Talk:First Battle of Fallujah

--Kumioko 21:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is at least 75% about the precursors to the US campaign.

Okay, are there any sources which say the US was motivated by a desire for revenge or retribution? In other words, were Americans letting it get personal?

What happened during the operation? How many soldiers on each side died? Were there any civilian casualties? Was there any ambiguity about Iraqi deaths due to rebels not wearing uniforms or otherwise identifying themselves as "non-civilian"?

What was the result of the offensive? Did any land or buildings change hands? Did the new Iraqi government issue any requests or decrees relating to the disposition of US or other forces? Did any Islamic religious figures make comments?

this node is seriously biased. i recommend scrapping it. Jabbi 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Locations of death of Marines killed

With extencive resarch I have found the locations of death of 20 Marines who were not killed in Fallujah but are listed as killed in that battle, 15 were killed in the Battle of Ramadi and 5 in Huysabah, I will remove those 21 from the casualty count and put there names here so you can veryfy this.

Killed in Battle of Ramadi:

Pfc. Moises A. Langhorst, 19, of Moose Lake, Minn.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 5 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

2nd Lt. John T. Wroblewski, 25, of Oak Ridge, N.J.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; died April 6 of injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Pfc. Deryk L. Hallal, 24, of Indianapolis, Ind.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Fernando A. Mendez-Aceves, 27, of Ponce, Puerto Rico; assigned to the Naval Medical Center San Diego, 1st Marine Division Detachment, San Diego; killed April 6 while conducting combat operations in the Anbar province, Iraq.

Pfc. Christopher R. Cobb, 19, of Bradenton, Fla.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Lance Cpl. Travis J. Layfield, 19, of Fremont, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Marine Staff Sgt. Allan K. Walker, 28, of Lancaster, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Lance Cpl. Kyle D. Crowley, 18, of San Ramon, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Pfc. Ryan M. Jerabek, 18, of Oneida, Wis.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Lance Cpl. Marcus M. Cherry, 18, of Imperial, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Lance Cpl. Benjamin R. Carman, 20, of Jefferson, Iowa; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

Lance Cpl. Anthony P. Roberts, 18 Company E, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Bear, Delaware; Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 6, 2004

Pfc. Christopher D. Mabry 19 Company G, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Chunky, Mississippi Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 7, 2004

Lance Cpl. John T. Sims Jr. 21 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Alexander City, Alabama Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 10, 2004

Pfc. Eric A. Ayon 26 Company E, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Arleta, California Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 9, 2004

Those killed in Battle of Husaybah:

Lance Cpl. Michael J. Smith Jr. 21 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Jefferson, Ohio Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 17, 2004

Lance Cpl. Ruben Valdez Jr. 21 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force San Diego, Texas Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 17, 2004

Lance Cpl. Gary F. Van Leuven 20 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Klamath Falls, Oregon Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 17, 2004

Capt. Richard J. Gannon II 31 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Escondido, California Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 17, 2004

Cpl. Christopher A. Gibson 23 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Simi Valley, California Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 18, 2004

Page move

As part of an ongoing attempt to be less US-centric, I am moving this from "Operation..." to "Battle of...". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I also added 11 citation_neededs, and reworked much of the article...we don't need two paragraphs discussing hospitals' counting methods, it can be easily summarized in a single sentence. This article is in a ghastly state, for having been the largest battle of the most widely publicized on-going war. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuratre casualty count

I know you have made a lot of changes but your US casualty figures are way off. The link you provide talks about the November 2004 attack. Casualties were in the 20 - 40 range for KIA. Please fix the infobox and correct the link.--Looper5920 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the article is mine, I just rewrote things into proper sentences and such. The casualty figures, same thing. I have no idea where they came from, they're the same stats that were here when I started. I'll try and find sources, if you can find the same, maybe we can get this article half-decent. Appreciate the notes and corrections. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if we assume that the Battle did indeed end on May 1st, then we are indeed looking at maybe 30% of the US casualties originally listed. Here's a list I made myself by going through casualty reports for the month. On some of the people, I double-checked they were indeed killed in Fallujah, others only say "Anbar province", but I'm making the assumption they were related to Fallujah since it was the only Anbar offensive at the time. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Lance Cpl. Aric J. Barr 22 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Died of injuries received from enemy action in Anbar Province, Iraq, on April 4, 2004
2. Pfc. Geoffery S. Morris 19 Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Gurnee, Illinois Died of injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 4, 2004
3. Cpl. Tyler R. Fey 22 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Eden Prarie, Minnesota Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 4, 2004
4. Cpl. Jesse L. Thiry 23 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Casco, Wisconsin Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 5, 2004
5. Lance Cpl. Matthew K. Serio 21 Company C, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force North Providence, Rhode Island Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 5, 2004
6. Pfc. Christopher Ramos 26 Company C, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Albuquerque, New Mexico Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 5, 2004
7. Lance Cpl. Shane L. Goldman 20 Company C, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Orange, Texas Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar Province, Iraq, on April 5, 2004
8. Lance Cpl. Anthony P. Roberts 18 Company E, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Bear, Delaware Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 6, 2004
9. Capt. Brent L. Morel 27 Company B, 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Martin, Tennessee Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 7, 2004
10. Pfc. Christopher D. Mabry 19 Company G, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Chunky, Mississippi Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 7, 2004
11. Lance Cpl. Christopher B. Wasser 21 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Ottawa, Kansas Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004
12. Lance Cpl. Michael B. Wafford 20 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Spring, Texas Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004
13. 1st Lt. Joshua M. Palmer 25 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Banning, California Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004
14. Staff Sgt. William M. Harrell 30 Company B, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Placentia, California Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004
15. Lance Cpl. Phillip E. Frank 20 Company G, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Elk Grove, Illinois Died due to enemy fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004
16. Cpl. Nicholas J. Dieruf 21 Weapons Company, 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Versailles, Kentucky Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004
17. Lance Cpl. Levi T. Angell 20 11th Combat Service Support Group, 1st Force Service Support Group, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force St. Louis, Minnesota Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004
18. Cpl. Michael R. Speer 24 Company F, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Davenport, Iowa Died from hostile fire in Iraq on April 9, 2004 (Al-Anbar, even though it doesn't say so)
19. Lance Cpl. Elias Torrez III 21 Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Veribest, Texas Died from hostile fire in Iraq on April 9, 2004
20. Pfc. Chance R. Phelps 19 L Battery, 3rd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Clifton, Colorado Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 9, 2004
21. Cpl. Matthew E. Matula 20 Headquarters & Service Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Spicewood, Texas Died from hostile fire in Iraq on April 9, 2004
22. Lance Cpl. John T. Sims Jr. 21 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Alexander City, Alabama Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 10, 2004
23. Pfc. Eric A. Ayon 26 Company E, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Arleta, California Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 9, 2004
24. Pfc. George D. Torres 23 Company B, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Long Beach, California Died due to enemy fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 11, 2004
25. 1st Lt. Oscar Jimenez 34 Headquarters & Service Company, 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force San Diego, California Died due to enemy fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 11, 2004
26. Lance Cpl. Torrey L. Gray 19 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Patoka, Illinois Died from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 11, 2004
27. Lance Cpl. Brad S. Shuder 21 Company E, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force El Dorado, California Died from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 12, 2004
28. Lance Cpl. Robert P. Zurheide Jr. 20 Company E, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Tucson, Arizona Died from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 12, 2004
29. Cpl. Daniel R. Amaya 22 Company K, 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Odessa, Texas Died from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 11, 2004
30. Pvt. Noah L. Boye 21 Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Grand Island, Nebraska Died from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 13, 2004
31. Cpl. Kevin T. Kolm 23 Company A, 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Hicksville, New York Died from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 13, 2004
32. Sgt. Christopher Ramirez 34 Company B, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry, 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division McAllen, Texas Died from injuries sustained during combat operations in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 14, 2004
33. Lance Cpl. Michael J. Smith Jr. 21 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Jefferson, Ohio Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 17, 2004
34. Lance Cpl. Ruben Valdez Jr. 21 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force San Diego, Texas Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 17, 2004
35. Lance Cpl. Gary F. Van Leuven 20 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Klamath Falls, Oregon Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 17, 2004
36. Capt. Richard J. Gannon II 31 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Escondido, California Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 17, 2004
37. Cpl. Christopher A. Gibson 23 Company L, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Simi Valley, California Died due to injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 18, 2004
38. Lance Cpl. Aaron C. Austin 21 Company E, 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force Sunray, Texas Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 26, 2004
39. Petty Officer 3rd Class Christopher M. Dickerson 33 Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14, 3rd Naval Construction Regiment Eastman, Georgia Killed when his military vehicle hit a roadside bomb while traveling in a convoy in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004
40. Petty Officer 2nd Class Jason B. Dwelley 31 Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14, 3rd Naval Construction Regiment Apopka, Florida Killed when his military vehicle hit a roadside bomb while traveling in a convoy in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004
41. Cpl. Scott M. Vincent 21 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Bokoshe, Oklahoma Died due to hostile action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004
42. Cpl. Joshua S. Wilfong 22 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force Walker, West Virginia Died due to hostile action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004

In other news, fuck you all, I'm giving myself a self-awarded barnstar for that research ;) :P Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for such language. Where is your source? Wandalstouring 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

More casualties that Sherurcij missed

Here's another eleven soldiers that Sherurcij didn't put in his count.

43. Pfc. Moises A. Langhorst, 19, of Moose Lake, Minn.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 5 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

44. 2nd Lt. John T. Wroblewski, 25, of Oak Ridge, N.J.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; died April 6 of injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

45. Pfc. Deryk L. Hallal, 24, of Indianapolis, Ind.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

46. Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Fernando A. Mendez-Aceves, 27, of Ponce, Puerto Rico; assigned to the Naval Medical Center San Diego, 1st Marine Division Detachment, San Diego; killed April 6 while conducting combat operations in the Anbar province, Iraq.

47. Pfc. Christopher R. Cobb, 19, of Bradenton, Fla.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

48. Lance Cpl. Travis J. Layfield, 19, of Fremont, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

49. Marine Staff Sgt. Allan K. Walker, 28, of Lancaster, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

50. Lance Cpl. Kyle D. Crowley, 18, of San Ramon, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

51. Pfc. Ryan M. Jerabek, 18, of Oneida, Wis.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

52. Lance Cpl. Marcus M. Cherry, 18, of Imperial, Calif.; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

53. Lance Cpl. Benjamin R. Carman, 20, of Jefferson, Iowa; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.; killed April 6 by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq.

And also here is a link to veryfied information that 731 Iraqis were killed.http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/04/30/around_1361_were_iraqis_killed_in_april/

I can't believe there's no official US source for the number of fatalities in the operation, most frustrating to be digging through this ourselves. By the way, I think http://www.iraqbodycount.net/resources/falluja/ is a better resource, for citing the 616 Fallujan casualties claim, so updating. :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Result

Somebody changed the result of the battle from Insurgent strategic victory to temporary insurgent success, that is unfair, because it WAS an insurgent victory. Was it a temporary German success when the Germans took Paris? C'mon people!

Afterwards most French capitulated and France was split between regions controlled by the Wehrmacht and such under Vichy. Insurgent victory isn't that clear because the resolution of this conflict resulted in a non-US control, but still the US pulled the strings. I stick with stating it was no success for the US. Wandalstouring 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Insurgent victory? are you on shrooms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.223.179 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, "insurgent victory" my ass. And to use the analogy of the Nazis marching into Paris shows incredible weakness in grasping military/political balances and geopolitical shifts, or better said, reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.56.32 (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

For anybody who has this page watchlisted, I am debating applying for semi-protection since our anonymous vandal can't be blocked since he's using a non-static IP (originating from the same locale, identical edits, but non-identical IP addresses) for a week or so, while work is made to improve this article. It would only prevent anonymous editors from editing the article, everybody else is still strongly encouraged to help rewrite it. If you have any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace, etc, etc Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice upgrade, the page definitely looks better than before, btw to try and compromise with the anon editor I made use of a dual name system for the info box but retained all the edits you have done, and added some sources to the article.Freepsbane 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

M'eh, I'd still argue that tactically it was clearly an insurgent victory, but I'll let sleeping dogs lie in the infobox for now, as I hope to focus the bulk of clean-up on the main body of the article. You did a fantastic job finding sources for a bunch of those statements, which really cleans up the page and turns it from "some anonymous editor's opinion", to a well-referenced article. I'm off to Rome for a week, but when I get back, I'll try and help you clean up some more :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Material I deleted

I deleted:

Shortly after the elections however, U.S. troops were stationed inside the former Ba'ath Party headquarters, to oversee a military occupation of the city, ignoring the town council.[citation needed] This move was criticised in the media as being "undemocratic".[7]

Why: The information that we "ignored the town council" has no citation and is false. Back up this assertion with an article or I am removing it. Secondly, the article that is cited that supposedly says the media "criticised in the media as being 'undemocratic'" does not actually ever say anything of the sort. I find this assertion bizzare if it was made by the media since the entire country was under military occupation, but if the media ever did make such a criticism we cannot know from the citation provided: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.falluja/index.html).

I agree that the country was occupied and governed by the military. The choice of words in the article isn't good, fact is the US military administration didn't bother with some council that had been set up there. The democratic process for the establishment of this council isn't verified, but it seems to have had some links to influential people/groups. Wandalstouring 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted:

After repeated small-scale attacks against US troops, the Fallujah Protection Force was created as an Iraqi militia in support of the US presence.[citation needed] However, public sentiment within the city rapidly shifted towards anti-US feelings, and the increasing tensions resulted in a nightly 19:00-06:00 curfew[8], which only further solidified public opinion against the occupation.

Why: Because I am pretty confident that the Fallujah Protection Force was not created before the curfew or the incident at the school house. Information about the FPF should be included, but someone who has some accurate and perhaps more detailed info about the FPF should put it in. As it stands, the article hints that the FPF was created much earlier then it seems physically possible for the soldiers in Fallujah to do so (we had only been there a few days at that point).

