to submit it? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can find it, it would certainly be worth a look. Even if it isnt used in the infobox, it sounds like something that would work in the article itself. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a realy compelling and intresting photo to me.--86.25.52.233 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here it is.

File:Blackhawk-CrossedSabers.jpg or

~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good quality - It looks as though it was taken either in overcast weather or in the evening (probably the first due to the fuzzy shadow), so the lighting is not optimal.
• Interesting/Compelling - Without humans, and without movement, it seems sort of set aside and out of the action.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the hands of victory are obviously identifiable as Iraqi, and the architecture, but I dont think these make up for the two other points.

I think it might work as an addition to the Hands of Victory article though. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• This picture is an awsum display of America's overwelming military and political omnipitance in the Gulf after the war 'officaly ended'.--86.29.241.114 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is visualy pleasing and a good sumarry of the events.--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• The second picture is the better one.--Comander E.I. Davis2 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE: I added the second photo I think is of more better quality --TheFEARgod (?) 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

File:TrialSaddam.jpg

• This is unique to this conflict.--Kerry Perry 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Abraham's tank wreck is also apropriate and compelling, to. --Toddy Ball 2 04:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It horrific and just gloryfies death!--86.25.52.233 04:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Beat this!!! The U.S. Army] Private Lynndie England holding a leash attached to a prisoner collapsed on the floor in the Abu Ghraib prison!!!--86.29.246.193 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with it.--86.29.240.115 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a low quality and of a immoral subject (torture).--Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

More Abu Ghraib images are found here:

commons:Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse --Timeshifter 07:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a low quality picture. -- VegitaU 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, so far we have: Child-in-arms, War Map, Iraqi Soldiers, HMMWV and helicopter, Hands of Victory, Saddam at Trial, Burned Tank, and Iraqi on Leash. I also have to remark to stop making exclamatory remarks like BEAT THIS!!!!111!! This is not a competition and to the writers to make these, I would highly advise you read WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:BATTLE. This adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to undermine the argument altogether. Such remarks will be disregarded in the future. Please make objective remarks on why the picture would serve best when placed up against the criteria at the top. Make an argument that will generate discussion. Thanks. -- VegitaU 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Images section break 1

• I have reviewed all the pictures on the commons and found this is the one I like most. For me, this illustrates the war in Iraq the best; just as soldiers in the jungle and a burning Vietnamese village illustrates the Vietnam War the best. This picture follows all the criteria set forth above. It is good quality, compelling and active, and relevant to the situation. -- VegitaU 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a good image from User:VegitaU. --Freetown 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
• Interesting/Compelling - Yes, it certainly has a human element. You can clearly see peoples expressions, and that they are looking in different directions, clearly being active. The front person is peering around a corner, which leads one to wonder what he sees.
• Uniquely Relevant - Yes, I have to agree with VegitaU that this is one the most identifiable scenes from the Iraq War. Its a several man patrol going around the streets of Iraq, searching for insurgents.

This is another image I like, along with the first picture (of the child.) The one of Saddam is not actually in the war, but seperate to the war, and the prisoner abuse is just a component as opposed to the war itself. They are both good pictures for their respective articles/sections though (trial and abuse). The destroyed tank is not compelling (active, human element) or uniquely relevent (destroyed tanks are fairly common.) ~Rangeley (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the Child-in-arms picture as it shows war from the victims perspective, which is usually unrepresented, but still a very important and sad aspect of war.--Raphael1 04:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• It would be intresting to have a headder picture of the 'oppersition' for once. This picture of the Iraqies on the eve of war dose this. User:VegitaU's picture of the troopers is a good shot to.--86.25.51.217 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Disregarded for bad-faith vandalism here. -- VegitaU 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

VegitaU. Please stop editing other people's comments. That is a serious breach of WP:TALK. You can be reported to WP:ANI for that. I removed the strikeout code. The diff you linked to was not vandalism. And current vandalism does not allow past non-vandalous comments to be struck out. WP:TALK lists very specific things that justify removing text. Such as completely offtopic comments, blatant over-the-top insults, etc.. Also, stop removing images. It makes the thread difficult to follow. The fact that the images may make the text wrap a little imperfectly is not a big deal on talk pages. --Timeshifter 08:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, I'd appreciate it if you came to my personal talk page to discuss this issue instead of here in this discussion page, but hey, whatever... From WP:VAND: common types of vandalism include the addition of…bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense.' And that's exactly what I deleted, in my opinion: "[[I'm glad to see old tango breath is on tryal today!]]" First of all, these unregistered users all mysteriously hailing from the same place with similar IP addresses have been fairly disruptive in this talk page.([8], [9]) Sorry, if I seemed to be going a little rogue deleting comments and all; I apologize; yes, it was out of line, but don't come here and threaten me with WP:ANI. If you want to go there, feel free…this issue has proven to be really frustrating and I'm trying to find out who these disruptive users are. User:Yancyfry jr and I have already started sock puppet reports to try and get a grasp on the situation. I've been trying to limit the nonsense that has kept appearing over the past week or so on here while trying to carry this discussion in an organized, sensible manner with the pictures presented clearly for everyone to discuss. I did not feel these unregistered editors were editing in good faith. Thanks for your concern. --VegitaU 14:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see why you get frustrated dealing with some of the unregistered users' comments. I do too at times. I commented here because I did not want others to also start editing others' comments. We also have to take into account WP:BITE. --Timeshifter 16:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm choseing the chopper under the Hands of victory. It has a unique historical role, captures a moment of global importance (the fall of Baghdad) and has a pleasent visual simitry to it.--Pine oak 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC) It is aperent to me, that the Hands of victory picture was staged as a P.R. Stunt and is not of any real value to the site. --Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe we can rotate the images. I really like many of the images people are finding. I keep categorizing more and more images to Category:2003 Iraq conflict. Some of the images need to be categorized to subcategories there. Feel free to do so. --Timeshifter 07:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All I'm sure of is that the image of the child and soldier is utterly unacceptable. Rangeley left out one very important criterion, the image needs at least to follow rudimentary neutrality guidelines, the impression conveyed by this image is atrociously pro-American. I also disagree that it is interesting or compelling, it strikes me as rather tame, particularly as the focus is on the soldier, the least interesting aspect of the photograph.Nwe 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I left the issue of NPOV out of the criteria was no accident. I wanted to get discussion past the "when I look at this, I interpret it as showing...," and towards aspects which we could constructively discuss. I think that if there is an image which fails NPOV, it probably fails the other aspects as well. For instance, a staged photo would likely not be interesting or compelling, except in the rarest of instances (Battle of Berlin). And as is the case here, you do not find this photo particularly compelling. In that case, I suppose we can just move on to another image. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A posible unique late commer- Baghdad burns after a Shock and awe campainge.

