Talk:Iraq War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:09, 25 July 2013 editHohum (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers68,570 edits →POV concerns: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:35, 22 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,118 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Iraq War/Archive 35) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header\|hide_find_sources=yes}}
	{{Round in circles\|search=~~yes~~}}		{{Round in circles\|search=no}}
			{{American English}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|collapsed=yes\|1=
			{{Article history
	{{WPMILHIST\|class=B\|\|B-1=y\|B-2=n\|B-3=y\|B-4=y\|B-5=y\|US=y\|Middle-Eastern=y}}
	{{WikiProject Iraq\|class = B\|importance =Top}}
	{{WikiProject Kurdistan \|class = B\|importance = High}}
	{{Global perspective task force}}
	{{WP1.0\|v0.5=pass\|class=B\|category=Socsci}}
	{{WikiProject Arab world \|class = B\|importance =}}
	}}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN
	\|action1date=September 1, 2006		\|action1date=September 1, 2006
Line 22:		Line 15:
	\|action2link=Talk:Iraq War/Archive 10#GA nomination on hold		\|action2link=Talk:Iraq War/Archive 10#GA nomination on hold
	\|currentstatus=FGAN		\|currentstatus=FGAN
			\|itndate=1 September 2010
	}}		}}
	{{to do\|collapsed=yes}}		{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=c \|B-1=y \|B-2=n \|B-3=y \|B-4=y \|B-5=y \|US=yes \|Middle-Eastern=yes\|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Iraq\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Kurdistan\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Arab world\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias\|global perspective=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Low\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=High}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=High\|USMIL=yes\|UShistory=yes\|UShistory-importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Bush family\|importance=High}}
			}}
			{{To do\|collapsed=yes}}
			{{Annual readership}}
			{{Section sizes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 27		\|counter = 35
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(~~20d~~)		\|algo = old(183d)
	\|archive = Talk:Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes}}
	}}
	{{Auto archiving notice \|age=20 \|units=days \|target=Talk:Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d \|bot=MiszaBot I}}
	{{ITN talk\|1 September\|2010}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}

	== Proposed Change #2 ==

	''After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.‑led ] concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the ] were lifted.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm\|title=Iraq Survey Group Final Report: Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)}}</ref> Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned ] from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion.<ref>Shrader, K. (22 June 2006) ''Associated Press''</ref> The United States’ most senior intelligence officers disputed the Bush administration’s claims that the motivation for war was based on pre-war intelligence regarding WMD. ], the CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, said the "broad view" within the intelligence community both in the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place." Pillar states the "Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war." Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." <ref> \|accessdate=15 June 2013</ref> Similarly, ], the former director of central intelligence, stated Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States. <ref> \|accessdate=15 June 2013</ref>''

	'''changed to'''

	''After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.‑led ] concluded that Iraq had missile programs that violated U.N. range restrictions, that Iraq had the capability of producing ] and ], and that its dual-use infrastructure was expanding despite debilitating sanctions. But Iraq had no active chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs and its past WMD programs had either been dismantled by prior U.N. inspections or had been secretly destroyed by Iraq in the summer of 1991 in an attempt to conceal WMD capabilities from the U.N. They intended to resume production if the ] were lifted or otherwise disintegrated.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm\|title=Iraq Survey Group Final Report: Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)}}</ref> Some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned ] from before 1991 were also found.<ref>Shrader, K. (22 June 2006) ''Associated Press''</ref><ref name="WP-7Oct2004">{{cite web\|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp\|title=U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons\|publisher=]\|last1=Priest\|first1=Dana\|last2=Pincus\|first2=Walter\|date=7 October 2004\|accessdate=13 May 2013}}</ref>''

	'''Comment:''' The personal view (read: after the fact second guessing) of one individual has no business being in this article, let alone the lead section.

	] (]) 15:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

	:That is completely misleading in so many ways, and just plain false in others. doesn't even mention anthrax. To claim it says Iraq could produce anthrax is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. What is the point of this, anyway? To the extent that some of your other points below may have found legitimate bias issues, instead of tempering them by adding alternative views, you want to entirely replace them with the opposite bias. Have you read ]? ] (]) 18:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

	Really? I guess you missed this.

	''ISG judges that a break-out production capability existed at one site, the State Company for Drug Industries and Medical Appliances, SDI, at Samarra. Since Iraq could relocate production assets such as fermentors, other sites with basic utilities could also be converted for break-out. A full program to include R&D and production or even just large scale production would require months rather than weeks to re-initiate in a break-out context.''

	''A break-out of large-scale proportion would require all three key production elements; fermentor capacity, media capacity, and technical expertise. A break-out capability must also take into consideration the scale and scope of the program being considered. Modest or small-scale break-outs would be easier and require less time after a decision to do so was made. For a larger scale and scope such as Iraq possessed in 1990 would require more equipment, larger supply source, more personnel and a longer time period for effective start-up. Iraq, having had achieved a maturing program, had a core group of experienced personnel; a better start than existed in 1985. Personnel are movable assets as is growth media. While sanctions and inspections may be a hindrance to an ample supply of media, it would not have been a show stopper. Iraq developed a milk and corn byproduct media that is judged to be adequate for the production of anthrax spores, albeit of a reduced production efficiency. Thus, the equipment for the scale and scope of a program becomes the critical factor to evaluate a breakout capability.''

	''ISG assesses the SDI to have the fixed assets that could be converted for BW agent production within four to five weeks after the decision to do so, including utilities, personnel with know-how, and the equipment (with slight modifications) required. Media and additional less-skilled personnel could be obtained (see Figure 10).''

	''ISG judges the movable assets at the Al Dawrah FMDV Plant could provide the core of an alternative break-out capability at any other suitable site in Iraq, perhaps within 2 to 3 weeks after the decision to do so. The 1 cubic meter tanks or fermentors presently unaccounted for are other important assets that, if indeed still exist, could, when combined with the Al Dawrah FMDV assets, exceed the capacity Iraq possessed in 1990. In this case media and personnel are also movable assets.''

	''◾Iraq had shown the ability to move fermentor assets pre-1990 era. Iraq had also shown its ability to utilize small cadres of skilled personnel to lead clusters of less skilled personnel in the production process.''

	''◾Iraq gained additional production and development know-how during the post-1991 era.''

	''◾Iraq has developed the capacity to produce indigenously, substitute media for the production of some agents, such as corn and milk byproduct media for anthrax spores.''


	''ISG judges that Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) would likely be the agent of choice for breakout production.''

	''◾It represented the single strategic BW agent that Iraq had in its historical arsenal.''

	''◾Iraq has a previous track record in large-scale growth, processing, testing and weaponization of anthrax spores.''

	''◾Corn byproduct medium, indigenously manufactured for Bt production, would also be suitable for the growth of B. anthracis.''

	] (]) 20:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

	:That isn't the source you cited in the proposed text, and it doesn't say they had the capability, but that they could reconstruct it over time if the unaccounted-for fermenters were hidden. How about a proposal with wording that matches the source? How about contrasting with the "imminent threat" statements from the Bush administration? How about augmenting the original POV instead of wholesale substitution with your preferred POV? ] (]) 22:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	''it doesn't say they had the capability, but that they could reconstruct it over time if the unaccounted-for fermenters were hidden''

	No, it said that they could exceed their 1990 capability if the unaccounted for material was still hidden. But they had some capability already.

	''"imminent threat" statements from the Bush administration''

	Here is what Bush actually said before the war: ''We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In 1 year, or 5 years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.''

	So, far from saying the threat was "imminent", he actually said it was 1-5 years away.

