Talk:Iraqi civil war (2006–2008)/Archive 1

Untitled

This article survived a AfD nomination, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iraqi civil war. Eugene van der Pijll 22:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the addition of the Opposing Views section by the author was a marvelous solution to the problem, I have changed my vote on the deletion of this article to 'Keep'. =) Xaa 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mahdi army

on the page of Iraq war it sais the mahdi army has 6.000 millitants so why does there on this page only say 35.000?

Opposing Views =

I think the addition of the Opposing Views section by the author was a marvelous solution to the problem, I have changed my vote on the deletion of this article to 'Keep'. =) Xaa 21:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the most recent changes. The opening has been watered down to the point where there is now no point for the article. All links and all opinions have been removed, and the article now no longer contains any supporting statements - in essence, the article now puts forth the notion that nobody believes it is happening. The problem is that if nobody believes that there is a civil war occurring, then there's no point for an article on it, now is there? =) Please do not delete supporting statements from the article, particularly statements by Allawi and other politicians, they are the entire point of why the article exists. Thank you! =) Xaa 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, wait, alright, I apparently caught it in the middle of an edit, you were MOVING things. Okay, nevermind. =) Xaa 19:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmm... No, the opinions of those that believe civil war is happening is still too watered down. Their opinions must be presented clearly. That's the entire point of the article, really - that some believe it either will happen soon, or is happening now. Please Note: I'm one of those who doesn't believe a civil war is happening. For evidence, please see the VfD discussion. =) Xaa 19:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: This Sentence in "Iraqi Civil War":

• It is unknown whether the establishment of a democratic government will gradually reduce or eliminate the passions that currently fuel the sectarian conflicts and violent civil unrest.

Reddi, There was no need to move that to the opening, it was fine where it was. Your original edit of the opening was excellent - it concisely summarized the article and flowed smoothly into the introduction. Please don't mess up your own work by over-editing! The article as it stands is very good, and presents both of the opposing viewpoints fairly and neutrally. =) Xaa 20:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

Congrats. Your work saved the Vfd as it was just removed. --Noitall 23:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Assyrians/Chaldeans

Why have we been listed down as a minor role in the current situation of sectarian violence? We also play a huge part in this topic because we (as the Christians of Iraq) are purposely being aimed by other sectarian movements.

Ninevah province

Hm, this appears to me to be another article (along with Mosul and Iraq Insurgency) where a discussion of the land war (or civil war, or sectarian war, or whatever you like) going on in Ninevah province seems appropriate. I'm starting to wonder, as I guess noone else thinks so, as there doesn't appear to be any mention of it here? Alrivet 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: putting the same information into all three places would probably be silly though--where does it belong? This artice sounds like the most likely, at first blush, to me? Alrivet 03:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Theme of article

Actually, I find myself confused by this article--is the main theme a semantic argument over whether the term "civil war" is applicable or will soon be applicable? If so, the current title (Sectarian Violence) seems misleading. I can't quite make out if the article is primarily about sectarian violence, or about the semantic discussion of the term "civil war", or equally about both--actually, it appears to me to be an article in the middle of an identity crisis :) Alrivet 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Sectarian Violence" is just politician-speak because "Civil War" sounds scary and lends some credibility to the parties involved. Just like we hear about "insurgencies" but not "rebellions." Is there some threshold? This article plainly states a few people who are calling the conflict a "civil war" then continues with the sectarian labeling on everything else. Some mention of the semantic argument would be helpful.

Examples

The examples of killings of teachers etc should surely be accompanied by the more important killings of mayors, generals, police generals, Interior ministers, tribal leaders -- these are the killings that really promulgate disintegration, far more than the killings of teachers. Also, the killings of doctors (mostly by insurgents, but some by US forces), and the related mass exodus of medical staff from Iraq, are at least as important as the killings of teachers.

Comment

Please include prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/150306Rumsfeld.htm this] briliant comment. --Striver 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Should this be merged with this article on the Iraqi insurgancy? Balso Snell 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding, insurgency is more Iraqis against Americans and sectarian violence is more Iraqis against Iraqis. KevinPuj 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture

"Music and Popular Culture The Los Angeles-based band 'Sectarian Violence' currently has no plans to tour Iraq as it seems pretty dangerous.[9] Is this a joke? Even if it isn't, I'm going to "be bold" and remove it for now, as I don't see it has any place in this article. --Pauric 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil war

Hey! It's a silent civil war.. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/57F48164-B502-43A8-B892-CBFDCD494CC4.htm--TheFEARgod 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

not any more. --TheFEARgod 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurds

In the article it gives the allusion that the Kurds are allied with the Sunni Arabs. In reality the Kurds are a secular ethnic movement and are at odds with ethnic Arabs regardless of the ones that share their religious sect. While they are largly uninvolved in the conflict there has been clashes in Kurdish cites where there is a high Sunni Arab population caused by Saddam’s Arabizatoin policy and these Sunnis are often members of the same groups as those fighting the Shiites. If the Kurds are to be included then they should be placed on the side of the Shiites opposed to the Sunnis.

Rename

At what point in time can we move the page to Iraq civil war? Is it ready to be moved now, since the article discusses this a lot? Or wait some more?--Sonjaaa 12:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is portraying this as a civil war rather than as sectarian violence. It is also making the erroneous claim that 16 million Iraqis are at war with 5 million others. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great minds think alike. I made a section under the same title with one of the same complaints. Anyways, I too have a couple of problems with the infobox. It says that every single Sunni is fighting every single Shiite in the sectarian conflict, when in reality it is only the extremists who resort to violence. What could we realistically and verifiably put there? I'm going to put citation needed in the part of the infobox that says "thousands" die on each side. KevinPuj 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of having an infobox is innappropriate in and of itself. It would be like making an infobox for Organized crime in Chicago. Infoboxes should be for armed conflicts where there are defined sides. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a civil war, civil wars on wikipedia have infoboxes guys--TheFEARgod (listening) 20:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What a silly example. Organized crimes in Chicago is not a war. How can you say whats going on in Iraq today not a war? Chaldean 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not have defined sides, 60% of Iraq is not at war with 20%. This is about the sectarian violence. There most certainly is a war going on in Iraq, called the Iraq War. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think 60% of the country is at was with some other percentage or any such nonsense, this doesn't mean that the infobox should be entirely removed. Let's discuss further changes to the infobox here before we do anything. Can't there still be an infobox for sectarian violence? KevinPuj 03:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, however it wouldnt be the current infobox. As there are not defined sides, its difficult to portray anything as one side vs another in a simple infobox. Instead, just noting the casualties elsewhere might be a better way of handling it. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Washington Post article

I added some content from a Washington Post article published on Sunday:

Daniel L. Byman, and Kenneth M. Pollack. "A Domino Theory for the New Mideast: What Happens When Iraw Runneth Over"", The Washington Post, August 20, 2006.

I couldn't find an online version, but it is a two-full-page article discussing the potential effect of an Iraq civil war. The information is very relevant. Although the authors made some predictions, they are pretty convincing, and are based on historic data from nine civil wars in the past: Aghanistan, Bosnia, Congo, Croatia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Rwanda, Somalia, and Tajikistan. --Vsion 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I found something, [1]

Kurds & Coalition involvement

I think these should be mentioned too. Thogh I know little on the topic, these two other "factions" might have contributed to violence (either deliberately or indeliberately)... :/ --Cat out 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Civil War

It seems to me that refusing to lable a factional conflict in which tens of thousands of people are dying a "civil war" violates NPOV. I can find virtually no objective definition of "civil war" in the literature that does not apply to such large scale sectarian violence. Of course this issue remains controversial. But I worry that adopting the "sectarian violence" label and avoding the term "civil war" is to gloss the truth in a manner that violates our community standards. Even if you supported the war (I did), that's no excuse to adopt pro-war rhetoric in the description of the current state of affairs. I'm interested in what other people are thinking at this point. I've made no changes to the article--I just want to repoen this discussion.Benzocane 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have been wondering about this same question. The consensus in my state seems to be "It's not civil war, but if it gets worse, it's civil war." Is there a way to quantify "worse"? How does the rate of violence in Iraq compare to that in conflicts where the label "civil war" is uncontested? I'm not sure what these would be but maybe Sri Lanka, Somalia, Uganda, DR Congo, and so forth?

Then there is the problem of quantifying the Iraq violence. The latest statement from the UN Secretary General (Sept 1, 2006) says "Insurgent, militia and terrorist attacks, as well as gross violations of human rights, including killings, kidnappings and torture, continued unabated in many parts of the country... Iraq today has become one of the most violent conflict areas in the world. According to the latest Government figures, the number of civilians killed has increased considerably and stands at an average of 100 people per day, while more than 14000 were wounded per month. Since the Samarra attack on 22 February 2006, approximately 200,000 individuals have been displaced." It's hard to find NPOV studies on these numbers.

Then there's the possibility that the sectarian violence / civil war question for this entry is not an issue of assessing the severity of the violence. Is it possible that there are other, nonquantifiable factors in defining the conflict as civil war? If so, what would they be?

In short, I think you bring up a very important question. I'm inclined to agree with your position re: the pro-war bias of the equivocation. But I don't have anything approaching a solid argument on which to base changes. Help? Cyrusc 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if part of the problem--part of why "sectarian violence" seems to violate NPOV--is the nature of the redirect. If somebody searches for "Iraq Civil War," wanting, if nothing else, to find information outlining the controversy over the phrase, they are immediately redirected to a sectarian violence entry, which is governmental rhetoric. So the message is: what you thought was civil war is actually sectarian violence—and that violates NPOV. If nothing else, what about having a separate “Iraq Civil War” entry that lays out the facts about that phrase—that it’s contested by some, adopted by others, etc?Benzocane 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to just have a section on this article outlining the controversy. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rangeley--If you have a chance, could you tell us why you think that's the better option? I'd be interested in your thoughts.Thanks!Benzocane 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Because having an article for the two sides is a rather POV forky idea, wikipedia isnt meant to be a place for two sides to place debating arguments. Its an encyclopedia, therefore we can report on the controversy in a paragraph. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a sufficient condition for a "full blown civil war" is when the US-coalition force and Iraqi Army could not promptly and effectively suppress the violence. For example, if significant fighting broke out, but the US/Iraqi troops in that area are unable or unwilling to respond immediately and suppress the violence, being forced into a defensive position or stay put in their military bases; then it is clear that a civil war has erupted. It is like losing control of a wild fire. That's why a high level of troop deployment, as advocated by Powell and Shinseki, is so important in preventing civil war. --Vsion 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

it seems pretty clear that the us coaltion and iraqi army have failed tio "promptly and effectively suppress the violence," does it not?