Secondly, the article cited about the curfew is an article a year after the events of this section occured. There was an unenforced curfew when we first arrived in Fallujah (because we didn't have enough troops to enforce it, or even inform all the residents about it). I don't see how that could have much of an affect on the mood of Fallujah citizens. There was plenty else they were angry about. In any case, the article cited does not back up this claim: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.main/index.html

If you feel something mentioned in an article is doubtful put up a {{Fact}} template and tell on the discussion page what you feel is questionable. Than wait a few days (some of us have a live besides wikipedia). If the issue hasn't been sufficiently cited by then delet it, but otherwise deleting is considered very rude behaviour. Wandalstouring 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I added info to the statement:

After several protestors fired weapons into the air, US soldiers stationed on the roof began firing into the gathered crowd, killing 13. Two days later, a protest decrying the American shootings was also fired upon by US troops resulting in two more deaths.[9]

Why:Because this passage does not indicate that the soldiers claimed (were) fired upon first by the crowd. For this reason I simply added:

In both incidents US soldiers assert that they did not fire upon the crowds until they were first fired upon.

- Atfyfe 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a difficult issue because in this area people tend to fire guns on all occasions. If I remember correctly even during Saddam's time there had been regulations on firing into the air during celebrations (if you fire straight upwards in a crowded place with lots of people around you some bystanders get possibly hurt when the bullets fall down again). For celebrating crowds it is safer to fire upwards in an angle that let's bullets fall down outside of the crowd's place. Well, that can be pretty close to firing on somebody standing on the surrounding roofs (a behaviour typical for NATO, European and Israelian military, but something quite new to the Iraqis). Perhaps this section needs some more research what really happened. Most likely the accounts will differ because everyday things like shooting in the air will not be considered an aggressive or even mentionworth act from the natives point of view. Naturally the possibility of aimed or "misaimed" attacks included.Wandalstouring 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Failed or aborted

I was in the Battle for Fallujah, and I can tell you it was aborted. There was nothing more that we wanted than to push through the city, but "upper management" Generals and the President, said for us to stop. It was not a failure, due to the numbers we had attacking it possibly could have been but at the point in which we were stopped it was aborted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkurtz0311 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's really pretty easy to understand what the difference is, a failed operation was carried out or completed while failing to meet its objectives, and an aborted or abortive one was for some reason stopped before having a chance to meet its objectives. I really don't know why this is a big issue but I'm not going to continue fighting with stubborn editors. Rmt2m 14:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

By your definition then, Pearl Harbor wasn't an American loss, because troops never surrendered? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm sorry, that came across snarky, but I'm pointing out that if an army withdraws because they are unable to complete their objectives (at that time, they returned later that year and the Second Battle of Fallujah was a US victory), then it's a failure. I'm strongly on the side of labelling this battle as a Insurgent victory (failed US attempt to recapture...), and the second battle of Fallujah as the opposite. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I never mentioned surrender, I don't know where you got that from. Pearl Harbor wasn't an American operation, therefore it would make sense that they couldn't cease operations. Market Garden was a failure, Tet was a failure, but Vigilant Resolve was halted amid promises from the Iraqi gov't to quell the insurgency through talks. There is a difference. Rmt2m 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm good with the anonymous editor's change to "unsuccessful", if that works for you. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. Rmt2m 03:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

General notes to add into article

• I recall the talk at the time, of US troops occupying the city's hospitals - and refusing to allow military-age Iraqis with gunshot wounds to be treated. Only link I find at the moment is this Ha'aretz article, but I'll find more later. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All medical staff of the hospital would have been oath bound to defy this US-order. Perhaps the source misquoted something (that often happens in journalism). Wandalstouring 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would really like to see a template Template:BlackWaterDeaths be created allowing us to simply insert it into the many articles that have exactly one paragraph about the deaths, allowing the WP community as a whole to expand, whittle down, and create a single description of the events. What's valid and NPOV in First Battle of Fallujah is equally valid and NPOV in Blackwater USA. I know it goes against all WP precedent on the purpose of templates, but damned if it wouldn't be nice. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly should this Black Water Template work? I would tend towards a larger construction about mercenaries and private armies. Wandalstouring 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

General note about casualties, dates and other numbers

Just a note to all editors, especially those new to this article, who change the dates or casualty numbers freely - it is important to note that the United States "Operation Vigilant Resolve" lasted only five days, while the actual battle carried on throughout the month. This article is about the overall battle, not just what happened until April 9th, or whatever. Cheers :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's all well and good but the numbers are still wrong. Unfortunately it seems that the British rag you are using for a reference is also counting casualties from Ramadi, Al Quaim, etc... I would seriously question any numbers that report the KIA figure as being higher than that of the WIA figure. Usually it is a 1 to 2 or 1 to 3 ratio. Those numbers would also be wrong even if you added RCT-1's casualty figures from May, June and July as well. The first battle of Fallujah consisted of those events in the city of Fallujah and the KIA figures were in or around 35. Not all of Al Anbar province. The reason I have not changed it is that I have notsourced a reference. Saying I was there does not count. The only reference I could provide is a picture of the Memorial Wall that RCT-1 had in Iraq.....those dead Marines and soldiers that you "Do not speak for".--Looper5920 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

53 killed, that I've seen listed on the talk page. I think we're best to focus on using individual names, than relying on news reports that just say "x people were killed" - for this, since it seems to be highly misreported, both over and under. If you can grab a list of names, that'd be useful. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with Looper5920 I crossreferenced the units from where the killed guys came and came to the number 33, but I have crossreferenced them once again and have lowered the number once again. If the names of the participating units are correct than that would mean that only 26 Marines and soldiers were killed from April 4th to May 1st when the Americans withdrew from the city. I think we should decide with what number to go with 26,33 or more than 83 as some say which is just stupid. Before any of you make any jugment check the units as I did, I have already put the names of the killed and their units on this discussion page and crossreferenc them. See if it is 26 or 33, one of those. It most certanly is not 83.--Top Gun 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

53 Anbar deaths - 20 Ramadi/Husaybah deaths = 33 Fallujah deaths, which seems the most accurate to me, shall we go with that? I'm still unclear where anybody is pulling 83 from. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I just want to say it's frustrating that there is no OFFICIAL NUMBER of killed so we have to dig through all these names. OK Sherurcij you are dead on the money about those 20 Ramadi/Husaybah deaths, but I have found another 7 deaths that occured in Ramadi and Husaybah during april and were not releated to those battles but happened eather before them or after them. So 53 Anbar deaths - 20 Ramadi/Husaybah deaths - another 7 Ramadi/Husaybah deaths = 26 Fallujah deaths and all those corespond to the units involved. I will put the seven other names here so you can verify. Shall we then finaly put it 26 and be done with this already? And also put up a notice or something that nobody changes the number. The other seven non-Fallujah deaths:

Lance Cpl. Aric J. Barr 22 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Died of injuries received from enemy action in Anbar Province, Iraq, on April 4, 2004 (Hit)

Pfc. Geoffery S. Morris 19 Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Gurnee, Illinois Died of injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 4, 2004 (Ramadi)

Lance Cpl. Christopher B. Wasser 21 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Ottawa, Kansas Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004 (Husaybah)

Lance Cpl. Elias Torrez III 21 Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Veribest, Texas Died from hostile fire in Iraq on April 9, 2004 (Husaybah)

Pfc. Chance R. Phelps 19 L Battery, 3rd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Clifton, Colorado Killed by hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 9, 2004 (Ramadi-was killed as part of Battle of Ramadi, will have to add him to the count)

Petty Officer 3rd Class Christopher M. Dickerson 33 Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14, 3rd Naval Construction Regiment Eastman, Georgia Killed when his military vehicle hit a roadside bomb while traveling in a convoy in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004 (Ramadi)

Petty Officer 2nd Class Jason B. Dwelley 31 Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14, 3rd Naval Construction Regiment Apopka, Florida Killed when his military vehicle hit a roadside bomb while traveling in a convoy in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004 (Ramadi) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Top Gun (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry if I sound blunt but the Guardian says 83 KIA in Fallujah and as one of brit’s largest news papers it holds precedent over original research and we are going to stick to policy rather than the Danger Zone, so as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources we are going to use the Guardian’s body count rather than Top Gun’s original Research. If you don’t think that this is the way to go than contact an admin, but we are striking to rules and verified numbers rather than tabulating guesses.Freepsbane 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again I would just like to remind every one that Wikipedia Policy is very clear in this matter, the well known British “rag” trumps any editor’s original research no mater how well it may have been done.Freepsbane 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He is not tabluating original research, he is posting up verified PUBLISHED casualty lists. Just because a single newspaper backgrounder gives an (incorrect) number, is no reason to continue that misinformation. Every source except that one backgrounder gives the number of KIA as somewhere between 20-50...that single backgrounder in the Guardian makes an unsourced claim of 80+ KIA, and it's been pointed out that...what a coincidence...if the Guardian was accidentally using Ramadi + Husaybah + Fallujah statistics...they would come up with 80+. Reverting to "20-53" for right now, until we establish clear consensus, but there's definitely no call to be posting a casualty number up to 400% higher than actual. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We cant fix this by consensus, you cant verify information solely on editor consensus. This issue needs to get checked out by Arb com. This affair deals with the RS criteria and needs looking at from the higher ups.Freepsbane 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Ps. I would like to know where the information for the casualty lists above came from.

