Talk:Opposition to the Iraq War

Egregious POV pushing 1

Here are several examples of extreme POV pushing by user Trackerwiki:

Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency...

Low casualty rates? Patently absurd. And considered a model of modern counterinsurgency by whom exactly? No source is provided. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

When this first came up some time ago I also thought it ridiculous in light of the fashionable media consensus. But ever since I was trounced on the numbers in a recent debate I've been unable to easily dismiss this analysis. The media apparently have not conveyed to us the full picture. Dunnigan's site is one of the more accessible. (url=http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090531.aspx) Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[I]nternational organizations like the U.N. have hailed the Coalition for liberating the Iraqi people from a totalitarian regime which "preyed on the Iraqi people and committed shocking, systematic and criminal violations of human rights".

The UN did not hail "the coalition" for liberating Iraq. The source does not support this statement. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3776765.stm)(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/un.iraq/index.html) As the UNSC enthusiastically welcomed the removal of Saddam government and its abuses as well as approved the resolution reestablishing existing Coalition arrangements under the new MNF mandate, and as the holdout Permanents were expressing solidarity and standing with the Coalition leaders - as the favorable outcomes being lauded were contingent on the Coalition's actions then it seemed reasonable to assume that this entity was also being lauded for effecting these. No more and no less. I'm amenable to a change in wording, perhaps "welcomed" or "supported"?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC source quotes the office of the UN Human Rights commissioner welcoming the removal of Saddam's government, but also says that the coalition forces have committed human rights violations. Mentioning just one half gives a different impression. The CNN article is solely about the UN deciding what should be done in Iraq a year after the invasion - it doesn't contain any judgement either way of the initial invasion, as far as I can see. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Supported" then?--Trackerwiki (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that whether we use the word 'hail', 'welcome' or 'support' it would give a distinctly one-sided view of what the source is saying about human rights violations. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will add that this particular Coalition aim by extension is welcome and even commendable on its meritable outcome, but explicitly only on this merit, and that the other aims are subject to different conclusions (particularly if the outcomes are not fully achieved or different from that desired.)--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement within the anti-war movement as to whether the cause of armed insurgents within Iraq is worth supporting did lessen considerably as the anti-Western values and brutal and criminal methods of the insurgents became too pronounced over time to ignore.

"Anti-Western values" is a lazy generalisation; also unsupported. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the most accurate description would be "consanguinous tribal culture of values". Might fall afoul of the PC police, though, and even if anthropologically acceptable it's too long a term. Perhaps "anti-modern" values?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We should aim to use phrases which reliable sources use. The sentence in question is in the lede and uncited (which is fine) - the bit it seems to be summarising is the last paragraph of the "Support for Iraqi resistance and insurgency" section. This in turn is cited to this BBC article. That article doesn't say anything about disagreement within the anti-war movement, or explicitly refer to anti-Western, anti-modern or tribal values. It just says that Amnesty condemned the insurgents, which gives us no information about the anti-war movement in general. Let me know if I've missed another section of the article, though. Olaf Davis

(talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, the breakdown of support for the insurgency's aims and methods began once the consensus media story became one of the UN trying to modernize Iraq against the efforts of the insurgents to resist this unprecedented revolution in pan-Arabic affairs. Should have posted these links alongside as a record of the observed shaping of public responses against terrorist outrages, highlighting atrocities in contrast against political or security milestones.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3528905.stm, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/feb/02/20050202-123527-1015r/?page=2), (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16686)--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But none of these sources is really about the insurgents' methods putting an end to the debate about supporting them in the anti-war movement. The BBC one is about the Middle-Eastern press, and the other two are mainly about the elections. I don't see that any of them really support the quoted passage from the lede, or the bit which it's summarising in the main article. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. The problem is that outside of opinion pieces and general surveys it is hard to locate articles which showcase a fall-off in oppositionist sympathy for the insurgency on the basis of its criminal behaviors and anti-modern aims. What we see instead is a historical fall-off in relevant article counts, a general lack of attention and deepening silence on this issue (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/business/media/15apee.html?ei=5090&en=4a4f32424faa6ab5&ex=1281758400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print), (http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/23/opinion/oe-boot23) - (Like McAllister-Linn, Boot's expertise is on small wars like the Phil-American war, its history is extremely enlightening for it exhibits many parallels in rationales, contingency, strategy, methods, public opposition, and outcomes). Domestic focus aside, the fall-off in coverage is likely due to lack of audience (in particular oppositionist audiences) and thus media interest in the nature of the fight in terms of identifying for against one side or the other. The default partisan takeaway was that given the legitimacy conferred by the U.N. mandate and Iraq's democratic electoral politics, and given how unpalatable the insurgency's aims and methods turned out to be in comparison to those of the Coalition forces, the opposition lost interest in finding ways to lend ideological cover to Iraq's insurgency as a means of politically countering the Coalition message in general, U.S. aims in particular, and specifically the credibility of the administration.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The closest on the transformative shifts in attitudes on the ground are found in articles which directly illustrate, on the ground, how so many insurgents have managed to alienate the majority of Iraqis with their indiscrimnate and predatory behavior to civilians (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_18_59/ai_n27386002/pg_2/?tag=content;col1).--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

From there it's possible to extrapolate that anyone who subscribes to Western norms of human rights and civility would have sympathy with the plight of Iraqis suffering in the hands of the more brutal insurgents. My POV is this should be the case, since to offer otherwise would slippery lead to the usual inaccurate partisan suspicion, that many in opposition are far too motivated by reflexive ideology to reserve some sympathy for the plight of preyed-on Iraqi civilians, to the point of ignoring instead of sharing their abhorrence for the insurgency's criminal behaviors. Such suspicions serve no purpose and will likely be unfair in most cases.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Found some attribution on the souring of naysayer sentiments towards the isurgents' methods and aims although it's nowhere near in-depth.(http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010592) "...Here in the United States, the vast moral chasm that so clearly separates the combatants in Iraq is too rarely discussed. Disillusion with the entire effort has obscured and in some cases mutated the truth that small numbers of evil men tilt entire populations..." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3812411.stm)Evolving tactics of Islamic militants. Sites like Dunnigan have more in-depth analyses on the phenomenon from surveys drawn by independent media and the military.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the dearth of stories on a souring of the professional anti-US/anti-war orgs on the methods and aims of Iraqi insurgents, I've come to conclusion that this argument should point to the world publics' general rejection of the Iraq insurgency instead. The existing articles on disagreements in the hardcore regarding unacceptable recidivism in the Iraq insurgency stand on their own for now.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Egregious POV pushing 2

Iraq's government and its Palestinian allies were the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion, as there was little chance the Sunni-minority regime would be able to withstand the military might of the US and its coalitional allies.

France, Germany, Russia (etc.) opposed the invasion. Palestinians too. Who says the latter were "the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion"? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They were the most vocal early on, which is why it was moved under "Early opposition". Once the intent and the capacity of the Coalition became clearer, more movements joined in for many reasons, to lend their voices in opposition. Interestingly, the tone gradually changed to one of a dilute "anti-US/anti-Globalization" agenda from the earlier focused "contra-Western/contra-UNSC" agenda pursued by the main body of opposition vested in Iraq and its allies.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? From my memory I'd say opponents in Western countries were far more vocal, but of course we can't cite my memory! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

From my POV, pre-war opposition from Saddam's Iraq is most usefully viewed in the deep context of a historical continuum starting from the 1998 airstrikes supporting UNSCOM inspections through 9/11, which Presidents Clinton and Bush acknowledge changed all geopolitical paradigms. In contrast, most anti-US campaigns focused mainly on the theme of U.N. sanctions killing Iraqi innocents (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/17/gulf.war/), until the President's landmark 2001 speech before the U.N. emboldened the professional anti-US movements and associated foreign sponsors on the prospect of countering the coming wave of U.S. actions. Thus (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/17/arraf.debrief/index.html), (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/16/iraq.aziz/) --Trackerwiki (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the war, the major intelligence agencies all failed to realize that Iraq's forces did not have operational WMDs