	] (]) 13:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

	:CJK, let me quote from the source that you yourself used above ():
	::* "This is about imminent threat" - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
	::* "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month ... So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
	::* "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
	::* "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
	:Here's an even more menacing statement, which I recalled and found in another source ():
	::* "Rice acknowledged that 'there will always be some uncertainty' in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, 'We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.'"
	:The Bush administration used words like "imminent" and "urgent" on many occasions, as the source you provided notes. The Bush administration didn't say that Iraq's ability to produce biological and chemical weapons was 1-5 years away. It said those weapons already existed, and that they might be used in a surprise first strike on the United States at any time. -] (]) 16:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

	The only person on your list who said "imminent threat" was the White House spokesman, not an actual official.

	I'm more interested in what Bush himself, the President of the United States, explicitly said at the time, rather than the vague statements of his subordinates. What he said just before the war was: ''We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In '''1 year, or 5 years''', the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. '''With these capabilities''', Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies '''could''' choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it '''can''' appear suddenly in our skies and cities.''

	In the 2003 State of the Union he said:

	'''''Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.''' Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? '''If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge''', all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.''

	So it seems that, far from asserting that there was an "imminent threat" what they said was that the entire question of Iraq being an "imminent threat" or not was totally irrelevant.

	] (]) 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

	:CJK, your bolding of Bush's comments is very misleading. You bolded "1 year, or 5 years." Bush says that in this time, "the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over." He doesn't say that the threat from Iraq wasn't imminent, nor that the threat from Iraq will only become imminent in 1 to 5 years. He says that Iraq will be more dangerous in 1 to 5 years than it already is. That's an important distinction. His administration did its best to paint Iraq as an imminent threat, as the article you cited earlier (titled, funnily enough, "In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat") demonstrates at length.
	:In his 2003 State of the Union, we get yet more fear mongering. You bolded, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." This is again misleading, as it suggests Bush did not depict the threat as imminent. Bush then goes on to argue that we won't know when the threat from Iraq is imminent, but that at any point, we could be attacked, and it would be too late to respond. In other words, he says that we may argue over whether the threat is imminent, but Saddam might attack the US at any point.
	:The quotes I pulled from your source do indeed demonstrate that the Bush administration painted Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat. Scott McClellan was the White House spokesman - his job was to represent the administration's official position. He wasn't some loose cannon. His job was to put out the message that Bush wanted to get out. When he says that Iraq is an imminent threat, he is representing the administration's official stance. Then we have Donald Rumsfeld twice using the word "imminent." He makes the same argument as Bush in your above quotation. He says that some people don't regard the threat as imminent, but that Iraq might attack at any moment, and that it will then be too late to discuss the imminence of the threat. In other words, he's arguing against those who say there's no imminent threat, and arguing that an attack by Iraq might indeed occur ''imminently''. Rice goes even further, suggesting that Iraq might pre-emptively launch a nuclear attack on the United States if we wait around looking for evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Rice and Rumsfeld weren't nobodies. They were some of the highest officials in the Bush administration, and their pronouncements certainly can be viewed as coming from the administration.
	:You can't rewrite history. Your own source documents it too well. These quotes aren't going down the memory hole. -] (]) 05:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

	Are we really going to have another linguistic debate? The point that they were all making is that nobody would know exactly when the threat would become "imminent" so there was no reason to argue if the threat was imminent. Bush, by explicitly identifying a 1-5 year timeline, was strongly implying that the threat was ''not'' necessarily imminent.

	] (]) 12:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

	:The Bush administration used the term "imminent" all the time, as the article you cited earlier, , demonstrates. When Bush mentioned 1-5 years, it was only to say that the US could not wait 1-5 years, precisely because Iraq was an imminent threat. There's no point arguing this any further. I think this question is a litmus test of your good faith. -] (]) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

	::Here's a further selection of quotations from your source:
	:::*"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
	:::*"Absolutely." - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
	:::*"Well, of course he is." - White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03
	:::*"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." - President Bush, 10/2/02
	:::*"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." - President Bush, 10/7/02
	:::*"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." - President Bush, 11/23/02
	:::*"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat ... He was a threat. He’s not a threat now." - President Bush, 7/2/03
	:::*"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
	::It's easy to find many more such statements. There is an LA Times article from 2003 titled . In September 2002, Bush gave a speech in which ,
	:::"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
	::If that isn't a claim of imminence, I don't know what could be. -] (]) 15:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

	:::As you said, this was a good "litmus test" of CJK's good faith. He has continued his 16000+ character reverts without even responding. CJK clearly deserves an "F" on this test. -- ] (]) 18:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

	<!-- Please add new comments above this line. --> {{reflist-talk\|closed}}

	== On CJK's edits ==

	CJK, You are editing without consensus. Your proposals have not gathered any support so far - only the opposite. Nevertheless, you have reinstated your previous edits with the insulting edit summary, "restoring my vandalized contributions." Who exactly are you accusing of being a vandal?

	The way that you want to change this article removes any objectivity the article currently has. It is a complete travesty. In short, your edits make this article read like apologia for the Bush administration. I've compiled a few examples of blatantly partisan edits below.

	Changing neutral descriptions of what happened to Op-Ed-style commentaries:
	:*"In 1998 following years of Iraqi obstructionism of the post-Gulf War weapon inspections the U.S. under the Clinton administration publicly announced that it supported regime change and, along with the U.K., initiated aerial hostilities against Iraq in December 1998 which continued for the next several years in the "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq."
	Before, the subject was introduced with the paragraph
	:"Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. Prior to the attack, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could not yet verify the accuracy of Iraq's declarations regarding what weapons it possessed, as their work was still unfinished. The leader of the inspectors Hans Blix estimated the time remaining for disarmament being verified through inspections to be 'months'."
	This is a quick, neutral overview of the UN inspections. You replaced it with a paragraph that immediately launches into "years of Iraqi obstructionism." Present the facts, and people might agree with you, but don't force your opinion down peoples' throats right in the lede.

	Placing the most insiginificant post-war findings about alleged Iraqi WMD first, and trying to play up the parts which you think justify the invasion:
	:*"After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.‑led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had missile programs that violated U.N. range restrictions, that Iraq had the capability of producing mustard gas and ], and that its dual-use infrastructure was expanding despite debilitating sanctions. But Iraq had no active chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs and its past WMD programs had either been dismantled by prior U.N. inspections or had been secretly destroyed by Iraq in the summer of 1991 in an attempt to conceal WMD capabilities from the U.N. They intended to resume production if the ] were lifted or otherwise disintegrated."
	The first sentence is not even correct. The missiles violating the U.N. range restrictions were known about ''before'' the war, and were in the process of being destroyed. They had previously been considered within the range restrictions, and had been tested under U.N. supervision in 1996. You play down the most important aspect of the post-war findings, that Iraq's alleged WMD ''did not exist'', burying this finding deep in the paragraph. You play up the accusations the U.S. led group that Iraq intended to build WMD in the future, and missiles that everyone new about and which were being destroyed before the war.

	Playing down the importance of the deceitful Niger claims:
	:*"Additionally there were allegations that Iraq had attempted to import uranium, although these claims were not essential to the intelligence assessment that a nuclear program existed."

	Adding in your own attack against Wilson, who publicly revealed that the administration knew the Niger claim to be false. This one comes complete with the weasel word "however":
	:*"In response, Wilson wrote a critical ''New York Times'' op-ed piece in June 2003 stating that he had personally investigated claims of yellowcake purchases and believed them to be fraudulent. However, it was later revealed that he had never actually seen the reports in question."

	You hedge every fact that is unpleasant for supporters of the war with some contrived tidbit. After the discussion of the ], for example, you insert,
	:*"A 2004 Congressional investigation interviewed analysts and found no evidence to substantiate that analysts had been pressured in any way by the administration. 'The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq's WMD programs, not a single analyst answered "yes." Most analysts simply answered, "no" or "never," but some provided more extensive responses.'"
	An inconvenient fact for you has to be followed by a lengthy, self-serving quotation from the very same people who authored the war, justifying their own actions.