Another source - On page 342 of Thomas E. Ricks' book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, I quote: "Mattis was furious. 39 Marines and U.S. Soldiers had died - for what? "If you are going to take Vienna, take fucking Vienna!' he snarled at Gen. Abazaid......" --Looper5920 11:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I read that book and that part quote was from before the withdrawal so it comes before the endof the battle the final count was ceartanly much higher, we need a better sourceMarshalbannana 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Further more that quotation (according to the book) was from the end of the 1st week of fighting (around April 9). So if 39 deaths had already occurred in one week it is more than likely that in the remaining 3 weeks of the engagement (until may 1) the 44 missing casualties would occur this seems to add further evidence to the 83 theory. On a other note Fiasco states that at one point due to insurgent raids the 1st marine’s supplies had been reduced to less than two days worth of consumables should we add that to the article it may have been a factor in terminating the operation?Marshalbannana 17:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There were not 83 KIA. Yes those figures were for the first part of the operation but after the 9th things went stagnant. The Muj would get out of prayers...fire a few shots...then eventually things would escalate to where they would get a few tank rounds and then a few 500lb bombs dropped on them and then things would be quiet. Everyone was hunkered down and dug in by that point as well. The AC-130 kept the peace at night. Between April 9th and April 27th that is about all that happened. The exception being April 28th when 2/2 made a push from the south, met heavy resistance and then expeneded enormous amounts of GBUs with some good effects. The whole low supplies thing was for a few days in the beginning of the month and had nothing to do with the ending of the campaign.--Looper5920 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK people look. There were not 83 KIA. The Guardian was wrong. Damn, there were not even 83 killed in Anbar that month, there were only 53 killed in Anbar. Of those 21 were killed in Ramadi from April 6th to April 10th and during the battle of Husaybah. Plus another 6 were killed in Ramadi and Husaybah on other dates during April. That is not to hard to calculate. 53 - (21 + 6) = 26. 26 killed. Forget the newspaper stick to hard facts. Freepsbane asks were I got my information It's not so hard to find the names and units you got them at http://www.icasualties.org/oif and other sites. I just compared the units of the killed to the location of where they were stationed. 26 of the 53 killed in Anbar were all part of the participating units involved in the attack. the other 27 were stationed at Ramadi and Husaybah. For God's sake it's so obvius. 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division and 3rd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment were at Ramadi, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment was at Hit, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment was at Husaybah and the Naval construction battalion was at Ramadi. Do not just rely on one countrys newspaper. If you would bother to check the information as I did you would come to the same conclusion as I did. 23 of the deaths occured by April 14th after that only three more Marines were killed by May 1st, on April 26th and April 30th. The number for sure can not be 83 if that was the case then more than 150 American soldiers were killed in comparisan to the real number of 126 in April 2004. We need to put the real number. We can not just blindly put a number just one newspaper says so. This should be an encyclopidia. Hard facts people. And if you would edit these articles check the information yourself before you change anything. Out of the 53 killed in Anbar 21 were killed in the battles of Ramadi and Husaybah and another 6 on other days during April. Only 26 were killed in Fallujah.--Top Gun 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Top Gun It seems you are mistaken, it has already been established by the others with Thomas E. Ricks‘ Fiasco that 39 marines perished in the first Four days of combat, so we know it is certainly not your 26, further more as the Marshal pointed out if 39 fatalities were sustained in only four days of an engagement spanning from April 4 to May 1 it is certainly possible that the remaining 44 deaths would have occurred in the skirmishing that followed the initial incursion. On a final note while you may have gotten the names from a website the (faulty) math you have done is clearly original research, so as you said we should stick to the facts and use the Book and Newspaper as our sources, not an editor’s cobbled together list, (the 26-39 error clearly demonstrates the flaw with OR). I urge everyone to brush up on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research before resorting to such estimates. At any rate I believe this incident can only be solved through an Arbitration committee, so if no one objects we should forward this case to ArbCom. Freepsbane 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On an final note if you disagree with the published number of 83 take it up with the Guardians authors, email them or write to them just for God’s sake don’t take it out on me I am only trying to keep up with Wikipedia Guidelines, So don’t saturate my talkpage with hostile comments. Freepsbane 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen man the Guardian can make mistakes and you shouldnt keep just to that one news article blindly. If you would bother to check like Sherurcij and I did you would see that ONLY 53 soldiers were killed in Anbar and at least 21 were confirmed killed in the battles of Ramadi and Husaybah that is not faulty math as you said. It's faulty that you are so nearsighted. And as for the Thomas E. Ricks‘ Fiasco that says 39 marines perished in the first four days of combat I have checked and veryfied he ment 39 killed in the whole of the country not just in Fallujah if you would check the list of the casualties on http://www.icasualties.org/oif you will see that 39 were killed in the whole country from april 4th to april 8th. He ment the whole country. You can not go against reality man. And those were not hostile comments I am just discusing about a thing that you do not want to here about and are holding on to blindly to a wrong peace of information. The evidence is right in front of you. I am also for it to forward this case to ArbCom. Top Gun 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated I am not blindly holding to flawed info, the article is from a large well regarded source while your proposed addition lacks sources, and is conflicted by other info, most notably Fiasco that states the fatalities occurred exclusively in Fallujah. Now please go and read the wikipedia policy links I provided and see that definite priority is given to major sources, with both of the two we have correlating with each other 39 reported on april 9th, (fiasco) and 83 reported on may 1st (The Guardian), doesn't seem to blind to me. If you could please give me a verifiable and sourced count (from a major organization) that conflicts with the two above it would be useful.Freepsbane 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the ICC link you gave me says nothing to support your claims whether direct or indirect, and it lacks the notability or authority of one of the most prestigious newspapers in Brittan.Freepsbane 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A published list of individual US soldiers killed, outranks a Guardian backgrounder slideshow *and* it outranks the book. Why? Because both of those authors were "guesstimating", they did not provide facts (read, names, AARs) to back up their claims. You're going to have a hard time arguing that the US Army accidentally "lost" 60 soldiers without even noticing it in the years following. We have shown you a complete list of 50-odd soldiers killed that month...if you think we are missing soldiers, please provide the names, units or actions that the US Army has "forgotten" to report dozens of fatalities from. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The ICC webpage you showed me is unaffiliated with the United States military or any other large organizations, a quick Wikipedia search shows which of the three is more notable and it certainly isn't the website. Further more if it lacks affiliation with other reliable sources how are we to know if it’s information is reliable. The book and newspaper are at least peer reviewed and published by notable individuals and organizations holding authority on the subject, when choosing between a relatively obscure website and two notable published materials the correct choice should have been obvious. Freepsbane 14:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok well first of all I have to say that from where i'm standing this looks like an issue of one point with a potentially flawed but notable resource: The guardian and another point with a non notable, unverifiable source requiring the editor to go into a counting game to find the total; the http://www.icasualties.org/oif website. The only other good source Rick’s Fiasco established a fatality count of thirty nine by the fourth day, ruling decisively against the out icasualties eliminating the possibility User: Top Gun’s claim of 26 for the month long battle while at the same time supporting user: Frepsbane’s Guardian link by showing after that only four days into the battle 39 of the 83 deaths had occurred and leaving a window of three weeks to fill up the remaining casualties the guardian listed by may 1. in the three weeks of skirmishing that followed the first four days it is certainly possible to fit in a window for the missing 44. so by the above factors I am definitely inclined to come out for the Guardian and Fiasco, over the obscure website and math. On a final note I would like to thank everyone for having the sense to negotiate this dispute in the talkpage rather than burning down the article page in a massive editwar. However I believe we must take care to ensure that trolls that have avoided the talk page and make senseless edits don’t brake down this fragile compromise and draw us into a all-out editwar. We need to remember that nobody is actually attacking the other and to take care to be civil in our discussions lest we run the risk of ending this diplomacy. If we have to we can use Arb but I believe we can sort this out ourselves.Marshalbannana 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You want notable, how about CNN, one of the worlds largest news networks, you want to say that they are not a large verifyble organisation check out their list of casualties for april 2004 at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2004.04.html Count the number of servicemen that are killed in the whole month it will be 126 , not including other foreign forces, and count the number of those stated by the DoD to be killed in Anbar it will be only 53 and those DO NOT include only in Fallujah but Husaybah and Ramadi also. Check that list and do not tell me that Wikipedia does not recognise CNN. Or maybe the Washington post at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/ What's up with this Guardian it's not the only news source in the world guys. Check out CNN's and Washington posts sites. When you check you will see that it maches the ICC webpage and it will also mach http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html That's four sources against only one the Guardian , of which two are NOTABLE CNN news and the Washington post. Guys some news sources can make mistakes. And don't tell me now that both CNN and the Washington post are wrong (plus to ICC and Honor the fallen memorial sites). Check these sites and you will see that the Guardian source is uterly inacurate. Top Gun 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

After searching the Washington Post,and CNN list you have kindly provided I have found more than enough deaths occurred in the period from April 4 to May 1 in the Anbar province, and the vague location“Iraq” to account for the death toll given in The Guardian, furthermore the death rates run congruent with the information stated on Fiasco so we know that at the least we are dealing with 39 fatalities by mid April. Is there a chance that while compiling the list you may have forgotten to include individuals? Freepsbane 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Top Gun and I, in compiling the lists of exact names of soldiers killed, researched (ie: googled, or knew off-hand) the names and/or divisions of the soldiers listed only as "Killed in Iraq" or "Killed in Anbar province", to remove those that were clearly killed outside Fallujah. My list of 42 and the list immediately after it pointing out I'd accidently cut/pasted instead of copy/pasted 11 names, mean there are a total of 53 soldiers that list either "Fallujah" or "Anbar/Iraq" without any other immediately-found more descriptive place/circumstances of death. Top Gun then weeded out a further 30 deaths, based chiefly on the divisions/regiments/battalions being based out of which city...which isn't necessarily 100% accurate, but is certainly very helpful...and that number brought us down to 23 soldiers who were stationed in Fallujah, and died, during that month. You're welcome to argue that maybe one of the guys was in Fallujah unofficially...or a truckload of soldiers from Husaybah were killed while driving past Fallujah...but that still leaves a maximum of 53 US soldiers killed. If you are able to find a name of a soldier killed in Fallujah during the battle that Top Gun and I (or the anonymous editor, if that wasn't TG) missed, then I think everybody would agree that we should adjust the casualty numbers to support the new names you've found...but I think that try as you might, you won't be able to find any. But you are of course welcome, even encouraged, to prove me wrong. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned something very important, as we already know date and time does not apply rigidly in this engagement, perhaps the same is true about location, much of the combat involving this engagment (particularly after april 9th) took place outside the residential zones within the city but instead inside it’s surrounding countryside and roads, perhaps this explains the count discrepancy, as I would assume that some may have counted solely the city while others may have counted the citiy and its local roads. Perhaps this issue may be resolved by splitting the casualty count, providing deaths strictly within the city, and beneath it providing deaths within the city and its surroundings. Freepsbane 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already pointed the exact location of every death in Anbar during that month relaying on locations of the units the killed guys belonged to. I also put on this talk page the names of the cities those were totaly diferent battles Husaybah and Ramadi. Do not rely only on time.

Ramadi – 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment and 3rd battalion, 11th marine regiment (artillery),

Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14

Husaybah – 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment

Hit – 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment

These were the locations of individual units during the battle that were not at Fallujah and these units corespond to 27 of the 53 deaths in Anbar during that period. Listen already Freepsbane I have tryed to be civilised but you do not want to listen I did not forgot to include individuals. Look at CNN's or the Posts lists and they clearly state the location of each individual's death. You say enough deaths occured from April 4 to May 1 to coroborate your story well that's not not the TRUTH you just calculated the number of killed in the whole of Iraq that month but man there was a Shia uprising and the insurgency was also in other parts of the country not just Fallujah or the province in which it is Anbar. If you would read the locations of the deaths of the killed soldiers you will see that out of the deaths that occured from April 4 to May 1 ONLY 53 WERE LISTED AS KILLED IN ANBAR PLUS ANBAR DOESN'T INCLUDE ONLY FALLUJAH. ALL OF THE OTHERS LIST THE EXACT CITY WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL WAS KILLED I THINK EVEN THAT 26 WERE KILLED IN BAGHDAD ALONE THAT MONTH, THERE WERE GUYS KILLED IN BAQUBA, TIKRIT, SAMARA, KIRKUK, MOSUL ETC. ONLY 53 OUT OF 126 WERE KILLED IN ANBAR. WHEN WILL THAT GET IN TO YOUR HEAD. THE GUARDIAN IS WRONG CNN, THE WASHINGTON POST, FOX NEWS (YES THERE IS A LIST THERE TOO) AND ICC ARE ALL RIGHT. AND AS FOR THE QOUTE OF 39 FROM THE BOOK THE GENERAL PROBABLY MADE A MISTAKE WHEN HE SAID 39 KILLED IN FALLUJAH IT WAS PROBABLY 39 KILLED IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY AND, WHAT DO YOU KNOW, AROUND 45 WHERE KILLED IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT ONLY 6 WERE KILLED OUTSIDE OF FALLUJAH DURING THE FIRST WEEK. 8 SOLDIERS DIED ON APRIL 4 IN BAGHDAD ALONE DURING THE BATTLE IN SADR CITY ALL MAJOR NEWS SOURCES SAID THAT ON THAT DAY EVEN YOUR GUARDIAN. And I am done playing with you. You and Marshalbannana are citing faulty information it is wrong and I am going to change the number every time you put it and also cite the post and cnn's count and ICC's count and you can sob all you want but that doesn't change reality. I and Sherurcij have enough evidence to coroborate the number of killed to be at least 26 to 32 and if you want to go to administatration or Arbcom go ahead you will loose. And I am done. Top Gun 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, MarshalBanana is a sockpuppet[1], he is not an actual WIkipedian, he is an account that "somebody" created to agree with them and make it look like they have support for their cause than they really do. Freepsbane is likely the only person really arguing for including the demonstrably wrong "83" figure, and he has a history of ('being accused of') edit-warring, adding incorrect information to Iraq War articles and POV-pushing. But like you, (Top Gun), I have no problem with ArbCom involvement. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Sherurcij. I have currently erased the number 83 and put for the moment the number of dead to be 26 to 32 killed. Because like we have stated time and again the number of killed in Anbar that month was 53 and at least 21 were confirmed killed during the Battles of Ramadi (April 6-10) and Husaybah (April 17). So that leaves only 32 more. But out of these six do not belong to the units participating in the battle so if everybody agrees (I know you won't Freepsbane, but after everything that happened your vote doesn't count) then we will put the number finaly to be 26. There is no need to think this is a low number for a battle for a city because the fighing was concetrated only in the industrial part of the city only 25 percent of the city and we have confirmed that 95 American and 8 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the second battle which was 100 percent of the city, that was 103 killed so I say that a number of 26 would be a real good estimate. Yes the insurgents were dug in preaty good but the street fighting was only for the first four or five days after that the Americans already stoped the attack and only air strikes and artillery fire insued. So if nobody objects I will leave for now 26 to 32 killed but will revert the number down to 26 by the beginning of next week. And Freepsbane learn to count not just belive every word you are said by one newspaper out of a thousand. Top Gun ^{(Top Gun)} 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The allegations stated above pertaining to me are clearly false and only marked an attempt at trolling no evidence was presented, as a result I need not comment on that above segment. However as some inaccuracies have been spread by the above user I feel it necessary to correct some factual errors. First and foremost I do not regularly engage in editwarring nor have a history of disruptive edits, I was once involved in an editwar with a user that turned out to be a throwaway sockpuppet account [2] but as far as editwaring went that is the extent as noted by the fact that I have never been blocked. As for being controversial Sherurcij should not be one to talk.Freepsbane 01:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don’t be foolish the accusations were completely motivated by the fact that I opposed the other editor’s actions and I was cleared of the charges, you lacking any good or reliable sources and having had your claims contradicted by all media whether news or book are resorting to Personal attacks to get your point across. Marshalbannana 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The accusations were not motivated by the fact that you oposed my actions as an editor. I am not lacking any good or reliable sources. My claims are not beaing contradicted. CNN, Fox news and Washington post sources as well as numeres sites which list the number of casualties have said that only 53 were killed in Anbar that month and after extensive reserch based on cited sources 27 have been confirmed killed in Fallujah. Your sources are disputed. The Guardian says 83 killed in Fallujah, what, did the Army magicly forget to report the deaths of 30 soldiers killed, you can even say 50 because 20 have been also confirmed killed in Ramadi and Husaybah. And for the book that was probably a mistake by the general, 39 was probably the overall number in the entyre country. And also I don't belive that Marshalbannana is a real editor because there have been numeres other complaints about him and I belive it is realy Freepsbane but that doesn't matter. Me, Sherurcij and Looper5920 have reached a consensus on the number of killed as beaing 27. You are the only one arguing. So drop it already. This is an encyclopidia you can not put false information here. Top gun 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'poorly reported' names

For whatever reason, some of the names of those killed in Anbar that month are poorly reported, both by the DoD, and the media. The following six names did not have their place/circumstances of death made clear, and could have been killed in Fallujah. We've gone through each name, looking for independent confirmation of the nature of their death, and come up with the following... Lance Cpl. Aric J. Barr 22 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Died of injuries received from enemy action in Anbar Province, Iraq, on April 4, 2004 (His designation suggests he was stationed in Hit)

A friend who saw him die recalls it being in Hit[3]

Pfc. Geoffery S. Morris 19 Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Gurnee, Illinois Died of injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 4, 2004 (His designation suggests he was stationed in Ramadi)

Suggested Fallujah, but not explicitly said[4]

near the towns of Fallujah and Ramadi[5]

Explicitly says he was killed in Battle for Fallujah[6]

Says he was killed in Fallujah[7]

Government site saying he was killed in Fallujah[8]

Lance Cpl. Christopher B. Wasser 21 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Ottawa, Kansas Died due to injuries received from hostile fire in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 8, 2004 (His designation suggests he was stationed in Husaybah)

Shrapnel from a bomb[9] in Husaybah[10]

Lance Cpl. Elias Torrez III 21 Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Veribest, Texas Died from hostile fire in Iraq on April 9, 2004 (His designation suggests he was stationed in Husaybah)

...died as a result of wounds received in Sa’dah, Iraq [11]. Sa'dah is a very small Iraqi village of approximately 1000 residents.[12], just outside Husaybah.