• Good quality - Definitely
• Interesting/Compelling - An explosion is always dramatic.
• Uniquely Relevant - The abbr. IED, I think, says a lot about the Iraq War --TheFEARgod (?) 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally like this one too. A perfect example of the ever-present car bomb explosion... a regular event, it seems, in Iraq. -- VegitaU 15:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So do I, its very far from ideal, but seems to be the best we have.Nwe 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An IED is certainly a uniquely relevent aspect, but the lack of a human element is a big negative. How do people think this compares to the above image of a patrol? ~Rangeley (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Both the car bomb image and the soldiers on patrol image are fine photographs, but I don't think they should be selected. The car bomb picture lacks any human element to it, as stated above. The soldier patrol image indeed contains people, but I would say that the soldiers are very much obscured by their gear and sunglasses. The people end up looking like just generic American soldiers, and I would rather not present soldiers in that way.Josh60798 05:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sooo, any other comments about this? I would hate to see all the air escape from this effort. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So it seems to me that we've narrowed the candidate pool through discussion to the following:

• Child
• HMMWV and Helicopter
• Hands of Victory (one of them)
• Army Patol
• Car Bomb

From these, what can we further say about them to reach an end agreement? Personally, I like the patrol picture, followed closely by the car bomb picture. -- VegitaU 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Car bomb, Army patrol and either Hands of Victory are of perticular relivence to this artical--Comander E.I. Davis2 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the HMMWV and the Army patrol.--Freetown 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

From discussion, it seems like the patrol image has the most positive, with one negative that the soldiers are slightly obscured by their gear. The car bomb image is also up there, but its lack of humans is an even bigger negative. I would support putting the patrol image up to end this issue, as it appears to be the best we have at the moment. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Patrole,Hands of Victory and HMMWV with hellicopter have the best picture clarity.--86.25.55.118 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Child portrays the conflict like a humaniterian rather than counter insrgency campaing, which gives it a false impression to the readers.--86.25.55.118 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the Hands of Victory (helicopter).--Pine oak 01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Images section break 2

Pine oak, you obviously have a skewed view of this discussion. Please read WP:DEMOCRACY and understand that this is a discussion, not an election or popularity contest. We reach consensus here. Let me also say that I'm amused at how all the "new" unregistered users and others seem to creep out of nowhere with their misspellings, irrelevant links, and poor editing to sway this discussion. Sock puppets, anyone? Oh wait, I shouldn't bite. -- VegitaU 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As concerns votes and consensus most editors with user names tend to pay attention more to the opinions of other registered users. The Iraq War article has long gotten edits and comments from unregistered users. Some have been vandals. That is why the article itself is semi-protected. There may or may not be sock puppets in this discussion. But please don't make blanket accusations against unregistered users you disagree with. --Timeshifter 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who am I disagreeing with? I made a statement about my amusement on the appearance of "new" unregistered users, not their comments. -- VegitaU 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It seems that you are attacking Pine Oak for the links he left in his previous comment. Seemed a little heavy-handed to me. Lighten up. It gives the impression also that you disagree with their image choices, too. Like the time you struck out a comment from someone choosing a particular image, and said it was irrelevant because they had made a so-called vandalous comment previously. And attacking people for their misspellings has long been a no-no on most forums (not just wikipedia talk pages). Instead, I suggest recommending the Firefox browser to people. It has a spellchecker built in. It works great and in real time. I use 2 browsers. Internet Explorer and Firefox. The IP addresses of many people changes over time. So it is not surprising that unregistered users are often found using new IP addresses. Many internet providers assign dynamic IP addresses. --Timeshifter 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. I never said I disagreed with Pine oak. I said Wikipedia was not a democracy and that to reach a meaningful end, consensus through discussion was needed since he just said "I vote for [this]!" And yeah, as I already explained above, 'my bad' in crossing out a comment after vandalism. Oh, look we just had more vandalism from those pesky unregistered users…darn; don't want to seem too "heavy-handed" in my approach. -- VegitaU 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So what? Just because some unregistered users are vandals does not mean they all are. Let us stop discussing this offtopic stuff here. We can use our talk pages. --Timeshifter 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you we're the one who began posting here and not on my talk page. Hey, check it out, someone just deleted comments from unregistered users…oh, wait, you only get on my case about it. -- VegitaU 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I also remove obvious vandalism from registered or unregistered users. But I don't keep a running log on talk pages, or attack unregistered users in general. Nor do I use their mistakes to attack their opinions. I commented here because you attacked their opinions here, based on their mistakes (some of it was just mistakes or not understanding the rules here, and not vandalism). I don't want others to do these kinds of attacks either. And I want to encourage sincere newbies to help out at wikipedia. So I comment here. You started this by attacking some of the unregistered users too harshly. --Timeshifter 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It seems to me, then, you don't understand vandalism, personal attacks, and what happened. I disregarded an unregistered user's comments based on his vandalism. Then, I suggested that Pine oak read WP:DEMOCRACY to understand why simply "voting" was not a constructive way of furthering the discussion. Nowhere did I make any personal attacks against these users based on their opinions. I really don't care what picture we use, in the end, so long as the discussion is worthwhile and productive. That's why I set up this box apart from the rest of the talk page discussions. Please show me the "mistakes" you mention. Adding double-commas to other people's edits and other nonsense sure doesn't seem like a good-faith mistake to me. And where is your constant vigilance "reverting vandalism"? You revert edits to your comments, not to anyone else's. And you revert my edits to the article. Did I vandalize the article? No, I don't think so. But I'm sure what you do isn't "too harsh", right? -- VegitaU 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you are saying I don't revert some vandalism? Well, I do, and I don't waste talk page space reporting on it. You want a medal? --Timeshifter 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt really matter who started it here, it belongs on either of your talk pages as it doesnt deal with images. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It deals with people's opinions of images. I am willing to take this to talk pages, though. --Timeshifter 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Images section break 3