What is the source for this statement? The leaders of France, Russia and Germany all said they had no proof of WMD. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The post-war [ISG] survey outcome discredited the pre-war WMD threat consensus of all major intelligence agencies

There was no consensus. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Attribution - (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3442313.stm) "...Britain's intelligence service, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), still maintain that most of the information that went into the Iraq dossier of September 2002 was correct at the time, including the claim that Saddam had actual WMD... ...It should be noted that this was a view shared by many countries at the time, including some of those that opposed the war such as France and Germany, a fact that was pointed out this week by David Kay himself... ...But "we probably all got it wrong," he said..."--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a transcript from the BBC's premiere current affairs program Panorama, "A Failure of Intelligence", which first quotes Vladimir Putin ("Russia has no trustworthy data to support claims that Iraq possesses either nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction") and Tony Blair's reply (Well there may be different perspectives on how sure we can be about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction but there's one certain way to find out") [1] A second BBC program also documents how both France and Germany disagreed with the Intelligence assessment of Britain and the United States. [2] Given these primary and secondary sources, it is simply wrong to claim there was a consensus. Dynablaster (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken about Russia SVD not being in the pre-war consensus. Kay and the others were referring to a consensus among involved allied spy agencies and my post should have been clearer on this. The Germans were quite worried about blowback, especially given their historical baggage (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/03/25/020325fa_FACT1?currentPage=all)...“It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years,” he said.... --Trackerwiki (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for U.K. PM Blair [...] this was only discovered after post-war investigation confirmed the massive intelligence failure.

This is POV pushing. Pure and simple. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is, it's not my 'egregious POV pushing': (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3778987.stm) "Weapons of mass destruction do not exist in Iraq and it is "delusional" to think they will be found, says former chief US weapons inspector David Kay. Mr Kay told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that British and American leaders should simply apologise and admit that they were wrong..."--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's unfair in particular to former U.K. PM Blair, whose briefings were from U.K. spy agencies, which like their international peers all strive to maintain intelligence sources independent of the Americans. AFAIK the MI6 still asserts that they have independent verification of the Niger materials case which stands on its own merits, apart from the flawed reporting from Italy and the misguided attempts of Wilson. US President Bush OTOH had little more than Wilson at that point publicly, to his misfortune. The British apparently had the deeper Iraqi sources, even though these sources were misled by Saddam's opaque behavior. Thus the causative incredible intelligence failure and the resultant unfortunate political illusions.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But for geopolitical reasons Saddam could not allow his hostile neighbors, in particular Iraq's long-time enemy Iran, to discover how weak his army was in this respect.

Presumably the point being made is that Saddam tricked the unfortunate Mr Blair into invading Iraq. That is but one (contested) point of view. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The other contested view is that the Iranians, subtle players they are, "managed" Chalabi's INC into manipulating the US into doing the dirty work of getting rid of their bane while shaping Iraq into an arena favoring influence from Tehran. But for that view in the shadows there are even less sources available publicly.--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Duelfer conclusions support interrogator reports that Saddam Hussein did not want the Iranians to know his army lacked WMD defenses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelfer_Report#Duelfer_Report)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Iran was Iraq's pre-eminent motivator.
• The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judged that events (involving Iran) in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD.

Hussein always rejected accusations that the Iraqi government played a part in the 9/11 attack [...] although the presence in Iraq of terrorist groups and the contrary assertions of prominent foreign leaders like Russia's Putin show otherwise.

Saddam was behind 9/11. What rot! Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

But agreed, are we not? This was obvious well before the invasion. Which is likely why the Coalition pitched it as a move to disarm an imminent threat rather than as a war of retribution against past aggression. The Coalition was aiming to preempt a future threat, not respond to a past attack. Ironically, U.S. investigators believe that Saddam had likely "played it straight" towards the end with regards to Iraqi involvement in 911 and capacities for WMD, for whatever good it did him. OTOH, there still remains unresolved evidence that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein contemplated an association with al-Qaeda in the future: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979405.stm)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what your position here is, Trackerwiki. You say 'agreed, are we not?' to the idea that he wasn't behind the attacks but the sentence quoted from the article says he was. Which are you arguing for inclusion of? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there is little if any proof that Saddam's regime was involved in the past in 9/11 attack, and the BBC article cites none. What the article does show, is that people in his regime did have meetings with al Qaeda and planned more of the same. Even if Saddam's regime at that point was not colluding with Al Qaeda planners on the latter's 9/11 operation, there was a budding association which in the future could have flowered into the dangerous kind of cooperation between rogue state and terror organization which Dr. Kay gave warning about.--Trackerwiki (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Could have, yes, though we have no evidence that it did. Do you want to suggest another wording for the passage, since (I think) we're agreed that the one quoted above is not supported? Olaf Davis (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, will separate the finding of non-linkage between Saddam and 911 from claims that his regime was harboring terrorists and independently planning to launch attacks on American assets and people worldwide. Known historical event vs. clear future danger. --Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Saddam's key people believed they could rebuild the Army and re-arm with WMD once sanctions were lifted. ... [T]hus they sought the help of Iraq's former Russian mentors and other foreign leaders who could influence via the UN Oil-for-Food scheme. [...] To this end saddam's agents (sic) and those of friendly states such as Russia sought the services and cooperation of disaffected Westerners to support the professional anti-war opposition.

Are you now trying to smear the anti-war movement? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if you would put good faith in my intentions. I believe the various anti-war groups can each serve a purpose, some useful, some not. But for whom and what, it's not easy to determine in every case. For example, there exists a popular global consensus for a worldwide ban of the use of mines stemming from informed opposition to the tragic historical record of these weapons, yet both South Korea and its U.S. guarantor have understandable reasons for disagreement. So did certain frontline NATO members in the 1950s-1980s, when Europe faced the threat of overwhelming Soviet Bloc invasion.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all antiwar bodies of opposition are so clearly viewed with so little dispute on the terms. Iraq is a minefield of misunderstandings. It's a bag of conflicted and disputed frameworks of justification. It would be relatively easy for you grab something out of that bag and ascribe by association a "smear all" to anything I might post on any one particular group which expounds on links it may have with some perjorative of a regime.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

British MP George Galloway in particular [...] was covertly rewarded for his spirited use of legal warfare in opposition against both the U.K. and U.S. over the Iraq War and other issues.

This is disputed. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By Galloway mostly - but naturally. The broader, deeper context provided shows there is reason to believe his loyalty does not lie mainly with the U.K. and its interests. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1862579.stm)"Bin Laden connected to London dissident"--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't make that inference ourselves, though. Neither this source nor the one you quoted in the article specifically say that he was 'covertly rewarded' so we can't say that either. That's true in general but especially where WP:BLP applies. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"illicit payment" is the preferred wording of the bbc in describing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4382820.stm) how beneficiaries indirectly benefited. "conceal payments" is the preferred wording of the The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1069509.ece). "complicit in the concealment" is the wording in the UK parliamentary investigation's record of Conclusions: (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/909/90904.htm#note127). Will re-word according to the conclusions reached separately by the U.N., the U.S. Senate, and the U.K. parliament. --Trackerwiki (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This type of opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just before the Iraq invasion starting on March 20, 2003.