	Your edits don't help the article. If you want to substantially change the article, present your edits point-by-point and convince people on the talk page. We've been discussing the first two proposals, and I don't think either of them is any good. The fact that others are disagreeing with you doesn't give you license to go and change the article wholesale. That's a sign of bad faith. -] (]) 15:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

	:I agree. Some of the edits are constructive, a small proportion, but I object to the edit waring and to a lesser extent making all the edits at once. For an article this size and this contentious, there needs to be more compromise. I'm also a little upset that my well-sourced edits are constantly reverted without any discussion on the talk page, so I object to the further attempts at basing the article. I'm not even sure the regular Misplaced Pages editing model can work well at all under these conditions. Finally, I'm upset that my suggestion to keep both opposing points of view instead of replacing the old one wholesale has apparently been ignored, even though some of the edits in question actually do that pretty well. Why not do it for all of the changes instead of just a few? ] (]) 18:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

	The user reverting my edits was indeed acting as a vandal considering that he refused to engage in discussion. The reason that I restored my edits was because Thucydides411 had failed to respond to me in over three days, and I assumed he had lost interest.

	''This is a quick, neutral overview of the UN inspections. You replaced it with a paragraph that immediately launches into "years of Iraqi obstructionism." Present the facts, and people might agree with you, but don't force your opinion down peoples' throats right in the lede.''

	I did not remove the information that you accused me of removing, rather I added information on the Clinton administration's regime change policy that would be implemented by the Bush administration.

	''The first sentence is not even correct. The missiles violating the U.N. range restrictions were known about ''before'' the war, and were in the process of being destroyed. They had previously been considered within the range restrictions, and had been tested under U.N. supervision in 1996.''

	The Al-Samoud II missile was modified in 2001 to have specifications that had been specifically banned by the U.N.

	But I'm not just talking about the al-Samoud II. There was research and development into other missiles that exceeded the 150 km restrictions, research that was deliberately hidden from the U.N. This was discovered by ISG after the war. There was a UAV that went 500 km, UAVs weren't specifically mentioned in the 687 resolution, but they were named in 1441 because they have similar capabilities as missiles.

	''You play down the most important aspect of the post-war findings, that Iraq's alleged WMD ''did not exist'', burying this finding deep in the paragraph. You play up the accusations the U.S. led group that Iraq intended to build WMD in the future, and missiles that everyone new about and which were being destroyed before the war.''

	I reported both the facts that are favorable and unfavorable to the Bush administration. You seem to only want to talk about unfavorable facts. I am not the one who inserted the ISG accusation, it was already there.

	''Playing down the importance of the deceitful Niger claims:''

	That is a simple fact. The intelligence assessment of the nuclear program was based on the aluminum tubes, not the uranium from Africa. Iraq has natural uranium.

	''Adding in your own attack against Wilson, who publicly revealed that the administration knew the Niger claim to be false. This one comes complete with the weasel word "however":''

	Wilson claimed that he personally saw information about the forged documents, and this was shown to be false in the post-war investigation.

	''You hedge every fact that is unpleasant for supporters of the war with some contrived tidbit.''

	How is an actual investigation, as opposed to quoting two sentences in a memo out of context to support a conspiracy theory, a "contrived tidbit"?

	] (]) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Your contributions make the article a POV justification of the US War in Iraq. Most informed people never believed that Iraq posed the threat that the U.S. government presented, even when presented with the confidential intelligence. ] (]) 23:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

	Are you following me around? That's a little creepy. Please don't intervene here unless you want to give a detailed explanation of your objections.

	] (]) 00:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

	It is clear consensus exists between many editors (including ], ], ], ], and myself) that the large (10K+ characters) CJK edit moves the overall article to a less NPOV. I have heard no editor speak out in favor of the CJK edit other than CJK. It would make sense to stop reverting the version of the article that is supported by wide consensus to the version that only CJK supports. -- ] (]) 16:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

	:You need to actually respond to the substance of what I am saying.

	:] (]) 13:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	:::I feel exactly the same way about you. I've repeatedly asked why you can't balance the article by adding alternative text with your favored POV instead of replacing well-sourced text you don't like with text biased in the opposite direction, and you've ignored me. I think your proposals numbered #3, #4, and #7 are actually pretty good because they do that. What's keeping you from doing that with all your edis? Why do you feel like you have to replace the old text entirely in the other proposals instead of augmenting it to achieve a neutral point of view? ] (]) 17:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	You need to be a bit more specific on what you don't like.

	] (]) 17:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Please review ]. I don't like removing longstanding well-sourced text and replacing it with the opposing point of view. ''Adding'' opposing points of view to existing text is much better. Since you have done so in the three of your numbered proposals I referred to, why not do it in all of them? ] (]) 17:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	I guess you need to spell out for me what you believe is not NPOV. I find my proposal to be fair to all sides.

	] (]) 18:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	Ellen is 100% correct, you need to review ], and attempt to propose more NPOV edits. I do think the list of facts you are providing is well referenced. Unfortunately, it is just a list of facts that solely shows one extreme POV, and deletes all reference to a NPOV. The current version of the article, while far from perfect, is a somewhat balanced approach that shows a NPOV. You have the same problem on other WP articles you edit. Here is what is being said about you on the ] talk page:

	: Ok, I'm going to propose another compromise. Since, as WP:Consensus(!) makes clear, any agreements regarding article content do not have to to unanimous, and since CJK is clearly going to continue with his endless repetitive tendentious behaviour until the cows come home, I propose that the rest of the contributors to this talk page just ignore him, and try to reach a compromise between us. It seems to me that Collect for one is willing to make moves in this direction, and I suspect that others may well see this as the best way to break the impasse too. I'll leave this proposal for others to think about for now, and return to the topic tomorrow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	::Speaking to the larger question, Yes as a matter of fact I have been thinking of writing up a possible compromise. Good suggestion and thank you for making it. I have limited Internet access this week and can't give this full attention. Peace. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	:::I'd say that's a good idea Andy.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
	::::Excellent suggestion Andy! As a wise man once said, “Never wrestle with a pig -- You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it. Never try to teach a pig to sing -- It wastes your time and it annoys the pig” 76.182.40.135 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	As you have the same problem with many of your Misplaced Pages edits, I think you should consider the possibility that the problem is with you and not with all the many editors who disagree with you. As Andy on the Alger Hiss page correctly observes, WP:Consensus(!) does not need to be unanimous, and is free to ignore one editor that fails to provide a NPOV. ] (]) 18:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	:How am I supposed to make it more NPOV, when none of you attempt to identify what specifically you think is not NPOV?

	:] (]) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	::In your proposal #2, for example, you want to replace the well-sourced conclusion from multiple sources that Iraq didn't have biological warfare capabilities and replace it with cherry-picked language which can be construed to say they did, but in a sense no more meaningful than the sense in which someone with a bottle of agar and a way to steal dangerous cultures from a laboratory "is capable" of producing biological weapons. Maybe the source you found is worthy of inclusion (although in that case I doubt it) but there is absolutely no basis for removing the contrary sources or the statements they support. ] (]) 21:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	There was no biological warfare program, and my version plainly states that. What sources say that there were no biological warfare "capabilities"?

	The UNMOVIC assessment just before the invasion stated:

	:''Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth media and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax. Many of the skilled personnel familiar with anthrax production have been transferred to civilian industries. There does not appear to be any choke points, which would prevent Iraq from producing anthrax on at least the scale of its pre-1991 level.'' See p. 98

	] (]) 21:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Okay, so why the deletions? Why can't the proposal be to add text instead of replacing it? ] (]) 01:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	I removed Pillar's opinion because it was just that: his opinion after the fact. It has no business being in the lead. Also, there was false information on what Blix had stated.