Petty Officer 3rd Class Christopher M. Dickerson 33 Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14, 3rd Naval Construction Regiment Eastman, Georgia Killed when his military vehicle hit a roadside bomb while traveling in a convoy in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004 (His designation suggests he was stationed in Ramadi)

Confirmed to be killed in Ramadi by iCasualties

Petty Officer 2nd Class Jason B. Dwelley 31 Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14, 3rd Naval Construction Regiment Apopka, Florida Killed when his military vehicle hit a roadside bomb while traveling in a convoy in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30, 2004 (His designation suggests he was stationed in Ramadi)

Confirmed to be killed in Ramadi by iCasualties

So we are now only dealing with Pfc. Geoffery S. Morris who looks like he should be added to the casualty list. Any help finding further info on him? (This next comment likely violates WP:NOR and cannot be considered to be a source itself, it is merely to help us on the talk page, but looking at (34.3717, 41.0886) on Google Maps, and this map of al-Anbar, it would appear Torrez's village of death is nowhere near Ramadi, Fallujah or Hit...and seems to be in the same specific geographical location as Al-Qa'im (town) or Husaybah[13]) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw how you took it down to only two more guys that are disputed and I can clear that now.

Lance Cpl. Elias Torrez III 21 Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Veribest, Texas Died from hostile fire in Iraq on April 9, 2004 (His designation suggests he was stationed in Husaybah)

...died as a result of wounds received in Sa’dah, Iraq [6]. Sa'dah is a very small Iraqi village of approximately 1000 residents.[7], not sure if it's outside Fallujah, Husaybah or whatnot...Iraqi geography anyone? Well the link you put for Sadah says that nearby towns are Karabilah and Al Qaim, Husaybah is just east of Al Qaim and west of Karabilah.

Pfc. Geoffery S. Morris 19 Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Gurnee, Illinois Died of injuries received from enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, on April 4, 2004 (His designation suggests he was stationed in Ramadi)

Well there is no link that says that he died in Fallujah or Ramadi but his unit designation is that of the unit that lost all of it's other guys that month in Ramadi or nearby. I wouldn't think that they would just send one wepons company from a whole battalion to the battle.

And with this I think we can finish this once and for all.Top Gun 07:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well researched gentlemen. I find I have to step away sometimes during arguments like these because I used to fire off some heated barbs and that does no one any good. If it came down to it, I have a picture from the 1st Marines memorial in their COC from August 2004 and it shows names and photos, clarity is so-so, and from late March through early August their was a total of 47 KIA in the regiment. One was an Iraqi translator and 3 or 4 were US Army from an MP company from 1/32 that was attached during April. I was reluctant to upload it and am glad I did not have to. Thanks again for the exhaustive research.--Looper5920 07:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Top Gun, looks like we edit-conflicted on Torrez, who would like count as a Husaybah fatality (or possibly not...but definitely not a Falluja fatality) - but I would still support including Morris in our casualty count - it's entirely possible as I said, that he was killed while doing a transport run to the Fallujan troops, or was on R&R and unofficially volunteered with his friends in another division...consensus seems to be that for some reason, one guy who wasn't stationed in Fallujah, died in Fallujah. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK so we will put it 27 in the end. ^{([[(Top Gun)} 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

NPR

During my research I stumbled onto an NPR news story that put the death toll at 83 [14] Saying in a transcript “Mr. JOHN KALE WESTON (State Department Adviser): Well, in Fallujah, we had 83 Marines and service members who were killed” as you know this was said by a member of the state department and it was reported by NPR and NBC [15] this is a decisive bit of information and is definitively the final word in the matter. At least against the hodgepodge list of Guestimated deaths we had. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.61.16.21 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC). some more intresting minor suporting sources Put the us casualty count (for iraq as a whole) at 83 by april 15 [16]not important but intresting nonetheless

It is not the final word. It is higly likely that NPR and NBC just copied what the Guardian said because it is well known that on the Net various news agencys say the exactly same text. No matter it is still three notable sources (CNN, Washington post, Fox news) + various other lessknown webpages that support the claim of 27 against the Guardian and NPR and NBC who probably copied the Guardians claim without veryfing it. And also you said that some more intresting minor suporting sources Put the us casualty count (for iraq as a whole) at 83 by april 15 not important but intresting nonetheless. Well it is sgnificent because that proves my point that the number 83 you are hung on to is just the number by April 15th. And one question I didn't see you user 208.61.16.21 here before. Freepsbane or should I call you Marshalbannanas cut the act. That is the third identity with which you are trying to impose your number of crazy 83 killed and 1000 wounded as you said. Wooo 1000 wounded what did they decimate a whole American division. I now that was you ebcause I checked the history of user user 208.61.16.21 he just made the first ever edit today on Wikipedia. Freepsbane, Marshalbananas or wathever you are just making a fool out of yourself. There were not even that many wounded during the second more blody battle.^{([[(Top Gun)} 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was me I forgot to sign in, but unlike you I made no efforts to conceal my identity, and I did not use my IP for any sort of attack or vandalism. I don’t want someone that frequently uses socks for attacks and controversial edits to start lecturing me on sockpuppetry especially if they could potentially be a sock themselves of another user something I am Not. Besides NPR is a service affiliated with the United States government and the casualties were given out by a member of the U.S state department that alone should have been enough.Marshalbannana 13:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well sorry Marshalbannana but CNN, Fox news, and Washington post not to mention icasualties.org have all made their list of the dead acording to the data issued by the Pentagon and DoD if you would check the DoD's casualties list on their site you will see that 126 American soldiers were killed from April 4 to May 1 2004 and you will see that just 53 are listed in that period as killed in Anbar all the others outside it. Listen I am not a sock puppet as for you I don't know. But Sherurcij and I have enough evidence to coroborate our claim of 27. As for yours. That spoksmen probably just said what he hear at the Guardian like you. And one more thing he said 83 killed and 1,000 wounded. First of 1,300 troops were involved in the attack. So wooo the insurgents then destroyed the entyre attacking force. Also there were not even 1,000 wounded during the second more intense battle. There were just around 700. So listen I am not starting an edit war here it's just you are not listening to reason. Try to come down man and if you would look at the data the real data not just sentences you are given by the Guardian or a spokesman, who like you probably read the guardian, read the names like Sherurcij and I did, read the units crossreferenc them with veryfied data, do a little reaserch I am talking to you now like this to try and come down the situation. I shouldn't be trying to talk peacfuly like this to you not after all the personal attacks YOU made on me with your acusations to admin. But I want this resolved peacfuly and that will not hapen if you continue to put the false number just because you even didn't look at the evidence which Sherurcij and I presented. Everybody else that looked at them agreed with us that it is 27 just look at the names man. If you do this your way you are dishonoring does guys that got killed in Iraq. What you are just going to move the place of death of 56 guys from other parts of the country to Fallujah so it would be yours 83. Listen come down and listen to the real data. Top Gun 17:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Casualty figures

There is a dispute about the casualty numbers going on. Rather than allow the revert war to continue, I've temporarily protected the page from editing while this is ironed out. Please direct all discussion to the talk page. My initial review of citations shows that the current version is supported by reliable figures. I'll make a more detailed review now. Please feel free to discuss it here. — ERcheck (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've requested some impartial opinions on how to deal with the discrepency between "UK Guardian casualty counts and people who quote it", and "Official casualty lists". Since consensus is currently (rather heavily) on the side of the "27 fatalities" information, I suggest that we leave the article as stating 27 fatalities, possibly with a ((disputed)) tag, but avoid using the 83 number unless the RfC agrees it is best. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Has an RFC or Mediation request been filed? — ERcheck (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC request just went up as you were protecting Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I stand by Sherurcij that the number of killed should be 27. The facts are undeniable.Top Gun (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources, which include the names of the casualties, do not support the 80+ figure (which is unsourced in the Guardian). The lower number (~27) is supported by reliable sources. In discussions on this talk page, this number also appears to be agreed upon by consensus as being reliable. Unless further information comes to light — which should also be discussed on this talk page — the consensus is for the lower number. So, that should be left in the article. As other editing should be allowed to this page, I'm going to unprotect it. — ERcheck (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes while protected

I'd like to see Image:Al-fallujah april04.jpg placed alongside the December 2003 image already in the article, to contrast the difference in the city before/after the operation. Since the two images are not vitally integral, thumbnail size should be kept relatively small. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Al-Fallujah-destruction.jpg is the other useful image from the alBasrah archives, most of the others show dead children - which may be important, but I feel would contribute a negative POV to the article - dead civilians is one thing...dead children is just catering to cries of "baby killer" though. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Children are civilians too, the best civilians. Don't be tame.--Shtove 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POV bias

In the first year or so that this article was written, I submitted several first hand reports during my deployment, working with FOB52 and the 1st RCT, 1st MARDIV during Operation Vigilant Resolve. I stopped submissions to the article due to their constant removal based that they were not properly ‘cited’ from news. Eyewitness accounts, unless published, are not to be allowed.

After not reviewing the article for more than a year, I recently read the article and was amazed at the lack of hard facts, and the amount of rhetoric that was cited from news articles. This article has gone from a source of information about a battle to place for political grandstanding; for both the left and the right.

I agree with Jabbi, this article has developed into a platform, and has little to do with the course of events on the ground. It should be scrapped until the emotional attachment has diminished and it can be written similar to other historical accounts.

--Bufshof 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples would be useful. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening line of the article is entirely biased, "As part of the occupation of Iraq, the First Battle of Fallujah, codenamed Operation Vigilant Resolve was an unsuccessful attempt by the United States Military to capture the city of Fallujah in April 2004."

As a veteran of this very battle, (and the second one) allow me to assure you that the United States Military was not incapable of taking this city. We had trapped the insurgents in the North West corner of the city (known as the Jolan District) and were preparing to annihilate them in house-to-house fighting reminiscent of Hue City when they sued for peace and the politicians back home feared voter backlash. The result of the decision to hold back the military was the escape of top level insurgent leaders and the need for a second, complete invasion.

--USMarinesTanker 0559, 20071213 (MST)

Examples of biased POV in this article

I was asked to provide examples of biased POV in this article. I understand that the articles use approved citations. However, Wikipedia's definition of neutral point of view requires that the bias of the articles are balanced. The main problem is that the article focus is on politically sensitive issues, not the conduct of the operation. I have listed several issue with the article here. The bold comments are mine. Many have citations to give the 'other side of the story'. Many have no citation as they are eyewitnessed accounts by myself.

Casualties: 27 killed, 90+ wounded[3] 184 insurgents, 616 civilians killed (estimated)[4]

(How does someone tell the difference between a dead civilian and a dead insurgent? I supposed you could report any and all bodies as civilians if it suited your needs.)

Major Larry Kaifesh, 36, part of the operation, was quoted as telling the Associated Press the rebels were trying to blend with civilians. "It is hard to differentiate between people who are insurgents or civilians," he said. "It is hard to get an honest picture. You just have to go with your gut feeling." http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/04/11/anger_over_fallujah_reaches_ears_of_the_faithful/?page=2

The First Battle of Fallujah, codenamed Operation Vigilant Resolve by the United States Military, was an aborted attempt by US troops to capture the city of Fallujah in April 2004, as part of the occupation of Iraq.

The operation was designed to pacify violent elements in the area (not 'capture the city'). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-vigilant-resolve.htm

(Orders were given to control the city with TCPs. Our reported preparation indicates this. You dont dig treches and foxholes if you are gearing up for an assault, trenches and foxholes are key indicators for a defense.) Outside Fallujah, troops dug trenches on the city's edges, sealed off roads in and out and imposed a nighttime curfew. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116144,00.html

(Aborted means that the operation was abandoned. It was not; even within this article it states that the final job of securing the city was handed over to the indigenous troops {a mistake IMO}. The ICDC and police did abandon and even assist the insurgents; however this was not universal.)

In your words, the intent was to pacify the city - in others' words, to capture...either way, it was a failure/abandonedGoal/unsuccessful.

Pacify is not equal to occupy. From citations within this article, the intent was specifically to pacify, not occupy. If the plan was to occupy the city, they would have done so, and as quickly as they did in November 2004. But I have to agree that the pacification was was a dismal failure. --204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-vigilant-resolve.htm http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116144,00.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.main/index.html

Negotiations led to the end of OVR and the creation of the Fallujah Brigade as the means to create stability and security in Fallujah. The FB failed terribly over the next few months in its concept and the city was left as a holdout for the insurgency and terrorism. http://www.cpp.usmc.mil/press/kit/OIFII.asp?http://www.cpp.usmc.mil/press/kit/OIFII.asp

Although the people of Fallujah had grown wealthy and influential under Saddam Hussein, his government was not popular in the city. [7]

(Saddam's goverment placed four major, and several minor military bases around Fallujah to assist in his pacification of the area. These soldier's unemployment, as well as the 20000 inmates release at Abu Gharab prison less than 10 minutes away helped to create a surrogate army for the insurgents. I have no citation, but can point out the numerous bases and the prison's location on an area map. This dosent dispute the article anywhere, but does help to understand the environment prior to the operation.)

Agreed, that is useful back-information - a name for the four bases might help them be included in that backhistory, and if you have a specific date of large releases of prisoners, same deal. But need more specifics, unfortunately.

There is a huge amount of back information that was collected on Saddam's attempts to contol the Falluja/Ramadi area.