The situation sure doesn't look good, from what I read in [2]. Quote: "Other strategic cities, including Haditha, Hit and Ramadi, remain virtually lawless." --Vsion 05:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

how many Iraqi police officers have to be killed or poisoned, how many legal professionals have to be assasinated, and how many thousands of iraqi troops have to be killed by organized miitant opposition before we go ahead and admit this is war? are you telling me that if 4000 american military personel were killed in washington d.c. by domestic paramilitary forces we wouldn't call that civil war?Stanlaw1 17:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

given this report [3] it seems increasingly inconsistent of us to use any term other than "civil war" to describe the conflict. i realize this issue has been periodically debated here, but the increasingly chaotic situation there requires that we adjust this entry. thoughts?Benzocane 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sectarian War

The term sectarian war is gaining currency in the press. I want to make three points:

1. "Sectarian war," because more specific, is more accurate than "civil war."

2. "Sectarian war," because it avoids euphemism, is more NPOV than "sectarian violence."

3. The most recent body count, which, like it or not, provides the most reliable numbers we have--supported by the highest degree of methodological integrity, and which as I understand it has encountered no serious dispute in the scientific community--suggests that only one third of violent deaths since 2003 have come as the result of US Military action.

Anyone here who continues seriously to suggest that Iraq's "sectarian violence" has not escalated to the condition of "sectarian war" must therefore advocate downgrading the Iraq War entry to Iraq Violence. It is increasingly clear to me that Sectarian violence in Iraq should be renamed Sectarian War in Iraq. Cyrusc 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Cyrusc might not have found a good compromise between Iraq Civil War and Iraq Sectarian Violence. I vote for adopting the term Sectarian War. I'm inrested in what the rest of the community thinks...Benzocane 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea that a more specific term will be a more accurate one is completely false. If I see a dark skinned person and call them an "African" it is far more likely that my statement will be accurate than if I call the person a "Nigerian". It is a fallacy that greater specificity means greater accuracy. Typically, it is the opposite. The more specific the claim the more likely it is to be false. There seems to be a confusion between accuracy and precision in this post. Second, far from avoiding euphemism, "sectarian violence" is a clear case of euphemism given the definitions of "civil war" and "euphemism" provided in wikipedia. If you want to avoid euphemism simply state that the current conflict in Iraq is an example of sectarian violence and a civil war.

Mahdi Army

Now that the Mahdi Army has taken over an entire city from the American-backed government I'm not sure how we can avoid using the term "civil war." Wikipedia uses it for several other conflicts with less defined militas and far fewer casualties. I worry this constitutes a serious NPOV violation--that we're following White House rhetoric and not facts. I supported the war and have several friends/family members in Iraq--this isn't a political issue. It's an issue of the reality on the ground. Thoughts? Benzocane 16:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    I completely agree with you. This is more than a civil war, and wikipedia needs to recognize it.Erik the Red 2 14:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

Opposing views

I have deleted the following:

"The violent actors have few of organizing elements normally seen that would qualify these conflicts as a true civil war, though many characteristics of the violence resembles anarchy (in the sense of political disorder, violence and confusion). Besides the two or three distinct factions (Kurd, Sunni, and Shi'ite), there are hundreds of subcategorization that can be made. These subcategorizations, as stated earlier, can be split along differences of social, political, and geographic differences. Some factions also seem to be more interested criminal action (such as ransom money; kidnapping foreigners and holding them for hostage) than in larger political goals. One such incident was that of hostage Minas Ibrahim al-Yussufi, whose abductors demanded (and apparently later received) a four million dollar ransom.^[4]"

I've done this for a few reasons. 1) This sentence is highly controversial, but stated as fact, and violates npov (in addition to violating grammar): "The violent actors have few of organizing elements normally seen that would qualify these conflicts as a true civil war..." 2) The "organized crime" angle is unsourced and, given the scale of the organized violence, misleading in its emphasis. The claim that kidnapping foreigners is somehow distinct from "larger political goals" is generally incorrect--no matter how terrible or confused those political goals.

In addition to these particular issues, I think the section generally needs to be redone. Even the heading is confusing--what views are these views opposing? Presumably the idea that Iraq is in a civil war, but that's not even what this entry is titled. No doubt recent actions by the Mahdi Army and others make this material (at best) outdated...What do others think? Benzocane 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the remainder of the "opposing views" section. It no longer seems germane with the rest of the entry. It had no clear principle of organization. Etc. Benzocane 03:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Goals?

I know that it's impossible to make out any closed groups, but why and for what are the combatants actually fighting? Of course the most plane answer would be 'power', however that doesn't reply to why people find themselves unable to solve this rather peacefully (or whatever would be appropriate for that area). Saying "they're Sunni and the others Shiite" isn't illumining either. 89.58.51.33 22:54, 30 October 2006 (CET)

Undoubtedly, some of the militants in Iraq are being sectarian, but I don't believe they all are. At the very least it's POV to simplistically label it as exclusively sectarian. The conflict in Ireland is usually described inaccurately as sectarian, so why should I trust the media to be right about Iraq ? :-). The media generally don't have a clue how to report conflict accurately. I'd assume many Iraqis are prepared to fight for a independent, non-sectarian, Iraq free from external (US or Iranian) interference. But too many (including even the U.S.) would seem to have a vested interest in stopping that. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 18:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tactics section

The tactics section must be updated. Right now, much of it is copied almost verbatim from the Iraqi insurgency article. Although some of the tactics are the same (e.g., suicide bombings--although the targets in the sectarian war are mostly nonmilitary), others are not, particularly the sections on ambushes and assassinations/kidnappings (mass kidnappings, torture, and executions are not mentioned). I myself will try to work on it, but it may be a while before I can turn to this. Black Falcon 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Commanders

Should Abu Deraa be listed under Shiite commanders? He's supposedly the Shiite version of Zarqawi. Richard Cane 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

I read in the paper yesterday that total casualites are 150,000. I don't know how many were Sunni and how many were Shia. Regardless I think this is high enough to constitue a civil war. There has also been over 1 million refugees internaly displaced in Iraq and 1 million refugees to Jordan (Sunnis) and Syria (Shiites). If sources are needed I can easly get them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Albedo radii (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 November 2006

Ethnic Issue

This sectarian fight is not a fight against ethnic divisions. The only other ethnicity in Iraq large enough to be considered in this war are the Kurds. The Sunnis and Shi'ites are not different ethnicities. The factions are so much alike (when practiced properly), they're barely divided by anything but socioeconomic dysfunction and injustice by corrupt Iraqi leaders. That needs to be changed. The sectarian war is about religious sects, not religious groups. The Sunnis and Shi'ites are both Arabs, not separate ethnicities. Period.

The article doesn't claim that they are separate ethnicities, so I don't understand what your point is.

Civil War

The decisions of NBC and WaPo notwithstanding, the term "Sectarian war" is almost never used compared to the term "Civil War".

Google search for "Sectarian War" -Iraq = 12,600 hits

Google search for "Civil War" -Iraq -American -"United States" = 7.8 million hits.

Even with respect to Iraq, Civil War is FAR more common.

Google search for "Sectarian War" AND Iraq = 226,000 hits

Google search for "Civil War" AND Iraq = 17.6 million hits

--DaveOinSF 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to rename this article

To Iraqi Civil War (better) or Iraq Civil War. -- Toytoy 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose something along the lines of Iraq Civil War (2006). Publicus 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this is just silly to call this sectarian, I'm making the move. Publicus 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I just moved redirects of those titles to this page (somebody had them redirecting to Sectarian war in Iraq), but I think it's a good idea to re-title this page based on what major media outlets are calling this.[5] [6] --Oakshade 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To adequately address the attention this move will cause, I would like to see the "Criticisms of Civil War label" section developed into a more thorough discussion of the naming debate, a la definition of planet, to include recent declarations [7] [8] [9] and commentary, such as "no single term can do justice to the complexity of what’s going on there." [10] --John Hubbard 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey. Iraqi Civil War, like Somali Civil War and Lebanese Civil War --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to propose the same thing. Iraqi Civil War is the best alternative in my view. TSO1D 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this is the first Iraqi Civil War? If not, then I agree that the title should be changed to something like Iraqi Civil War, I'm just not sure if the period when Saddam came to power was just considered a coup or a smallish civil war. Publicus 14:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

sectarian violence -> civil war

Following the U.S. launched 2003 invasion of Iraq, 2004 transfer of limited sovereignty to the Iraq Interim Governing Council, and 2005 ratification of the Constitution of Iraq, division[1] and conflict between Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a Islam religious factions, escalated first into sectarian violence and then in approximately late fall 2006 into a civil war.