"This type of opposition"? Good grief. The anti-war movement was in the pay of Saddam Hussein! Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all obviously, and Saddam Hussein's agents were not the only ones doing so, but a percentage of such movements are invariably funded and/or directed in the service of foreign interests alien to those of the U.S. and its Coalition allies. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7315752.stm)"US charges man 'on Saddam's pay'" It's in the nature of modern state-state "conflicts other than war", just look at the partisan history of the peaceful Olympics, for example. Not that such denatured movements would constitute the majority of voices, for there was much genuine international opposition to the Coalition's aims and methods. Historically, every major conflict entered into by the U.S. from the civil war onwards was accompanied by broad and diverse domestic and foreign opposition.--Trackerwiki (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The anti-war movements should look out more for themselves. Most movements and even NGOs are too easily co-opted by non-charter interests to serve fully or partly as others' duped proxies. Even the oldest, most famous NGOs are not immune to this corruption, and I speak from personal experience (sorry, no cites for now while the issue's ongoing.). The prominent historical example was when some movements were identified as manipulated into supporting Soviet aims during the 1980s Euro missile controversy, under the influence and even direction of agents maintained by various communist bloc agencies, as revealed by various communist agents Sergei Tretyakov, Stanislav Lunev, and in other sources like the Mitrokhin trove. Active measures--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[R]egimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war because it sets a precedent for the dominant Western powers to target such "pariah" regimes with little recourse to the Westphalian checks of the U.N. (sic)

Do I really need to explain the problem with this sentence? Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe this should be reworded for more accuracy. If you meant it should say (maybe) "Western UNSC Permanents" in place of "Western powers'?--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at the source given for this. It does talk about those countries being worried about dominant Western powers - well, the US - but crucially it says nothing at all about Iraq! We can talk about rewording it once we have a source, but currently we don't seem to have a relevant one. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This banding together of the usual suspects is manifestly due to current Western and particularly U.S. policies and behaviors treating them as pariahs(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5205770.stm). Both Syria and Libya retreated from the arena and the later redeemed itself with the West. It's old news for North Korea, Cuba, and Iran and emergently in the case of Venezuela.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1975588.stm)--Trackerwiki (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But still, neither of those sources supports the statement "[R]egimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war because it sets a precedent...". No amount of demonstration that they're 'pariahs', or that they're banded together either by the U.S. or their own actions, will imply that without a source that specifically states it. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

More "Egregious POV pushing"

Western marxist-progressives thinkers feared that the successful embrace of liberal-democratic modernization in yet another country would further weaken the millenarian movement in the modern global order.

Progressives fear liberal-democratic modernization? Here is a tip: when attempting to smear people, it would help if you understood your target audience. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very diverse audience. If the stuff I posted appears as unfair or groundless commentary to any particular POV I'll review it accordingly.--Trackerwiki (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Their overarching need for a viable mythos to challenge the overwhelming narrative of the U.S.-dominated New World Order has led them to oppose most American policy and military actions, even if it means opposing U.S. actions which result in security or economic benefits for their own countries. The U.S. War on Terror, launched as a global initiative to tamp down the capacities of Islamist movements and to eventually demoralize their Caliphatist hardcore, is the current example.

The main marxist (progessive)- socialist strategy was to undermine the faith of Coalitional polities in their respective governances through aggressive use of the Cold-War informational strategies of forum-shaping of public debate and continuous legal hindrances, the idea being to sow doubt and confusion about their governments' standards of honesty, competence, and conduct as the war progresses. This course of affairs naturally suited the interests of irredentist hegemony-seeking state actors such as Russia, whose agents had a hand in initiating anti-Coalition protests worldwide.

It's all true. User Trackerwiki adduces an opinion piece from Ion Mihai Pacepa in the National Review to prove it! The same Ion Pacepa who claims Saddam is hiding WMD in Syria, and who also knows the identity of the person who ordered the assassination of JFK. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Syria has massive chemical WMD capability, and the final ISG report did not rule out the possibility that Iraqi WMDs were secreted there. Former Spy chief Pacepa was the highest-ranking communist intelligence officer to defect to the West and proved very valuable. For this reason alone he is worth listening to on comintern activities as he dealt in these things at the highest levels. Don't know what to believe about the Oliver Stone thingy, though.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But recent years have seen an erosion in [Cindy] Sheehan's popularity as icon of the antiwar, anti-American (sic) as details of her support for foreign dictators

Oh, I see. Foreign Dictators like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Autocrat may be a more apt description for Chavez instead of dictator. Unlike for the ailing Castro, who as incontestable "Presidente for Life" is literally just that.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The popular President Obama has replaced Sheehan, Wright, [Michael] Moore, and other questionable figures as an apologetic symbol for the many on the left who wish for America's leading role in world affairs to be diminished

Say what?

This tidbit isn't salient, might as well remove it as anything-Obama is prone to be taken as POV anyway.--Trackerwiki (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[Joseph C.] Wilson's haphazard work and dishonest claims were eventually discredited, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal

The rest is the same. Egregious POV pushing. Please don't restore this stuff. Dynablaster (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also seen Tracerwiki's additions and found many of them somewhat questionable, though I hadn't done as detailed a review as Dynablaster. Tracerwiki, I too would be interested to see your responses to the points about verifiability above. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I make a request that if the above discussion is going to contain in-line replies, we put signatures at the end of each such reply? Otherwise it's likely to get very confusing who said what (and when). Olaf Davis (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored material

Most of the material removed by Dynablaster has now been restored. I don't think the above discussion established a consensus for it. A few examples:

• "Iraq's government and its Palestinian allies were the grouping most vocally opposed to the invasion" - this still has no citation, except to articles published before the U.S. was even talking about the invasion (early 2001).

Reworded to refer to Iraqi elites and allies being the earliest opposed to further, more aggressive UNSC mandate for disarmament (which is what the invasion was initiated on). This better fits with the historical view of opposition in support of continuation of the Iraqi regime as a continuum of events and outcomes along a timeline from 1998 going forward.--Trackerwiki (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I still can't see that the cited source, here, supports the sentecne "Iraq's governing elites and their Palestinian allies were the naturally the earliest and primary group opposed to further UNSC mandates for more aggressive disarmament, in particular a mandate authorizing an immediate invasion and disarmament which would obviously result in the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime." It doesn't mention any such mandate. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a better cite: ..Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad, who as a general signed the cease-fire declaration with the U.S.-led (1991) coalition, told reporters on the steps of the war memorial on Saturday he wasn't expecting any less hostility from the United States... "What has changed? They are the same ones who fought us and those who are now in power were present during the aggression. For us it is not different," said Ahmad...(http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/06/iraq.hussein/). The regime saw hostile U.S. attitudes and policies towards it as little changed from since the mid-1990s. It and its allies vocally resisted any attempt at greater intervention by the UNSC Permanents towards enforcing UNSC disarmament mandates and toppling the Baathists, that is until terminal intervention in 2003 silenced Hussein's government. --Trackerwiki (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what about the bit on Palestinians? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Anti-American regimes such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela opposed the war in part because its successful prosecution sets the precedent for the dominant Western UNSC Permanents to easily target such "pariah" regimes with little recourse to the Westphalian checks of the U.N" - this is cited to a source which says no such thing.

Am still searching for that CFR reference which specifically outlined this claim. Please wait for this, it's the view held by most in the diplomatic community anyway.--112.201.128.54 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait, and to believe that it may well be the dominant view. Let's leave it out until you get the source, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've located a summary of the Council on Foreign Relations article I referred to but sad to say it well predates the Iraq War. Its point about the rogue states clustering together is valid but not with Iraq at the nexus. There's little publicly accessible to point to this view outside of books and diplomatic hearsay which I can't cite obviously. Will just have to retire this article for now.--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The presence in Iraq of terrorist groups and the announcements of prominent foreign leaders like Russia's Putin did point to a clear future threat, for Iraq was indeed harboring terrorists and likely planning independently of al-Qaeda to launch attacks on American assets and personnel worldwide" - the first half of this is cited to an article about a single terrorist being found in Iraq, hardly 'terrorist groups'. The bit about Putin has improved since it was discussed above, but I still think it's taking a very uncritical view from one comment by one of the many people who've expressed an opinion on the question and presenting it as fact.

I posted more cites on post-war findings of the terrorist threat presented by the former regime, which as secondary rationale for war was much better validated on the ground than the primary rationale that Saddam Hussein's regime presented an imminent WMD threat.--112.201.128.54 (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - that source does much more to support the claim. However, on reading over it again I realise that that paragraph is pretty long, and isn't actually talking about opposition to the war at all. Perhaps most of it would be better suited at Criticism of the Iraq War, Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq or perhaps somewhere else, with a briefer summary here. What do you think? Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok will prune the verbiage--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The claims about George Galloway are still not supported by the sources - no source says that he "was illicitly rewarded for his spirited legal opposition to U.S. and U.K. action in Iraq and for supporting the release of Saddam's regime from U.N. embargoes and disarmament mandates".