	] (]) 14:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Pillar was ''the'' CIA expert in the region at the time, and what you're calling opinion was published as . We don't say his word is gospel, but we say who he is and what he said. Can you see why other people might think that deleting his statements instead of adding to them could be seen as an attempt to replace your disfavored point of view with one you prefer? ] (]) 18:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	No, I am inserting strictly factual material, not the opinions of individuals who happen to share my views.

	] (]) 18:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	:It is strictly a fact that Pillar, the expert in charge of the CIA district including Iraq in 2000-5 made the assessment we state and you want to delete. Do you think "Iraq ... had the capability of producing ... anthrax" is a strictly factual summary of the UNMOVIC quote from page 98 you posted above? I think it is a gross misrepresentation. What makes stating Pillar's assessment less factual than your summary of the survey group? ] (]) 19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	Please explain why it is a "gross misrepresentation" to say Iraq had the capability to produce anthrax. Pillar is expressing his personal opinion with regards to what happened.

	It doesn't help matters that it happens to be completely wrong. For example, he says the "broad view" of the intelligence community was that sanctions were working. The 2002 NIE said:

	''Iraq has been able to import dual-use, WMD-relevant equipment and material through procurements both within and outside the UN sanctions regime. Baghdad diverts some of the $10 billion worth of goods now entering Iraq every year for humanitarian needs to support the military and WMD programs instead. Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance its WMD programs. Over the last four years Baghdad's earnings from illicit oil sales have more than quadrupled to about $3 billion this year.''

	''•UN monitors at Iraq's borders do not inspect the cargo—worth hundreds of millions of dollars—that enters Iraq every year outside of the Oil-for-Food Program; some of these goods clearly support Iraq's military and WMD programs. For example, Baghdad imports fiber-optic communication systems outside of UN auspices to support the Iraqi military.''

	''•Iraq imports goods using planes, trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international inspections—in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.''

	''Even within the UN-authorized Oil-for-Food Program, Iraq does not hide that it wants to purchase military and WMD-related goods. For example, Baghdad diverted UN-approved trucks for military purposes and construction equipment to rehabilitate WMD-affiliated facilities, even though these items were approved only to help the civilian population.''

	''•Iraq has been able to repair modern industrial machine tools that previously supported production of WMD or missile components and has imported additional tools that it may use to reconstitute Baghdad's unconventional weapons arsenal.''

	''•On several occasions, Iraq has asked to purchase goods—such as neutron generators and servo valves—that the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) views as linchpins for prohibited Iraqi programs; alternative, non-dual-use items would serve the civilian purpose purportedly intended for this equipment.''

	I'm not sure how he got "containment is working" out of that. If we're going to cherry-pick an assessment, we should at least report what was actually said.

	] (]) 21:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	:I think Ellen is right. I agree the Pillar quotes from the Washington Post are relevant to creating a NPOV. I also think digging into “mustard gas and anthrax” in the introduction is a revisionist way of describing the lead up to the war. The primary focus of the Bush administration was on the nuclear WMD threat, with some variation of the “don’t want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun” argument being cited by Bush administration officials over 100 times the weeks leading up to the war. The current version of the article offers a more NPOV as it talks about the WDM threat in total, without cherry-picking the “mustard gas and anthrax” WDM evidence that looks most reasonable 10 years in hindsight. ] (]) 21:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	::Actually, a few days before the Senate voted to go to war, Cheney told them in closed session that Iraq had UAV drones filled with anthrax on ships, ready to attack the east coast of the US. Claiming that the CIA official whose responsibility it was to know all the details at the time and who had access to all pertinent classified information is expressing a personal opinion instead of his professional assessment is absurd. Proposing replacing that professional judgement with innuendo based on the possibility that fiber optics or servo valves had anything to do with WMD just ads insult to injury.

	::CJK, maybe you should ask uninvolved editors why you've only picked up opposition to your proposals. Maybe at ] or somewhere like that. I think you are trying to edit in good faith and there is some good in what you're trying to accomplish. Uninvolved editors may be able to help you work on compromises better than editors here can. ] (]) 22:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

	That "innuendo" you referenced came from the exact same intelligence community that Pillar claimed said "sanctions are working". There is absolutely no evidence for Pillar's second guessing three years after the fact. In fact, it was widely believed at the time that sanctions were ''not'' working very well, as shown in the NIE. The post-invasion ISG investigation produced an abundance of evidence to show that sanctions were eroding.

	I presume he had no direct access to Bush administration policymaking, whose policy regarding regime change was the exact same policy as the Clinton administration's, which had been publicly announced two years before Pillar obtained his position. It is solely his personal opinion that you are trying to insert in the lead. That is simply unacceptable in an encyclopedia article.

	] (]) 00:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	:That the facts were being fixed around policy instead of the other way around is part of the problem. Iraq had not reconstituted its WMD programs under the sanctions, so they clearly were working regardless of what Pillar, UNMOVIC, or the Bush administration said before or after the invasion. I do not agree that concerns about fiber optic cables, trucks, neutron sources (for inspecting pipelines) or servo valves had anything to do with WMDs because those all have civilian infrastructure uses. ] (]) 01:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	Most WMD infrastructure also has legitimate civilian uses. Pillar's opinion that the intelligence community was saying that sanctions were "keeping Saddam in his box" is radically contradicted by what the NIE said. We shouldn't just take his word for it at face value.

	] (]) 15:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Pillar was corroborated by Tenet and Ritter, and as far as I know never had any reason to misrepresent the situation. The administration, on the other hand, was actively stating blatant falsehoods about biowarfare drones on ships off the east coast, stovepiping CIA reports, burning a CIA officer's cover because they didn't like her husband's opinions, and just generally lying with impunity in the most blatant, damaging and frankly ridiculous ways imaginable. Why should the politicians' discredited point of view be included at all, let alone to the exclusion of the intelligence professionals'? ] (]) 15:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	:The U.S. showed their intelligence to other governments, and the majority of them found it unconvincing. The only governments that accepted it were very close allies on Middle East policy, such as the UK, or very small countries heavily dependent on US support, such as Palau. Most Democratic congressmen mistrusted the evidence, as did some Republicans. Even the president said (to his advisers) that the evidence was weak. ] (]) 15:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	I don't know how to respond because you both provide zero evidence to substantiate anything you say.

	''Pillar was corroborated by Tenet and Ritter''

	Tenet didn't say that. Ritter was not a member of the intelligence community.

	''The administration, on the other hand, was actively stating blatant falsehoods about biowarfare drones on ships off the east coast''

	He was pointing out that they were developing a capability in that direction. This was all confirmed after the war, given that there were UAVs in development that had an inherent capability of dispersing biological warfare agent.

	''stovepiping CIA reports''

	Please explain.

	''burning a CIA officer's cover because they didn't like her husband's opinions''

	That happened after the invasion, and was done by a moderate official. Her husbands opinion had no impact on the intelligence community's judgments.

	''and just generally lying with impunity in the most blatant, damaging and frankly ridiculous ways imaginable.''

	Actually, the administrations statements were judged by a Democrat-controlled committee as being generally consistent with the intelligence.

	''Why should the politicians' discredited point of view be included at all, let alone to the exclusion of the intelligence professionals'?''

	If you don't want to believe the NIE, you can look at the post-invasion ISG investigation, which basically said the same thing with regards to sanctions.

	''The U.S. showed their intelligence to other governments, and the majority of them found it unconvincing.''

	If you have evidence that the intelligence agencies of any country judged that there were no WMDs in Iraq, please present it.