Camp Baharia http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah.htm Camp Ridgeway (formerly Taqaddum)http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/al-taqaddum.htm Camp Manhatten (formerly habaniya) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/habbaniyah.htm Camp Blue Diamond (Formerly Ramadiaya)http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ramadiyah.htm Camp Fallujah (Formerly Mujahadeen e Khalid) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/mek.htm Saddam Frees Prisoners http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/20/iraq.amnesty/ http://www.answers.com/topic/abu-ghraib-prison This does not include the financial incentives of the Al Ameriya compound (just south of Falluja), or the massive hirings of civilians into government.--204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Following the collapse of the Ba'ath infrastructure in early 2003, local residents had elected a town council led by Taha Bidaywi Hamed, who managed to keep the city from falling into the control of looters and common criminals. The town council and Hamed were both considered to be nominally pro-American, and their election originally meant that the United States had decided that the city was unlikely to become a hotbed of activity, and didn't require any immediate troop presence.[8]

(Taha was not liked by the citizens of the city, and his 'election' was made by the council in Falluja. During the Falluja Liaison Team (FLT) meetings between coalition and leaders of the city, he consistently maintained that the U.S. was not necessary, there was no insurgency in Falluja, and that the U.S. should withdraw forces back away from Falluja, because nothing was going on.)

I've got no problem making those changes...if you can find links supporting that.

No, that is the problem. I personally attended several of the FLT meetings. Reporters were not allowed, so there is no public record. I understand that because of this, no changes can be made.--204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Although Fallujah had seen sporadic air strikes by American forces, public opposition was not galvanized until 700 members of the 82nd Airborne Division first entered the city on April 23 2003, and approximately 150 members of Charlie Company occupied al-Qa'id primary school. On the evening of April 28, a crowd of approximately 200 people gathered outside the school, demanding that the Americans vacate the building and allow it to re-open as a school. After their smoke gas canisters failed to disperse the crowd[9], four US soldiers stationed on the roof fired into the gathering, killing 17 and wounding more than 70 of the protesters. US forces said that the shooting took place over 30-60 seconds, while Human Rights Watch has concluded that is is more likely to have lasted approximately ten minutes.[10]

(Insurgents using the crowd as a shield reportedly fired first. The number of artices that stated this is numerous, but none of those made it to this article. I can easily provide several of these.)

The article mentions that it is agreed the US fired smoke gas, then that it is disputed who fired live rounds first.

Yes, it does. Either it has been since changed or I am losing my mind.--204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Two days later, a protest at the former Baath party headquarters decrying the American shootings was also fired upon by US troops, resulting in three more deaths.[11][12] Following both incidents, US soldiers asserted that they had not fired upon the protestors until they were first fired upon. The soldiers involved became the subject of an After Action Review.

(Once again, articles reporting that insurgents within the crowd fired first were left out. Also, the mention of an After Action Review (AAR) gives the reader the impression of an investigation. AARs are conducted after ALL activities, operations, incidents, patrols or training.)

The article mentions the dispute that the US claims to have come under fire first.

Okay, this part of the article was edited, I have the old version in the quote above. --204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The 82nd Airborne troops were replaced by forces from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and 101st Airborne Division, and on June 4 the 3rd Armoured Cavalry was forced to request an additional 1,500 troops to help quell the growing resistance faced in Fallujah and nearby al-Habaniyya.[13]

(This occurs in mid 2003, units were being moved around all over Iraq. It would be easy to say that this was done due to insurgent activity, but a large scale re-deployment of troops was beginning.)

At the same time, municipal officials began registering complaints with the US forces, explaining that the population was growing agitated by growing reports that individual US soldiers were ogling Iraqi women, and had handed out bubble gum to local children, with scantily-clad women on the wrappers.[14]

(I'm not sure how to answer this, how does a young American used to seeing women in slacks, shorts and skirts 'ogle' a woman in a burka. As far as the candy wrappers, this may be true as a 'scantily clad' woman is one that shows their ankles, to an Iraqi.)

In June, US forces began confiscating motorcycles from local On June 30, a large explosion occurred in a mosque in which the imam, Sheikh Laith Khalil and eight other people were killed. While the local population claimed that Americans had fired a missile at the mosque, US forces insisted that it was an accidental detonation by insurgents training recruits.[16]

(Taking motocycles was not done to purposely antagonize Iraqis (what does this have to do with the operation?) Before the war, the Iraqi Army used these motorcycles as scout vehilcles. The insurgents were putting two men on each; one to shoot, the other to make a fast retreat through narrow streets. U.S. and Iraqi Security Forces both were confiscating the motorcycles to return them as scout vehicles for the ICDC.)

By April 6, the United States had announced that it might not be able to penetrate and successfully hold the entire city.[20][21]

(This is not what the annotated citation states. The Marines wanted to make it clear that thier objectives were limited from the very onset of the operation. The actual citation states;) The Fallujah operation may unfold over several days, and the Marines may not attempt to control the center of the town, military sources said. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.main/index.html

Discussion prior to April 3 didn't talk about this more "limited" objective, it seemed to change as the operation went forward. I don't see that the "actual citation" and "WP wording" are telling drastically different stories.

I agree that discussion prior to April 3 did not talk of a more limited objective. Conversly, it didn't not talk about a complete occupation. The incident that triggered the siege (Blackwater employees) happened on March 31. It took a couple of days to get all of the units to Falluja, and to complete a plan. I know this because I was sat in on the planning. Nobody, with authority, could say what the plan/objective was prior to April 3. When the plan was finalized, it was announced that the U.S. would NOT need take the city, as cited.

Logically, the large amount of defensive positions built in the first days is indicative of a defense. This is contrast to the offensive operation in November 2004, where these types of fortifications were not built, and U.S. forces took the city within two weeks (this after seven months of insurgent preparations). As anyone with basic military knowledge can agree, you do not take ground from a foxhole, only defend it. --204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

After three days of fighting, it was estimated that the United States had gained control over only 25% of the city, although it was suggested that insurgents had lost a number of key defensive positions.[citation needed] American troops also closed down Fallujah's two main hospitals, Fallujah General Hospital and the Jordanian Hospital.[22]

(This has been a common problem in the media. There are two main hospitals and one major clinic in Falluja. The main hospital (formerly called Saddam General, now called Falluja General) is downtown. During this operation, the Marines never went downtown (again, I can point these out on a map). The main clinic located on the 'peninsula' west of town was shut down. The Jordanian Hospital is not in Falluja, but is nearby. The hospital administration shut it down for two weeks because of security issues. But was reopened at the U.S. insistence. I have no citation for this, but can show you where Falluja and Jordanian Hospitals are in relation to Falluja and the Marine lines.)

Again, I would welcome rewording our article to indicate this, if you can offer a citation. In fact, just a general map showing the location of the Jordanian hospital would probably be enough to get mention of it yanked out of this article.

I am not a 'wiki god', and I dont know how to send/present graphics. If I could get some help on this, it would be appreciated. Also, I think it would be prudent to gain a concensus prior to posting it on the article. The only reference I could find is one that state the Jordaninan hospital is on the outskirts of Fallujah, (not in it). --204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050210/text/50210w04.htm

In the opening days, it was reported that up to a third of the civilian population had fled the city.[23]

(The amount of persons leaving the city overwhelmed the Marines and Army checkpoints. Even this article stated that those with a Fallujah plate was allowed out. This ment that Falluja residents were allowed to leave, foreign fighters and outside insurgents weren't.)

I don't understand your "dispute", or how this is POV?

No, there is no dispute...that is the point. I am using the article to dispel the myth that U.S. forces turned everyone back. Sorry for the confusion. --204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

At noon on April 9, Paul Bremer announced that the US forces would be unilaterally holding a ceasefire, stating that they wanted to facilitate negotiations between the Iraqi Governing Council, insurgents and city spokespersons, and to allow government supplies to be delivered to residents[24]

(IMO, there was no 'ceasefire'. According to several reports, deaths, casualties and insurgent activites increased during this 'ceasefire'. I will try to find these reports on the internet to post them.)

The resulting fighting spread throughout the country with various elements of the Iraqi insurgency taking advantage of the situation and commencing simultaneous operations against the Coalition forces; this period marked the emergence of the Mahdi Army militia of Shiite firebrand cleric Muqtada as-Sadr as a major armed faction which at that time actively participated in anti-Coalition operations, the happenings were also puncuated by a surge of Sunni rebellion in the city of Ramadi. During this period, a number of foreigners were captured. Some were killed outright, others were held as hostages in an attempt to barter for political or military concessions. Elements of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (the militia set up by the Coalition to form the core of a future Iraqi Army) also turned on the Coalition forces or simply abandoned their posts.

(This gives the view that it was U.S. forces that 'created' Muqtada as-Sadr when in fact he was a radical, power hungry leader since the war began) Meanwhile, an Iraqi judge issued an arrest warrant for a radical Shiite Muslim cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (search), for the slaying of another Shiite leader shortly after the Iraq war began. Al-Sadr has called for revolt against coalition forces. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116144,00.html

This doesn't sound like what the article says at all, I've heard the "gossip" about Sadr, bin Laden, every bad guy out ther, being "created" by the US...but I don't think this article even lends that idea any credence, or supports it in any way. Rather the paragraph seems quite clear that al-Sadr rose to prominence during this battle.

This is likely the preception of someone whose days were filled with targeting Sadr and Zarqawi, long before they were first mentioned in U.S. press. To us, they were prominate figues prior to Falluja. I stand corrected.--204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(There was no universal abandonment by Iraqi Security forces. Iraqi units that fought WITH the U.S. forces were: 30th Iraqi Command BN, part of the Iraqi Special Operations BDE (ISOF) Iraqi Counter Terrorist Force (ICTF) 505th Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC)

Only the 504th and Iraqi police (both located near the city center) were suspected to either have abandoned thier posts, or defected. After the ceasefire, the Iraqi police returned from their 'homes'. They stated that they were not soldiers and did not want to fight on either side (at least that was thier story)

Which is what the article says, though it lacks the specific units...find a citation, we'll add them.

506th ICDC and 36th Commando participation

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040412_Apr12_KimmittSenor.html I couldn't find a citation specificlly stating thier participation in Fallujah, but here is a description of them. http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1100&Itemid=86 Surely, there is no need to cite Special Forces, they have not left Iraq since March 2003 (they have continusly rotated battalions).--204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Today in Fallujah, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and the with the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps continue Operation Vigilant Resolve. http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040409_sanchez_finish-full.html

About 1,200 Marines, joined by two battalions of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corp., began surrounding the city with checkpoints. Only vehicles with Fallujah license plates were permitted to enter and exit the city. http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1761282&nav=EyAzM2hB

The U.S. attacks were taking a great toll on civilians as well as the insurgents however, and faced growing criticism from within the Iraqi Governing Council , where Adnan Pachachi said, "these operations by the Americans are unacceptable and illegal."[26]

Red Crescent Ambulances dropped off ammo and weapons and then picked-up bodies. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-vigilant-resolve.htm

On April 9, US forces, which had by then only managed to gain a foothold in the industrial district to the south of the city, declared a unilateral ceasefire under pressure from the Governing Council. As a consequence, much-needed humanitarian relief which had been held up by the fighting and blockade finally managed to enter the city, notably a major convoy organized by private citizens, businessmen and clerics from Baghdad as a joint Shi'a-Sunni effort.[citation needed]

(There was a number of privately organized relief efforts, but I am unaware of any joint effort with the Shia and Sunni. That is not to say that there wasnt.)

Although hundreds of insurgents had been killed in the assault, the city remained firmly in their control. The end of major operations for the time being led to negotiations between various Iraqi elements and the Coalition forces, punctuated by occasional firefights.

(Was the city in control of insurgents as the article stated, or was it handed over to the Falluja Brigade as the article stated? Even if they FB were not U.S. friendly, they DID have a purpose of returning normalcy tot he city.)

From my understanding of the battle, it was handed over to the FB, but remained under de facto control of the insurgents. You would disagree?

In my (unpopular) assessment of the situation at the time, FB=insurgents; so yes, I would have agree with you. I simply wanted to state that the intent was to hand the city to an Iraqi force, not to simply abandon the situation. I emphazise that this was a political move, not military. --204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On April 13, US Marines fell under attack from insurgents located within a mosque. An airstrike destroyed the mosque, prompting a public outcry.[27]

(There was a lot more than one mosque attacked. Several insurgents that were captured while bunkered in the mosques. When questioned, some stated that they were not in the mosques to deter U.S. attacks or for propaganda reasons. Rather they were there because they wanted god to protect them during thier fight. This illustrates both sides of the conflict to automatically characterize the use of these mosques as either the 'Americans attack against god' or 'insurgents acting against Geneva conventions'. )

Widespread media and independent reports that the United States had used incendiary weapons such as white phosphorus or napalm in the First and Second Battle of Fallujah were rebuffed by US sources, who admitted that Mark-77s had been used in the war the year prior, but no similar weapons had been employed in Fallujah.[32] Several days later, this was contradicted by the admission that white phosphorus had been used in Fallujah, though only for "illumination", "screening" and "psychological" purposes.[33]

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

(White phoshorus is also an incendiary weapon, and as such is also allowed by international law. If there is a view that it should not be allowed by law, then there should be a move to change the law, not accuse the military of breaking the law.)

I think any army would have a hard time claiming a city with violent malcontents was a "military target" before the International Courts. Otherwise we could just call Halabja a military exercise.

If you are reciveing fire from a mosque, apartment building, school, ect, it is no longer a protected site. If you are recieving fire from multiple buildings, they are all legal targets. This creates obscene situations, but war is obscene. --204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I could argue the so-called effects of WP. I have heard the stories. It's not like an HE (high explosive) round. A WP round is not lethal unless it lands VERY near (50 meters). I have personnaly inhaled the plumes numerous times on many firing ranges to no effect. To say that a unit is 'burining a city' with WP is absolutely incredible to anyone who has used it extensively. You maybe able to kill individuals (especially if they are static (foxholes)), but it is way too ineffeciant as an area weapon against personnel, or to use in the open against personnel. This is why no country has moved to have it banned by the Geneva Convention.