This is a silly claim. In late fall 2006, the major news outlets decided that it was a civil war. But by just about any definition of "civil war" it has been one for a long time. (Note that the Bush Administration still denies that it is one, so if you use them as a source, there is no civil war.) To use major news outlets' spin-doctoring as the basis for such an important claim seems to me to be blatantly POV. - Che Nuevara 04:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"...major news outlets' spin-doctoring"?? Sorry, but there is a long standing precendent on Wikipedia that "major news outlets" are reliable sources. If you prefer relying on the partisan spin-doctoring from political strategists, speech writers and politicians in the Bush Administration, then your POV is noted. --Oakshade 17:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Every news outlet has an agenda. They are businesses, and if they didn't carefully screen, edit, and and interpret news, they would go under. Take the New York Times' logo: "All the news that's fit to print". Point is, news outlets are excellent sources for the fact that something did happen, but not very good sources for the fact that something didn't; that is, the news started saying it's a civil war recently, so we know that it's kosher to call it a civil war now, but just because they didn't use the term until now doesn't mean that it wasn't before. - Che Nuevara 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the curious Chewbacca argument, but we'll stick with "major news outlets" as third party reliable sources over politicians' (no matter what party) political spin. --Oakshade 22:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand this response. I'm not advocating any party line. But if you refuse to believe that news outlets have agendas, you're kidding yourself. I'm not saying they're a bad source, I'm just saying that they're not the be-all end-all. The CIA warned of civil war in January of 2004. Some minor news sources were calling Iraq a civil war in the fall of 2003. To say that the situation became a civil war in fall 2006, because Matt Lauer said so, is silly.

I think you're misinterpreting me -- I'm not "relying on ... the Bush Administration": I'm saying that, not only is there a civil war in Iraq, but it also has been one for quite some time. That's directly counter to the political spin that you seem to believe I'm quoting. - Che Nuevara 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, Wikipedia can't be the one who decides it's a civil war or not. Wikipedia has to react to what others are terming it. In addition to major news outlets, most historians and political scientists are also referring to it as a civil war, even though not all agree [11] [12]. While there was debate whether it was a civil war before it became a "Matt Lauer Certified Civil War", the debate became more front page news after this happened. When this happened, more historians and political scientists were interviewed and made their judgements. I would agree that it was a civil war long before major media outlets termed it so by the generally agreed upon definition of the word, but we had to wait for others to say it and popularize the term.Patken4 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make that decision. Wikipedia cannot call it a civil war if it isn't generally accepted to be one. This is not a case where it has been accepted as a true civil war.

But there are other ways of saying that without making a ludicrous claim. For example, saying "by late fall 2006 it was generally considered to be a civil war" is much more sensible and much less, well, quite frankly funny. And it's more correct. We can say now that most people consider it a civil war, and that's true. But to say it wasn't a civil war before most people thought it was simply makes no sense.

And it's not actually true that we can't say something that doesn't have general acceptance. The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not general acceptance. Plenty of things that many or even most people believe are indeed false, and it would be irresponsible to represent them as true here.

To say that most people consider it a civil war now is verifiable and responsible. To say that it recently became a civil war and wasn't before now, when opinion on the issue was up until now clearly divided, is clearly taking POV sides. The fact of the matter is that there was no general acceptance that it wasn't a civil war before now, so to say (or imply, as the current sentence does) that it wasn't is just as wrong as to say that it was. But there are indeed sources which will say that it was, and sources that will say that it wasn't. There were others saying both things, and to only accept and represent one of those is blatantly POV, whether it's intended or not.

In fact an accurate, responsible way of saying this sentence in the most WP-correct way would be something like the following:

"Since the official end of the US-led war in Iraq, various sources had both affirmed and denied that Iraq was in civil war (sources for both); by late fall 2006, it was generally believed that there was in fact a civil war (source)."

That is the most accurate and most neutral representation of the actual case, and it should be very sourceable. I'm not saying "say it was a civil war", I'm saying "don't flat-out say it wasn't". Both are POV and both are misrepresentative of the actual case. - Che Nuevara 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I need to ask what exactly you are asking. If you are wondering why the article wasn't titled "Civil War in Iraq" until November 2006, it was because we needed broad acceptance of the term before titleing the article as such. If you are wondering why the listed start date is November 23rd, I don't know. Some people will say the actual beginning is the February 22nd Al-Askari Mosque bombing. Others will say it started earlier. Patken4 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the first sentence of the article, which contains the phrase:

escalated first into sectarian violence and then in approximately late fall 2006 into a civil war

as well as the listed start date of 23 November. It would seem that this article is treating the Sadr City bombings as the official start of the civil war in Iraq. While this is indeed a legitimate position, it is by no means the only legitimate position and it is far from unequivocal. What I'm arguing is that it is not responsible execution of WP policy to advance this position over all others. There are plenty of sources to dispute this, and to ignore them is to circumvent policy.

Until there is a "definitive version" of the history of this conflict -- which I don't expect to emerge as distinguishing itself from all others for at least ten years -- the history of this conflict should be displayed as exactly what it is: a controversy. The "most popular", "least offensive", or "most widely accepted" version doesn't cut it; there are multiple legitimate viewpoints in this controversy, no single one of which is unequivocal.

Since, as you pointed out, some people will say it was this past February, and some will say it was earlier, and some will say it was later, and all of the above are both defensible and sourceable, this article cannot cite a particular opinion and still be in keeping with WP policy.

As I said, my suggested wording for the opening would be something akin to:

"Following the U.S. launched 2003 invasion of Iraq, 2004 transfer of limited sovereignty to the Iraq Interim Governing Council, and 2005 ratification of the Constitution of Iraq, division and conflict between Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a Islam religious factions escalated. The sectarian violence was at various points labeled a civil war by various people and groups (sources), but others have disputed this claim (sources). While many cite the Al-Askari Mosque bombing on 22 February 2006 (sources) or (other event if there is such a one) (sources) as the official start of civil war, the term did not gain widespread acceptance until after the Sadr City bombings on 23 November 2006 (sources)."

That seems to me to far more accurately describe the actual controversy -- which it is -- and should be easy to source.

I hope that clears things up. Sorry for any misunderstanding. - Che Nuevara 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why November 23, 2006?

What is the rationale behind identifying the start-date as November 23, 2006 instead of, say, February 22 (the Al-Aqsari Mosque bombing)? Is it even necessary to identify a specific date at all? If there is a particular reason for the Nov. 23 date, please specify it. Otherwise, I will change the starting date of the civil war to Feb. 22 or just to 2006 within a few days. I don't think it's accurate to consider the Nov. 23 Sadr City bombings (that killed 215) as the "start" of the civil war when 100+ people have been killed each day for at least a few months now. Black Falcon 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also for the beginning with the al-Askari event --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Nov 23 date works just as well as the Feb 22 date--the only real difference in my mind is that the level of violence appears to have increased greatly since Feb, which is why the probably less controversial date is the Nov. one. Also, a lot more observers of this are calling this a civil war than back in Feb. If people don't like the Nov date, how about calling (for now until more facts are known about the different factions and their rationales) fall 2006 as an approximate start date. Publicus 14:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As per my comments above, I believe that giving any level of specificity in start time would be POV / OR. See my most recent comment in the above section for wording I think would be appropriate. - Che Nuevara 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Why can't we just say "some time during 2006" as the start date? Not all wars have a well-defined declaration marking their beginning or end. Bryan 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Come on- we all know that the _real_ start of the civil war was November 27, 2006, when Matt Lauer went on the today show and soberly declared that NBC was now going to call it a civil war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.173.21 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

If you guys absolutely have to call it a Civil War, which I think in that case we should rename the Korean and Vietnam to Civil Wars as well, go off of when the term started appearing in common usage. Might not beable to find an exact day, but probably could find the month. You decided to make the article Civil War in Iraq based off of widespread usage by the media of the term, so you should be consistent and put it as beginning when the media began using the term. Gelston 09:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree - both Korea and Vietnam had been politically divided and stable before the initiation of war by one side against the other. Since the formation of Iraq in 1932 it has been a single political entity. Peckmeister 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And the Kurds were politcally allied with the Ba'ath party? Its a little naive to say that it was a single political entity, even though it wasn't seen as a clear North and South Iraq. And speaking of that same argument, look at the US Civil War, clearly two seperate nations during the war, yet that is also called a civil war. I suppose its best to actually call something a civil war AFTER its over, because clearly had the Confederacy won, it probably wouldn't have been called a civil war today. I know, its all a little off topic for this talk page, but thats a few reasons why I don't agree with calling the conflict in Iraq a civil war now. Maybe AFTER the conflict, but not in the middle of it. Gelston 06:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

NOT an ethnic/religious civil war (yet)

This is descending towards this, but won't be until Shia leaders (and/or Kurds) declare it too. Do not confuse sectarian violence (terrorism, pogroms) with the ongoing warfare of the Iraqi insurgency and other political violence. Believe me, you'll notice when it starts. --HanzoHattori 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

name change

Name should be changed to format Iraqi Civil War. see: Somali Civil War, Afghan Civil War, Lebanese Civil War, Georgian Civil War etc. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a civil war - it's an ethnic-religious unrest, illegal death squads, terrorism and pogroms, but "the war" is the Iraq War (which started in 2003 AND CONTINUES). Right now it's declared only by al-Qaeda, about everyone else (including government) talk about the PROSPECT of the civil war and how to avoid it. Stop adding drama and confusion to the situation (but I guess when the real civil war hits in it will change into "genocide of Sunnis" or something). By this, I mean you will notice the difference. Right now it's STILL a "sectarian violence" (with the victims being also Christians, for example), only ever on the rise. When it will come down to the "civil war", you will get frontlines and a large scale fighting (and a large-scale organised killings). And by this moment you'd also mark the end of the current Iraq War (invasion and then insurgency), as this will be very different. --HanzoHattori 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Criticisms of Civil War label" (once again and for the last time)

NOBODY in the mainstream media says it's a civil war. I see the latest (today) article from Associated Press, and I see what?

Maliki and Bush are preparing a security crackdown in Baghdad, involving Iraqi and about 20,000 American reinforcements, which is widely portrayed as a last chance to avert a civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites that could draw in Shi'ite Iran and Arab states on opposing sides.

You people can't understand what terrorism and pogroms are. Hindu and others are slaughtering each other once a while in India, do you think it's "Indian Civil War"? Or do you think the Kashmir insurgency makes "Civil war in India"? There's a Buddhist-on-Muslim violence in Thailand (going as far as making the military coup the government) - quick, make the "Thailan Civil War" article!

Geez. I guess I'm now either Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri or "some Neo-Conservative Republican".

Also, another today's AP report (about 34,452 civilians dead from the Iraq War in 2006):

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Kuwait for a meeting with eight Arab nations to discuss ways to keep Iraq from sliding into civil war, sought to lower any expectations that the troop buildup would quickly pacify the country. "Violent people will always be able to kill innocent people," she said. "So even with the new security plan, with the will and capability of the Iraqi government and with American forces to help reinforce Iraqi forces, there is still going to be violence."
(...)
Gianni Magazzeni, the chief of the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq criticized the government for allowing much of the violence to go unpunished, saying urgent action was needed to re-establish law and order in the country to prevent its slide into all-out civil war. "Without significant progress in the rule of law, sectarian violence will continue indefinitely and eventually spiral out of control," he warned.

And how about Reuters?

Moderate Arab states told the United States on Tuesday they supported President George W. Bush's plan for a military buildup in Iraq, hoping it would halt a slide to civil war.

That's how you get most of your "civil war" hits, btw.

OK, so. My proposition (until the civil war really kicks in):

• Sectarian violence in Iraq (1,760,000 hits for 2006 [13]) Incidentally, there's also 12,000 hits for the phrase "avert civil war" alone in the same period in the country.

That's in at least 2 phases, before and after the Golden Shrine bombing.

Oh, and before you say "pfff UN, they don't know nothing, saying that's not civil war, WHAT THEY KNOW, WE ARE THE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS AND ARMCHAIR EXPERTS, they at UN are probably all Iranian-borned or some Neo-Conservative Republicans", the recent UN report called the terrorists "Islamic extremists". Just if you need an international term for the sectarian killers.

My postulate: change this back into Sectarian violence in Iraq. And if the civil war starts, start a new article, because the situation will be VERY different (as Bush said, "massive killings"). --HanzoHattori 02:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll tell you now something Hanzo this IS A CIVIL WAR. You are telling me that this is not a civil war and we have 150 people beaing killed every day in the country. I am from Serbia and the war in Bosnia and in Croatia took at a maximum rate around 50 people's lives and they called that a civil war. Here we have a conflict which is taking three or maybe even four times more lives than the Yugoslav civil war. CAN YOU TELL ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THIS IN IRAQ IS NOT A CIVIL WAR. They are killing eachother in the streets of Baghdad alone in the dozens while you debate what to call this conflict. Civil war is here but nobody want's to be first to admit it because that would mean that the US has already lost this war it's just a matter of time. And don't even start that story that the US never lost a war and never will. Civil war IS in Iraq. Neiberhoods in Baghdad have been turned into fortreses. And the army and police have already taken their sides in this war. Split right down the middle. --Top Gun 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. So you think the UN and the media are lieing, saying it's not? THEY CAN TELL YOU WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THIS IN IRAQ IS NOT A CIVIL WAR. </dramatic caps> Oh, actually they do. Now, as you are from Serbia (I guess it automatically makes you an expert or something?) the "civil" wars in Croatia and Bosnia didn't start until their declarations of independence and the JNA invasions (while the war in Slavonia wasn't "civil" at all, just an abortive Yugoslavian invasion). There was a violence and killings before, but it was just a run-up. In Kosovo too, there was a conflict long before 1998. --HanzoHattori 11:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The supporters of the invasion don't want this classified as a civil war because if it is one the U.S. has no business interfering with another country's internal affairs. That's why the blame is put on foreign fighters for stoking sectarian divides. It gives the U.S. an excuse to intervene in order to protect Iraq from a foreign enemy. They expect everyone to believe a few thousand foreign fighters managed to manipulate 25 million Iraqis and screw up the plans of the most powerful military the world has ever known along with nearly 50 of its allies. 1300 years of religious strife is nothing compared to U.S. interests and what happened on 9/11. It was the same way in Vietnam. That was a civil war and a struggle for national independence but they were forced to see things in the context of international communism. That's just how U.S. foreign policy works.Richard Cane 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think the UN and the other Arab countries are/were "supporters of the invasion"? Wow, you just opened my eyes. --HanzoHattori 11:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall having ever edited this article in the last year or so, but I am going to pile on to this topic. I say let history be the judge of "what it is." Instead of wasting mental energy over naming the article, wikipedia editors ought to document the substance of the internecine fighting. The same issue has occurred over at the Iraq 'surge' versus "The New Way forward" article, leading to an Afd vote over the title even though most of the people admitted that the content was legit. Content, then title, is my suggested priority. You can even have a section on what to call it (civil war vs. ____?____) if that makes people happy. MPS 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen up Hanzo I didn't say that I am an expert just because I am from Serbia, where do you come from anyway? I just stated that we had a conflict which WAS called a Civil war in which three or four times less people were daying daily than in this conflict which nobody want's to call a civil war, yet. Hanzo can I ask you have you been to Iraq? Is it all flowers and music over there? Or is it a BLOODBATH? Top Gun 01:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This conflict is called "civil war" by some - but officially it's not (yet, everyone acknowledges it may BECOME, and this at practically any moment - imagine, for example, if the Sunnis assassinated Sistani tommorow). The UN people are (neutral) experts and they say it's "Islamic extremism" (and they were actually hit in one of the insurgent attacks, unrelated to the sectarian violence - talking about "being there"). You are just an amatour and the UN wouldn't even ask you for your opinion - get over it. Problem is, people can go here and think the so-much-talked for years now (mainly in the terms of "sliding towards" and "escalating into") civil war is declared and going on, and get confused. This is misleading, to say it mildly. If you are aware of that, this is vandalising. When I first came there, it was even worse - the insurgency (including attacks against Coalition forces) was confused with the sectarian violence (probably copy-pasted without thinking). In some sense, the insurgency alone is "a civil war" - the insurgents are not only fighting against foreign forces, but also Iraqis, including each other. But it's not this civil war we are talking about, and which may or may not happen (but as for now, it probably will).

Oh, and don't talk silly (crazy?) about some "flowers and music". Anyway, I'll answer seriously: the main articles for you are Iraq war, Iraqi insurgency, sectarian violence in Iraq - as the articles' titles alone say, there is "war", "insurgency", and "violence" going on there, each one connected to another (well, there's actually an article on Iraqi music too, but doesn't matter). There are are also multiple sub-articles - plenty of these, some with the names like "massacre" (as for your "BLOODBATH"). There even articles on the casualties. Here, you can go back if the "civil war" officially started (that is, declared by the other side-the Shia militias, the government of Iraq, or the UN - the media will start calling it by this name, too). --HanzoHattori 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste moving

Whatever this debate over titles ultimately resolves to, please bear in mind that when moving an article from one title to another one shouldn't simply copy and paste the contents if one can at all avoid it. The contribution history for the material gets lost otherwise. I've reverted the recent copy-and-paste move to sectarian violence in Iraq, if consensus develops to go ahead with it let an admin (such as myself) know so that the target can be deleted to make room for a proper move. See Help:Moving a page. Bryan

Sectarian violence article was first, then it was redrected to "civil war" (because some Wiki editors decided it already started, while, while all the governments, most of media and even the Shia side a whole say it did not). Of course it's copy-pasted, because otherwise original article would be out of date (including my edits), as it was originally moved on 17 October 2006. I don't think this article should be deleted, the prospect of "the civil war" is raised in practically every Iraq report and as such it's quite important.

As for the current state of affairs (third-largest attack just happened yesterday):

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, whose government has proven incapable of ending the bloodshed, condemned the attack.

“The violent terrorists who committed this crime have illusions that their bloody ideology to kill large number of civilians will break the will of the Iraqis and tear their unity and to raise sectarianism,” he said in a statement.

But on the streets of Baghdad, people say they feel like they have little hope for their country at the moment. [14]

So, among the continued terrorism, slide towards the civil war continues (no "civil war" phrase used, but it's obvious what the danger is). Meanwhile:

The House Republicans' suggested "strategic benchmarks" apply largely to the Iraqi government, which has pledged additional troops to quell sectarian fighting and to restrain Shiite militia.

Republicans want the government to be measured on its cooperation with U.S. forces, its ability to purge its security forces of insurgents and their sympathizers and also on its ability to assure that Shiite, Sunni, Kurd and other groups are treated equally. [15]

So, there's of course no civil war (not such word used anywhere) and the insurgency (of insurgents) continues, among "sectarian fighting" (aka sectarian violence, meaning terrorism and paramilitary activity, not the major warfare everybody fear - some even say it would end in the genocide of the Sunnis). These two were the main news and a featured story on Iraq in the Yahoo service right now (from NYT and AP, respectively). [16] "Civil war" was actually not used at all, "sectarian" and "sectarianism" was used instead. That's it, end of discussion. --HanzoHattori 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was created in 2005. This article contains the original and complete history. What you are doing is editing what was a double redirect. You'll be reverted every time. If you don't like the word being used, you'll have to get it moved properly. Copy/pasting articles just won't fly. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete history of what is going on RIGHT NOW? Look at, for example Iraq News:

• U.N. warns Iraq sliding to abyss (Reuters) Residents grieve over the bodies of relatives killed in simultaneous bomb attacks in Baghdad, January 22, 2007. (Kareem Raheem/Reuters)Reuters - A U.N. envoy said on Tuesday Iraq was sliding "into the abyss of sectarianism" and urged Iraqi political and religious leaders to halt the violence after two car bombs in a Baghdad market killed 88 people.
• Iraq's sectarian strife haunts Pakistan (Reuters) Pakistani army soldiers patrol the streets on the second day of the Islamic holy month of Muharram in Peshawar, January 22, 2007. (Ali Imam/Reuters)Reuters - Plagued by sectarian violence imported from the Gulf during the 1980s, Pakistan is on guard for any spillover from the conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims gripping Iraq.

NOTHING about any "civil war" (in Pakistan too, imported), "sectarianism" and "violence" goes on (and "conflict" - sure it is). The other articles are not directly related, at least in the front page snippets.

That was Reuters. How about AFP?

Iraqi and US forces, reinforced by up to 10 brigades, are preparing a broad offensive against insurgent and militia groups focused on Baghdad in an attempt to quell sectarian violence that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis last year.

The US military has regularly charged that Sadr's Mahdi Army is heavily involved in sectarian killing of Sunni Arabs in Baghdad and other regions of the country.

The latest quarterly Pentagon report, released last month, said Sadr's milita was the largest threat to security and "has replaced Al-Qaeda in Iraq as the most dangerous accelerant of potentially self-sustaining sectarian violence in Iraq."

Sadr's Iranian-backed militia is believed to have up to 60,000 fighters, and is blamed for much of the violence against minority Sunnis. [17]

How about AP?

The attacks have battered Shiites during one of their holiest festivals and were the latest in a renewed campaign of Sunni insurgent violence before a U.S.-Iraqi push to secure Baghdad. The first of the 21,000 extra U.S. troops being sent to help quell the violence have started to arrive in Baghdad. [18]

THERE IS NO CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ. This is sectarian and/or insurgent violence/killing (one recent article even wrote "sectarian slaughter", but it's usually just violence), sectarian strife, sectarianism. N O T civil war, It DOES NOT EXIST as a real thing as for now, when I write this here. It's only A TERM, sometimes INCORRECTLY used, like this one here. For now. And this article (on "civil war") is axactly about this - about the term. Am I clear yet?

Stop vandalising these two articles. --HanzoHattori 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm only going to explain this once, then I expect you to stop. If you do not, I'll report you for vandalism.

• Civil war in Iraq — 13:28, August 3, 2005 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (basic info; stub)
• Sectarian violence in Iraq — Created 05:12, October 17, 2006 Cyrusc (Talk | contribs) (moved Sectarian violence in Iraq to Sectarian war in Iraq: see talk)

In case it is not clear, your page was created from a page move. This page is the original. Go to requested moves if you want the page moved, because you're just being a vandal otherwise. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What "my page"? I believe this page is original, and I want it to stay, in this corrected form - waiting for the civil war to happen. I stated it several times already. --HanzoHattori 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just protected the redirect for a week. No more copy&paste moves, please; use the proper procedure to request a move, described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Eugène van der Pijll 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not want any move. I want the proper article restored (with my updates and corrections), and the misleading Nov. 2006 move - canceled (because based on some users' baseless original research - 2 months passed, and there's still no civil war, while ordinary people visiting Wikipedia can get the very wrong idea it's on - I thought Uncyclopedia is about false information and there's some rule here about how the articles must reflect reality... I guess I was wrong). Not an another move - what for? To move again, when the war will get "at last" declared? --HanzoHattori 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pages are moved through the move tab up top. When you are unable to use that tab, you go to requested moves and request the move be done by an admin. You also need to start up a poll for the move, to see if people will accept it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More terminology talk (T. Gun, mostly)

this is civil war, worse than Lebanon 1980s, saying sectarian violence would be Bush administration-POV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • According to Kofi Annan, when he was still United Nations Secretary General, it's "much worse" than a civil war. He said, ""A few years ago, when we had the strife in Lebanon and other places, we called that a civil war. This is much worse." [19]. --Oakshade 02:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This war in Lebanon was broadly called as such, and so were the periods of a relative peace in the meantime, and the official end at last. About everyone calls it by this name, so I have no idea why do you dig it up. Especially since in this war they would kill hundreds to thousands at the time after capturing this or that settlement (because in the war you have a frontlines - actual frontlines, check out the Green Line in Beirut), they had no working national police to speak of, etc, and while comparing casualties, notice how few people live in Lebanon. It was a WAR, not some works of often completely unknown sectarian terrorists (in addition to the long-ongoing "insurgency"), but all this even doesn't really matter here. Better explain me in what sense the UN, all of media, or the elected Iraqi government are parts of this "Bush administration-POV", seemingly a vast worldwide conspiracy? Seriously, tell me about it, it's gotta be a blast.

And by the "media" I mean the real journalists of actual mass media, educated people who are being paid for their work for a large audience, and are accountable for their stories. Not so-called "alternative media", meaning some guys playing journalists by writing to some obscure web page about how the "Bush administration-POV" (or possibly the UN) is EVUL, and how the "Iraqi Resistance" are heroic, or maybe how all the "ragheads" and "Moslems" deserve to die, or maybe how the Jews did the WTC, or whatever. I'm not sure, because I don't really read great most of this crap at all, exept maybe for laughs. I just edited the DEBKAfile website, which was as silly as their little propaganda blog full of animated gifs. I think it's a law a political blog must be filled with as many gifs as possible short of making it look like a MySpace page. --HanzoHattori 09:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo it is now more than ever clear that you are not even a little neutral here so your point of view on the situation doesn't count because Wikipedia is a place where editors look at the big picture not just the perspective of one side (like you do). And the majority agree that this is a civil war. So get over it. --Top Gun 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From what side do I look? Am I Sunni? Am I Shia? I thought I'm not even Atheist (an Atheist makes his belief out of non-belief, like the Communists did, and I simply don't care). Again asking the same old question: a "majority" of WHAT? See below (listed possible "majorities"), choose any to make the most of the options (actually, I'll make it easy for you: at least two, like "the human rights NGOs and the militia leaderships" - or I'll actually add a new category, "neighbour governments", a countries like Iran). In the reality, by the majority, it's only: al-Qaeda in Iraq - which wouldn't call it a "civil war" anyway (more like the "jihad against apostates"), and is of course foreign-led, but in sense of the "war on Shiites declared" yes, they did this, first secretly then openly (but it's still just massive terrorism campaign by, to quote the UN, "Islamic extermists" - not a real, popular war between the religions, of which the Saudi Arabia is now openly threatening to join "in the event of a civil war" - because, "They're terrified that Iraq is going to fall into civil war.") Keep reading this until you, maybe, at least, understand (fat chance). --HanzoHattori 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for everyone else involved, this dicussion with Mr. Gun is quite enlightening. I love how he starts with admitting Annan said it's "not a civil war" (which was sure enough, something like "Earth is not flat"), and then starts rambling about how a NIGHTMARE (trench warfare, poison gas, air raids, genocide) Iran-Iraq War was "civil and humane", smoothly proceeds to completely lose the point of what Islamic terrorism is (which Europe also experiences, with the Madrid bombings beating all the Iraq's except Sadr City 2006 in the terms of numbers of people killed in one attack, and of course this one little thing as for America), and then just goes on with his Bush obsession. --HanzoHattori 02:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

University bombing

Sectarian or just insurgent? --HanzoHattori 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Limiting the description to just those terms seems like an attempt to discount the agree-upon term civil war. To answer your question, part of a civil war in Iraq. --Oakshade 06:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an awesome answer, like "1 or 2? 3". So, "agree-upon" among whom? Please anwer me the following urging questions:

• why the US government don't agree upon?
• why the Coalition forces don't agree upon?
• why the Iraqi elected government don't agree upon?
• why the majority Shia militias (supposedly a side in the "war") don't agree upon?
• why the Iraqi population in general don't agree upon?
• why the United Nations don't agree upon?
• why the world mass media don't agree upon?
• why the human rights groups don't agree upon?
• who the heck agree upon, then? you and your Internet friends?
• do you think a spillovers into Pakistan, Lebanon and beyond are a "civil wars" too?

Thanks! And if any of them changed their mind (either in 2006 or this morning), then link plz. Oh and the day/month/year date this new war supposedly begun (also with links).

As for the Iraqis (do you even care of their opinion?), you might read what the leader of Iraqi majority party said just today? ([20] - AP article about a destruction of a terror cult planning attacks near Najaf)

A prominent Shiite leader said that setting up federal regions in Iraq would solve the country's problems, adding that while Shiites are being subjected to mass killings, they should not retaliate by using violence.

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Shiite bloc in the 275-member parliament, spoke at a Shiite mosque in central Baghdad to mark Ashoura. "I reaffirm that the establishing of regions will help us in solving many problems that we are suffering from. Moreover, it represents the best solution for these problems," he said.

Al-Hakim said his concern cut across sectarian lines.

"I sympathize with our Sunni brothers in their ordeal with the terrorists as I sympathize with the Shiites in their ordeal with the terrorists," he said. "I condemn the killing of Sunnis as I condemn the killing of the Shiites."

So much about a "civil war".

As I said, again, and again, and again, your mistake is thinking the terrorism and strife somehow equals "civil war" (maybe because of the "war on terror" buzzword). You also tend to think the insurgency (Sunni ongoing attempt to throw out the foreign forces and bring down the majority rule, which started just after the deposing of Saddam) somehow ended iwth the star of "the civil war" (large scale terrorism against Iraqi civilians, perpetuatd by some fellow Iraqi extermists but also by the foreigners of al-Qaeda). You are totally wrong on both accounts. --HanzoHattori 09:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to prove the point about "majority opinion"

I heard you can prove the things by google here.

OK then. Screw the news media, the UN, the government(s) (OH NO, BUSH POV! BUSH! BUSH POV BUSHBUSH!), or these silly NGOs and what not. Let's assume you're right, they're all wrong because you're smarter (and have no BUSH POV the UN appearently have). So, let's hear opinion of the Internet, THE MAN. Blogs and crap:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+%22civil+war%22+2007&btnG=Google+Search (iraq "civil war" 2007 - so, what the people say about "civil war" now). The very search term is in your favour, as the "civil war" have to mentioned - somehow. So, the first 10:

• Wiki. OH SNAP.

• Ann Coulter On Iraq Civil War: "It's Like LA...You Have The Crips And The Bloods In Baghdad"... (oh, gang violence) +1 for team me (1)

• John Bolton calls Iraq situation a Civil War Oh noes (0) (but it's funny the Bush's anti-UN guy in UN doesn't share the BUSH POV of the UN)

• If full-scale civil war breaks out in Iraq (...) ...then it will start. (1)

• 2004 - you guys think it was not a civil war back then, as it somehow started late last year (1)

• Arab leaders expressed growing alarm Tuesday that Iraq could fall into all-out civil war Go me (2)

• an article about how to cope when it breaks loose (3)

• says it's on (-1) (2)

• Don't know his conclusion, since I have no subscription (2)

• Powell this, White House that - author no opinion given (2)

See? Even completely random Internet articles, in the search terms in favour of otherwise, say the civil war is a matter of future. Is this enough NOW? --HanzoHattori 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you heard that "you can prove the things by google here", whoever told you that was mistaken. Take a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test to see where a Google test is considered to be most useful. I have seen the Google test legitimately used to justify page moves, but rarely would it be appropriate as anything more than a cursory argument in a naming dispute. There is a lot to be said on both sides of this naming dispute that couldn't possibly be rebutted with a Google test. And, by the way, Google does have bias in some areas, just so you keep that in mind. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So, in short we got here:

On one side: the US government, Iraqi government, all governments in general, Coalition military, Iraqi militia leaders, United Nations, mass media, human rights groups AND quite probably majority of the Internet. (Actually, even al-Qaeda.)

On the other side: anonymous guys on Wikipedia no one ever heard about. Appearently, they matter more. Oh well.--HanzoHattori 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of casualties

This sentence has some problems:

A 2006 study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has estimated that more than 601,000 Iraqis have died in this violence and that fewer than one third of these deaths came at the hands of Coalition forces.

I assume that the "more than 601,000" number either comes from the study or is calculated from the numbers in the summary linked from the reference on this page (654,965 additional deaths * 91.8% of additional deaths from violence > 601,000). Either way, here are the two big problems, at least with the placement of this number, and possibly with its inclusion in this article at all:

• This article is about the period of time the Iraq has had what has been called by some a "civil war". This term has not come into common currency until recently (and is still heavily disputed). While some who are calling it a civil war now for the first time might apply the label all the way back to the first sectarian violence in 2003, I think this usage is probably very rare. Therefore, I think the title "Civil war in Iraq" is incompatible with this number given here, without much more explanation of what the number really means. In addition, no matter what the article is titled, casualties during the initial coalition invasion should not be counted here (this part was certainly not a "civil war" by anyone's definition), with the exception of deaths that can be clearly linked to sectarian violence, and probably, if it is possible to find the statistics, we should not count the deaths directly caused by coalition forces at any time since the invasion. This article is about "Civil war in Iraq" or "sectarian violence in Iraq", not "Bad effects of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq".
• "this violence" in the sentence above refers to the sectarian violence mentioned in the introductory paragraph. However, these are not the results of the study. From the summary:

While the survey collected information on the manner of death, the study did not examine the circumstances of the death, such as whether the deceased was actively involved in armed combat, terrorism, criminal activity or caught in the middle of the conflict.

So the 91.8% of the additional deaths since March 2003 that were due to violence includes all violence: sectarian violence, and the murders and robberies that are part of the general lawlessness and chaos in parts of Iraq since the fall of Saddam. Unless there is another study out there that does count only deaths due to sectarian violence, the placement of this sentence including a number of deaths due to all violence is bad (even if the problems pointed in in my first point are fixed), and again, deserves some further explanation.

On a slightly unrelated note, does anyone know of any responses to this study from other researchers? I have some serious questions about methodological problems and a possible bias in this type of study that I would like to see included somewhere (even if this article is not the best place for it) if they have been brought up by researchers. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Uthman al-Ubeydi, alleged Sunni rescuer on Al-Aaimmah bridge, citation needed

In the section referring to the stampede on Al-Aaimmah_bridge (see: Civil_war_in_Iraq#2005) there is a description of a heroic boy named Uthman al-Ubeydi, and an assertion that politicians have exploited his story... but I can find no reference to this name or this detail of the story. Where did this come from, and how can we verify it? zadignose 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the reference to Uthman al-Ubeydi until a souce can be provided for this info. zadignose 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

???? This guy was huge in the news back then. Lurk more. --HanzoHattori 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, someone should be able to provide a verifiable source. Is it possible that someone simply got the name wrong here, or has the story been debunked since it was first reported? Simply noting that "this guy was huge" doesn't really resolve the matter. zadignose 08:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+stampede+sunni+rescuer&btnG=Google+Search - very hard indeed! --HanzoHattori 04:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Very clever. It's hard to remain civil in the face of your sarcasm, but let me point out that it's obvious why you think of him as "This guy..." Had you read the couple of relevant articles linked by your Google search, you'd discover that "this guy" apparently isn't named Uthman al-Ubeydi, which is an error that could easily mislead anyone looking for references on this story. You'd also find no immediate evidence for the claim that several streets have been named for "this guy" (whose name is actually Othman Abdul Hafez), nor support for the P.O.V. claim that "Iraqi politicians looked to exploit his story." So, thanks for your help, but maybe you could take some of the energy you expend on lazy and sarcastic posts, and instead devote it to fact checking and valuable article editing. zadignose 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Title and NPOV

While I personally agree that what is happening in Iraq is (an especially complicated) cival war (with forgin elements involved), I think we may have gone to a POV extream with this article. Specifically I think renaming it is ok except that it has been renamed and then arguments for not calling it a cival war (which do exist) have b een omitted. Even if it is going to be recorded in the history books 20 yearsz form now as a cival war, full coverage of the issue (if complete) will still discuss in more detail how it was referred to for the first few years and argumetns against lableing it a cival war. At present we have the final section in the article consisting of a few sentences and a quote all of which it seems were added to justify the page move and not to makee coverage of the topic mroe complete or NPOV. Dalf | Talk 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The title of this article is wrong as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions the common name for this event is not Civil war in Iraq but rather Iraqi Civil War the title is is not NPOV --Barry talk 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are few people that actually call this the "Iraqi Civil War", hence: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=%22Iraqi%20Civil%20War%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

Heck, this is perhaps the weakest civil war ever seen. I'm not sure we should call it a civil war. Different factions of the same nation aren't really warring. The Sunni's and Kurds very rarely have incidents in their local areas...it's all Baghdad and it's all terrorists. Really it's more of a minor "Sectarian Conflict" then anything. TheWinks 06:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That is probbly true, but POV or not this is a case where the biase of the majority is going to make it impossible for a change so its not really worth fighting over. We should strive to simply get the issue of if its cival war or not discussed in the article, at present the moving it and then pretending there is not issue is a embarssment. Dalf | Talk 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it should be entitled the "Conflict in Iraq", or something similar. I believe that's close to what the UN uses; aside from off-record comments made by some officials. --75.21.241.167 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said that is true but this is a case where NPOV cannot win on wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 14:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification

It should be named (dun dun dunn)... IRAQ WAR. Ever heard of it? Phase III, that is the sectarian conflict (after the invasion and the occupation), but also continuing Iraqi insurgency (which, news everybody, never ended, you know?). Or maybe, I don't know... TERRORISM IN IRAQ? and let's leave the Iraqi insurgency as really just the Phase II, starting back in April 2003.

The box implies no foreign forces (I guess all US soldiers packed out and left home, supposedly in 2004) are doing anything, there is only Iraqi Army as the "third force" (I guess someone lost Iraqi Police on the way, and it's also interesting it implies the Iraqi Army is fighting the Badr Corps, which is a militia of the government's leading SCIRI party). This all is completely ridiculous.

In reality, the other (paramilitary) terrorists should be "the death squads", which are drawn from the official government forces too (more or less rogue). This similiar to the former sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland (the Troubles), where the Protestant paramilitaries often had links to the Belfast constabluary and such. As if everything with Iraq, this too is to the extreme (for example, incidents of the British and American forces rescuing detainees from the legal, semi-legal and completely illegal prisons/secret prisons/torture chambers run by the men of Iraqi Interior Ministry).

The terrorists and the death squads most often don't really fight each other, unless a substantional part of these bodies dumped each day around Baghdad are really of insurgents the militias took prisoners/kidnapped. --HanzoHattori 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

These pages need cleaning up big time. Would anyone like to join me in doing this? I was thinking a WikiProject on post-Invasion Iraq would be useful. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help. A WikiProject sounds like a good idea. VolatileChemical 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've posted a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject GulfWars and they said it's within scope so the next stage is to draft a to-do for the work that needs doing. I'll keep you posted! AndrewRT(Talk) 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would help if you make clear the wikiproject page --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How about splitting the timeline section off into its own article? The information in it doesn't look amenable to being turned into prose, so giving it its own article would allow it to remain a list without looking so out of place. Also it currently looks like it's just a long litany of explosions, it'd be nice if some other significant events (such as major shifts in political power or deal-making) were included. Bryan Derksen 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the timeline section to the relevant pages as part of the cleanup.

Main articles: 2003 in Iraq, 2004 in Iraq, 2005 in Iraq, 2006 in Iraq, and 2007 in Iraq

Publicus 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Peshmerga

There have been reports that the Kurds are fighitng Sunni and Shia Arabs aswell as Turkomen in Kirkuk and other once Kurdish areas. While this is not part of the main conflict I think that this side conflict should be included and info on the Peshemrga (Kurdish army) and Turkomen armies aswell as the Sunni and Shia groups involved in that thearte of Iraq. Also with the referendum on the future of these mixed areas looming and Turkey threatening an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan if Turkomen areas are annexed (The Turkomen are a Turkic people and thier groups are backed by Turkey) this faction of the conlfict could become much bigger.

So, why is it STILL called "civil war"? "No original research", anyone?

Why won't you listen to, say, BBC Baghdad? "And as the rash of dreadful bombings aimed at Shia pilgrims last week showed, some groups are as determined as ever to commit mass casualty attacks. They still see sparking a civil war as one of their best hopes of bringing down the government."[21]

I know, YOU KNOW BETTER (bunch of guys sitting in their chairs far from Iraq). --HanzoHattori 09:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pentagon is starting to call it a Civil War

I have found today some reports in the news that the Pentagon is starting to describe the conflict in Iraq as Civil War, or at least some elements. Follow up this news report from NPR [22] or a link to the Pentagon report on Iraq in PDF format [23]. This could be added to the article. Francisco Valverde 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Violates OR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.241.167 (talk • contribs) 20:47, March 25, 2007 (UTC)
  • Violates OR (!) ? I am putting foward references. I am using the talk page. How can this be call original research? --Francisco Valverde 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't violate OR. The anon user is trolling. Ignore him, and post the refs. Eleemosynary 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It's not WP:OR. The user is citing and providing refernces, not writing them themselves. --Oakshade 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag NOT Needed

The title of the article is "Civil war in Iraq"... this means that all debate about the article referring to the conflict as a civil war is misdirected and should be aimed at the article title. However, as the title has received much scrutiny and has been decided upon in a fair and objective manner, it can hardly be called labeled with NPOV. There is over-whelming evidence as to media and government representatives referring to the conflict as a civil war, therefore OR was not violated. I am hereby removing the NPOV tag and it should not be put back up without due cause, not just because you dislike the facts. Epdp14 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

'scuse me?

I proved several time exactly the otherwise: according to the Iraq, UN, US, EU, Iraq's neighbours, mainstream media, and even google.com search (including bloggers), there is no "civil war in Iraq" (unless this changed in the last few weeks, but I don't think so). The Iraqi insurgency is continuing, and so is the terrorism from the Arabs of both main Muslim sects (including rogue elements in the Iraqi state), inflicting indiscriminate and horrific violence on each other, but also on the minority Christians caught in "crossfire" (many churches were bombed or burned, Christians attacked). The people who do this are all declared criminals/terrorists in Iraq, if identified - very strange "civil war" indeed.

I'm not even sure about what this article is, exactly. The Iraqi Army is listed as "combatant side" - does it mean the Army units are engaging in terrorism too (things like "Suicide bombings" or "Mosque attacks and occupations")? For a while I thought it's about the rogue elements in the Army (why not police?), but then the President and the PM are listed as the "commanders". If it's just regular warfare (I don't think much would apply, if any), what happened to the US-led Coalition forces - and why the Iraqi state is listed on the other side then the Shiite militias (of the government parties)? Just another thing mind-boggling. In reality your "civil war" (violence directed on civilians of the other sects) is work of just extremist elements among the Iraqi legal and illegal armed groups, and just one entirely extremist group (al-Qaeda in Iraq).

Btw al-Qaeda, is the increasing Sunni-on-Qaeda violence (overally, fighting among the insurgent factions) the part of "civil war" too? What about Kurds, and their very real conflicts with the other ethnic groups? The Shiite-on-Shiite violence? All this is at least as much "civil war" as the Qaeda-alligned terrorists with a chlorine trucks bombs and the shadowy driller-killer death squads from the other side.

Seriously, this article is just weird. If it was simply "sectarian terrorism in Iraq" (there are already articles on both the whole war, and the insurgency part, and even a badly-done article on the terrorism in Iraq in general), all would be clear. But no, you need it the weird way. Just explain, why? Define what part of the ongoing Iraq War is "civil war" (and why it's not "terrorism" and not "insurgency"). It might be a good start. --HanzoHattori 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And I as wrote "Iraq's neighbours":

"In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening a civil war," he [Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah] added.

But knowing this site and these people, I guess someone will jump out to accuse Abdullah of being a Bush supporter or whatever. --HanzoHattori 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed title change to the Iraqi Uncivil War

It is definitely not a civil war. The Shia Iraqi Army are fighting the Sunni insurgents(who used to blow up coalition troops but now try to blow up Shia troops/militias) who might also be Iraqi Police officers. These two groups are at each others throats while the Kurdish Peshmerga threatens to fight anyone who goes near Kurdistan, the borders of which no one agrees on because of the oil that everyone wants. And the Shia-run Ministry of Interior runs secret prisons full of Sunnis that have to be emptied by coalition forces so that the Sunnis can go blow up said coalition forces. This mess goes merrily along while the militias balkanize their respective provinces and neighborhoods on the basis of the Shia-Sunni split and fight the coalition forces who think they are terrorists. Meanwhile a couple thousand real wackos from out of the country ship themselves into this mess specifically to find a Western person and detonate themselves next to the Western person.
Oh yes, don't forget the neighbors with the Iranians possibly supporting the Shia militias and the Saudis threatening to support the Sunni militias which would take the burden off the Syrians who have been helping the Sunnis for the past few years. And Turkey is getting more and more pissed at those Kurds who keep flirting between the words "independence" and "autonomy."
Meanwhile a couple hundred thousand teen-aged strangers, 99% of whom don't speak the language or know anything of the history of the place, go bumbling around trying to stop all these various groups from killing each other without getting themselves killed before their year or 18 months are up. You're right, definitely not a civil war, more of an uncivil war.
As such, I propose we change the title of this article to the Iraqi uncivil war. Publicus 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sarcasm aside...

It's (like I said many times before) not really warfare - this one is covered by the insurgency (there's quite a lot - raids, ambushes, non-terrorist bombings, even a real battles like these for Fallujah). And here, we got what? Just atrocities, and directed mostly at random civilians (of the other religion).

Police gun down dozens over Iraq blasts

Associated Press

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer

Shiite militants and police enraged by massive truck bombings in Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents in the northwestern town Wednesday, killing as many as 60 people, officials said.

The gunmen roamed Sunni neighborhoods in the city through the night, shooting at residents and homes, according to police and a local Sunni politician.

Witnesses said relatives of the Shiite victims in the truck bombings broke into the Sunni homes and killed the men inside or dragged them out and shot them in the streets.

Ali al-Talafari, a Sunni member of the local Turkomen Front Party, said the Iraqi army had arrested 18 policemen accused of being involved after they were identified by the Sunni families targeted. But he said the attackers included Shiite militiamen.

Wow, the Iraqi version of police brutality. But, as I ALSO said (and more than once), this is this kind of "civil war" when the "civil warriors" are arrested as criminals when identified (you expert editors identified "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki President Jalal Talabani General Babaker Shawkat B. Zebari" - do you think they should arrest themselves now? And yes, rogue members of the army murder Iraqis too, of course). Please tell me about the other "civil war" like this one, so I agree. Or, like I asked before, just define what you mean by this term, exactly. I'm waiting, you know.

Personnally, I just thought about articles of the "Sectarian terrorism in Iraq" and "Death squads in post-Saddam Iraq" (or compatible). --HanzoHattori 08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

US Military says it's a low-grade civil war

Here's a nice little report[24] by Gen. McCaffrey that says Iraq is a "low-grade" civil war. I'll add it to the refs for the article. Publicus 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's not "open" (despite "incitement" by al-Qaeda), while there are "thousands attacks per month" against American military (continued insurgency, just like the attacks against Iraqi armed forces). Also, a whole lot of common violent criminals (cited number of 80,000 released by Saddam), also terrorising the population (murders, kidnappings). Peshmerga groups are qualified as ones of the Iraq militias - sure they are, even if not Shias. The police and army are often "militiamen in uniform" - of course, you can't qualify this the way you do, and of course their parties form the government. Some of the militias are "renegade", some elements of just every faction is rogue (you even had rogue Coalition forces, and unaccountable "civilian" contractor/mercenaries). And so on, on, and on. But they're all criminals when doing the criminals things (all this "civil warring" of yours is simply illegal).

The general talks about "war on terror" a lot - of course, because this "civil war" here is just terrorism, by what the UN calls "Islamic extermists" (and the most violent group is the al-Qaeda in Iraq), and a brutal reprisals by the rogue and often shadowy elements of the other Iraq factions (and the Coalition forces crackdown on the latter too, because they're simply just criminals, only in a militia, army, or police uniforms). It's not that much war crimes, as just crimes. --HanzoHattori 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're arguing that there isn't a civil war in Iraq because what all the different groups are doing is just considered criminal? So, there isn't a civil war, just a large-scale crime wave? I'm not sure I understand. Publicus 15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. One war is enough for any country at a time (hello < there are actual combatants, and only the insurgent side is considered illegal by default - in what you think is "a civil war", EVERYONE taking part is a criminal, and so it results in for example the foreign coalition forces raiding the rogue Iraqi gvt forces in what they say is "war on terror"). --HanzoHattori 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand your point. You seem to be saying that there isn't a civil war, because the Iraqi insurgency is illegal and the insurgents are not insurgents they are criminals? And that there can only be one war within a country at a time? And that the conventional Iraq War is the only conflict going on in the country? If that is the case I disagree. From my reading of the events, the Iraq war has evolved from a traditional war, to an insurgency, to a civil war:
-the 2003 Iraq war was the Coalition vs Saddam/Baathists
-the 2003-2006(roughly) Iraq war was the Iraqi insurgents vs the Coalition
-the 2006-present Iraq War now consists of the;

• Sunnis(various militias/neighborhood groups/insurgents) vs
• Shia (same type of groups) vs
• Coalition (who are kind of supporting the Shia government while fighting the Shia militias and the Sunni insurgents) vs
• al Qaeda types (who fight anyone who gets in the way)

This current phase really seems to match the definition of a civil war, and various military experts agree with this assessment. Publicus 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Hanzo if by you there is no civil war in Iraq then what was in Lebanon. I think the whole planet called that a civil war and we had a similar situation like here. There were diferent militia groups fighting each other, plus some of them also fighting the Israeli army, Sirian army and regular Lebanese army and plus don't forget the American Marines and French paratroopers, also the Israeli army was at one time or another fighting the Sirian army. I would say there were two or three wars in Lebanon at the same time and they called that in the end the Lebanese civil war.Top Gun 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon? You had no other "Lebanon War" going on at the time. Even the Israeli invasion (against Palestinians) was a part of the LCW, not vice-versa. And you had regular front-lines even if it was Lebanese against Lebanese (like the infamous Green Line in the capital Beirut). The militias were doing the killings openly, you had no police to arrest anyone, and what remained of the Lebanese Army by this name was just an armed group of one of the Christian factions. If anything, this is the future of Iraq, not the current state of affairs.

Here, it started as Iraq War with the US invasion, and this war never ending, it's just evolving, and now includes also the sectarian violence (in addition to the long-standing political and let's-kill-the-foreigners violence), aka religious terrorism of Sunnis on Shhites with the Christians caught in the middle. This is not warfare, it's Iraq outlaws victimising Iraqi civilians. And this article was just ridiculous before I corrected it somewhat - originally it was just copy/pasted from the Iraqi insurgency article (so, the example of the "civil war" was supposedly an attack by the Mahdi Army against the Coalition convoy). --HanzoHattori 20:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Publicus: the insurgency is a different thing, and it NEVER ENDED (notice the word "is" in its article). And not only insurgents are outlaws - if the Iraqi forces are idetified as taking part in the sectarian violence, they too are cracked down on (by the Coalition and/or other Iraqi forces). It's like in Northern Ireland, where the Protestant (loyalist) "paramilitaries" (terrorists) were illegal and arrested when identified (despite links to and sometimes even membership of the rogue elements in the British security forces). And your idea of the same people on the same territory fighting different "wars" (one against civilians only) is ridiculous. As for the "conventional war" in Iraq, it ended in April 2003 and the guerilla war started (right away, so-called "pockets of resistance"). And the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence (and outright warfare) was since day one - even during the initial invasion, warfare included the Peshmerga vs Baath, or the Badr vs Baath. --HanzoHattori 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see many "intelectually honest" responses

None, exactly. Okay, one more additional question then:

Armed men in several cars stopped the bus as it was carrying workers from the Mosul Textile Factory to their hometown of Bashika, which has a mixed Christian and Yazidi population. The gunmen checked passengers' identification and then asked all Christians to get off the bus, said police Brigadier Mohammed al-Wagga.

They hijacked the bus with all the Yazidis still inside and drove them to eastern Mosul, where they were lined up along a wall and shot dead execution-style, Mr al-Wagga said.

After the killings, hundreds of Yazidis took to the streets of Bashika. Shops were shuttered and many Muslim residents locked themselves in their homes, fearing reprisal attacks. Police set up additional checkpoints across the city.

A police spokesman for Ninevah province, of which Mosul is the provincial capital, said the executions were in response to the killing two weeks ago of a Yazidi woman who had recently converted to Islam.

The woman had fallen in love with a Muslim man, then converted to Islam and ran off with him, said police spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf. Her relatives disapproved of the match and dragged her back to Bashika, where she was stoned to death, he said.

A grainy video showing gruesome scenes of the woman's killing was distributed on Iraqi websites in recent weeks, but its authenticity could not be independently confirmed.

These latests killings by Muslim extremists were an attempt to avenge the woman's death, Mr Khalaf said.

Was this (24 dead) part of "Iraqi civil war" too, and if so, the Yazidi being which side exactly, and "Muslim extremists" which? (of these three I see in the infobox) How about Turkoman-Kurdish conflict? How about (I'm repeating myself, I know), say, the Americans?

So (one more time), when this thing, you know, the "Iraq War" ended, so you need another? I think I missed the news. I mean, there was something about "the end of major hostilities" some time ago already, but I thought it was pretty bogus. You should also tell me why, say, the WWII in Balkans wasn't "civil war in Yugoslavia". Yes, it was worse than Iraq now (and possibly even more multisided). Maybe because it was "World War II in Balkans", ever since Germany and Italy invaded? This sounds like a reason, but maybe I'm not intelectually honest enough, so you tell me.

I'm waiting for you intelectually honest people. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I missed "commanders" like Jalal Talabani declaring the "civil war" against, um, Muslim extremists I guess.

Also, here have a story about fighting between various Sunni insurgents and the al-Qaeda. "This is a big turning point," U.S. Maj. David Baker said Friday in the Diyala provincial capital of Baqouba. "If they are fighting against each other, it's better than them fighting against us." - ZOMG CIVIL WAR? OH NOES/YES! but I can't see this here in your article at all (even after all my corrections - mostly because I have the other vision what this article should be about, and it's ye olde terrorism and also death squads).

Yes, this war (Iraq War) has so many sides and fronts, and it's evolving still. "Tommorow", the Americans and their allies may be gone (yes, they're still there), but the Turks may be in, or the Saudis and Iranians. MAYBE this will called an another war, but it's not for you to decide. --HanzoHattori 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with HanzoHattori, we need to be cautious about how we title any of these ongoing conflicts. Remember, back in 2003 as the Iraq War was beginning, it was commonly referred to in the media as "Gulf War II." But that name didn't stick for some reason. We have no way of telling what we will refer to the Iraq War and its surrounding conflicts in the future, and it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what each war will be known as. In my personal opinion, I think that the term "Civil War" might be a bit premature... and if it were my decision I would change the name of this particular article. Unfortunately though, my personal opinion shouldn't be a factor in the nomenclature of international conflicts. Keep that in mind when editing. Until the international media, governments and the militaries overwhelmingly disagree with the "Civil War" terminology of this particular conflict, I'd say it should stay as is. - Prezboy1 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Iran and Turkey's Involvement

Many articles floating from very reliable sources that Turkey is planning on invading Iraqi Kurdistan due to the massive amount of Turk deaths in the country, and Iran is planning summer strikes to push a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I feel both countries' stated goals should be placed on either this page or on their own page. Thoughts? John D'Adamo 16:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are hardly their stated goals, and both are speculation. We can note the speculation, and should, however it must be stated as such and not passed off as a certainty. Further, it would not belong in this article, but probably the general Iraq War article. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's Involvement

A recently released report stated that Saudi Arabia has been responsible for more of the foreign insurgents that Iran and Syria combined. Does anyone have any thoughts about how this should be incorporated in to the article? Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined --68.23.10.68 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources to substantiate the title

Sources to substantiate the title

Academic Sources

• Daniel L. Byman, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy and Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writing for The National Interest
• Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation
• Stephen Biddle, Senior Fellow in Defense Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Military Power, for Foreign Affairs
• [http://www.stanford.edu/group/ir_workshop/fearon%20testimony.pdf James D. Fearon,

Professor of Political Science at Stanford, testifying before Congress]

• Matthew Lee for Yale Global
• Raja Kamal for the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
• Chaim Kamal for the Harvard International Review
• Kevin Drum and Marc Lynch for Foreign Affairs

--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Former (and some Current) Officials

• Former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi
• Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell
• Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
• Current GOP Senator Chuck Hagel
• Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
• Lawrence Korb, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense, at Harvard's KSG
• Army Maj. Gen William L. Nash for ABC
• Lt. Gen. William E. Odom for Foreign Policy Magazine

--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

--68.21.94.56 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson

--Oakshade 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Outlets

• CBS: Undeclared Civil War in Iraq
• Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack for the Washington Post
• IHT: Scholars agree Iraq meets definition of 'civil war'
• NBC News brands the Iraq conflict a civil war
• Ofra Bengio for the Jerusalem Post
• Edward Wong, for the New York Times

--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Polling Data

• 03/06 AP: 77% of Americans think Iraqi civil war likely
• 09/06 Gallup: 72% of Americans think Iraq is in a state of civil war right now
• 11/06 WSJ: 68% of Americans say Civil War
• 12/06 CBS: 85% of Americans now characterize the situation in Iraq as a Civil War

--68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to prove there is a civil war in Iraq you need to have polls asking the Iraqis not Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.109 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

As can be inferred from the sources above, there is widespead consensus about this issue outside of the administration and its subordinates. If other editors feel that the administatrion's claims should be included, then they should be included as well with citations. --68.23.10.68 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a civil war

The Sectarian violence in Iraq is caused by militants from other nearby country Who don't want a free Iraq. Weapons and supplies given to extremists in Iraq are supplied by Iran. The small group of extremists cause the deaths of a few Iraqis from a ethnic group of who then take revenge on the extremists ethnic group, who have no connection to the extremist. The few extremists cause the Iraqis to retaliate over and over causing violence in Iraq. A few extremists and foreigners supplied by foreign nations are causing this violence today. The ordinary people of Iraq are mot the cause of this violence but foreign nations who want control of Iraq for themselves. The War in Iraq is not a civil war it is a satellite war. Without foreign involvement and with help from the United States military Iraqis will be able to take control of their nation in the near future. With the continued involvement of foreign nations who do not want Iraq to be free the Iraqis will not be able to control their country. This war seems more of a satellite war like the Korean War and the United states' involvement in the Vietnam War and should not be called a civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.244.81 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq civilian casualties

The John Hopkins study that puts the number of Iraqi deaths at 610,000, and left totally unchallenged in the article, is totally unacceptable. The "Iraq Body Count" <http://www.iraqbodycount.org/>, hardly a tool for the administration, listes the number at 78,000 at most. I find it unbelieveable that such a difference in numbers would go completely unmentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.166.162 (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's close this page of history

The overwhelming majority of comments on this page seem to end in July of 2006. Not coincidentally, this was about the time the rift occurred between the indigenous Sunni insurgency, and the foreign-led umbrella group Al Qaeda in Iraq. This implies to me that parties interested in exploiting a proposed Iraq Civil War, (various international politicians, etc.) realized they were barking up the wrong tree, and turned their attention elsewhere. The level of civil strife in Iraq has metamorphosed into something else, and is certainly still high, ("unacceptably high" to paraphrase Petraeus to Katie Couric last week,) but not useful to political opportunists in opposition, (e.g. Reid, Pelosi, etc.) Therefore, I propose we either delete this entry, or close the date of the "Iraq Civil War" sometime last July. 71.215.183.90 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what happens after the Petraeus report. Isaac Pankonin 06:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no civil war in Iraq. Petraeus mentioned a proxy war not a civil war. Change the name of the article or delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.109 (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)