	''Most Democratic congressmen mistrusted the evidence, as did some Republicans.''

	Untrue, all the Democrats commenting on the intelligence believed there were WMDs.

	''Even the president said (to his advisers) that the evidence was weak.''

	Evidence, please.

	] (]) 16:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	: Saying that Iraq has ships with drones armed with biological weapons ready to attack the eastern seaboard was "pointing out that they were developing a capability in that direction"? No way. That assertion has convinced me that you are not editing in good faith. There was never any evidence of drones with inherent bioweapons capability, just recon cameras. Zero evidence? I'm finished being insulted for trying to help you. If you wish to discuss this with me further, please find a suitable intermediary via a dispute resolution procedure. ] (]) 17:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	I don't see any information from Tenet that corroborates Pillar's claim that sanctions were "keeping Saddam in his box". I see no evidence that anyone claimed Iraq was "ready to attack the eastern seaboard". When I said "inherent" capability I meant inherently adaptable. Whether or not stovepiping existed, the non-stovepiped intelligence supported the WMD claims.

	] (]) 18:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	Okay, I think I found the drone thing you are talking about. The full quote reads:

	''I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States.''

	This is true. There were drones that had an inherent capability to deliver biological weapons. They "could" be launched from ships, but nobody said that there was evidence that they were planning to do so.

	] (]) 18:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Only 30 countries joined the "]". 82 Democratic congressmen voted in favor of the ], while 126 voted against. That intelligence agencies and Democrats did not question their were WMDs is irrelevant. They did not know whether any existed but did not believe they did they posed any threat. Canada's PM at the time recently said he had not believed the intelligence that Iraq had WMDs. Basically, one people who wanted to believe the evidence believed it. Incidentally, much of what was presented was obviously bogus, and probably only believed by a gullible public. ] (]) 21:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	I'll reply when you post actual information on what people had to say about WMD ''at the time'' rather than their self-serving nonsense years after the fact. All your other points are completely irrelevant.

	''Basically, one people who wanted to believe the evidence believed it. Incidentally, much of what was presented was obviously bogus, and probably only believed by a gullible public.''

	That reflects a remarkable level of impudence on your part. Please do not make such insulting statements unless you can back them up in detail.

	] (]) 22:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	I'm going to quote the Canadian representative to the U.N. just before the war. Apparently, he was quite gullible as well:

	''PAUL HEINBECKER (Canada) said throughout the world people were making their voices heard: no one wanted a war. People were also aware of Iraqi mass violations of human rights and the fact that, equipped with weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region and to the world. There was no proof Iraq had rid itself of its weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, there were still weapons of mass destruction unaccounted for. Resolution 1441 (2002) had given Iraq one last chance to answer remaining questions convincingly and to disarm itself.''

	] (]) 23:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

	:You are reading it out of context. The link says, "many speakers urged the Council to exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to war...." The complete Feb 19 2003 speech is . He does not say that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. In his book (p. 145), he says of Powell's Feb. 5, 2003 speech, "Reactions in the room, including mine, ranged from incredulity to anger to intense disappointment. For many among the US public, the speech sealed the deal and Americans, for the most part, supported the war in good faith." Heimbecker was speaking against the war and his and other speeches persuaded the US that the UN would never authorize it. When the US invaded, the majority of countries refused to join the Coalition.
	:It is ironic to use a speech opposing the war as a justification for the war.
	:] (]) 15:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

	''Since the UNSCOM inspectors withdrew in 1998, we have no evidence that Iraq has disposed of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, we have reason to fear the opposite.''

	''As Chief Inspector Blix told this Council January 27, Saddam Hussein clearly has still not fully accepted his obligation to disarm.''

	''The Council should also establish an early deadline for Iraqi compliance.''

	''Everyone understands what disarmament looks like. The case study of South Africa is often cited because that country took the decision to get out of the business of weapons of mass destruction and did so with determination, transparency and purpose. Iraq can do the same if it so decides.''

	Yeah, what I said was totally out of context.

	] (]) 16:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Compare these two statements:
	::1. "...we have no evidence that Iraq has disposed of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, we have reason to fear the opposite"
	::2. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
	:Or these:
	::1. "...we believe that a peaceful solution remains possible."
	::2. War is the only option.
	:If you remember, the US had decided to ask for authorization for war. The Canadian ambassador and others opposed that and the US dropped their pursuit of authorization for the war after on March 10, 2003 France said they would veto it. The point is that no informed observers thought the evidence justified the war and it is POV to pretend they did.
	:] (]) 17:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

	''The point is that no informed observers thought the evidence justified the war and it is POV to pretend they did.''

	That might have been a great point, if it wasn't for the fact that ''I never said that they did.'' All I said was that they believed Iraq had not disarmed.

	] (]) 18:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Your suggested edit pushes that POV, which is why I and others oppose it. POV may be shown by presenting facts in a way that pushes one POV. For example, your selective quoting of the Canadian ambassador, and by extension other ambassadors of Western nations, presents a false view that he supported Colin Powell. ] (]) 05:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

	The debate at the U.N. centered around the disarmament of Iraq, not whether Colin Powell's presentation was sufficient. I am merely noting that most governments believed that Iraq had not disarmed.

	] (]) 14:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

	== Real Time Regional Gateway ==

	Real Time Regional Gateway was a data collection program used in Iraq by ] during the war. It followed the recent model exposed by Snowden's revelations of gathering all electronic communication, storing it, then searching and otherwise analyzing it. It is not included in the current article. There is a ''Washington Post'' story today, I don't think including a brief note in the article about it would be controversial, but, as required, here it is on the talk page for comment. ] ] 12:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

	== Fix broken link - July, 2013 ==

	{{Edit protected\|ans=yes}} In the top box ('Iraq War') there is a sub-section titled 'Commanders and leaders'; in that section there is a broken link to ]. This should be changed to either ] or ]. Thanks! ] (]) 15:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
	{{done}} ] (]) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

	== WP:Consensus – CJK’s edits contain original research and move article to a less NPOV ==

	We need to summarize all the information on the talk page above (and recently archived) regarding the CJK proposed changes. It is clear consensus exists between many editors (including ], ], ], ] and myself) that the CJK edits move the overall article to a less NPOV and contain original research. I have heard no editor speak out in favor of the CJK edits other than CJK. WP:Consensus does not need to be unanimous. The more NPOV article supported by WP:Consensus has been reverted to the less NPOV version which is only supported by CJK at least seven times to date by CJK. Continued CJK reverts of the WP:Consensus version to the version that only CJK supports should be handled as vandalism.

	The reason that the CJK edit move the overall article to a less NPOV have been explained exhaustively on the talk page above. He frequently deletes expert secondary sources from the article and replaces it with original research citing primary sources that do not clearly support his conclusions. CJK’s responses have failed to address any of the POV issues or any of the original research issues. As WP:Consensus has been established, it is time to reject CJK’s proposed edits and move on.