Critics of the battle have contended that it contravened the Fourth Geneva Convention, by the use of unguided munitions targeting civilian population centres.[34] [35][36] [37]

(The Geneva Convention specifically states that ANY area that is being used by combatants is no longer protected.) http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

(I would suggest changing the name of this artile back to 'Operation Vigilant Resolve'. The operation was part of a larger task to pacify Al Anbar. Restricting the article to Falluja will not allow you to continue to truthfully use all of the other casualties that occurred in other cities in Anbar.)--65.191.60.188 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the purpose of the article, to focus on the Battle of Fallujah, not Operation Iraqi Freedom, not the entire Anbar campaign, specifically the attacks against, and from within, Fallujah, during this short period of time.

I didn't mean to argue against calling the article 'First Battle of Fallujah' (Personally, I like it). I ment that if you restrict the article to Falluja, then the exhaustive research that contributors have given on the deaths of U.S. forces in the other areas of Al Anbar cannot be (truthfully) used. Also, many Iraqi's in Falluja would take offence. Their first battle of Fallujah occured in their war of independance against Britain. This article would (to them) be the second battle, with Operation Al Fajr (November 2004) being the third. --204.34.247.11 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Capture/Pacify

Is "pacify" a misnomer for "capturing a city", or at least "controlling a city", like the way we hear "neutralize" become a common misnomer for killing an enemy? From my understanding at the time, the original intention was to occupy the city until it no longer posed a threat to US forces, then turn it over to a US-friendly local paramilitary/police/militia force. This isn't much different from saying Vichy France was an attempt to "pacify" France - it's an occupation, supported by the later control of "the native population". Personally, I'm in favour of "unsuccesful attempt to capture the city of Fallujah", but I welcome other opinions on the matter, for the opening sentence. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the semantics. However the plan for Falluja was not to have U.S. forces within the city center, as the citation states (unless it proved necessary). Additionally, the large amount of fortifications by U.S. forces indicated a static force. While there were incidents of U.S. forces moving forward to clear insurgents in nearby buildings, for the most part, they stayed in defensive positions. Compare this with the second battle, where the plan was specifically to occupy the city by force. There were few defensive positions, ther was an announcement of intent to enter the city and there was a constant forward progress through the city from the start.

To state that the intention of U.S. forces all along was to enter and occupy the city (and couln't) would mean this. That with little preparations, the insurgents kept U.S. forces from moving more than a few after four weeks of fighting in April. But after more than seven months of preparation, the insurgents couldn't stop the U.S. Forces from completely sweeping thorough the city within two weeks during that next November.

From sitting in on the planning, I know that the intent was to surround the city with traffic control points (TCPs) and create strongpoints in which to launch pinpoint raids into the city. This plan was never reported (as it was operationally classified at the time). But from the results of November 2004, it is apparent that U.S. forces could have taken the city, if they were so ordered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bufshof (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

With that, I think that your use of the word 'capture' is fair. It is better than 'occupy' and not as vague as 'pacify'.--Bufshof 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Capture has always bothered me because its wrong to think that U.S. Forces couldn't enter the city. The problem was simply that when the U.S. ran patrols into the city, they were often attacked (but not always). The word 'capture' makes me visualize Iraqi forces built-up on the outskirts of the city fighting to keep U.S. patrols from entering the city. The city was violent and patrols in the city (and city officials) were attacked often, so the U.S. decided to try and 'pacify' Fallujah. Now, once the U.S. started building up forces on the boarder of Fallujah in preperation for a sweep of the city (to try an pacify it), then Iraqis began building up defensive positions. But, those positions were not originally there prior to the beginning of the attempt by U.S. forces to pacify the city. I am willing to bet that in Vichy France the Ally forces were not free to run patrols in and out of the city, and that's why that city had to be captured rather than pacified. - Atfyfe 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Atfyfe, at least on a professional level. When speaking in strict military terminology, U.S. forces were sent in to pacify the city. It was already captured as evident with patrols that routinely moved through the city, (along Highway 10), ever since early 2003. However, you must understand that this portal deals mainly with civilians who do not fully understand the 'military' definitions of tactical maneuvers. To the bulk of civilians, what U.S. forces did was to capture (or recapture) the city of Falluja from the insurgents. While I agree that what happen in Falluja was absolutely a 'pacification' mission, I belive most civilians would see these actions and call it 'capture'. --Uwops 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Events Before the Battle

From what I remember, another one of the key events that led to U.S. intervention into the city of Falluja was the attack on the police, Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, and mayor's office. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/fall-f23.shtml http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-02-14-fallujah_x.htm

This was very significant as it showed a level of foreign support and leadership to the insurgency, as well as the lawlessness of the town. Although there was infiltrators in these units, as a whole they were not considered part of the insurgency, as they were victims of insurgent attacks as well.--Bufshof 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a big day, but when you add it be sure not to give the impression that attacking the police, the ICDC, or the mayor's office was rare. Drive-bys, mortars, and bombs were common at all three of those locations. However, generally they are poorly carried out attacks. The attack you are talking about was unique in its scale, organization, and that it was a sustained attack (rather than just a drive-by). - Atfyfe 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The main point that adding this information to the article will make is the illustation that the fight in Falluja was not an strictly: 'U.S. vs Iraqi'. I remember constant harassment that the insurgents gave to the mayor, police, and ICDC, as well as U.S. forces. When the Blackwater guys were killed, most of us on Camp Falluja just thought of it as another in a long line of incidents. We didn't realize how publicized this particular event would be. The operation wasn't thought of as revenge for this one act, it was the last straw that broke the camels back. --Bufshof 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like some good info! Certainly worth adding. - Atfyfe 04:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Correctly Quoting Citations

Several places in the article was changed in order to correctly quote the citation. Some of these changes were reverted because it was believed that they contained weasel words. As a compromise, direct quotes of the citation were used in order to accurately relay what the qoute stated as opposed to just an interpretation.

'capture' was changed to 're-establish security'

'sucessfully hold the center of town' was changed to 'may not attempt to...'

'citizens' was changed to 'mob'

I did not add any additional citations to the article to support the changes, I only used the references that were pre-existing in the article. These changes are consistant with the citations that are given, and in the first two cases, have been directly quoted.

Because of the sensitivity of this article, I have a suspicion that we may end up in some sort of 'quote war' where several quotes can be found that shows opposing viewpoints. I am open to suggestions on how to avert such a conflict to maintain a NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bufshof (talk • contribs) 14:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I can understand the issue, but we are an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet - just because CNN or FOX said "An angry mob then...", doesn't mean we should - we should strive to NPOVize what others wrote, without changing the facts. On the other hand, I think the direct quote you used for capturing the centre of town is a fair compromise, giving both sides equal credence. I still dispute the term "mob" though, even if news outlets did use it  :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartily agree. The article should not reflect any skewed POV of the references. With this consideration, I understand your issue with the term 'mob'. It has a derogatory connotation (maybe crowd?).

Using the same consideration, I have to bring up the issue with Ahmed Mansur's claim. He stated that the first condition of the ceasefire was his leaving Fallujah. I have been unable to confirm his claim with any other news agency, or any military channels (public or secure). The fact that the entire peace process between the U.S. government and leaders in Falluja hinged, first and foremost, on him seems very so incredulous that it borders on posetylizing. Even in the interview, he actually didn't bring it up, he simply agreed with it when the interviewer suggested it. For the same reason that the use of 'mob' (even if it is multiple-sourced) is not prudent, then the highly unlikely claims by a single reporter should be treated equally as not prudent.

Another few suggestions. The fact that a ceasefire was delcared on Apr 9 was stated twice in the article. I think that those can be consolidated, as it dosent really add anything. Also, I have a graphic of the hospital locations in/around Falluja. But I don't think that it warrants publication in the article, as it only clears a minor point as to which hospitals the Marines were near. It shows that the Marines only had access to the Jordanian Hospital and another major clinic. Falluja's main hospital (formerly Saddam General Hospital) was well forward of the Marines and they had no direct access to it, indicating that they could not have closed it. So, it only clears up hospital names and locations, and besides, I don't know how to upload it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bufshof (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

The trouble with having "no" journalists in the conflict zone, what do you do when the only journalist there has a story that seems a bit ego-centric? :\ Anywaysk, [Special:Upload]] will let you upload a pic, it'll be deleted in seven days without proper tags, but that's alright, we just want it for discussion. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not in any way stated that any of the other stories that he told about Falluja are wrong. But, he claims that the United States had announced that he must leave the city before negotiations will begin. Where is that announcement? I cannot find any source, from any news agency, or any military outlet that can confim that this is what the U.S. announced. If the United States made an announcement like this, it should be relatively easy to find. I have found just about every single statement made by U.S. military and politicians made during the same time frame, but not one single confirmation of Mansur's claim. --Bufshof 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started a new article about Fallujah prior to the invasion. It includes anything that can have an effect on the Fallujah area in an attempt to describe why this particular area has been the cause of so many problems. I have included a pic of the major hospitals, and will put in key locations of other facilities later. Don't be afraid to help out, and don't laugh...its my first try. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falluja_Precursors --Bufshof 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another case where the citation and the cited content are not inline (I removed this section below):

At the same time, city officials began registering complaints with the US forces, explaining that the population was growing agitated by increasing rumors that individual US soldiers were 'ogling' Iraqi women, and had handed out bubble gum to local children, with scantily-clad women on the wrappers. [17]

The citation talks about Iraqis telling Human Rights Watch that U.S. troops were watching Iraqi women while they were putting out the washing. It does not indicate that the reports were "registered" with U.S. Forces. No indication that these rumors were increasing, nor contributed to problems. — ERcheck (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well no, the quote in the citation says that the Iraqi told HRW that "We told them (the US military)...", though you could argue the term "report" since it was presumably unofficial - it's just an example of the building antagonism. As per ogling, it's in single-quotes, not double-quotes, which (at least here) means it's paraphrased, not a direct quote...but however you want to describe watching Iraqi women through your nightvision scope :P Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we settle on using exactly what the citation itself said?;

Stories began to circulate about U.S. soldiers inappropriately eyeing Iraqi women, a serious offense to the community. Rumors spread that soldiers were using night vision goggles to look at women as they hung clothes out to dry, or that soldiers were giving children bubble gum with pornographic pictures.

Also, I looked for several weeks for a citation that supported Ahmed Mansur's claim. That the United States announced as a condition of the ceasefire in Falluja he must leave the city. I looked at the following sites (along with many, many others) to no avail. The first one is VERY detailed as it gives almomst every official statement by the military in Iraq during this timeframe. An annoncement like that SHOULD be fairly easy to find, especially given the amount of other reporters that were in the Fallujah area at the same time. I think that the claim was not only highly egocentric, but easly proven false. --Bufshof 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Department of Defense http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/archive.aspx

United States Central Command http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Press%20Releases/Current%20Releases.aspx

Multi-national Force Iraq http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=4&Itemid=21

Coalition Provisional Authority http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/

I entirely disagree with using quotations that contain "rumors began to spread...". Many Iraqis believe that we leer at their women. Many Iraqis believe that Iraqis leer at their women, hence the veils and head-to-toe clothes. Just look at Saudi Arabia where they've had to eliminate the use of camera phones because men were taking pictures of women secretly. http://www.computing.co.uk/vnunet/news/2120247/saudi-government-bans-camera-phones I also disagree with rumors being posted because when I was fighting in Iraq as a member of the 2nd Tank Battalion (USMC) during the 2nd Battle of Fallujah we received about a half dozen or so briefings warning us that the insurgents were telling the local populace that we were releasing "mind controlled snakes" to bite their children while they slept and also releasing "sheep-monkeys" (I kid you not) to do everything from impregnating their daughters, to eating their crops, to spreading the plague. See this link for a similar incorrect rumor: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6295138.stm --USMarinesTanker 2131, 20071213 (MST)--

heh, you know a story is good when it includes "UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer said: "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - thanks for the link. Any chance you have a reference to the same sorts of crazy rumors from April 04 around Fallujah though? If it was happening either immediately prior, or during the battle, I think it's notable enough to mention the "fear-mongering" by insurgents among the local populace. Do you have a suggested rephrasing of the "rumors/leering" sentence? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

I moves some of the information around in order to make a coherent timeline. There was a few redundancies where I was forced to remove some information, but the bulk of the article is still there, just in chronological order. I also added information on April 1 and 2. I found a citiation supporting the info on April 1, but could not find one supporting April 2. However, I don't think that it is so POV as to require one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bufshof (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Looting/Scavenging/Occupying/etc

I added a story about US forces occupying abandoned houses and "searching" them for food and such. I don't want a repeat of this shitfest, so figured I'd ask opinions on the terms used. I mean, they're not exactly taking pricesless paintings off the walls and shipping them to Berlin, but does the wealth of the affected population come into play or not? I really don't know, so welcome rewords/comments/whatever. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea that occpying an abandon house and scavenging for food is a problem in a warzone is beyond foolish (and I understand that you are not putting forth that idea). Particularly because food in Iraq is usually meat, veggies, or bread that goes bad very quickly and would not last until the residents returned. "Looting" would definately be the wrong word to use here. Either scavenging or occupying strike me as fine. - Atfyfe 02:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Insurgent victory?