If you go over the references you will note that Galloway was specifically cited for deriving illicit gains via Iraqi manipulation of the Oil-for-Food program due to "his opinions". If you prefer an even more direct style of claim involving specific wording then I'll have to search for appropriate articles. To avoid current contention let's leave the cites off for now until the suitable write-ups turn up.

Update - I've found the investigative source documents attesting to Galloway's likely complicit involvement in illicit transactions as a result of oil allocations granted him by Saddam Hussein's government on the basis of his support for the regime. Still, I've fine-tuned the wording to fit within the narrowest reading of the citations while still retaining a measure of evaluative journalism.

Great, the newly added source does actually support the claim that he was rewarded for that reason. How about we add an 'according to a US Senate Report' or similar to make it clear who decided this, since the US Senate is hardly a neutral party in the incident. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and will also add that Galloway still contests its accuracy.--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good thinking. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that a very large proportion of the material makes statements which are simply not to be found in the sources. We can't draw inferences of the type "Cube and Venezuela are friendly and dislike the U.S. so they must have opposed the war because of precedent about 'pariah' regimes": either we have a source which says exactly that or we don't say it. The same goes for almost all of the recent additions which I've investigated the sourcing for in detail; some I haven't dug into.

I've removed the Galloway bit per WP:BLP. I'm not removing the rest at the moment, but please try to provide sources which directly support the claims in the article. Thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I, too, remain concerned. We need to take things slowly. These changes remain controversial and so, in order to give editors a chance to evaluate neutrality, it is better to make small edits to the article, allowing for input and improvement. Dynablaster (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The article needed to be updated with more current opposition issues, in particular the incapacity or incompetence of Coalition leaders and agencies during the post-war period in uplifting Iraq and its peoples into a stable national polity. Wholesale additions were needed to impart historicity to many of the prior claims and concepts here, outcomes had to be evaluated against stated aims and methods from six years ago. I would have added much more on this sub-issue if I didn't have to focus on constantly answering objections --Trackerwiki (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You've removed all my contributions yet again. Please state your censorial concerns alongside each specific article posted and I will see how each of these can be reworded or re-evaluated in light of the objections.--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynablaster has removed the entirety of my contributions twice on the basis of a few errors and misinterpretations. Update - Dynablaster has now removed all my contributions yet a third time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracerwiki (talk • contribs) I've taken the liberty of moving this comment here - I hope you don't mind, but leaving a reply in the middle of a paragraph makes things very confusing. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some of Dynablaster's concerns were errors and misinterpretations. If so, then since I made those same errors it seems that the material could benefit from a little clarification so the reader doesn't make them too. But a lot of our objections are to do with material which is unsourced. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have politely asked Tracerwiki to proceed slowly, making just a few edits each day, thereby allowing editors time to review the changes (s)he wish to make. This is the best way to move forward when material is disputed. Dynablaster (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Dynablaster, am retracing my contributions by re-adding a few articles at a time to your last redo, starting with additions to the lead. Please review these and the associated cites for I will re-evaluate in light of your comments.--Trackerwiki (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More material

Another of Trackerwiki's additions is:

Iran's government was unique in that its theocratic regime publicly opposed the war but covertly encouraged Coalition efforts along with the majority of the Iranian people, many of whom hoped the Coalition would next liberate Iran after Iraq.

This is sourced to an opinion piece - I think we need much more than that to make such claims about 'the majority of the Iranian people'. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OK will look for better reference, although the opinion of the Iranian majority is not that salient and I'll remove it for now.

Ok, thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Found more supportive references but will still need to re-word it into "many pro-Western Iranian hoped for U.S. interventions leading to freedom".--Trackerwiki (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And this:

Geopolitical and legal rationales for the continuation of Saddam's neototalitarian regime, which favored its Sunni minorities provided the main grounds for foreign opposition to invasion, as the moral rationale for it's continuation was weak

(Emphasis added) I certainly don't think we can say the moral rationale was weak. We can talk about who thought it was - many people did but many people didn't - but that requires sources, of which there are currently none. But even then it's not the encyclopedia's place to say what is or isn't a good moral argument. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Will re-word accordingly. Perhaps 'regional morale' is a better term than 'moral rationale' to describe the enthusiastic support which the Coalition manifestly enjoyed among Iraq's neighbors, in particular Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, the Trucials, and Iran, and particularly among the Kurds and other minority northern peoples of Iraq.--Trackerwiki (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Slow additions

I'm glad we seem to have agreement on the 'slow additions' policy. Shall we all discuss them below and wait to reach consensus before making any other changes to the article? Hopefully that can save us from too many more reverts. Now, the first addition:

Iran was unique in that its theocratic regime publicly opposed the war while the mostly pro-U.S. Iranian public [1], innured to years of failings of despotic clergy, quietly welcomed Coalition efforts [2] and hoped that American interventions would lead to freedom in Iran [3][4][5].

• I think this material would be more appropriate in the article body than the lede.

ok

• Could you tell us which page in "Iranian Public Opinion on the Nuclear Program" supports the 'mostly pro-U.S.' bit, please?

Under the heading "Opportunity for the International Community",

...even though Iranians at large are suspicious of the United States, they are not fundamentally anti-American. In fact, American symbols are popular with Iranians at large, and most people have been supportive of a U.S.-Iran dialogue and the establishment of relations...--Trackerwiki (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think 'despotic clergy' is a bit strong - how about 'discontent with the clergy'?

The term has been used in Fahrenheit story "Tehran’s despots", but if you insist --Trackerwiki (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The NYT source is an opinion piece, which I don't think we should cite.

Perhaps, but IIRC it is one of the most cited by opponents of intervention in Iran--Trackerwiki (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• The other sources aren't talking about the Iraq invasion in particular. We could get away with saying "many Iranians support U.S. presence in the Middle East" but "quietly welcomed Coalition efforts" is definitely a statement about this war in particular, which unless I've missed something the sources don't support.

Ok, quietly support U.S. presence in Middle East and South Asia will do--Trackerwiki (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Davis (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As of 2009, widespread sentiment for ending the war on advantageous terms ensured enough support for the 2006-2007 Surge strategy to see it through. [6] The security and stability gains sustained Iraq's ongoing economic boom as the Iraqi government took over security and governance duties all over Iraq. [7] Although the campaign with its unprecedentedly low casualty rates is considered the model of modern counterinsurgency, the success came at a steep cost in material expenditures and worldwide US force availability which severely limited US options for intervention elsewhere. Despite large drawdowns, sizeable US-MNF forces must remain to secure the fragile gains achieved for the foreseable future. [8]

• My concern with this is that it isn't about opposition to the war. It would be at home in Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq or Iraq war, but this article (and certainly its lede) doesn't need to list tangentially connected things like the fact that Iraq had an economic boom. I haven't looked at the sources for this paragraph in detail. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Iranian position is a synthesis of different opinion pieces. WP:SYN We require a neutral source which directly addresses the topic if any this material is going to stay. Dynablaster (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

- Iraq's political and economic gains may seem tangential but these impact both the reason for and the results of the Surge, which in turn was the real issue as it strained US Army forces availability to near breaking point. A major conflict elsewhere would have caught the army dangerously short of warfighting resources. In the opinion of many experts, Iraq's geopolitical status at that point did not warrant the greater risk. A return to a focus on serving U.S. interests rather than those of Iraq's would have called for the opposite strategy, which was to advance the timetable for withdrawing Coalition forces following full-scale "Iraqification" of the conflict. Perhaps this belongs in an "opposition to the Surge" department, but for now I'm trying to update the entire article with timely stuff like this. In any case, will move the detailed arguments for/against the Surge off the lede. --Trackerwiki (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

- Will source more direct Iran cites, but please understand that reliable, official reporting in Iran on pro-Western sentiment is almost as scarce as reliable, official reporting was on the same within the Soviet Bloc prior to its breakup.

Which fact did not preclude supposedly "anecdotal stories" from before the downfall of the Soviet Bloc - stories which revealed the broad depth of anti-communist, pro-Western sentiment among Eastern Europeans in the 1980s - scooping scarce "official reporting" on the character and aims of the freedom movements which unexpectedly brought down the Iron Curtain. Like the failed Soviet empire, the failing Iranian theocracy likes neither Western media nor uncontrolled surveys conducted by same. And so both are not easy to come by packaged together. The Tarrance study is probably as good as it gets data-wise, especially given the ongoing clerical crackdowns on dissident Iranian leaders and public. If Iran's influence wasn't so important in Iraq this wouldn't have mattered. Still, I do have a reference to expert BBC analysis, but I've cited the BBC enough already. --Trackerwiki (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved Iran stuff from article

Iran was unique in that its clerical ruling class publicly opposed the war while large segments of society, in particular the younger pro-American generations, expressed hope that it would help bring about desired regime changes.130131 discontented with the failings of the Islamic regime,132quietly support the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia133[www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/opinion/05KRIS.html?ex=1084872849&ei=1&en=5a2cf1144fdf04ee 134] with the hope that American interventions would lead to freedom in Iran 135

Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq." 131, WINEP, does not support the text, if anything it contradicts it saying "many [Iranians] fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War." It does contain a general statement, in a footnote, that America "is very popular" in Iran, but so what.

Source 132 does not discuss Iranian opinion on the invasion of Iraq. And it's a piece in FrontPageMag, which is a far-right Internet tabloid with a reputation for publishing total nonsense.

Source 133 does not discuss opposition or support to the Iraq war per se, and it certainly doesn't support anything about "the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia."

Source 134 is a gee-whiz op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof wherein he claims that "many Iranians seem convinced that the U.S. military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going great." Of course there are no hard facts cited, no surveys, it's not about pre-war opposition or support but about what "many Iranians" supposedly thought in 2004...

Source 135 is a Guardian news piece in which is quoted an anonymous source - "one senior western diplomat based in Tehran," who explains that "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well." Of course "one senior western diplomat" does not explain how he knows "the secret hope" that "no one is saying out loud," but we're supposed to take his word, I guess. Meanwhile, a 2006 poll [3] found that 48% of Iranians say that the invasion was "a mistake" against 33% saying it was the "right decision," and 77% say it's increased the danger of terrorism, but that's in the prosaic world of what people say to pollsters, not their "secret hopes" as discerned by anonymous "senior western diplomats."

My point here is if you want to make claims about Iranian public opinion, you have to actually go find sources that credibly support those claims, rather than just tacking on a citation to some vaguely related article. EvanHarper (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole article continues in a similar vein (after user Trackerwiki's extensive editing) with individual opinion pieces being used to advance a position. Pure SYNTH. It needs to be reverted to an earlier date. Dynablaster (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to - Moved Iran stuff from article

EvanHarper questioned:

Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq."

Dating of the piece is 2004, well after onset of the Iraq War. At a time when an insurgency was emerging and the Coalition ruled directly, it is not just suggestive but telling that the BBC would report that younger Iranians remained favorably disposed towards the U.S., while the forceful liberation and occupation of their neighbor next door by the same proceeded apace.--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

131, WINEP, does not support the text, if anything it contradicts it saying "many [Iranians] fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War."

In fuller context:

...Many Iranians appear to withdraw their support for the nuclear program when it comes to military nuclear development, mostly for fear of the potential costs such a program would incur in terms of international isolation, sanctions, and a possible military strike against Iran... ...Furthermore, many fear the prospect of war, citing either the fate of Iraq or the live memories of the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq War... ...Inadvertently, this poll does not tell the story that the regime wanted to tell...

--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your point appears to be more useful for a Wiki article on the Iranian public's view of the theocracy's nuclear program. OTOH, your point has relevance to this article in suggesting that most Iranians are not willing to fight for the regime's anti-Western policies and thus suffer the same fate as the regime of the hated nemesis Saddam. Historically, the majority of Iraqis concluded likewise and ended up supporting the UN Mandate and the new Iraqi Republic.--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It does contain a general statement, in a footnote, that America "is very popular" in Iran, but so what.

"...Second, a more aggressive reaction by the international community -- a U.S. or Israeli attempt to strike Iran's nuclear facilities -- could well have the unintended consequence of antagonizing a highly nationalistic and largely pro-Western populace and convincing Iranians that a nuclear weapon is indeed in their national interests. Such a reaction would be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region, especially given Iran's key location between Iraq and Afghanistan..."

--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Source 132 does not discuss Iranian opinion on the invasion of Iraq. And it's a piece in FrontPageMag, which is a far-right Internet tabloid with a reputation for publishing total nonsense.

The editors of this or indeed any well-known site would likely take issue with characterization of its content as "nonsense" absent a check on its corresponding grounds. Certainly many of Wikipedia would, of Wiki content.--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Source 133 does not discuss opposition or support to the Iraq war per se, and it certainly doesn't support anything about "the U.S. presence in the Middle East and South Asia."

"...The survey, which was the first of its kind, found two-thirds of Iranians believe that regime change in Iraq has been a positive for both neighboring countries: with 66% believing that it served Iran's national interests, while 65% believed the Iraqi people will, in the long-run, be better off..."

--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Source 134 is a gee-whiz op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof wherein he claims that "many Iranians seem convinced that the U.S. military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going great." Of course there are no hard facts cited, no surveys, it's not about pre-war opposition or support but about what "many Iranians" supposedly thought in 2004...

As I've said before, this piece was prominently cited by many who still oppose extending the UN mission in Iraq to include disarming Iran's pariah regime. If you remain unimpressed by the depth of ideological opposition implied by this, then I will offer a Carnegie expert opinion which clearly echoes this message, "...while a central premise of Iran's Islamic government from the time of its inception has been its steadfast opposition to the United States and Israel, for most Iranians no such nemeses exist. Iran's young populace -- more than two-thirds of the country is younger than 30 -- is among the most pro-American in the Middle East, and tend not to share the impassioned anti-Israel sentiment of their Arab neighbors..."[4]--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Source 135 is a Guardian news piece in which is quoted an anonymous source - "one senior western diplomat based in Tehran," who explains that "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well." Of course "one senior western diplomat" does not explain how he knows "the secret hope" that "no one is saying out loud," but we're supposed to take his word, I guess. Meanwhile, a 2006 poll [5] found that 48% of Iranians say that the invasion was "a mistake" against 33% saying it was the "right decision," and 77% say it's increased the danger of terrorism, but that's in the prosaic world of what people say to pollsters, not their "secret hopes" as discerned by anonymous "senior western diplomats."

My point here is if you want to make claims about Iranian public opinion, you have to actually go find sources that credibly support those claims, rather than just tacking on a citation to some vaguely related article.EvanHarper (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This well-known media institution is usually received credibly by the left-of-center wing of the political spectrum, and so I made sure to include its expert views. Contrast this to how you might treat material from right-of-center publishers who apparently are worth proscription from your POV. It has been said that diversity of and balance between independent views can matter as much as accuracy, relevance, and timeliness in reporting. Hopefully I haven't been remiss in this regard, for which I await your critique.--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fringe web sites like FrontPage Magazine are not an appropriate source in this context. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and try to use mainstream news media and scholarly publications instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

More Responses to - Moved Iran stuff from article

Some comments:

EvanHarper said:

Source 130 (BBC) does not even use the word "Iraq."

to which trackerwiki replies:

Dating of the piece is 2004, well after onset of the Iraq War. At a time when an insurgency was emerging and the Coalition ruled directly, it is not just suggestive but telling that the BBC would report that younger Iranians remained favorably disposed towards the U.S., while the forceful liberation and occupation of their neighbor next door by the same proceeded apace.

But none of that is sufficient to make the source suitable. If we want to say something about the effect of the Iraq war, we need a source which says "this is an effect of the Iraq war". Per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH we simply can't go around deciding that the timing of an article and the context it appeared in is 'suggestive' or 'telling' and that therefore it must support a certain view. That's just not how a tertiary source works. That would be fine for writing a book about the subject, but as Wikipedia editors we need sources which directly support the exact claims we are making.

The Guardian article too is not made suitable by the fact that it's left-wing or 'usually received credibly'; what the Guardian is saying is that an anonymous diplomat made a claim. If we want the article to say "an anonymous diplomat told the Guardian that..." then fine, use this as a source. But we really can't use such an anonymous statement to say that "large segments of society...expressed...the hope that American interventions would lead to freedom in Iran". A single anonymous source really isn't good enough for such a wide claim.

Almost every sub-article I've put in has at one time or another risen to prominence in public media or professional discourse, as we could expect of an overarching issue which has been around for the past six years. Each was accompanied by more than the usual referencing and reporting, and more importantly enough analytic consensus and historical evaluation has been provided over the years. Our systems are all troves of information accumulated from these cycles. Like everyone else with other things to do, I'm still in mired the process of mining these for the purpose of updating what has up till recently remained a stale compendimum of polemic and speculation from before 2003.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving certainly (if a bit slowly) to update things before my nephew's next Britannica comes out looking brilliant once again by default, when I encounter something never expected in my time in wikipedia editing - obstructionist behavior in the commons arising out of overly selective, even censorious approaches to approving publishing, to the point of wholesale deletions motivated partly out of spite. Again, it's 2009 and well past time for an accounting of what has occurred vs. claimed, and with enough contributions this article will eventually get there.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've said above, several times, that we cannot support statements, especially about living people, with things like common sense and inference from suggestive timing of sources: we need to have sources which directly and specifically make the claims we are putting in the article. Trackerwiki, do you acknowledge this? Although you've responded to specific objections to individual sources you've put forward, none of my (or Dynablaster's) earlier insistences on this basic principle seem to have affected your subsequent useage of sources.

The issue is that of establishing a standard for stricter correspondence between claims made in-article with external claims provided under the authority of well-known and testable sources. If this is the main purpose of disagreements on my contributions then of course I understand and will continue to work towards the ideal, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. Just realize that there's not much time between assignments for me to add to or polish my postings (as you've probably noticed I've barely edit others' contributed content). If it makes you confident, let me assure you that cleanup and further support of existing contributions will be my current priority.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I haven't addressed the other sources discussed here because I find your style of editing very confusing. The sentence "Inadvertently, this poll does not tell the story that the regime wanted to tell" is spread across the end of a blockquote, presumably by mistake. But who's saying that - you, or the source, or Dynablaster who you're also quoting? I ask again for you to please remember to sign your comments, and rather than copying other people's comments wholesale including their signatures to say something like "User:X wrote..." which, I believe, will make everything much easier to follow.

Apologies if the errors due to my on-off editing binges are confusing and annoying. Which I'm sure they are, as these gaps and unfinished business confuse and irritate me as well. I could spend an hour re-arranging the discussion topics into an orderly series (as you may have noticed) before even framing a reply. I will certainly have to put in a lot of remedial work this coming season.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope I don't seem annoyed above - the last thing I want is to jeopardise the current cordial level of discussion - but it does feel as though we're crossing the same ground again and again, both on the type of thing we can use sources for and on the confusing use of this talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To be subject to censure on skill and presentation of writing rather than relevance and accuracy of content is always a useful warning sign worth paying attention to. Yours and others' cordiality have always been welcome and likewise returned.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Trackerwiki has now reinserted this part, with the wording of the contested part (the sentence cited at the beginning of this section: "Iran was unique .... would lead to freedom in Iran") unchanged. The only difference (compared to the version cited above on Dec 13, or to the November 15 version) is in two references: One, the NYT article was removed, another one is now cited for the same statement as Source 132, and the same objection that has been brought against Source 132 above also applies to this one: It does not even mention the Iraq War, let alone discusses Iranian opinion on it.

This despite the highly misleading edit summary "reworded Iran" (except for the references, the wording is the same) and the objections above. I am reverting this and ask Trackerwiki to seek consensus here first. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to do this, but...

DynaBlaster is obviously correct, the massive edits over the past few months have massively distorted the article with polemical, unsupported statements, dubious sourcing, and all manner of other nonsense. I've reverted to 12:46, 27 September 2009. When you look at the diff it's pretty clear.

• Iraqi agents and those of states and NGOs seeking the regime's continuation for various reasons sought the services and cooperation of disaffected Westerners as well as sympathetic extra-nationals to soften U.S. policies by lending support to lifting U.N. embargoes and promoting anti-war efforts

material was highly relevant, well cited--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Geopolitical, moral and legal rationales for the continuation of Saddam Hussein's neototalitarian regime ... provided the grounds for the foreign opposition to the justification of the war

If not for the Baathist regime's uncooperative stance leading to armed opposition, the various grounds for the invasion would not have emerged.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• The marxist-progessive strategy is to undermine the faith of Coalitional polities in their respective governances through the Cold-War-style infowarfare strategies of forum-shaping of public debate and of legal hindrances to military institutions, the strategy being to sow doubt and confusion about government standards of honesty, competence, and conduct

This is classic dialectical form taught by many. It also reflects the historical record closely.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• By denying space for unpoisoned and constructive debate on issues of wartime setbacks and mistakes, in particular the intelligence community's misguided search for nonexistent Iraqi WMDs, it was hoped that a negative counter to the Bush Administration's positive narrative of spreading freedom and democracy could be made fashionable

This is the most effective legal strategy available to dissenters in liberal democracies for agressively shaping public debate against the patriotic narrative of the governing authorities. This a recurrent historical theme which context I can provide much info and cites on going back to the Spanish-American War.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• proponents of these view believe that the exercise of force against the general principles of the UN Charter is technically illegal and politically undermines the UN and the practice of international law. Given the incapacity of the UN body as founded to determine or enforce such a finding against any of the five core UNSC Permanent, the issue is hypothetical at best.

This is commonly-known and accepted analysis, as a quick study of the UN history and its charter would reveal. Diplomats are a good source to query.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is just a selection of a few highlights, and I stopped only because I don't want argumentam ad nauseam, not because there aren't pages and pages more of this shit. EvanHarper (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree that this is probably necessary. DynaBlaster and I asked Trackerwiki to move slowly with their additions so we could discuss them, but they ended up going too quickly for me to really keep up with all the material. Most of what I did check I had minor or major problems with, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As agreed, all contributions were retraced then added back slowly over several weeks. Valid objections were met with additional cites, revisions, and even deletions where warranted. These are all valid, relevant points derived from historical correspondence. These are not difficult to describe or explain from the many available orthodox bases of information, and are all easily supported by cites from various independent sources. I continue to respond reasonably in the manner already displayed.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

First, please stop interleaving unsigned comments into mine, as it makes the discussion impossible to follow.

Second, your responses - much like your edits - are just vague ideological broadsides, cloaked in superficially scientific language. You can of course not provide acceptable citations to support a claim like, "to sow doubt and confusion about government standards of honesty, competence, and conduct" are "classic dialectical form taught in many elite campuses." Every time I've examined your citations in detail, I've found them to be at best extremely sketchy, and mostly outright irrelevant. You are spinning out these long bloviated discourses on the mendacity of Saddamite milleniarian Marxists, and then tacking on citations that vaguely relate to some tertiary clause - but have nothing to do with the general point.

May I suggest you try Conservapedia instead. EvanHarper (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this in the spirit of comment? Or humour? Why, when we are already here --Trackerwiki (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues in updating the article

As the article badly needed an infusion of history and context,the effect of adding more explanations alongside verifiable cites from reliable sources will serve to bring a NPOV balance to what until recently appeared to be little more than a political screed for a 2003 audience. However, it has been pointed out that many of my explanatory additions may have overly relied on synthetic as opposed to summary conclusions which cannot be easily supported by the associated cites no matter how reliable or verifiable these cites and their sources may be. The remedy is a thorough review with eye the towards better formulation and referential support while following ever more strictly the Wikipedia guidelines governing important articles such as this. Thus I'm putting greater weight on finding and posting analyses and cites published by academic and governing institutions, starting with article on Iran.

With the slow but ongoing improvement of its content though significant historical updates, hopefully the information will increse in utility. --Trackerwiki (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Again

Okay I'm starting another section because god knows what's happening in the discussion above, tracker / 112 has left so many unsigned, unindented, interleaved comments that I don't know what's what.

I'm reverting all of his edits, again. They strike me as entirely incompatible with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. They strike me as political polemics interspersed with largely irrelevant citations. If there is any non-polemical material in there, anything useful and compatible with policies, I haven't seen it - and at this point I think the burden is on Tracker to start here, on talk, proposing specific changes and discussing them before editing the article. (WP:BRD.)

I only review parts of the historical record with some descriptive summary, and even less of explanatory additions. It's possible any polemics perceived may be derivative of confusion arising from the continual cycling of varied events into and out of the timelines. The burden of clarification which your proposals will entail is mine.--Trackerwiki (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For example - because I've already examined the Iran section in detail - let me say what I would like to see established here, on talk, before any of that material is restored. I would like to see citations:

1) from reliable sources 2) which directly discuss Iranian public opinion vis-a-vis the 2003 invasion of Iraq 3) which evince a substantive basis for the claims they make on that subject.

None of the citations I've seen thus far meet those three criteria. Many of them meet two out of three - for example, reliable reports of opinion polls conducted by reputable organizations, but which relate to general Iranian attitudes towards the US and the West circa 2006, rather than specific Iranian attitudes towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's not good enough.

If what you seek are references and rewording which better support the contributed claims in particular on Iran, then I will post whatever can be found to meet your criteria. I only ask for patience with my efforts, there's little to be gained here other than satisfaction in enlightening others on this complex and intriguing history. On the Iran piece, there are more cites available which can provide the relevant analysis and solid attribution the topic deserves. I only hope the single paragraph on this sub-topic does not come out appearing overly-referenced in comparison to the rest of the article.--Trackerwiki (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to excise some 40K of material contributed in good faith, really, I am. But I really am not prepared to let an important article remain in a condition that is frankly embarrassing. EvanHarper (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, and only just. You must understand, I do not favor the precedent you are asking as out of fairness and courtesy I'm facing again yet another, third cycle of laborious re-insertions for the purpose of review. Mind you, if my schedules don't work this coming leave, I'll probably wind up reinstating the less contentious en masse at some point. BTW, I have not attempted to edit nor revise other portions of the article so as not to provoke the type of dissension which eats up time in replies. For now all the time I can devote is for my contributions.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please respond in the normal fashion, like this, not by leaving unsigned comments in the middle of the above, or by moving comments around and chopping them up. EvanHarper (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I second everything Evan says above. I'm going to be away from internet access for the next week or so though, so my silence should not be taken as indicative of - anything in particular. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I too was annoyed with how the talk topics' arrangement devolved as we each apparently edited at cross-purposes. Hopefully it appears fixed enough now.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you agree that formatting of talk page comments has been problematic. However you have again interleaved your own comments into my comments. Please stop doing this. Please instead formulate complete replies and place them after, and apart from, the comments you are replying to.

There are portions of your response that I cannot refute, because I cannot make any sense out of them. "It's possible any polemics perceived may be derivative of confusion arising from the continual cycling of varied events into and out of the timeless." Perhaps this is some pearl of profundity far beyond my ken.

As for Iran - I mentioned that section as an example, because I have examined it specifically and in detail. It appears - although, again, I haven't trawled through all your sources for all 40k of your addition - that the rest of your contributions suffer from the same problems. My concern is not merely with Iran, but with all of it. All of it is contentious, all of it is disputed, all of it appears to clash mightily with Wikipedia policies, all of it needs to be hashed out here on talk, first, before it is restored to the article in any form. Please accept that it is not just a problem with one section, it is not about punctilios or finding a better source here and there, it really is about your edits in their present form being radically out-of-step with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. Have you read those policies? I think you should at least skim them, because the edits in question here manifestly contradict them, and that's a problem. EvanHarper (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"...continual cycling of varied events into and out of the timeless." Oops. I meant to say "...continual cycling of varied events into and out of the timelines." Fixed.--Trackerwiki (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

More Again

My point is, a review of historical propositions when evaluated against succeeding actual events on the ground can result in a narrative unkind to the original underlying premises. In the most famous example, we all know that the initial political opposition of France against the Coalition mission in Iraq was later transformed into political acceptance of and support for its continuing mission to secure and uplift post-Saddam Iraq, under renewed UN Mandate.

A recounting of events along the timeline cannot but work to cycle this contrasting sub-narrative into prominence. Only a most selective, outside-context reinterpretation from an ideological or religious POV could present the full recounting as anything other than a history of France de facto obviating its past record of opposition in the course of realigning de jure its foreign policy into supporting the international mission. The result of course isn't pretty for those who had figured that France's original opposition would remain in the face of convincing Coalition efforts on the ground to stabilize and rebuild Iraq it into a more modern democracy. If you perceive an irrelevant polemic fashioned out of this narrative in support of something other than "Opposition to the Iraq War", well, that's vexing history for you.--Trackerwiki (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proxy undos

On unintentional obstruction of editing flow: If in case you didn't know, using convenient edit tools to wittle down from latest content to just the bare outline headers was my strategy for managing this 3rd review. It should be obvious from the log.--Trackerwiki (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. There is no need for petty proscriptions in a great commons like Wikipedia.--Trackerwiki (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Plamegate

Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (added here, re-added here):

Although the haphazard work and dishonest claims of Wilson were eventually discredited <ref>{{cite web |http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/02/opinion/oe-boot2 |title="Plamegate's real liar" |publisher=latimes.com |date=2 November 2005}}</ref>, the ensuing inquiries ensnared the Bush Administration in the long-run Plamegate scandal which, although it turned out to have no basis, nevertheless enabled political opponents to assail the integrity of Bush cabinet members and distract them in their conduct of the War.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html |title='End of an Affair' |date=1 September 2006 |publisher=washingtonpost.com}}</ref>

The description "haphazard work and dishonest claims" is clearly an opinion, violating WP:NPOV. The latimes.com link does not work. "the long-run Plamegate scandal which, although it turned out to have no basis" - a scandal in which the Chief of Staff of the Vice President is sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 has "no basis"? The wording is not even supported by the very opinionated article that is being cited. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please go over the history, Haeb. Plamegate ended in one of the clearest and least controversial conclusions for a politically charged case. There was not much of a case on the basis of claims of damage to Wilson or to national security, only on the basis that an Administration official who was thought to be in a position to know was caught by Federal agents supporting a deception about what he knew about what someone in the media knew about what was, basically, a non-issue to begin with. Martha Stewart would have known better, the modern crime of Lese Majesty in a republic of equals is not to be taken lightly!--Trackerwiki (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

working link here:

Max Boot: Plamegate's real liar ...But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn't seem to fit the act's definition of a "covert agent" — someone who "has within the last five years served outside the United States." By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president's chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn't a crime...

If you take issue with my editing, though, please suggest a re-wording, I'm open to anything reasonable.--Trackerwiki (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a working link. This makes the problems with this sentence even clearer, as it shows this reference to be an opinion article by a pundit on, let's say, one end of the political spectrum (whose polemical nature was already evident from the title, though). A one-sided viewpoint like this may or may not be mentioned in a main article about the subject (Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson) if it is clearly marked as an opinion and balanced with other, differing views (see e.g. this comment published in TIME in 2007, i.e. long after the two opinions you cited). But it is certainly not appropriate for the purpose of representing a general, consensus view of the subject in a one-sentence summary like the one above. See WP:UNDUE.

Another issue I hadn't mentioned yet is that the sources do not support the wording "enabled political opponents to assail the integrity of Bush cabinet members and distract them in their conduct of the War", which again seems to be your own synthesis and editorializing. Please remember that the purpose of this article is to describe the opposition to the Iraq War in a factual, distanced way without stating our own opinions, arguments or interpretations. The article is not supposed to be an essay on "why I think the opposition to the Iraq War was misguided".

You are asking for my suggestion on how to deal with this sentence. I am suggesting to leave it out completely, for the various reasons described above.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (re-added here):

... the election of a [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party|Socialist]] government was brought about by the damage inflicted by the 2004 al-Qaeda bombings of Madrid, which were meant to intimidate the Spanish electorate into withdrawing support for the War.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6357599.stm |title=The legacy of the Madrid bombings |accessdate=15 February 2007 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=15 February 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3511540.stm |title='Darkest hour' haunts Spain elections |accessdate=15 March 2004 |publisher=bbc.co.uk |date=15 March 2004 }}</ref>

The first source says:

In fact, it was the perception that the government was misleading the public about who was responsible for the bombings that did most damage.

Government officials indicated they believed the Basque separatist group Eta was responsible, even as evidence emerged to suggest otherwise. This helped galvanise public opposition to the incumbent government.

In other words, it directly contradicts the statement that Trackerwiki is citing it for. Similarly for the second source.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my write-up wasn't clear enough. Al-Qaeda acknowledged they did intend for the bombings to intimidate the Spanish aelectorate into pressuring the current government or next government to withdraw from the Iraq War. That an outcome desirable to al Qaeda may be interpreted as mostly the result of a disuniting internal-politics-driven process prior to and apart from the divisive intent and effect of the attack was discounted by many foreign observers. In any event this only concerns al-Qaeda only if the interpretion gives weight to the possibility that the target electorate was more easily manipulated and intimidated, than was assumed.--Trackerwiki (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Will add this [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37605 link]

Al-Qaida planned to carry out attacks to sever Madrid from the U.S. and its other allies in the war on terror, according to a document published months before Spain's national elections. CNN said it obtained a copy of the document, posted in December on an Internet message board used by al-Qaida and its sympathizers. "We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al-Qaida document says, according to CNN. "If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed – and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto." On Sunday, that prediction was fulfilled when the Socialists overcame a late deficit in the polls and ousted Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party just three days after 10 bombs ripped through Madrid's central rail station, killing at least 201 people. Then, yesterday, Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to pull out 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq by June 30 if the United Nations "doesn't take control of Iraq." Zapatero called the Iraq war a mistake and said Spain's participation in it "has been a total error."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackerwiki (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And this:

...The Socialists won a shock poll victory after voters appeared to turn on the government over its handling of the Madrid bombings that killed 200 people... ...The BBC's Chris Morris, in Madrid, says the bombings did more than shock Spain to the core; they proved to be the decisive factor in the general election that ousted the government... ...Our correspondent says the late swing to the Socialists raises one disturbing thought - if al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy...

Perhaps I can re-word it as "was brought about by the damage inflicted by the 2004 al-Qaeda bombings of Madrid, which were meant to influence a shaken Spanish electorate into electing a new government unwilling to support the War in Iraq."--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Galloway

Another example of the problems with Trackerwiki's edits (added here, re-added here, with a misleading edit summary):

Renowned antiwar activist Galloway proposed forging a forceful alliance between Muslims and Western progressives in support of various Islamist goals in the Middle East against US, UK, French, and Israeli interests, citing Iraq as the example. He was quoted in his interview:
<blockquote>''"...Not only do I think it's possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries... ...Our enemies are very powerful and they are currently ruling the world and if we don't stop them they will finish both of us and they will be the new tyrants... ...‘And I include in the worldwide anti-war movement the absolutely epic magnificent demonstration in Beirut yesterday (8 March, 2005) called by Hizb’ullah and supported by the Arab Nationalist parties from the Sunni minority in Lebanon in which more than a million people marched to tell Israel, France and America to get out of Lebanon and to stand by Syria in its hour of need as a country being threatened openly by the United States with invasion and occupation, of the same kind of treatment that Iraq suffered..."''<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001238.html |title='Britain's progressive alliance' |date=3 June 2005 |publisher=melaniephillips.com}}</ref></blockquote>

No such "forceful alliance" has been forged. These are nothing but some controversial remarks in an interview by one of hundreds or thousand of politicians worldwide who were opposed to the Iraq War, the subject of this article, and certainly on the fringe of that. They might merit a short mention in the article George Galloway, but are certainly given undue weight if they are mentioned in a general article such as this one.

What is more, the interpretation "in support of various Islamist goals" is not supported by the quote (cf. WP:SYNTH). Also, blogs are not a suitable source for such a matter per WP:BLP.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the piece on Mr. Galloway as he is prominently known to be anti-Israeli, pro-Arab which is fringe even for progressives. But why criticize the veracity and accuracy of Galloway's interview in the Arab press as mirrored in an english-language blog, when the latter contains one of the very few accessible english translations of said interview.--Trackerwiki (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not question the "veracity and accuracy of Galloway's interview", but the interpretation of this interview. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are alliances being formed, as is evidenced when you see western progressives joining in pro-Arab street demonstrations and vice-versa. I've just located a socialist interview where Galloway expounds how his Party is forging stronger coalitions against the Iraq War between progressive antiwar groups and discontented Arab muslims:

...First of all, it was the first left of Labor victory in English politics since 1945. Respect is powerful amongst immigrants who are overwhelmingly Muslim in the East End of London...If it can be achieved, it's important to find unity among the different antiwar forces, which requires some sacrifice programmatically and tactically, but is well worth the effort. We also should work to bring the Muslim population fully and wholeheartedly on board. There are many millions of Muslims in America. There are two million in Britain, and we have the support of the vast majority of them, and we have the active engagement of a very significant number of them. And that, too, I think, is likely to pay dividends if it is followed in the U.S. And that means not picking fights with the Muslim population on the issues which may be important but which are inevitably of a lesser order than war or occupation, and leaving those issues at the door for later. That's the approach that we take, and I recommend it to others...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackerwiki (talk • contribs)

That would still not even prove the "support of various Islamist goals" statement in your text, which seems more like guilt by association rhetoric than like a serious description of the article's subject. (Did Ronald Reagan forge a forceful alliance between Muslims and the U.S. in support of Islamist goals in the 1980s?)

Anyway, the fact that this is published on a fringe website only underlines the WP:UNDUE concerns.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mode of collaboration with Trackerwiki

By now, this whole talk page is full of detailed examples (given by several editors) of edits by Trackerwiki violating several important Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and other quality issues, such as citing sources for statements that they do not support.

Trackerwiki, you have already been asked to to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, meaning that since your changes have been proven to be very controversial, you should propose and discuss them here on the talk page first, and obtain consensus before reinserting them. You continue to ignore that advice, making massive changes without discussing them first (or, in case of the Iran statements, reinserting controversial parts without respecting detailed objections).

In light of the earlier comments by EvanHarper, Dynablaster and Olaf Davis, I suggest that from now on

• all edits by Trackerwiki which make substantial changes to the article and for which consensus has not been obtained previously, should be reverted on sight

This is a somewhat unusual suggestion, but given the hundreds of problematic edits by this user to the article during the past months, resulting in severe quality problems as demonstrated above, and his failure to cooperate in the ways suggested above ("slow additions" etc.), there seems to be no viable alternative.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. This article needs a cordon sanitaire policy from here on, because Tracker just doesn't get it, and shows no signs of coming around. EvanHarper (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi opposition?

One thing that's missing from the page is Iraqi opinion towards the war. It would be nice if someone could add what the stance of the Iraqi anti-Saddam opposition organizations was/is, and that of other Iraqi political groups, and opinion polls of Iraqis, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I thought Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq might shed some light but the most relevant link there is disappointingly red. I'm not too sure where to find the answer but I'll keep an eye out. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Congress

How's about a list of Senators and Congressman that voted against it? RicoRichmond (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New draft: Pacifism in the United States ‎

Please add to Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.findingourvoices.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1181629%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130204029/http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php to http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F05%2F26%2Fpolitics%2Fp183134D66.DTL&type=politics
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Fhi%2Fchinese%2Fnews%2Fnewsid_2766000%2F27662791.stm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Fhi%2Fchinese%2Fnews%2Fnewsid_2766000%2F27662791.stm&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Xmu
• Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20140223012347/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/29/iraq.iraq on https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/29/iraq.iraq
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807024154/http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/2/cindyonbus.mov to http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/2/cindyonbus.mov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826003156/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/19/211836.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/19/211836.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Opposition to the Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111040228/http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 to http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017092320/http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html to http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080426151703/http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/video/2/cindyonbus.mov to http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/video/2/cindyonbus.mov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)