	CJK frequently engages in personal attacks that have reduced the willingness of NPOV editors to participate in the article. ] (]) 15:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

	:I generally support this view, although I think this is far more of a ] problem and not really a ] issue. While I believe that several of CJK's proposals are good-intentioned and have the potential to improve the article if they were re-worked to supplement their points of view instead of replacing existing mainstream points of view (as some already do) I have lost the ability to assume that CJK is editing entirely in good faith and am exhausted by CJK's implications that those who do not approve of his proposals lack supporting evidence. I note that CJK has garnered no support while several people oppose CJK's proposals. So I have requested that CJK seek dispute resolution. ] (]) 18:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

	First of all, the primary reason I am reverting is that nobody responded to me in the last five days. You can't expect me to just give up because users fail to provide timely responses. User Truthwillneverdie is apparently obsessed with mass reverting my contributions yet he has made little to no effort in explaining what he does not like in any detail. User EllenCT chose to give up because she did not like the content of one of my responses. I expect that serious discussion of the issues at hand, rather than vague generalities, is needed before my edits can be reverted in good faith. ] (]) 18:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

	:You haven't been able to gain any support for your proposed changes, let alone a consensus to make the vast changes to longstanding text you've been attempting. Multiple editors oppose your proposals. Please use dispute resolution instead of continuing to edit war against consensus. ] (]) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

	:CJK, it has already been explained to you that your edits are POV. You have assembled facts to create a narrative that justifies the U.S. decision to launch the war and totally ignores any other opinions. You cannot take the fact that people have tired of responding to your highly opinionated and aggressive postings as evidence that they agree with you. ] (]) 19:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

	If you believe that there is a bias you are free to build upon my edits rather than completely deleting them. The vast majority of my edits consists of new material, all of which is well sourced. If you won't get into any specifics, I don't see how I can engage with you to improve the text. Neither of you have contested the vast majority of my changes. ] (]) 23:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

	TFDs statement is particularly bizarre. He admits I assembled "facts" but criticizes me for ignoring "opinions". One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to convey facts over opinions. ] (]) 23:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

	:I said "ignored any other opinions". Many of your facts are "facts about opinions", i.e., true statements about opinions - you accurately reported the opinions with which you agreed and ignored others. However I do not believe that your level of comprehension is such that you do not understand you have assembled and ordered information (including facts about opinions) that the U.S. was correct in its decision to invade Iraq which is what you and a tiny minority of people continue to believe. That is a clear violation of the policy of neutrality, every other editor has explained it to you, yet you continue to insult other editors and pretend you do not understand why anyone would question your extremely tendentious edit.
	:] (]) 23:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

	The only opinions I reported were from people directly relevant to the events leading up to the war, Bush, Clinton, Blix, etc. These people were heads of nations and organizations who played key roles in the dispute. If you have opposing opinions from similarly notable individuals, you are free to add them at any time. ] (]) 00:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	:The current version of the article is just fine. ] (]) 00:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	== POV tag ==

	Since only one editor considers the article POV and his concerns have been addressed, although he continues to argue his case, I will remove it. ] (]) 00:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	:Actually, you simply declared that the article was fine because... you said so. Although I was already aware of your arrogance, I didn't realize that you consider yourself dictator of Misplaced Pages as well. ] (]) 02:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	::No, I said it was fine because five editors including myself think it is while only you do not. The definition of dictatorship btw is where one person makes the decisions and has no obligation to follow rules. That my friend is a perfect description of your position. And dictators oft lambaste the citizens for becoming uppity when they dare challenge their self-appointed superiors. ] (]) 02:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	Is this another one of your made up policies? ] (]) 12:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	:The policy I "made up" is called "]". (Actually I was not one of the editors who made it up.) If you want to unmake it up, I suggest you post a recommendation on its talk page. ] (]) 17:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	From that page: ''Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's norms.''

	You (and others) have made zero effort to incorporate my legitimate concerns, instead insisting that all edits be deleted.

	] (]) 17:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

	:The key word is "legitimate." ] (]) 23:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

	I main a 16,000 character contribution. According to you, not a single character was legitimate?

	In any event, I am willing to compromise with you even though you show no sign of reciprocating. You said you didn't like that I failed to mention that other countries disagreed that Iraq was a serious threat. So I'm willing to say ''Most governments and inspectors believed that Iraq had not disarmed, although there was disagreement over whether Iraq posed a serious threat. The U.S. and U.K. claimed Iraq had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions and still possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and posed a growing threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.'' That should satisfy your concerns.

	] (]) 00:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

	:I notice that your approach has been to use contemporaneous reports and newspaper articles. i.e., from the time, the 1990s to 2003, although you use modern writing for ]. The main difference I see in the two cases is that subsequent evidence has strengthened the case against Hiss, while it has weakened the case against Iraq. Is there any reason why you would use different approaches in the two articles? ] (]) 00:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

	Um, maybe because Hiss's trial was over 60 years ago, while this is relatively recent history? What does this have to do with my proposed compromise?

	] (]) 02:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

	== Secret detention and torture centers ==

	Currently, this article has no coverage of the secret detention and torture centers summarized . Since the article's coverage of human rights abuses on all sides is covered in brief phrases organized in bulleted lists, contrary to ], I wonder how other editors think these detention centers should be covered. ] (]) 10:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	:''SPC detention centres bought video cameras, funded by the US military, which they used to film detainees for the show. When the show began to outrage the Iraqi public, Samari remembers being in the home of General Adnan Thabit – head of the special commandos – when a call came from Petraeus's office demanding that they stop showing tortured men on TV.''

	:It was a real "secret" alright. ] (]) 12:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	::That's all you have to say about this? -] (]) 13:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	There is already information in the article about militia infiltration of the police and acts of torture. We do not need to supplement that with sensationalist propaganda about so-called "secret" facilities. ] (]) 15:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

	The human rights abuses section should be rewritten in line with ], if any NPOV editor wants to take that on. This information should be included. Short of doing all that, it could be referenced on the list for now. ] (]) 18:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

			==PP==
	== Compromise version ==
			Will we need to ask for page protection if the ] gets too much? ] (]) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

			== suggest we need a section on "political impact" ==
	I put in a compromise version of my edits that address the specific concerns that other users raised.

			I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. ] (]) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
	*The word "obstructionism" is replaced
			:For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. ] (]) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
			::"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. ] (]) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
			:::i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. ] (]) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::obviously it seems that you ] this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. ] (]) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
			:::::But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read ]. ] (]) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::::ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in ''all'' the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and ''all'' years, right up to the date today.
			::::::so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. ] (]) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? ] (]) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., ] (]) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

			Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. ] (]) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
	*I made clear that countries disagreed over whether Iraq was a serious threat.

			:ok, thats totally fair. ] (]) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
	*I retained Pillar's comments but moved them to the criticism section.

			*The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as ''political legacy''. As such, it is part of the aftermath. ''If'' we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in ''good quality'' sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to ]. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. ] (]) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 16:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
			*:the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. ] (]) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

			*:every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what ] means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. ] (]) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
	:This IN NO WAY addresses ANY of the original research and less NPOV problems discussed above. -- ] (]) 18:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
			*::if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. ] (]) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
			*:::from, ]:
			*:::<blockquote>
			*:::A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
			*:::...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.</blockquote>
			*:::--] (]) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
			*::::The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or ''point''. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. ] (]) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? {{small\|{{strike\|(My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.)}}}} ] (]) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. ] (]) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. ] (]) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. ] (]) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. ] (]) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

			===proposed text===
	::Agree with Truthwillneverdie. ] (]) 18:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
			here is the proposed text:

			<blockquote>
	You need to actually tell me what those alleged problems are in good faith so I can attempt to address them. The edit addressed the specific complaints of you and others.

			;Political impact
	] (]) 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

			<s>The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. </s> at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the ] passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".<ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on \|title=Situation in Iraq \|publisher=Europarl.europa.eu \|access-date=2018-08-18 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070213035323/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on \|archive-date=2007-02-13 \|url-status=live }}</ref>
	:Given the contention over the background section to the war, major proposed changes need to come to the talk page first. CJK, if you post something here, other editors can evaluate it. That's the way to avoid an edit war. Please don't post 10 paragraphs at one though - one at a time leads to a more focused discussion. -] (]) 19:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

			Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.
	:You continue to completely remove the statements of career CIA civil servants ] and ] from the chronologically appropriate section, ], without any evidence that they are unreliable in any way. We discussed this at length, and only your own opinion, no reliable sources, have suggested that Pillar's statements are not noteworthy. The idea of relegating them to a criticism section when they were about specific events at a specific point in the chronology is misleading. I applaud that you came up with a compromise version and I hope you will make one which supplements your point of view in-line instead of replacing with it and relegating the point of view you don't like to the end of a very long article. ] (]) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

			;United States
	Thucydides, I did just that all last month. You nitpicked minor details which I fixed to satisfy you. Evidently, that wasn't good enough, so you need to specify what your issue is.