So does anyone object if we put up the patrol image? ~Rangeley (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll get no opposition from me. -- VegitaU 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I object if it is intended to stay up a long time. I think we should rotate images. Some people do not want the reality of the war (death, gore, and casualties) to be shown. Especially of Iraqis. So they like these gungho, posed photos of U.S. soldiers on street corners, or helicopters under monuments, or a statue coming down. --Timeshifter 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think periodic rotation is a great idea. Just keep a copy of the diff here so when you are inevitably accused of edit warring by an overzealous but well-meaning administrator, you'll have a get-out-of-jail-free card. ←Ben^B4 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. What's the point of rotating images? It just seems like we can't come to any clear decision, so we're going to try and satisfy everyone. Unfortunately, once someone's "favorite" picture is rotated out, someone's going to come in and declare NPOV and start the argument all over again. We should decide in this discussion what picture to use, post it, and defend it from changes. The pictures in the Vietnam War and World War II articles haven't changed in years. I see no point in rotating pictures like a slideshow. -- VegitaU 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Patrol and the Child have a more human element.--Atlanic wave2. 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) The 'Child' and 'Patrol' are the only ones with a human and topical nature. rotation is not a good idea, it's unessasery.--Atlanic wave2. 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely oppose setting out to rotate images on a regular basis. This discussion tried to find the best we currently have, with the intention of using that image. I would not want to see images that we determined were sub-par be used, but thats what rotating would inevitably do as it uses not just the best we have but also the not so good. But its not like we will use this image forever, if that is your fear. I bet that eventually a better image will come along that can take its place. But when that one comes along, we would go through the same process we did here, judge it through criteria and compare. There would be no more edit wars or "I like this better" wars, it would have an orderly process. Im not completely happy with this image either, but I think it is good enough to accept as a way of ending the disorder we previously dealt with. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case I am opposed to this photo. Because it adds little to the article. It is just a typical guys-on-patrol photo that can be found for almost any conflict zone nowadays. And it is a photo of Americans. So it doesn't show anything of the Iraqi side of the war. Rotation would allow us to show the Iraqi side too. Changing the photo once a week, or thereabouts, would make a lot more people happy, and they might even come back to the article every few weeks just to see the latest header photo. If they are consistently compelling enough. --Timeshifter 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that this is Wikipedia. If we rotated images it would almost certainly cause problems and disagreements on a regular basis, and chances are it would create a situation even worse than that which we had before. For that reason, is there a picture we have found thus far which you prefer more than the patrol image? I still want to settle on one image to use until a better one comes around, rather than throw the page into the quagmire which would occur if we had to find a steady stream of agreeable images. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) We could archive the image talk with a special name such as "Header image discussion". I know how to do it. We can put a link to it at the top of the main talk page. We can continue all header image discussion there, and paste stuff there from the main talk page too. That way if newbies to the discussion complain we can point them to the link (in bold red letters) at the top of the talk page. See the red link at the top of Talk:Jerusalem just above the table of contents. Here is an iconic image below for this war. Long after this war is over this photo will be remembered. Women in the military, torture, and Abu Ghraib. Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.--Timeshifter 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib. Sabrina Harman posing over the body of Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner tortured to death in United States custody in November 2003.

I think Abu Ghraib pictures have their place, but not as the header for this war. There are thousands of honorable soldiers fighting brutal battles across Iraq. The ones who participated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse should not represent the "Iraq War". Yes, it's a very good picture, but I don't think it belongs as the header for this article. -- VegitaU

The image would work for the specific section, or for the article dealing with that topic, but it is too limited to a specific event for it to be the image we choose for the entire war. A nice comparison to this image would be the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad. That too is an iconic image, for more reasons than one, but it is hardly suited as an image for the entire war. For the specific Battle of Baghdad (2003) article, on the other hand, it is suited due to it being specifically of that event. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)\

(unindent) I am sorry Rangeley, especially considering all the work you have done in this discussion, but I suggest just keeping the map at the top. I think almost all the other images would offend as many people as they would please. Many people absolutely do not want an image at the top that puts the USA in a bad light. So a map is better than some cheesy pro-USA image at the top. The war is in IRAQ. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. Far more have been wounded. --Timeshifter 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We do have the image of the wounded Iraqi child, and the Iraqi soldiers. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Coalition Forces preparing for an evening raid. The British are co-located at Camp Viper, Iraq. The British forces are from 2/1 Battery, 16th Air Assault Brigade. They are working between Basra and Camp Viper, providing Force Protection.

May be we could have a British picture to make a safe compromise over. It is neither Iraqi or U.S. and dose show servicemen at work on the battlefield.--Comander E.I. Davis2 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to have an Iraqi in the image. Otherwise, let us use the map image. Maybe we can rotate images with Iraqis in them. Maybe we should make an informal rule at wikipedia to always have someone in war header photos who is someone who grew up in the area of the war. It seem like such a systemic bias to do otherwise. Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Here I will probably settle for almost any image with an Iraqi in it. But there are so few at Category:2003 Iraq conflict. That is telling about the state of English wikipedia. --Timeshifter 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are few not because of a bias, but because of a lack of available free images. This image contains Iraqis, is it suitable enough? ~Rangeley (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Iraqwarimage.jpg

• This would be a very good picture as well, being that it's an active one with an American helicopter and Iraqi troops. It used to be the header picture until October 2006, when it was replaced by the four-way split. -- VegitaU 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ba'athist Iraqis on the eve of war-

The picture is of Iraq's new troops and thus bias, partizan and irrelivent. The image should only be either of Ba'athist forces or coalition forces.--Comander E.I. Davis2 02:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: The whole point of the war is to rebuild Iraq into a functional democracy with an able military. This is exactly what the picture implies. -- VegitaU 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

--Freetown 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the photo isnt even of the war, and not of an active combatant, I dont really think that one should be used. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the image was a cooked up by an Iraqi P.R. firm or sympathizer to make them look 'cool' before the war broke out. --Atlanic wave2. 11:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Images section break 4

May be this could be used instead of men?

Baghdad after a shock and awe attack.

.--Freetown 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

^{Dopy image.}

No, it doesnt meet any of the criteria. Not suited for an infobox, not compelling, not uniquely relevent. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks phony to me, like a CIA mock-up zaped on to a Google image. Freetown and many others have fallen for a fake, I don't beleve it, but it's all so true!--Kerry Perry 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you click on a wikipedia image, you can read the image description page to find out the source of an image. That image came from NASA:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=10149 --Timeshifter 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, then why is it of such a low resilution? Google has better maps of Baghdad and Basra!--Kerry Perry 13:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC) See-

[[10]]

Central Baghdad and Saddar city at 2,000ft and 500ft resilution!--Kerry Perry 14:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Google maps are copyrighted. -- VegitaU 15:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the wikipedia image is a copy of the highest resolution version available from that particular NASA page. Click the image until it stops enlarging. Both the wikipedia image and the NASA image need to be clicked to enlarge them.