I could do with a little bit more of why this battle is to be considered a victory for the insurgents. The article just ends with saying the city was turned over to the control of some former Baathist general by the Americans without actualy giving a clear, third-party opinion for the battle to be considered a victory for the opposition. More cited info please! -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The US/coalition failed in its goals, while the insurgency ended up controlling the city after the battle was over. Control wasn't turned over to the American-backed Baathist, just all American/coalition interests were - the city remained under insurgent control until the November battle that did succeed in capturing the victory. The talk page has a fair bit of banter about the status of "victory/failure/success/aborted/whatnot", so I'm going to remove the ((fact)) tag for now - it's not usual for a commonly-accepted outcome of a battle to have to be sourced. (World War Two saw the defeat of the Nazis^disputed!) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sherurcij. After the fight in April 2004, the city was handed over and declared "off limits" for Americans. We could not go in, but the insurgents could. Fallujah was considered by all of us on the ground as a safe haven for the insurgents. Traditionally, if the enemy has freedom of movement in an area, and you don't, then they won.--Bufshof 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There had to be a second battle for Fallujah. Nuff said. - Atfyfe 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the most accurate description of the battle would be that the Americans won a tactical victory, having inflicted a significant disproportionate total of kills upon the insurgents (compared to relatively few deaths of their own), while the insurgents scored a strategic victory as the Americans had to leave the city and fight a second battle later that year. That would be the most non-POV assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.128.192 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

More Allied troops died at D-Day than German troops, shall we label it a tactical German victory? Stalingrad as well? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to go against you as well, Sherurcij. That example is largely irrelevant given that a tactical victory is defined as one in which one army destroys a larger contingent. They can very well lose the war or the battle and still have won a tactical victory. I agree that the most non-POV option for this article would be to include both labels as it shows that the insurgency forced the Coalition troops to fight a second siege to reclaim the city, but that overwhelming force resulted in numerous deaths in their attempt to hold onto the city. The brief article on Wikipedia actually provides a perfect example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea. And Stalingrad was a major tactical victory for the Germans, yes. JaysCyYoung

" That example is largely irrelevant given that a tactical victory is defined as one in which one army destroys a larger contingent." - do you have a source for the claim that one army must outnumber the other army for there to be a "tactical victory"? This seems to be neologism/OR; I have never heard that definition, nor can I find any sources agreeing on that fact. We are talking about a battle, and you are saying "You can lose the battle', but still have a tactical victory"; that is fairly counter-intuitive and obtuse - clearly the battle was an insurgent victory - you can discuss tactics later in the article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the battle clearly was not an insurgent victory. They lost seven times as many men while outnumbering the American contingent by a ten to one margin based on the statistics cited. That would be a quantifiable tactical victory on the part of the Marines in the city. The fact that they were required to withdraw and launch a second assault later that year in order to take the city for good would thereby provide the insurgents with a strategic victory despite their losses. These are quantifiable definitions provided on this website and listed in other well-cited military articles. There really isn't any room for discussion here. Your simplistic definition of a complex battle as simply a black and white insurgent victory is narrow-minded and factually incorrect. The insurgents suffered large losses and were only saved from losing that battle outright by the Iraqi government requests that the Americans withdraw. Thus, from a sheer military kill:loss ratio (tactical standpoint) the Americans emerged victorious. From a strategic standpoint (capturing one's objective) the Insurgency won. That is the most NPOV slant. JaysCyYoung

In its (relatively neutral, rather than propaganda released to media sources) account of the battle, the US military summarised the battle as "control being handed to Sunni insurgents", "prevent the United States from accomplishing its military objectives", and "The relative failure of the first Battle of Fallujah compared to the more successful second Battle of Fallujah", so I think it's safe to say all parties agree the first battle went to the insurgents. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're really having a hard time comprehending the nature of what each definition means. NO ONE would dispute that from a strategic standpoint the Americans lost this battle. They were forced to withdraw and assault again to take the city. What is being disputed here is the fact that the American military won a decisive tactical victory, killing far more insurgents than troops that they lost (once again, a 7:1 kill ratio while being outnumbered 10:1 in the statistics cited on the article page). Hence, it can be safe to say that they won a tactical victory. I have already linked the very Wikipedia page illustrating how a battle can be lost strategically and yet present the defeated foe with a victory in other respects (whether by killing large numbers of the enemy, eliminating logistics, economic capacity to fight, etc.) The Americans suffered a strategic defeat but a clear tactical victory. There have been numerous citations outlining this. What are you disputing here? That the Americans killed far more men than they lost? That the insurgents won a strategic victory? What? JaysCyYoung —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

Statistics

2,000 American soldier killed and 23,000 injured in First Battle of Fallujah According to American Statistics.

Have a link for that? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy Cow...are you kidding me? There wasn't even that many of us Americans in that fight, much less that many killed and injured.--Bufshof 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate Introduction of Errors

I noticed that an editor this morning changed many of the battle statistics figures but kept the same references from previous edits. This note is just a suggestion to future editors randomly checking pages that someone seems to have deliberately inserted errors on this page in the past and may do so again. Moonriddengirl 12:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet been active in this article

• Teens! has been participating in the editing of this article.
• This was a sock-puppet of Isarig (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). See here.
• This sockpuppet (also Clintonesque) have been permanently blocked. PalestineRemembered 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The casualty figures are dishonest

Under casualties it places 600+ Iraqi civilians on the opposite side of the US Marines. This is in and of itself offensive. It implies that the civilian non-combatants were not on the same side as the Marines. There is no way to know which side any of the particular civilians were on. It also implies that the civilians died at the hands of the Marines.

The source of the civilian deaths is Iraqbodycount.org. They intentionally mislead with their figures. And the person who used as a citation also was being underhanded. The supposed source was said that 616 died in Fallujah over the course of a particular span judging from death counts at a hospital. This means it includes all deaths including non-violent natural cause deaths. The source at the hospital quotes that he does not want to give the specific demographics of the dead because he does not want to give the impression that there were alot of insurgent deaths. This clearly demonstrates that the source is biased. It is also ignored that insurgents, al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Mahdi army or whomever the particular group is that the US Marines and other coalition forces are fighting at any given time has not and has never shown efforts to reduce the deaths of innocents. Often innocent Iraqis die in large numbers due to insurgent attacks including suicide bombings such as the type used against the Marines in Fallujah. It is entirely likely that those non-combatant deaths that occurred as a result of violence were the result of insurgents. Deranderen 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Skipping over the rest of your points for a moment, I'll just point out that the casualties are indicated by nationality, as with most wars. French civilians are listed along with French soldiers, even though some may have been involved in the Vichy government. Similarly, the Vietnamese casualties are counted together, whether military or civilian, even though doubtless some of them were anti-communist in their views. I don't see any problem listing Iraqis, both insurgents and civilians, on the same side of the infobox.

Further, I'm not sure which suicide bombings you're referring to during this battle - it was mostly street fighting. Do you have links to cite?

Since the US has not given an official civilian casualty count for the battle, we have no "alternative" to using the Fallujah hospitals, IBC and the international media. Those seem to support the "approximately" 600 casualties.

Finally, unless you have sources showing that insurgents killed civlilians in massive strikes during this battle, then I believe it is perfectly reasonable to work off the assumption that they were killed by US bombs and rifles, not insurgents.

As a word of advice, I encourage you to investigate and keep in mind the fact the insurgency has largely changed its scope since the "early" days of the war. The First Battle of Fallujah was not entirely different from other historical battles, and was not made up of carbombs and marketplace slaughters. It was street fighting betweeen two armed groups, with a civilian population trapped in the middle. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem when citing casulaties in any insurgency. When a body wearing civilian clothes is brought to a hospital, is he counted as a civilian, or an insurgent? They dress the same. The only indicator would be if he still has some type of military equipment on him. And this would be extremely rare as any equipment would have been taken for use by other insurgents. So any insurgent killed in the battle could have been counted as a civilian. Interestingly, the exact same reference that cites the 600+ civilians were killed also states that the military had estimated about 700 insurgents were killed. But the military's version of this estimate is ignored in this article. Angncon (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fallujah or Vigilant Resolve

There are two references to incidents that occured in Mahmudiyah in this article. From what I understand, this article has purposefully maintained it's focus as one of the "Battles for Fallujah", and not "Operation Vigilant Resolve". If this is to reamin true, then I suggest that these references to other provinces be remove. Otherwise rename the article in order to broaden the scope to include Mahmudiyah. Leaving the article as it is suggests that any 'bad' news from other parts of Iraq is allowed (such as Lt Pentario's shootings), but 'good' news is not (such as Sadr's defeat in Najaf). I understand that these incidents had an impact on Fallujah at the time, but so did a lot of incidents across Iraq. Angncon (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I took out another reference to the Pentario shootings again. Either change the article so that it includes all of Iraq, or remove references to other provinces. One or the other, you can't have it both ways.

Also, I put a 'citation needed' regarding the statement that Al Jazeera was the only non-embedded reporters. From what I remember, there were a lot of reporters there, embedded and non-embedded alike. The idea of putting Ahmed Mansur's statement in this article is a case of extreme POV. First off, the cited work is not a news article, it is an interview. Secondly, Mansur's claim is easily proven incorrect as all statements released by the military are archived. The statement as Mansur claims does not exist, anywhere. Further to say that the entire peace process in Fallujah hinged on one reporter's disposition is pretty far fetched, (even for those that wish it to be true). Bad POV, it needs to be removed.Angncon (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought Pentario was in Fallujah, since it wasn't - I agree, it's removal is called for. On the second, while I'd point out that "all" the military's statements and actions are not released to the public, I think if you can find a source that disproves the notion and shows that there were other (non-embedded?) reporters present, then that'll be fine. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you mean I can put anything I want in a Wikipedia article, and it has to stay until it is proven otherwise? Then why not change the article to reflect that there WERE other reporters since there is no source that state otherwise? The burden of proof in not on readers to find a source that makes the statement false, the burden falls on the author to provide citations to prove it is correct. In your own words "I would welcome rewording our article to indicate this, if you can offer a citation." The statement will be removed as it is speculative.

As far as Ahmed Mansur's claim, I saw why you think that his statement should be included. "The trouble with having "no" journalists in the conflict zone, what do you do when the only journalist there has a story that seems a bit ego-centric?." First off, there were a lot of journalist in the conflict zone. There is nothing, anywhere to support the claim that there were no other journalist there. News reports from numerous outlets were pouring out of Falujah at the time. NONE of these news agencies reported Mansur's claim, not one single agency. No military release, interview or press conference provides any credence to his claim. Secondly, his claims make absolutely no military sense whatsoever. There has never, by any country, been a military campaign put on hold because of one reporter; until now. Third, the citation itself is of an interview, not a news article. Even if you wish to pursue his wild claim, then stop misleading the reader and put it in this context. It is a personal claim by one reporter that cannot be substantiated by any other news outlet that was present at the time. It cannot be substantiated by any military release or press conference at the time. It needs to be removed, it demonstrates a extreme POV. Angncon (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are using circular logic - slow down for a moment. The claim that Mansur was the only non-embedded reporter in the battle has a citation - the interview given by the notable Democracy Now! organisation to the bona fide Al Jazeera reporter. Now, you claim it is POV and easily disproven...alright, if that is the case, "disprove it". I have said, if you can find the names, or even references to, other non-embeds in the battle, then that would disprove Mansur's claims. However, if you do not do so, we assume they are true. If there is a CNN citation stating something, and a user comes along and says "That's easily disproven!" then the burden is on them to disprove it. DN and AJ are both respected media outlets, and I see no reason they should be treated differently. So, if you can find the references to other non-embeds, by all means let's rewrite that section, but otherwise don't invoke Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is easy. You are using double standards, and it IS easy to disprove the notion that these guys were the only reporters in the city. The article that you cite states;

"Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the besieged city"

Now, you have the article that states that other news agencies were there, and also within the article there is a reporter that states that they were the only ones. You will not allow one part of the citation, but will allow the other; a double standard.

As far as Mansur's claim, in the cited article, Mansur states the following;

"We recognize that the negotiating team from the people of Fallujah, when they went to negotiate with the U.S. forces, we were told that the first condition to the ceasefire is Ahmed Mansur to exit the city."

So, sombody (possibly American, but we can't be sure) told sombody (who was not identified) who told Mansur who then states it as fact in an interview. That means we are getting this information, fourth person. This is heresay, and is not allowed in Wikipedia, unless the article is about the heresay itself. You have presented this fourth hand information as though it was actually stated first hand, by the U.S. Military. It was not, Mansur himself admits the information came from a third (unidentified) person. According to Wikipedia standards, the burden of proof is on the author, not the reader, to prove the U.S. military stated this. The citation only proves that someone in Fallujah said that the military stated it, this is not what you wrote. If you want this statement to remain in the article, then you must present it as the citation presents it:

"An unknown person stated to an Al Jazeera reporter that they were told by an unidentified person that the U.S. Military wanted Ahmed Mansur out of the city as a precondition of the ceasefire."

Any implication that the military stated this, or that even Mansur heard it first hand from the military is not consistent with the citation and is misleading. Again, you maintain a double standard.

Finally, Wikipedia's NPOV policy states that all majority points of view must be considered. When expressing this balance with statements such as 'this claim has not been found in official military releases, by any other news agency'; you object, even though it is a fact and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Once again, you maintain your POV, and will not allow a balance; another double standard.

I just wanted to know, is this the standard of information that we are allowed to put into Wikipedia? If so, I know a lot of news agencies that report on blogs. Information from blogs is not allowed under Wiki rules. But, according to your standard, the information itself is allowed if a news agency reports what a blog is saying (third hand). Either take out the statement, re-write it to reflect the citation, or allow third and fourth hand information. No more double standards.Angncon (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

a) No, it is not fourth-hand. At best, you could argue that the article should say "Al-Jazeera reported that the US Army had demanded the removal of Mansur from the city".

b) Do you even understand the difference between embeds and non-embeds? The fact CNN may've had an embed "reporting from the city", doesn't make the claim that Mansur was the only non-embed untrue.

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That would not truthfully reflect what the article states. The article admits that Ahmed Manusr heard it from someone who was told by someone else. The only way to truthfully represent what the article states is "Al-Jazeera reported that he heard that the US Army had demanded the removal of Ahmed Mansur from the City." Bottom line, the citation states that he reported heresay, nothing more. Your deviation from that is misleading, by omitting part of the citation, you are creating (false) information that is not in the citation. Even if this statement is allowed, then a statement to balance the POV is needed, such as "No military statements, press conference transcripts or news agency reports can cooberate this claim."

There were other non-embeds in Fallujah at the time, (I remember them well). Here, PBS reports: "In April, a number of Iraqi journalists working for local and international news organizations covered the U.S. military's siege of Fallujah, albeit with great difficulty, and, as a result, Arab news organizations were the only non-embedded broadcasters reporting live from inside the city." http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2004/iraq_journ_5_04/iraq_journ_5_04.html

Yes, they were all Arab (I do remember that part), but as reported, these organizations were local and international. Because the article does not state the non-embeds by name, does not mean that they did not exist. Unless you think Mansur constituted all of the "Arab news organizations". Either remove the reference that they were the only ones, or include a reference that they were not the only ones.Angncon (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it is not fourth hand knowledge, its third hand. The information went from someone, to someone else, to Mansur to the public. Third hand is information that is "received from or through two intermediaries." (Merriam Webster). They way you want to frame it is second hand, which is NOT what the article states. Angncon (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since your article doesn't mention the "Arab non-Embeds" by name, it's entirely possible they're referring to Mansur. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Mansur is part of the non-embeds that they are talking about. But PBS reported in the plural, more than one. Unless you think that Mansur is both the "local and international" reporters, that include the "multiple news organizations". It is obvious that there were more than just Al Jazeera. Your statement that they were the only non-embeds needs to be removed or this citation needs to be added stating that their claim is not valid.

Also, the statement needs to be fixed to reflect the citation. The citation does not state that Al Jazeera has reported that the US military requested Mansur to leave. The citation states that Al Jazeera has reported that sources stated that the US military requested Mansur to leave. What is written now is misleading and dishonest.20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pantano was in Fallujah. The compound where the April 15th shooting incident occurred may sometimes be listed as being in Mahmudiyah. The suggestion, in this thread, that Pantanao was in a different Province, is the first time I have seen this suggestion. Do you have a reference to this assertion? Geo Swan (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Paul Quinn-Judge (May 10 2004). "Life on the Front Lines". Time magazine. Retrieved 2008-02-10. Dawn in Fallujah, and the men of the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines' Easy Company, part of the 1st U.S. Marine Expeditionary Force, are withdrawing under fire. At 4:30 that morning, 150 Marines had moved into the southern edge of the city to destroy two bunkers that insurgents were using to fire on their positions. Easy's Third Platoon moved in to inspect one of the buildings, which had been hit the day before by a 500-lb. bomb. Platoon Commander 2nd Lieut. Ilario Pantano reported back that they had found gun emplacements and binoculars and that the building was still usable by insurgents. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Corrections to Reflect the Citation & Maintain NPOV

The citation regarding Ahmed Mansur's statement was changed to correctly reflect what the article staed. In the article, the information was not reported by Al-jazeera, or even one of their reporters. It was stated by an unknown source. Also, a citation was added that there were multiple non-embedded news agencies in Falluja at the time. Futher, in order to maintain NPOV, links to several press release sites were given that show no information cooberating Mansur's source could be found on any official public releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angncon (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"In April, a number of Iraqi journalists working for local and international news organizations covered the U.S. military's siege of Fallujah, albeit with great difficulty, and, as a result, Arab news organizations were the only non-embedded broadcasters reporting live from inside the city."

That statement is still entirely consistent with two AJ reporters (Mansur and his cameraman) being the only non-embeds present. Two Arab reporters, working for local (Fallujah TV? I dunno) and International (AJ) media I don't see why you think it disproves anything? Are we reading the statement differently? Again, if you can find a reference to another non-embed reporter who was present, please do so, but otherwise you have provided nothing that contradicts Mansur's claim.

I've removed your WP:OR stating that al-Jazeera "has not confirmed it" with a citation pointing to...the front page of AJ's website (?!), and your list of people who "haven't confirmed it", Pope Benedict XVI didn't confirm it either - that doesn't prove anything. I also removed your attempt to use OR to "argue" within the article, a decidingly unscholastic tone for an encyclopaedia. On the other hand, I've left the description of the quote being attributed to Mansur, rather than AJ, as you've changed it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The citation CLEARLY states (and I will quote) that there were "Arab news organizations" in Fallujah. You will notice that there is an 'S' on the end of word 'organization'. This means there were more than one organization, not simply 'more than one person' as you keep insisting. The article stated that more than one news organization (not person) was non-embedded in Fallujah. This is simple English; plural organizations, not plural people. The citation goes on to state that these were local as well as international. And yes, there are newspaper reporters in Fallujah and Baghdad, (is it so hard to believe?). To insist that Mansur and his cameraman is the equivalent to multiple "Arab news organizations" (more than one organization) that are both local and international is contradicting what the citation says. These two men do not speak for all the "Arab news organizations" (more than one organization) that were in Falluja. Furthermore, the citation that you insist on taking off is a DIRECT QUOTE from the article, not simply an interpretation of the article. There was no room for an error of judgment by myself or the reader that the citation mentions "Arab news organizations" (more than one organization). A citation from PBS is every bit as valid as a citation from Al-Jazeera. The citation was valid and relevant to the subject. Simply because it does not fit your POV is no reason to remove it. Angncon (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sherurcij, you stated after you reverted the article that AJ does not dispute the claim, but you reverted the article anyway. You stated that it needs to be discussed in the talk page, but you did not answer the last entry, and reverted the article anyway. I believe the rules for Wikipedia state that you MUST discuss prior to reverting someone else's entry. You did not. Do you feel above the rules? You claim that the article written by PBS contains a mistake. This is your POV, nothing else. Anyone could just as easily state the same for your entry, and using your (erroneous) logic, revert any and all entries that you make, based on the fact they they feel your cited article has a mistake in it. It is not up to you to decide that articles are written in error. The article states that there were 'organizations', and nothing you say can change that FACT, it is not POV, it is a fact stated in a valid news article by a valid news outlet.

Bottom line is this, you have an citation that I believe is in error, and I have an citation that you believe is in error. To maintain a NPOV, I have no problem putting both citations in this article, but you don't. I think you need to re-examine which one of us is pushing a POV.Angncon (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Condescension aside, I have discussed the revert six times on this talk page, so no I do not "feel above the rules", I am just tired of you challenging published media outlets with your own opinions and WP:OR. Notice earlier you claimed that IBC "intentionally mislead with their figures" because total deaths of 616 didn't count anybody who died of cancer during that time. You also then referred to "suicide bombings such as the type used against the Marines in Fallujah" but failed to provide any evidence of suicide bombings during the battle when challenged. In November you also claimed that "non-combatant deaths that occurred as a result of violence were the result of insurgents", but when I asked you for any evidence of civilians dying en masse due to any insurgent tactics during this battle, you again fell silent and just kept arguing while refusing to support your case.

You are doing the same thing now, saying that because an errant report mentioned "Arab news organisations", which you think proves that AJ reporter Ahmed Mansur is lying when he says he and his cameraman were the only non-embeds. I don't say PBS made a "mistake", I'm pointing out that Mansur and his cameraman still fall within the definition of what PBS said, that there were multiple (two) reporters from "Arab news organisations". This is like saying that "Troops from the American forces entered the building", even though it was only US ARMY troops, and the NAVY wasn't involved. al-Jazeera is an Arab news organisation, thus it could be said that "only Arab news organisations were in the city, no American reporters". A "List of News Organisations that Came to Last Week's Briefing" could contain only one organisation, and still be referred to as a "List" in casual speaking, couldn't it? That's the same thing we have here.

You are taking a single letter from a news story, and stating that it disproves published media sources. Now, that letter might be cause for some "investigative journalism" and drive you to dig deeper, and if you discover that there were other journalists, then bingo, you have a story - and facts you can put in the article. But you cannot simply hold up your stray letter and shout "Aha, here's the proof!" when it is in contradiction to published sources and everything we have been able to find thusfar.

Now, it's not 100% certain that Mansur's team were the only reporters in Fallujah, but it is 99% certain and supported by facts. When asked to name another reporter, or even another news organization, that was present during the battle - you have again come up short on facts, and compensated with namecalling and childish edit wars. I strongly encourage you to use your time to try and find references to other journalists who were present during the battle - because that will be ironclad and inserted into the article. But "User:Angncon however has discovered a reference to "organisations" which he believes means that published media is lying and deliberately misleading people, because Mansur is an individual not an organisation" is hardly encyclopaedic or scholastic. Those comments belong on the talk page and in your blog. Not in the reference article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The amount of times you have discussed a subject does not correlate to if you are right. (I, too have discussed it six times.) OK, first, I don't know where you got the idea that I challenged any death toll on the basis of cancer, or talked about suicide bombers. I've word searched this page for both of these and can't find it. In November, I talked of the problems of distinguishing between insurgents and civilians, not about mass civilian casualties by insurgents. I'm not sure who you are upset at, but I think you have me confused with someone else.

No, I am basing my insistence on a single letter in a single news story. I am basing it on logic. Unless you absolutely see the words 'non-embedded' NEXT to 'reporter', then you refuse to state that the paragraph or article is valid. This refusal disregards the relevant information in the Democracy Now article, as well as in the PBS one. Additionally, you can call it a 'stray S' all you want. I'm sure that PBS has a full staff to find errors such as this, and would have taken it out if it were an error. What is not encyclopedic or scholastic is your continued denial what PBS wrote, and for that matter, what Democracy Now wrote, based on a technicality.

So it comes down to this, why am I sticking with the "S". Because I know its right. Not only did I see these non-embedded reporters in and around Fallujah, I have read numerous blogs and articles by them. And their articles had details that no embedded reporter could have known. But because you insist of the technicality that they must have the word 'non-embedded' next to their name, they don't count. Even your own article states that Al-Jazeera was one of the few to broadcast from inside the city. Think about it, the Marines never made it to the inside of the city, even this Wikipedia article states that. During that fight, you were either on the perimeter of the city (embedded) or you were inside (non-embedded). If you were broadcasting from the inside of the city, you had to be embedded. However, you wish to be technical, and not (in your own words) scholarly. So now I have been reduced to using a technicality myself. Why? Because Fallujah did have several non-embeds, its not a personal POV, it is a POV of those reporters in the city.

You should look up a guy named Rahul Mahajan, I'm sure he would disagree with your assessment that it is 99% sure that Mansur's team was the only reporters in Fallujah. This article describes his time inside the city of Fallujah, but since he didn't have the word 'non-embed' in his article, it doesn't 'really' count. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18955.htm. He reported from inside the clinic in Fallujah, a place that no Marine (and by extension, an embedded reporter) ever made it to. Logically, he was a non embedded reporter. But your technicalities (which are by no means scholastic) denies his status. And he is not the only one.Angncon (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

THank you, see now that you've given evidence and a name, we can edit the article accordingly. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo from Fallujah

The photo's upload info on Commons clearly says "Description= Iraqi insurgents in fallujah."[18], later edited to generic "Anbar". I see nothing about Ramadi Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaked document

s:Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, an internal document, only claims 18 of the Marines as fatalities of this battle. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased!

This article is seriously biased! I recommend that someone, or several someones, go through this article and edit it! I will do the best I can, but I'm only 12, so excuse me if some of my information is off.

Masterfowl (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Masterfowl

Biased in what way? Can you be more specific in telling us your areas of concern? Lawrencema (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

After the First Battle of Fallujah

The bodys of American Soldiers/Mercenarys were thrown in the desert by the Americans

• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1080408730334774511&hl=ar
• http://www.archive.org/download/fromiraq-item20/Down-03.ram

Akoka (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Insurgent sources?

Citation 4: Insurgent sources. Wouldn't that be original research? Nathrael (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Events before the battle: removed possible OR

The "Events before the battle" section originally said this:

"Although the people of Fallujah had generally benefited under Saddam Hussein, mostly due to the high number of police, military and intelligence officers hired by his administration, his secular government was not popular in the city,[7] which was one of the most religious and culturally traditional areas in Iraq"

However, this seems to be presenting a synthesis not supported in the cited source, which merely states:

"Al-Falluja had generally benefited economically under the previous government. Local residents told Human Rights Watch that many of them had worked for the military, police or intelligence. However, Human Rights Watch did not find overwhelming sympathy for Saddam Hussein following the collapse of his government. Many al-Falluja residents told Human Rights Watch that they considered themselves victims and opponents of his repressive rule.

To this one must add the tense atmosphere in the town, which combines strong Islamic codes of honor and hospitality, as well as strong social conservatism. Al-Falluja is known as the "city of mosques."

In other words, its the town that was said to benefit, not the people; the benefit was economic (which may go beyond and/or not necessarily be related to the number of people employed by the security forces); and many people found his rule "oppressive", with not direct link being made between their religious nature and the secularism of the regeim.

I've changed the first paragraph to a slightly more encyclopaedic version of the statement in the source:

"Fallujah had generally benefited economically under Saddam Hussein, and many residents were employed as police, military and intelligence officers by his administration. However, there was little sympathy for him following the collapse of his government, which many residents considered oppresive[7]. The city was one of the most religious and culturally traditional areas in Iraq." Wardog (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

31 kills per sniper

The article states that every marine sniper averaged 31 kills and that during the whole battle 184 insurgents got killed. Either the USMC has extremely few snipers, or the average is way overstated or the the number of deaths civilians/insurgents is way deflated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.220.209 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)