			By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” <ref> ,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian. </ref>
	Ellen, their opinions are more appropriate in the criticism section. We should stick to verifiable facts with regards to the main body.

			During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. <ref> , By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News. </ref> <ref> By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico. </ref> When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,” <ref> , BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine. </ref> <ref> , By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo. </ref>
	I posted the relevant section with my proposed edit ] for convenience. You can comment on what you do not like about it or create another page that builds upon, rather than demolishes, what I contributed.

			The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, ], labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous. <ref> , Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024. </ref>
	] (]) 19:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

			;United Kingdom
	:I had very substantial disagreements with your proposed edits. On edit #1, I commented in detail. I disagreed with the way you framed the entire paragraph. Beyond that, the statement that most governments believed Iraq to have WMD is factually unsupported, and there is good evidence that several involved governments, including that of the United States, were aware that Iraq did not possess WMD. The head of CIA operations in Europe has stated that he was convinced before the war that Iraq did not have such weapons, and that the best intelligence available to the US corroborated this. High-level government and intelligence figures from France, Germany and England are on the record documenting their awareness at the time that the US was supporting its WMD claims with known forgeries, intelligence known to be unreliable at best, and discredited intelligence pushed for political purposes. I proposed that we note these internal assessments of Iraq's alleged WMD programs and the US case for war, while also noting the official positions that the various governments publicly took. You didn't think this was an acceptable compromise. I still think it's the right thing to do, however. -] (]) 22:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
			In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.

			One article in 2023 noted:
	:CJK, Pillar's and Tenet's opinions are their professional assessments consistent with other reliable sources e.g. and (which should be incorporated into the chronology, by the way.) Your insistence that their specific complaints about pre-war intelligence be relegated to the section on general criticisms is absurd, not only because you want to replace the existing chronology with your very fringe interpretation of cherry-picked passages which you construe as saying that being able to reconstitute a program is equivalent to having a biological weapons capability. Again, the fact that you have no support for your changes and several editors opposing them, and you continue to edit war saying that you think a lack of replies in a few days time means agreement suggests to me that a Request for Comment should be opened regarding your conduct. ] (]) 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

			<blockquote> By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.
	''Beyond that, the statement that most governments believed Iraq to have WMD is factually unsupported''
			<p>
			Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war. <ref> . Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023. </ref> </blockquote>
			</blockquote>
			{{talkrefs}}

	I gave you evidence that the French and German governments believed that there were probably WMD. You have given no evidence to suggest that any country in the world besides Iraq believed there were no WMDs.

			--] (]) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
	''The head of CIA operations in Europe has stated that he was convinced before the war that Iraq did not have such weapons''

			== Military situation ==
	No, that is not what he said. He said that was what Sabri said. But Sabri said that they had chemical weapons. I gave you evidence regarding that.

			Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? ] (]) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
	''High-level government and intelligence figures from France, Germany and England are on the record documenting their awareness at the time that the US was supporting its WMD claims with known forgeries, intelligence known to be unreliable at best, and discredited intelligence pushed for political purposes.''

			== Rudeness ==
	Even if that was true, it does not affect the statement in question. The belief that Iraq had WMDs was not merely based on affirmative evidence that the U.S. presented, it was based on Iraq's 12 year failure to satisfy the U.N. that it had disarmed. Furthermore, I note in the new version that there was a disagreement over the nature of the threat.

			Stop the rudeness to iran ] (]) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
	''Your insistence that their specific complaints about pre-war intelligence be relegated to the section on general criticisms is absurd''
			:What rudeness are you talking about? ] (]) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

			== New draft ==
	They expressed their opinions, which is fine. We need to stick to facts, not personal views.

			I have an draft ] beacuse section in this article is too long.
	'''Fact:''' U.S. intelligence assessed that Iraq's illicit income and imports were rising.

			The draft is not yet completed. ] (]) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
	'''Opinion:''' Pillar claims after the fact that there was a "broad view" in the intelligence community that Saddam was being kept in his box by the sanctions.

			== Addition of ] to infobox ==
	Now, I'm not saying Pillar is a liar. However, what he is saying years after the fact is ambiguous an open to interpretation. For example, the Iraq of 2003 was arguably not a threat but the U.S. repeatedly made clear that it was equally concerned with future capacity as well as sanctions gradually eroded. Absent evidence of an actual intelligence assessment stating what Pillar said it should be relegated to the criticism section.

			{{U\|Ben Azura}}, with , you would readd ] to the infobox. Per ], the infobox is to summarise key facts ''from the article''. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, ] applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: {{tq\|Per ] - not supported by body of article}}. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, ]. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. ] (]) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	Furthermore, If you want to stick strictly to "chronology" you would have to acknowledge that Pillar's opinion is chronologically irrelevant. In 1998 the U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration with near unanimity endorsed overthrowing Iraq's government based on past behavior and non-cooperation. If Saddam allegedly being contained was discounted by them it makes no sense to criticize Bush over it.

			:I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? ] (]) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	''you want to replace the existing chronology with your very fringe interpretation of cherry-picked passages which you construe as saying that being able to reconstitute a program is equivalent to having a biological weapons capability.''
			::Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: ], ], and ]. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

			:::{{U\|Ben Azura}}, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. {{U\|Swatjester}}, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. ] (]) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	I said that there was a capability with regards to producing anthrax. What is wrong with that?

			== Human Rights Abuses ==
	] (]) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

			Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
	:Just restating your original position without giving any real consideration to the comments of other editors is unlikely to move the ball forward. If no compromise is reached that has the support of multiple editors, the appropriate thing to do is leave the article as it is and not make changes. -] (]) 10:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
			See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture ] (]) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 ==
	I am more than willing to compromise. The idea that I am ''restating your original position without giving any real consideration to the comments of other editors'' is absurd given the lengths I have gone in the last month to respond to each and every point that has been raised.

			{{edit semi-protected\|Iraq War\|answered=yes}}
	] (]) 15:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
			I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed.
			Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda"

			My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie."
	:CJK, we've gone over all of this before. It's a waste of everyone's time to have to respond to the same points over and over again, when they've been made very clear. Here are some of the things you got wrong above, even though we discussed them above:
			He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. ] (]) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::*You assert that Tyler Drumheller did not say that he was convinced Iraq had no WMD. He did, in fact, say this, and I quoted it above.
			:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx\|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	::*You assert that European governments believed Iraq to be in possession of WMD. They made public pronouncements of the form, "We must continue to disarm Iraq through UN inspections," which is a far cry from believing that Iraq had WMD. The political context of these statements is clear - desire to continue the UN process rather than go to war - and as I've pointed out, diplomatic statements are not very good barometers of the internal assessments of governments. I quoted Joschka Fischer, one of the officials you've quoted several times on Iraq WMD, stating that "in diplomacy, there are worlds between internal discussions and public pronouncements by the head of government, especially at a campaign event." Meanwhile, high-level figures in the major European intelligence services are on record as saying they didn't believe the key pieces of intelligence being presented, and that the US was intentionally misleading the public on Iraqi WMD. This is echoed by high-level American intelligence officials, whom I also quoted earlier. This is why I proposed mentioning both official European pronouncements and internal governmental views on Iraqi WMD.
	::*You treat the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) as a reliable document. This document comes together under strong political and organizational pressure. Especially in the run-up to the Iraq War, there was intense pressure from the Bush administration for the intelligence agencies to turn up information suggesting Iraqi WMD. When important people within the intelligence agencies say that the intelligence community believed one thing, and the NIE says that the intelligence community believed another thing, we can't automatically decide that the NIE is right.
	:-] (]) 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025 ==
	== UK releasing report on intelligence fabrication soon ==

			{{edit semi-protected\|Iraq War\|answered=yes}}
	if he sees it as inaccurate. ] (]) 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
			Article is too long shorten it. ] (]) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Should John Howard be added as a leader? ==
	== POV concerns ==

			Seems like it would make sense ] (]) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	Refactored from an article tag by CJK:

			:What'd he do? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	The article misrepresents the position of Hans Blix and by extension the U.N. It also ignores everything that happened in the 1990s, thus stripping the article of vital context. The controversy over the pre-war intelligence is stated in a selective and biased manner to support exclusively one point of view..