NASA probably has even higher resolution versions, but may not post them online due to bandwidth constraints. --Timeshifter 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K., I'll click them and see them in full.--Kerry Perry 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think an effective way of choosing a picture, on top of the mentioned criteria, is to pick one where you immediately realize where it's from. That is, without a caption, the viewer knows it's from the Iraq War and doesn't have to think too deeply about what exactly the picture is conveying. Most of the ones we've seen (HMMWV and heli, patrol, Iraqis and heli) all convey the "Iraq War" without any captions, but ones such as the "Baghdad Burning" picture just raise the questions: "Where's this from?" "What is this about?" It isn't immediate and sure in the viewer's mind. -- VegitaU 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, how is the picture of Iraqi soldiers in your view? ~Rangeley (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's got the 'human factor'.--Freetown 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer either of the casualty photos below. But neither are remotely as compelling as some of the casualty photos of Iraqi kids in pain after being wounded that one can find elsewhere on the web. --Timeshifter 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

or 

This is the only photo-reality in the Iraq war.--Toddy Ball 2 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first picture doesn't exclusively denote the Iraq War straight out. It isn't even set in Iraq. It looks like it could have come from any number of American conflicts. The second, however, is certainly compelling, active, good quality, and identifiable as having come from the Iraq War. -- VegitaU 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the second one above is realistic in that it shows a casualty of the war. Here below is an Iraqi casualty:

Sergeant Michael Daugherty, a medic from the 1st Cavalry Division, lifts a wounded Iraqi police officer into an ambulance at Forward Operating Base Normandy March 2, 2007.

There are only a few casualty photos here: commons:Category:Iraq War--Timeshifter 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Right-o. Like the one above. These casualty photos do make excellent candidates alongside the other "battle operation" photos. I don't think we're any closer to coming to a decision though. I think we should try first choosing the category we want as the header…battle operations, non-battle photos, or casualty photos? This discussion has become very long (which is a good thing!), but for new readers, it may become a little intimidating or complex, so I'm going to draft a summary at the bottom as a list of all the pictures submitted and the standings at this point. -- VegitaU 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than limit ourselves to a specific category, we should keep ourselves open to whatever might be the best image. The only exception is non battle photos, or photos before the war/separate, which are simply not relevent enough. Out of the casualty images, most fall short for the same reason that the "Army Patrol" image falls short - while containing humans, you cant see their faces. The photo of American coffins with flags over them could easilly be anywhere. Out of the casualty images, the only ones which show faces are "Child in Arms" and "Wheelchair Man." The wheelchair man photo is too big for the infobox, but could it be cut to fit? I dont remember if we are allowed to edit photos.

Out of the battle images, the "Hands of Victory" images are too dry and not very compelling, along with being, as Timeshifter said, kind of a gungho type image. As said above, the "Army Patrol" has humans, but you cant really see their faces, "Car Bomb" has no humans, "HMMWV and Helicopter" has no humans, "Iraq War Map" obviously has none (and lacks many other things.) That leaves us with "Iraqi Soldiers and Helicopter." They are Iraqis, you can see their faces, its good quality at 300px.

File:Iraqwarimage.jpg

Those are the only three images that remain in my mind. All three have an Iraqi element, two also have a coalition element. What image of these three do people think best captures the war? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always been privy to the "Iraqi Soldiers and Helicopter" ever since it used to be up on the article. I feel it's illustrates the war perfectly, even without a caption. However, I'm not sure about "not being able to see their faces". Up in the criteria you mentioned how well the Vietnam War picture went with the article, but the soldier's face in the picture isn't visible…or, at least, it's less visible than the Army Patrol picture. Except for their sunglasses and chin-straps, I can see their faces fine. A picture can be just as powerful from behind or to the side as a close up from the front. Here are my three picks in order of preference:

File:Iraqwarimage.jpg

The first contains a coaliton element, the second is starkly clear without a necessary explanation, and the third is what comes to my mind when I think of operations in Iraq. -- VegitaU 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can put that second one up for now until we find something better. I don't think it has been a header photo yet. Several of the other ones have been header photos already. --Timeshifter 03:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think an image which includes Iraqis would be far more preferable and representative of the war. I dont see wounded American soldier as being particularly unique - if we are going to go with a casualty photo, it should at least have an Iraqi element, though the Iraqis with the helicopter is better than the Iraqi wheelchair photo. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the photo of the Iraqis being left by the helicopter better? Those kind of photos are common to many wars. It seems kind of generic to me. --Timeshifter 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How about us all compromising on the Iraqi being lifted into the ambulance. It seems to be one of the top choices for all of us. It does not seem generic. Especially when it is captioned. --Timeshifter 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely be able to compromise to that. I don't know if it will fit in the infobox, or have to be cropped a little, but it's a good picture nonetheless. What say the others? -- VegitaU 01:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That would work for me. I have cropped the photo to appropriate size, and made the colors slightly warmer (it appears to have been taken in cloudy weather.) Heres how it looks:

Is it good enough to put up? ~Rangeley (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As the person who originally uploaded it, I would like to withdraw HMMWV and Helicopter from consideration. It seems to me that there are better images to choose from, and I would appreciate if the image could be listed for removal. Thank you for checking it out, but it doesn't look like the image will work out and I would like this debate to be concluded as swiftly and smoothly as possible. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Others may find the photo useful for different parts of this article or others. --Timeshifter 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a defining moment on the part of our history comparable to the fall of the Berlin wall. The pictures are active, relevant and pertinent. The Pulling down of the statue is also instantly recognizable as far as it's location is concerned. The land mine is also appropriate, since it's summarises the daily fear of booby-traps the troops have to live with.

File:Saddamstatue.jpg

--Comander E.I. Davis2 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The first is too limited to the 2003 battle of Baghdad, the second is not actually a war image, and the third is simply not active enough. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What about Saddam's jail-house Obi Wan Kanobi impression!

--Kerry Perry 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Try the Australian S.A.S. or thes Polish pictures. The jeeps are active, the dock a thriller and the croud is both high qality, easly located and shows faces verry well

Posibaly.

may be.

a good contender.

--Pine oak 02:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

None of these pictures meet the criteria we set forth on relevance and action. Please read over the criteria and stop uploading random images you come across. -- VegitaU 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheelchair Man

A medic lifts a wounded Iraqi police officer into an ambulance

What does everyone say about the "Wheelchair Man" picture as thus? I would prefer to settle this tedious discussion soon. -- VegitaU 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The picture is both compeling, well done, high-quality and well-cut. It's apropriate due to Iraq's and America's heavy sacrifice in the war so far.--Kerry Perry 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Prehaps the 2 could be rotated with it?--Toddy Ball 2 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

File:IraqiKilledApr2003ByMarinesDefendingBridge.jpg

--Toddy Ball 2 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The dead Iraqi is inactive, faceless and of a very low picture quality--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Wheelchair Man' is very sad, emotive and activated.--Toddy Ball 2 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The list below is a summary of every picture submitted for consideration and the current standing as far as the discussion generated. Please feel free to edit this list if new discussion is made, but please don't make major changes without a clear explanation why. Continue the consensus discussion above. Thank you.

Battle Ops Iraq War Map Iraqi Soldiers and Helicopter HMMWV and Helicopter Hands of Victory Burning Tank Army Patrol Baghdad Burning Car Bomb British Land rovers Australian Land rovers Polish dock Toppling Saddam's Statue U.S. trooper with landmine Polish army team

Non-Battle Saddam at Trial Lynndie England Sabrina Harman President George Bush Saddam Hussie(AKA Obi-wan Kenobi) Iraqis on Tank Casualty Child in Arms Saluting the Fallen Marines Carry Fallen Dead Iraqi soldier Wheelchair Man Carrying Fallen to Helicopter

Please add a discussion of the intelligence leading up to the war

One of the most controversial aspects of the Iraq War is the intelligence that was used to justify it. Please add the following paragraphs in a section discussing the intelligence that led up to the Iraq War.

[text added to article ←Ben^B4 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)]

Bubbatex 17:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that needs to be added. I can't believe it wasn't in there. ←Ben^B4 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So why not add it yourselves? Then again, this article is already reaching Biblical size; you may want to rethink it. -- VegitaU 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it is huge, but this stuff is more central than some of what we already had. I'll refactor as soon as I track down the supposed UAVs off the Eastern Seaboard which belongs in there too. ←Ben^B4 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this topic needs some urgent atention aswell.--Comander E.I. Davis2 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A usefull set of links!

War veterens- [[11]]

War dead- [[12]][[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]]

Liars- [18]

Iraqie femanists- [[19]] —The preceding comment is by 86.29.255.39 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 30 July 2007: Please sign your posts!

This Thing is Huge

I was opening the Iraq War article today and I thought there was something wrong with my internet connection. This article has reached critical mass. We are at 133Kb... that's over four times the size the Wikipedia recommends an article to be. Not only that, but the Manual of Style on article size states that after 100Kb, the article should "almost certainly…be divided up". Suggestions? And this problem will require a little more than just "make another snip here". We already have enough sub-articles to fill a library. We need a major overhaul, IMO. Massive mergers, cuts, and divisions. -- VegitaU 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:SUMMARY the "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" section down to one paragraph. I think I see some other low-hanging fruit ←Ben^B4 10:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Down to 112 KB. There's probably more WP:SUMMARY and refactoring to do, but I'm not up for any more at the moment. It's harder than it looks. ←Ben^B4 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is going to take a major long-term effort. -- VegitaU 11:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the refactoring I can think of is done, and all the easy WP:SUMMARY work is done. ←Ben^B4 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the links in the external links section can be moved to the relevant spinout articles. See WP:SPINOUT. I already moved the casualty-related external links to Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?.

I dislike all the show-hide tables. They add a lot of kilobytes, and little substance. Since one has to go elsewhere to get the info. I think there should be a page with just those tables of lists. We should just link to that table/list page. Just like we lead people to other table/list pages if they want to get more info.--Timeshifter 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When I save the page, and check "properties" for just the saved HTML source code, I get 483 kilobytes. So I don't know what they are measuring to come up with 111 kilobytes when one clicks on the edit button for the whole page. And they may not update that 111 kilobyte number with each edit. I deleted some more and more stuff today, and it still said 111 kilobytes when clicking the full-page edit button. --Timeshifter 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You can probably move show/hide tables to template spage, though I don't know what the policy is for such used in just one article. 75.35.113.248 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We are down to about half the size of fr:Friedrich Nietzsche. ←Ben^B4 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smaller pictures, say 150px for the lot exsept for maps and the headder shot.--86.25.54.26 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

War's Other Names

The following is a discussion between myself and VegitaU on VegitaU's talk page regarding the alternative names that could be mentioned in the article's first paragraph, and whether "Operation Iraqi Freedom" equates to the war as a whole. I've copied it to here because at this stage it relates mostly to the article's content.Nwe 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate, and do not deserve, being addressed in such an aggressive manner as you just have on my talk page. If you have a problem with my edits, change or request citation in the appropriate areas, and address them with me in a calm and polite manner, and I will reciprocate. Edits that are made in good faith, as mine clearly was, should be considered in a respectful and civil manner. Nwe 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you got rid of a well-known fact, and replaced it with an unreferenced statement. That's why I cited you on your talk page. Sorry if you thought it was "aggressive", but I never made any uncivil remarks. -- VegitaU 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes you did, you were utterly uncivil. You said my edit was "nonsense", and even "vandalism" in your edit summary, prefixed it with this icon, , when there was no need. It is not a well-known fact. I, for one, always took "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to describe the initial invasion. If I am wrong in that then I apologise, but I have heard it used to describe the emergence insurgency. Even if it is ongoing, then it still merely includes "coalition" military operations, which is not the same as the conflict, which now mostly involves internecine Iraqi fighting, as a whole. It is also, incidently, unreferenced. If your problem with the rest of my statement was merely referencing, then you would also have excluded this name, and besides you could merely have requested citation. I would have obliged. And as I have already said, even if you do believe that I only "got rid of a well-known fact", and replaced it with an unreferenced statement", that does not mean I did not act in good faith, and hence deserve an element of civility and respect.Nwe 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read the citation, you'll notice I never used the word "vandalism". When I reverted your edit, I cited you with Twinkle on the basis of adding unreferenced material to the lead. It generated the message and I added a personal note about the nonsense. You had just deleted a well-known, unchallenged fact and replaced it with an unsourced conjecture. It seems you were genuine in your effort and I apologize for offending you, but I stand by my decision. Anyways, I added a source to OIF just to clarify even further: Operation Iraqi Freedom is an ongoing conflict…it hasn't ended. -- VegitaU 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you apologise for your original message though, or simply for offending me? Apologising for offending someone is usually a cop-out, meaning the person making it actually sees nothing wrong with what they have done. As I have said, it is not a well-known, unchallenged fact. OIF refers to "coalition" military operations in Iraq only, not the conflict in its entirety. If Twinkle is inappropriate to the edit you are making then simply don't use. You also need not have reverted the entirety of my edit, but could merely have requested a citation. Your edit summary uses the word "vandalism", and it was also uncivil to refer to my edit as "nonsense".Nwe 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I apologize for offending you, but I stick by my decision to revert the edit. Since the war was propagated by the United States and it is the major party in the conflict by far, Operation Iraqi Freedom is a correct term to use for the war. The argument you make that it doesn't refer to the conflict in its entirety is reflected in the article: "or in the U.S., Operation Iraqi Freedom". OIF isn't the title of the article. The article deals with the "Iraq War", but "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is what the U.S. calls it and that is written into the article. If you find a source for Third Gulf War, by all means add it. That actually wasn't what led me to revert—it was the fact you deleted 'OIF'. -- VegitaU 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you stick to your decision to call my edits "vandalism" and "nonsense" and and have a hostile message posted on my talk page? The Iraqis, not to the US, are the major party in the conflict by far. The current version of the article is inaccurate because, while the title is Iraq War, the conflict in its entirety is also know as OIF. Are you really saying that when Sunnis blow up a Shia market or when Shias mutilate a few dozen Sunnis, which is what most of the current violence in Iraq consists of, then that is regarded in the US as a feature of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", even though it doesn't involve Americans in any way? If you only had a problem with part of my edit, you should only have reverted part of it.--User:Nwe 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As you've posted our entire conversation here, allow me to retort with the central question: Should we continue having Operation Iraqi Freedom in this article or not? -- VegitaU 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its typical to still note the operation name in articles, if a different name becomes more well known and is used as the article name. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, wholly. -- VegitaU 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But the article and the war, as I argue above, do not equate.Nwe 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read your argument, Nwe, and it is, to put its simply, incorrect. You allege that because not everything done in the war is done by the USA, we cant note the original US codename. I would point you to Operation Barbarossa, an article which describes the well known phase of WW2. Not everything described in the article was carried out by Germany, indeed, it also describes the Soviet responses during the duration of the German operation. That is the case here, where America initiated the operation, and has yet to declare it ended (as is noted by sources.) Another more recent and apt comparison is to the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict, where, like here, the article is not named after the operation, yet the operation is noted in the introductory paragraph. The article doesnt just describe what Israel did, but also the Palestinian responses. This article does not just describe what the USA does, but also the responses. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you've misunderstood my argument. It isn't that not everything done in the war is done by the US, its that most incidents in the war don't even involve the US. Operation Barbarossa does give details of the Soviet responses to the Germans, but then all of those responses affected and were related to the Germans. You regard the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict as a more apt comparison. For a start, as you yourself say, even in this article the Israeli operation codename is merely noted, not given as an abosolute alternative title. In the same way Barbarossa is defined as "the codename for Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union", not "the first sixth months of fighting on the Eastern Front in World War II". Returning to your Gaza analogy, consider another article, which I don't believe exists, called something like "Fighting in Gaza in 2006". Events described in this would compare far more smoothly to our article. But you couldn't say that fighting in Gaza in 2006 was "also known as Operation Summer Rains in Israel", that would be absurd, because a significant amount of the fighting didn't involve Israel directly at all, but was between Fatah and Hamas. Nwe 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that train of thought, but heres the problem: This article is not about fighting in Iraq between 2003 and onward. Its about the US initiated war. There is an article about the Civil war in Iraq, which I would certainly not say is part of the US initiated operation - yet it would be included in a general article detailing fighting in Iraq were one to be made.

I do, however, take issue with the opening paragraph stating that in the US, it is called OIF. It is not - thats the US military's term for it. I have never said that it should be viewed as an "alternative title," to the same level that things such as Second Gulf War are viewed as alternative titles, but I do think that it should be noted as the initiators military operation name. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And just as a note, the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict is not a perfect example. In that case, Operation Summer Rains was declared over in July, whereas the article describes a conflict which goes on to November and includes operations beyond it. This is different from here, because OIF continues. One is a case of a conflict which began with an operation yet goes beyond it, another is a case of a conflict which was conceived as an operation and continues at it. If, at some time, OIF is declared over yet this war which was initiated by it continues, we would do the same thing done at the Israel-Gaza article and state it was initiated as OIF by the USA. I actually thought that this was the case here, with OIF only being the name for the invasion phase until discovering otherwise recently. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But though the war was indeed US-initiated, it does not solely involve incidents affecting the US military, but violence in Iraq in its entirety, including Sunni-Shia violence etc., although not in the same detail as Civil war in Iraq.Nwe 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The civil war resulted from the US initiated war, but is not entirely seperate or parallel. Some aspects are relevent to both, for instance the destruction of the Samarra dome led to increased sectarian violence, which US forces attempted to deal with. There are certainly aspects which are unique to one or another, such as a specific firefight between Sunnis and Shias. I dont think this specific firefight would be considered a part of this Iraq War - but lets say that there was an across the board increase in firefights. As a trend, this might turn into a catalyst for a change in policy by the US forces, in which case it would be relevent to note the trend as relevent to this article. There are a lot of nuances here (and above, with the various cutoffs with whether a conflict is within an operation, or beyond one.) ~Rangeley (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply because it was a consequence of the US invasion does not mean it is a feature of OIF. Both wars are indeed very far from parallel, which is why all fighting in Iraq is in the same article, but the fact remains that a large proportion of fighting in the Iraq War has no direct US involvement. I am certain that a firefight between Sunnis and Shias would have to be considered part of this Iraq War, as this seems to be the article that includes all aspects of conflict in Iraq. Fighting between Sunnis and Shias very well might affect US policy indirectly, but most incidents will not, and the connection is far too vague to justify the equation of all bloodshed in the country to the US operation. The influence that this type of activity would have on US operations would be much more indirect than the impact on, say, Russian operations on Barbarossa. Can we also agree to a change at least in the wording of the current first paragraph, before further discussing whether the operation needs to be mentioned at all.Nwe 13:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If all you wanted is a rewording, I already stated that the military operation name should not be given the same weight as names that are used popularly in areas. "I have never said that it should be viewed as an 'alternative title,' to the same level that things such as Second Gulf War are viewed as alternative titles, but I do think that it should be noted as the initiators military operation name. " This article is not about general fighting, and really I challenge you to take a look at the infobox and tell me where Sunni-Shia fighting fits in. It does not, because this conflict is defined around the United States (and allied forces) efforts in Iraq, against the various (and sometimes unaffiliated) forces which have put up resistance. The civil war is not a feature of OIF, and I never said this. The Iraqi civil war is a "consequence" of this war, but its not entirely parallel and things which happen within the civil war can be relevent to this conflict as it is defined. Its these specific aspects which are noted in this article, not every aspect of the civil war. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have hered it called the '3rd Gulf war'. Iran-Iraq= 1, Gulf war=2, Iraq war=3. --Atlanic wave2. 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is absolutely about general fighting, it is intended as the article that documents the general course of all fighting in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, much of which by now hardly involves "coalition" operations at all. The infobox is extremely imperfect, even more than infoboxes generally tend to be, however the article describes increased sectarian violence in 2006, the militias, the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and the refugees. Actually there should be much more weighting towards the consequences and conduct of the among the Iraqi population, who are, I repeat, the central group in this conflict, but even in its current form the article is categorically about more than mere US operations in the country. I could accept some reference to the operation name in the opening peragraphs, but it has to be much more peripheral than it presently is. If you even look at the article on the Second Gulf War, Desert Storm, which was used in far more frequently than OIF is used in the case of this war (when did you last realistically here the fighting in Iraq referred to as OIF?), is only mentioned at the end of the intro.Nwe 14:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is imperfect because the resistance forces are not all outright allies with each other. Instead, they are where they are because this war is defined around the coalition and its efforts. This discussion is truly reaching a level of pointlessness - we agree that the name OIF is rarely if ever used anymore by the general population. We agree it should not be used much in this article. But we can do this (and we will do this,) without compromising the reality that this specific war is defined around a certain combatant and their efforts. As I said above, a specific firefight between a sunni group and shia group would not be included in the Iraq War. The casualties of that sectarian violence would not go on either side of this infobox - instead it would go on the Iraq civil war article. But that firefight might lead the coalition to move troops to that area and attempt to end the violence. If coalition troops were killed by those groups, we would note it here, and if the sectarian groups had people killed, we would note it here. Because the coalition is occupying Iraq, and the mission is "attempting to restore order," things such as sectarian violence levels or humanitarian conditions are relevent because they are the "barometers" if you will by which they determine where to send troops, what tactics to use, etc. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I say above, details of sectarian fighting IS included in this article. The Iraqi civil war article is a fork of this article, not a description of a parallel conflict. The firefight(or, more likely, the bombing or kidnapping and execution) would be included in the info-box. All three sources for Iraqi deaths on the info box -Iraqi Body Count, Lancet and the Iraqi Health Ministry - would count the fatalities caused by this violence. The reason the info-box only depicts a two-dimensional conflict is that the war is two complex to be summarised in any other way. The Iraqi Civil War article is only three-dimensional, which is nearly as inaccurate. I'm a bit confused now about where you stand on the use of OIF, would you accept a change to a more peripheral position?Nwe 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about the general violence in Iraq, it is about the coalition initiated war. I completely agree that the civil war is not a parallel conflict, and never argued that it was. It is not, however, the same conflict as this. Some aspects are shared, others are not. The Lancet study shows, at least as I understand, the amount of people who have died in Iraq who would not have otherwise died if the war did not occur. This is an interesting statistic, but it includes deaths from increased crimes, electrical outages, etc. Though deaths from sectarian fighting might be included in the total, it doesnt mean that all sectarian fighting is in this war, any more than all deaths due to power outages are. Deaths from sectarian fighting would not, however, go on either side of the infobox, because fighting between sectarian groups is the civil war, fighting between the coalition/allied forces and other groups is this war. And as I said above, I do not think that OIF should be treated as an alternative name on par with the other names which have gained their place through popular use. The opening sentence which has the phrase "in the U.S., Operation Iraqi Freedom" is misleading because it is not referred to this in the US, popularly. It is the US military's name for the conflict, and this would be accurate to state. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox "Combattants" and "Commanders" sections

Infobox Military Conflict has the option for three columns of combattants and commanders for a reason, for situations just like this one where there are three sides to a war, all fighting each other. If we include the Shia and Sunni groups all together on the left side, we make it seem like they're working together. It would make much more sense if this article had one column for Sunni forces (including Baathist Iraq), one column for Shia forces, and one column for Coalition and Iraqi Government forces. VolatileChemical 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We've got some Sunnis working with al Qaeda, and others fighting them. And the alliances are changing over time. At some points some Shias have worked with al Qaeda, I believe. And then there are the foreign fighters of all persuasions working with all sides, and fighting against some sides and each other. Hasn't there been some factional fighting among Shias, too? I don't remember. And there are many other groups, too. See Iraqi insurgency.

So I think the current infobox setup is fine. As the saying goes, "If it aint broke, don't fix it." The infobox says it is a multi-sided conflict. If that is inadequate, maybe the wording in the infobox could be improved. --Timeshifter 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. There are a lot of nuanced sides with shifting allegiances, but those are covered in the text, and if we tried to represent them in the infobox, there wouldn't be enough columns. Leaving it with the two sides of the invasion doesn't try to oversimplify because it's going to be seen as such. ←Ben^B4 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if allegiances are changing? If we put Sunnis fighting al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda itself in the same column, we're not saying they're necessarily supporting each other, we're just saying they're the same basic group—Iraqi Sunni Insurgents. You're saying we shouldn't do that because it would seem like the anti-Qaeda Sunnis and al-Qaeda were working together, or two rival Shia groups were working together, or things like that.
Ask yourself, which is worse; the table making it seem like enemy Shia groups or enemy Sunni groups were working together, which is what you're saying I'm proposing, or the table making it seem like Sunni and Shia groups that are enemies with each other (the conflict between which is much more clear-cut and defined) are working together, which is how it is now?
The Iraq civil conflict—one of the main, as yet unrepresented in the infobox, aspects of the Iraq War—is Sunnis and Shias fighting each other. The fact that some Sunni groups are opposed to one another, or some Shia groups are opposed to one other, is minor when compared to the main aspects of this war. The way the infobox is now, we're saying that the conflict between the insurgents and the Coalition is more important that the conflict between insurgents and other insurgents. Allegiances, alliances and opposition within the sects is not part of this war. No one would consider the animosity between the Islamic Army in Iraq and al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of the Iraq War. Conversely, anyone would consider the conflict between the Mahdi Army and Jaish Ansar al-Sunna as part of the Iraq War.
The way we have the infobox now, it would appear that the main fight is Coalition versus Insurgents. If you don't do your research and don't search other articles, and just look at the infobox in the "Iraq War" article, you would think the only fight is Coalition versus Insurgents. The phrase "multi-sided conflict" only hints that these groups on the left might be combating each other, let alone violently and intensely combating each other.
Basically, the current scheme is presuming that the main fight is Coalition versus Insurgents. It might be; it very well might also be Sunnis versus Shias. We shouldn't assume with this infobox, like we do now; we shouldn't assume it's sufficient to have one conflict clearly represented, and another only hinted at, and cryptically at that. That would be akin to having the Coalition and Sunnis on one side, and the Shias on the other. I mean, both the Coalition and the Sunnis are fighting the Shias. It would technically be correct. It would be wrong, but it would be technically correct. But it's still wrong, because it makes it seem like the Sunni insurgents and the Coalition are working together. Which they're not. The best we can do is represent the situation as it is, without picking sides as to what's more important. And I don't see any other way to do that besides having three columns for Sunnis (including Baathist Iraq), Shias, and the Coalition. VolatileChemical 06:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, my proposed "Coalition" column includes the Kurdish Army and the New Iraq Army, in case anyone wanted to catch me on that. VolatileChemical 06:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sure seems like you've thought about this. Why don't you fork the first few sections off to your userspace and work out what you want so everyone can see your proposal? I'm sure an include/don't include decision once people can see exactly what you mean will be be easier for everyone to reach consensus on than the image decision. My skepticism is rooted in the fear that you will not have sufficient horizontal space for three columns, and widening the infobox will be somewhat problematic. So, let's see what you have in mind. ←Ben^B4 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Ben. Show us what you have in mind in a sandbox off your user page. Just paste in [[/Sandbox]] and [[/Sandbox2]] and [[/Sandbox3]], etc.. on your user page. Then experiment for awhile. When you have it set up the way you like, tell us about it, so we can see what you mean.--Timeshifter 10:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I.P.numbers

I think the I.P. Numbers on this page may be meat or sock puppets.--Atlanic wave2. 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why the page has been semi-protected.--Commander E.I. Davis2 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No updates since March

I notice there have been no updates to your (incredibly biased) article since March. Too much good news happening lately, which you can't bear to report? I'm telling you guys, when we win this thing you're all going to look very foolish. The only way your prophesies of doom can come true is if you manage to convince the American people to quit. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I'll be here trying to win the country's wars.

From Iraq with Love. 216.40.86.90 00:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And I noticed you've been vandalizing other articles. Getting bored? If you feel around to it, edit this "incredibly biased" article, as you call it, to your liking. Do something productive, you might surprise yourself, but we don't need another whine about POV here. Oh, and I didn't realize Chantilly, Virginia was in Iraq. Heh. -- VegitaU 00:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For one, this is the only time I have posted in Wikipedia. And two, yes I am in Iraq. So obviously your foolproof way of tracing me is very flawed, just like your knowledge of what is going on over here. I am using a public computer in an MWR, so I suppose it is possible that someone else posted on Wikipedia from this computer in the past. However, whether or not it was "vandalizing" is something I couldn't comment on. I'm certainly not going to take YOUR word for it after I've seen your grasp of the truth as reflected in this article as well as in your accusation that I'm falsifying my military service.

216.40.86.90 01:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"A public computer in an MWR"? For over an hour? Right. Being that I've actually been to Iraq, I know that there's no way you can spend that much time on a computer. Rules in Balad were for 15 minutes a day. And your way of talking gives you away. An "MWR"? No one uses that term…unless they Googled it up. Ahem, so tell me, what branch of service are you from? And I take it, you'll be responding tommorow since a quick response would kill your credibility. -- VegitaU 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple- why don't you both name the heroic regiments you served in! Also, is this what is meant by a MWR [20]?--Freetown 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple: Because it would be a possible OPSEC violation and I want to avoid problems. MWR: Moral, Welfare, and Recreation. -- VegitaU 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

...And if you cold say what actual section was 'biased', then we may know what needs fixing. I also don't see any point in squabbeling over military service. Mutualy assured destruction (MAD) by peronsal attack (PA)? Make peace and sort out the supposed bias together.--Freetown 02:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note, that there have been updates to this article since March. Unfortunately most of those updates were bad news. (i.e. coalition dead increased from 3,241 US and 134 UK to 3,684 US and 168 UK) "Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war." (Winston Churchill) --Raphael1 02:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Offer to include

If anyone wants to leave just a URL to a news report in a reliable source such as an independent newspaper or news agency, here or on my talk page, I promise to incorporate it into the article. I've added lots of stuff since March, and very little of it was good news but that wasn't my choice. I've been tracking the corresponding Conservapedia article, and they don't have much good news either. In the past week the Sunnis left Maliki's government, and just today Maliki announced a pipeline deal with Iran. I considered adding those but didn't. ←Ben^B4 03:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some intresting sources here, Ben4-

[21][22][23][24][25]

--Freetown 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

More sources-

[[26]][[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]][[33]]

--Freetown 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen those, and I think they're generally well represented, with the counts updated at least once per day and at the top of the article. Is there a particular story you had in mind? ←Ben^B4 03:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I beleve the steddily mounting allied deaths deserve a page of ther own- 'Coalition of the willing and Iraqie deaths in the Iraq war.'

We have Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003, List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006, List of insurgents killed in Iraq. ←Ben^B4 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[[34]] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]] [[38]] [[39]] [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] [[46]] --Freetown 14:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I said "a URL to a news report." Pick just one please. ←Ben^B4 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They apper to be too bias towards the Irqies/insergents to be taken seriosly any how.--Kerry Perry 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)