Latest revision as of 14:35, 22 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 1, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 14, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 1, 2010.

Current status: Former good article nominee

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Iraq Top‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kurdistan High‑importance

	Kurdistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Countering systemic bias: Global perspective

	This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Global perspective task force.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Military history / History High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).

Bush family (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family

To-do list for Iraq War: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2014-07-31

Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:

Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources
More detail about humanitarian projects throughout the conflict by U.S. troops and private organizations.
Remove as much bias as possible and site sources. One example is in the 5th paragraph from the top which starts with "Some U.S. officials accused..." Which officials? Also, the report cited at the end of that sentence is intended to dispel the myth of Iraq's direct connection (the "smoking gun") to Al-Qaida, but the sentence does not address that the report confirms direct connections between Saddam's regime to other terrorist groups and its perception of the West (namely, America) as its enemy. The appearance of bias comes from the omission of the proven fact that the Hussein regime was directly connected to terrorist groups who viewed America as an enemy. (This can be read in the cited source.) This entire Wiki entry comes off as argumentative (arguing that this was a war of agression by Western powers against Iraq) and not as unbiased. This is just one glaring example. Please remove this bias or remove this entry. Thanks.

One thing that I think would be extremely relevant would be a timeline of important events; they have much of the information needed for it in the article itself, but it would be easier to read and comprehend if it was contained in a timeline.

I also think it should clarify whether there are still U.S. troops in Iraq and what their purpose is there if they are still occupying parts of Iraq. --Tarzane (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Update/correct civilian casualties. Estimates off by several hundred thousand. Ideally use a source other than a media article.

Section sizes

Section size for Iraq War (74 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	41,462	41,462
Background	6,441	6,441
Pre-war events	19,377	28,031
Opposition to invasion	8,654	8,654
Course of the war	24	131,962
2003: Invasion	13,890	13,890
Post-invasion phase	114	118,048
2003: Beginnings of insurgency	3,438	11,953
Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraq Survey Group	6,638	6,638
Ramadan Offensive 2003	1,877	1,877
Capturing former government leaders	2,800	4,487
Looting of artifacts from Iraqi museums	1,687	1,687
2004: Insurgency expands	7,279	7,279
2005: Elections and transitional government	3,150	3,150
2006: Civil war and permanent Iraqi government	3,922	6,106
Iraq Study Group report and Saddam's execution	2,184	2,184
2007: US troops surge	4,382	24,893
Planned troop reduction	1,646	1,646
Effects of the surge on security	10,944	10,944
Political developments	2,005	2,005
Tensions with Iran	2,255	2,255
Tensions with Turkey	3,024	3,024
Blackwater private security controversy	637	637
2008: Civil war continues	7,307	24,705
Spring offensives on Shiite militias	2,467	2,467
Congressional testimony	2,113	2,113
Iraqi security forces rearm	3,277	3,277
Status of forces agreement	9,541	9,541
2009: Coalition redeployment	65	10,720
Transfer of the Green Zone	1,513	1,513
Provincial elections	3,692	3,692
Exit strategy announcement	1,531	1,531
Sixth anniversary protests	1,319	1,319
Coalition forces withdraw	1,207	1,207
Iraq awards oil contracts	1,393	1,393
2010: US drawdown and Operation New Dawn	12,726	16,758
Iraqi arms purchases	3,095	3,095
The UN lifts restrictions on Iraq	937	937
2011: US withdrawal	7,883	7,883
Aftermath	17	9,508
Emerging conflict and insurgency	9,491	9,491
Casualties	15	3,392
Casualty estimates	3,377	3,377
Impacts	12	26,135
Economic impact	22	6,435
Financial cost	5,021	5,021
Reparations	661	661
Economic recession in 2021	731	731
Humanitarian impact	26	4,361
Humanitarian crisis	4,335	4,335
Environmental impact	29	7,527
Oil pollution	1,786	1,786
Radioactive contamination	4,493	4,493
Ecosystem destruction	1,219	1,219
Impact on the Global War on Terrorism	6,008	6,008
Impact on geopolitics	1,792	1,792
Criticism	11,711	11,711
Human rights abuses	103	14,871
By Coalition forces and private contractors	6,544	6,544
By insurgent groups	6,710	6,710
By post-invasion Iraqi Government	1,514	1,514
Public opinion on the war	73	8,878
International opinion	5,148	8,805
Iraqi opinion	3,657	3,657
Foreign involvement	26	5,791
Suicide bombers	1,702	1,702
Role of Iran	3,214	3,214
Role of Israel	98	98
Role of Russia	751	751
See also	604	604
Footnotes	30	30
References	30	30
Further reading	4,169	4,169
External links	5,217	5,217
Total	298,232	298,232

PP

Will we need to ask for page protection if the wp:disruption gets too much? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

suggest we need a section on "political impact"

I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

obviously it seems that you own this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read wp:AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in all the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and all years, right up to the date today.

so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, thats totally fair. Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as political legacy. As such, it is part of the aftermath. If we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in good quality sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to WP:OR. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what WP:OR means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
from, WP:OR:

A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

--Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? ~~(My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.)~~ Gawaon (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. Sm8900 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. Sm8900 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

proposed text

here is the proposed text:

Political impact

~~The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world.~~ at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".
Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.

United States

By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”
During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,”
The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, JD Vance, labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.
One article in 2023 noted:

By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.
Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war.

References

"Situation in Iraq". Europarl.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
[On the Iraq war, Jeb Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian.
Donald Trump, Jeb Bush spar over Bush family legacy, By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News.
Trump Goes Code Pink on George W. Bush: The Republican front-runner echoes Democratic talking points on 9/11, Iraq and Bin Laden By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico.
Jeb Bush Reverses Himself: ‘I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq’, BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine.
How Jeb Bush Triggered an Iraq War Watershed, By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo.
JD Vance Criticizes Biden’s Support for Iraq War in 2003 But Pushes Hawkish Policy on China & Iran, Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024.
How Iraq war destroyed UK’s trust in politicians and left Labour in turmoil. Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023.

--Sm8900 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Military situation

Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? Ali aj809 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rudeness

Stop the rudeness to iran 78.150.125.128 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What rudeness are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

New draft

I have an draft Draft:Course of the Iraq War beacuse section in this article is too long.

The draft is not yet completed. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Ayad Allawi to infobox

Ben Azura, with this edit, you would readd Ayad Allawi to the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, WP:ONUS applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, WP:BRD. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? Ben Azura (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: Ayad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ⇒SWATJester 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ben Azura, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. Swatjester, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses

Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib. See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture 2600:1001:B128:A069:C805:F112:660F:A404 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed. Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda"

My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie." He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. 78.146.11.249 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Ultraodan (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article is too long shorten it. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Should John Howard be added as a leader?

Seems like it would make sense 68.199.243.137 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

What'd he do? Remsense ‥ 论 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: